        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 1 and 73
        [AU Docket No. 19-61, GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306; DA 19-229]
        Auction of Construction Permits for LPTV and TV Translator Stations; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 104

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; proposed auction procedures.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau, in conjunction with the Office of Economics and Analytics, announce an auction of construction permits for low power television stations and TV translator stations. This document also seeks comment on competitive bidding procedures and proposed minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 104.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before April 15, 2019, and reply comments are due on or before April 29, 2019. Bidding for low power television station and TV translator station construction permits in Auction 104 is scheduled to begin on September 10, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments in response to the AU Docket No. 19-61, GN Docket No. 12-268, and MB Docket No. 16-306 by any of the following methods:
          • FCC's Website: Federal Communication Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, or 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 detailed instructions for submitting comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For auction legal questions, Lynne Milne in the Office of Economics and Analytics' Auctions Division at (202) 418-0660. For general auction questions, the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2868. For LPTV and translator station service questions, Shaun Maher at (202) 418-2324 or Hossein Hashemzadeh in the Media Bureau's Video Division at (202) 418-1658.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's document (Auction 104 Comment Public Notice), AU Docket No. 19-61, GN Docket No. 12-268, MB Docket No. 16-306; DA 19-229, released on March 29, 2019. The complete text of this document, including attachments, is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document and related documents also are available on the internet at the Commission's website: www.fcc.gov/auction/104, or by using the search function for AU Docket No. 19-61, or for GN Docket No. 12-268, or for MB Docket No. 16-306 on the Commission's ECFS web page at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

        All filings in response to the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice must refer to AU Docket No. 19-61, GN Docket No. 12-268, and MB Docket No. 16-306. The Incentive Auction Task Force (IATF), Media Bureau (MB) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) strongly encourage interested parties to file comments electronically, and request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be submitted electronically to the following address: auction104@fcc.gov.

        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (FCC). All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to the FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. ET.
        • All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelope or box 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 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
        Synopsis
        I. Introduction

        1. The construction permits available in Auction 104 are those that remain mutually exclusive (MX) under previously-announced procedures governing the post-incentive auction for low power television (LPTV) stations and TV translator stations (collectively referred to as LPTV/translator stations) and involve six groups of nineteen stations. Auction 104 is a closed auction; only those individuals or entities listed in Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice are eligible to participate in this auction.
        II. Background
        2. Certain LPTV/translator stations were displaced from their authorized channels by the broadcast incentive auction (Auction 1000) which repurposed 84 megahertz of spectrum in the 600 MHz band that had been allocated for flexible use broadcast television and resulted in the reassignments of certain full power and Class A television stations. The Commission therefore adopted procedures for LPTV/translator stations to apply for new channels and took other steps to mitigate the impact of this displacement.
        III. Construction Permits in Auction 104

        3. Auction 104 will resolve by competitive bidding MX engineering proposals for up to six LPTV/translator construction permits. The MX groups listed in Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice are the groups of MX engineering proposals that remain after an opportunity to resolve mutual exclusivity through settlement or technical modification of engineering proposals. The MX engineering proposals listed in Attachment A to the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice are subject to the Commission's competitive bidding rules and procedures. See 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q; see also 47 CFR 73.5000, 73.5002-73.5003, 73.5005-73.5009.

        4. An applicant listed in Attachment A may become qualified to bid only if it complies with the auction filing, qualification and payment requirements, and otherwise complies with applicable rules, policies, and procedures. Each listed applicant may become a qualified bidder only for those constructions permits specified for that applicant in Attachment A to the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice. Each of the engineering proposals within each MX group are directly mutually exclusive with one another; therefore, no more than one construction permit will be awarded for each MX group identified in Attachment A. Under the Commission's established precedent, once mutually exclusive short-form applications are accepted for a construction permit, and thus mutual exclusivity exists for auction purposes, an applicant cannot obtain a construction permit without placing a bid, even if no other applicant for that particular construction permit becomes qualified to bid, or in fact places a bid.
        IV. Proposed Bidding Procedures
        5. OEA in conjunction with MB seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures relating to the structure and conduct of Auction 104.
        A. Auction Structure
        6. Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction Design. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the use of the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round auction format for Auction 104. This type of auction offers every construction permit for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids on individual construction permits. Typically, bidding remains open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit.
        7. Bidding Rounds. Auction 104 will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. The Commission will conduct Auction 104 over the internet using the FCC auction bidding system. Qualified bidders will also have the option of placing bids by telephone through a dedicated auction bidder line.
        8. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the proposal to retain the discretion to change the bidding schedule to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. Under this proposal, the amount of time for the bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors, may change. Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by using other means.
        9. Stopping Rule. To complete bidding in the auction within a reasonable time, pursuant to CFR 1.2104(e), it is proposed to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach for Auction 104, which means all construction permits remain available for bidding until bidding stops on every construction permit. Specifically, bidding would close on all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder submits any new bids, applies a proactive waiver, or, if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, withdraws any provisionally winning bid which is a bid that would become a final winning bid if the auction were to close in that given round. Thus, unless alternative procedures are announced, under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, bidding will remain open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit. Consequently, it is not possible to determine in advance how long the bidding in this auction will last.
        10. Further, the following options were proposed as alternatives during Auction 104. (1) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bid on a construction permit for which it is not the provisionally winning bidder, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the auction open. (2) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bid on a construction permit that already has a provisionally winning bid, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on an FCC-held construction permit (a construction permit that does not already have a provisionally winning bid) would not keep the auction open. (3) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that combines options (1) and (2). (4) Use a special stopping rule that would close the auction after a specified number of additional rounds to be announced in the FCC auction bidding system. If this special stopping rule is invoked, bids are accepted in the specified final round(s), after which the auction will close. (5) The auction would remain open even if no bidder places any new bid, applies a waiver, or withdraws any provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction). In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had applied a waiver. The activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a waiver.
        11. IATF, MB and OEA propose to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these options, it is likely that there will be an attempt to change the pace of the auction. For example, the pace of bidding may be adjusted by changing the number of bidding rounds per day and/or the minimum acceptable bids. IATF, MB and OEA propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior announcement during the auction. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on these proposals.
        12. Auction Delay, Suspension or Cancellation. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2104(i), IATF, MB and OEA propose that they may delay, suspend, or cancel bidding in Auction 104 in the event of a natural disaster, technical obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. Auction 104 participants will be notified of any such delay, suspension or cancellation by public notice and/or through the FCC auction bidding system's messages function. If bidding is delayed or suspended, IATF, MB and OEA may, in their sole discretion, elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round or from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause IATF, MB and OEA to delay or suspend the auction. IATF, MB and OEA will exercise this authority solely at their discretion, and not as a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply activity rule waivers. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on these proposals.
        B. Auction Procedures
        13. Upfront Payments and Bidding Eligibility. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the upfront payment amounts proposed in Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice, which were developed by taking into account such factors as the efficiency of the auction process and the potential value of similar construction permits. The upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by an applicant to establish eligibility to bid on construction permits. Upfront payments that are related to the specific construction permits being auctioned protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of bidding.

        14. IATF, MB and OEA request comment on the proposal that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding eligibility in bidding units. Under this proposal, each construction permit will be assigned a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit per dollar of the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice. The number of bidding units for a given construction permit is fixed and does not change during the auction as prices change. If an applicant is found to be qualified to bid on more than one permit in Auction 104, such a bidder may place bids on multiple construction permits, provided that the total number of bidding units associated with those construction permits does not exceed the bidder's current eligibility. A bidder cannot increase its eligibility during the auction; it can only maintain its eligibility or decrease its eligibility. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount and hence its initial bidding eligibility, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to bid (or hold provisionally winning bids) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment amount covering that total number of bidding units.
        15. Activity Rule. To ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. IATF, MB and OEA request comment on the proposal for a single stage auction with the following activity requirement: In each round of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on 100% of its bidding eligibility. A bidder's activity in a round will be the sum of the bidding units associated with any construction permit upon which it places a bid during the current round and the bidding units associated with any construction permit for which it holds a provisionally winning bid. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level would result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction.
        16. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing Eligibility. When a bidder's activity in the current round is below the required minimum level, it may preserve its current level of eligibility through an activity rule waiver, if available. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding, not to a particular construction permit. Activity rule waivers can be either proactive or automatic. Activity rule waivers are principally a mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent it from bidding in a particular round.
        17. The FCC auction bidding system will assume that a bidder that does not meet the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round in which a bidder's activity is below the minimum required unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the auction.
        18. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in the FCC auction bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility would be permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the specified activity requirement. Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder cannot regain its lost bidding eligibility.
        19. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an activity rule waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the FCC auction bidding system) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver applied by the FCC auction bidding system in a round in which there are no new bids, no bid withdrawal (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), and no proactive waiver will not keep the auction open. Comment is requested on the proposal that each bidder in Auction 104 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction.
        20. Reserve Price or Minimum Opening Bids. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which a construction permit will not be sold in a given auction. IATF, MB and OEA propose to establish no separate reserve prices for the Auction 104 construction permits available in Auction 104.

        21. A minimum opening bid is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. See 47 CFR 1.2104(c), (d). Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice lists a proposed minimum opening bid amount for each construction permit available in Auction 104. While minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 104 were determined by taking into account the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and recent broadcast transaction data, to the extent such information is available, consideration of such factors for Auction 104 is complicated by a dearth of such transaction data, the fact that a permittee may opt to switch its intended use of such facility from LPTV to translator operation, or vice versa, and the lack of accurate data on the population that would be covered by each proposed facility. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(f), IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the minimum opening bid amounts specified in Attachment A of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice.

        22. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bid amounts will result in unsold construction permits, are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters should support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested amounts or formulas for reserve prices or minimum opening bids. IATF, MB and OEA particularly seek comment on factors that could reasonably have an impact on bidders' valuation of the broadcast spectrum, including the type of service offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and any other relevant factors.
        23. Bid Amounts. IATF, MB and OEA propose that, if the bidder has sufficient eligibility to place a bid on a particular construction permit in a round, an eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on that construction permit in any of up to nine different amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC auction bidding system interface will list the acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit.
        24. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid for the construction permit. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a certain percentage higher. The percentage used for this calculation, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage, is multiplied by the provisionally winning bid amount, and the resulting amount is added to the provisionally winning bid amount. If, for example, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage is 10%, then the provisionally winning bid amount is multiplied by 10%. The result of that calculation is added to the provisionally winning bid amount, and that sum is rounded using the Commission's standard rounding procedure for auctions. If bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, in the case of a construction permit for which the provisionally winning bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal the second highest bid received for the construction permit.
        25. The FCC will calculate the eight additional bid amounts using the minimum acceptable bid amount and an additional bid increment percentage. The minimum acceptable bid amount is multiplied by the additional bid increment percentage, and that result, rounded, is the additional increment amount. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount plus the additional increment amount. The second additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount plus two times the additional increment amount; the third additional acceptable bid amount is the minimum acceptable bid amount plus three times the additional increment amount; etc. If, for example, the additional bid increment percentage is 5%, then the calculation of the additional increment amount is (minimum acceptable bid amount) * (0.05), rounded. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (additional increment amount); the second additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (2 * (additional increment amount)); the third additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (3 * (additional increment amount)); etc. The results then will be rounded using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions.
        26. For Auction 104, IATF, MB and OEA propose to use a minimum acceptable bid increment percentage of 10%. This means that the minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be approximately 10% greater than the provisionally winning bid amount for the construction permit. To calculate the additional acceptable bid amounts, IATF, MB and OEA proposed to use an additional bid increment percentage of 5%. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on these proposals.
        27. IATF, MB and OEA propose to retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bid amounts, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage, the additional bid increment percentage, and the number of acceptable bid amounts if circumstances so dictate. Further, IATF, MB and OEA propose to retain the discretion to do so on a construction-permit-by-construction-permit basis. IATF, MB and OEA also propose to retain the discretion to limit (a) the amount by which a minimum acceptable bid for a construction permit may increase compared with the corresponding provisionally winning bid, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable bid amount. For example, a $1,000 limit could be set on increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over provisionally winning bids. In this example, if calculating a minimum acceptable bid using the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage results in a minimum acceptable bid amount that is $1,200 higher than the provisionally winning bid on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount would instead be capped at $1,000 above the provisionally winning bid. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the circumstances under which such a limit should be employed, factors to be considered when determining the dollar amount of the limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such a limit or changing other parameters, such as changing the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, or the number of acceptable bid amounts. If IATF, MB and OEA exercise this discretion, they will alert bidders by announcement in the FCC auction bidding system during the auction. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on these proposals.
        28. Provisionally Winning Bids. At the end of each bidding round, the bidding system will determine a provisionally winning bid for each construction permit based on the highest bid amount received. A provisionally winning bid will remain the provisionally winning bid until there is a higher bid on the same construction permit at the close of a subsequent round. Provisionally winning bids at the end of the auction become the winning bids.

        29. The auction bidding system assigns a random number to each bid when the bid is entered. This number is technically a pseudo-random number generated by an algorithm. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a construction permit in any given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC auction bidding system will use a random number to select a single provisionally winning bid from among the tied bids. The tied bid with the highest random number wins the tiebreaker and becomes the provisionally winning bid. The remaining bidders, as well as the provisionally winning bidder, can submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. However, if the auction were to close with no other bids being placed, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the provisionally winning bid. If the construction permit receives any bids in a subsequent round, the provisionally winning bid again will be determined by the highest bid amount received for the construction permit.
        30. A provisionally winning bid will be retained until there is a higher bid on the construction permit at the close of a subsequent round, unless the provisionally winning bid is withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). Provisionally winning bids count toward a bidder's activity level for purposes of the activity rule.
        31. Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal. The FCC auction bidding system allows each bidder to remove any of the bids it placed in a round before the close of that round. By removing a bid placed within a round, a bidder effectively unsubmits the bid. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder is no longer permitted to remove a bid.
        32. When permitted in an auction, bid withdrawals provide a bidder with the option of withdrawing a bid placed in a prior round that has become a provisionally winning bid. A bidder would be able to withdraw its provisionally winning bid using the withdraw function in the FCC auction bidding system. A bidder that withdraws its provisionally winning bid(s), if permitted in this auction, is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of 47 CFR 1.2104(g) and 1.2109.
        33. Based on the nature of the permits available in Auction 104 and on the experience with past auctions of broadcast construction permits, IATF, MB and OEA propose to prohibit bidders from withdrawing any bid after the close of the round in which the bid was placed. This proposal is made in light of the site- and applicant-specific nature and wide geographic dispersion of the permits available in this closed auction. I It is unlikely that bidders will have a need to withdraw bids in this auction. Also, bid withdrawals may encourage insincere bidding or increase opportunities for anti-competitive bidding in certain circumstances. Bid withdrawals, particularly those made late in this auction, could result in delays in licensing replacement LPTV/translator stations and disruption in providing broadcast service to the public. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on their proposal to prohibit bid withdrawals in Auction 104.
        C. Post-Auction Payments
        34. Interim Withdrawal Payment Percentage. If bid withdrawals are permitted in Auction 104, a bidder that withdraws a bid during an auction is subject to a withdrawal payment equal to the difference between the amount of the withdrawn bid and the amount of the winning bid in the same or a subsequent auction. However, if a construction permit for which a bid has been withdrawn does not receive a subsequent higher bid or winning bid in the same auction, the FCC cannot calculate the final withdrawal payment until that construction permit receives a higher bid or winning bid in a subsequent auction. In accordance with 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1), when that final withdrawal payment cannot yet be calculated, the FCC imposes on the bidder responsible for the withdrawn bid an interim bid withdrawal payment, which will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that is ultimately assessed.
        35. IATF, MB and OEA request comment on the proposal that the interim bid withdrawal payment be 20% of the withdrawn bid. Commenters advocating the use of bid withdrawals should also address the percentage of the interim bid withdrawal payment which may range from 3% to 20% of the withdrawn bid amount.
        36. Additional Default Payment Percentage. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of an auction (i.e., fails to remit the required down payment by the specified deadline, fails to make a full and timely final payment, or whose long-form application is not granted for any reason or is otherwise disqualified) is liable for a default payment under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). This default payment consists of a deficiency payment equal to the difference between the amount of the Auction 104 bidder's winning bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time a construction permit covering the same spectrum is won in an auction, plus an additional payment equal to a percentage of the defaulter's bid or of the subsequent winning bid, whichever is less.
        37. Based on the nature of the service and the construction permits being offered, an additional default payment of 20% of the relevant bid is proposed for Auction 104. IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on this proposal.
        V. Procedural Matters
        A. Paperwork Reduction Act
        38. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it also does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        B. Ex Parte Rules

        39. This proceeding has been designated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1206. While additional information is provided in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice on the relevant reporting requirements, participants in Auction 104 should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        VI. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the 1997 Broadcast Competitive Bidding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and other Commissions NPRMs (collectively, Competitive Bidding NPRMs) pursuant to which Auction 104 will be conducted. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) likewise were prepared in the 1998 Broadcast Competitive Bidding Order and other Commission rulemaking orders (collectively, Competitive Bidding Orders) pursuant to which Auction 104 will be conducted. The Incentive Auction Task Force (IATF), the Media Bureau (MB) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) have prepared this Supplemental IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice, to supplement the Commission's Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses completed in the Broadcast Competitive Bidding Order and other Commission orders pursuant to which Auction 104 will be conducted. Written public comments are requested on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the same filing deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice, including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
        41. Need for, and Objectives of, the Public Notice. The proposed procedures for the conduct of Auction 104 as described in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice would constitute the more specific implementation of the competitive bidding rules contemplated by 47 CFR parts 1 and 73, adopted by the Commission in multiple notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, including the Commission's establishing in the underlying rulemaking orders additional procedures to be used on delegated authority. More specifically, the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice seeks comment on proposed procedures, terms and conditions governing Auction 104 and the post-auction payment processes, as well as seeking comment on the minimum opening bid amounts for 6 specified construction permits, and are fully consistent with the underlying rulemaking orders, including the Broadcast Competitive Bidding Order and other relevant competitive bidding orders.
        42. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(E)(i), the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice is intended to provide notice of and adequate time for Auction 104 applicants to comment on proposed auction procedures. To promote the efficient and fair administration of the competitive bidding process for all Auction 104 participants, including small businesses, IATF, MB and OEA seek comment on the following proposed procedures: (1) Use of a simultaneous multiple-round auction format, consisting of sequential bidding rounds with a simultaneous stopping rule (with discretion to exercise alternative stopping rules under certain circumstances); (2) A specific minimum opening bid amount for each construction permit available in Auction 104; (3) A specific number of bidding units for each construction permit; (4) A specific upfront payment amount for each construction permit; (5) Establishment of a bidder's initial bidding eligibility in bidding units based on that bidder's upfront payment through assignment of a specific number of bidding units for each construction permit; (6) Use of an activity requirement so that bidders must bid actively during the auction rather than waiting until late in the auction before participating; (7) A single stage auction in which a qualified bidder is required to be active on 100% of its bidding eligibility in each round of the auction; (8) Provision of three activity rule waivers for each qualified bidder to allow it to preserve eligibility during the course of the auction; (9) Use of minimum acceptable bid amounts and additional bid increments, along with a proposed methodology for calculating such amounts, while retaining discretion to change their methodology if circumstances dictate; (10) A procedure for breaking ties if identical high bid amounts are submitted on a construction permit in a given round; (11) Whether to permit bid withdrawals in Auction 104; (12) Establishment of an interim bid withdrawal percentage of 20% of the withdrawn bid in the event bid withdrawals are permitted in Auction 104; and (13) Establishment of an additional default payment of 20% under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2) in the event that a winning bidder defaults or is disqualified after the auction.
        43. Legal Basis. The Commission's statutory obligations to small businesses participating in a spectrum auction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), are found in 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(B) and 309(j)(4)(D). The statutory basis for the Commission's competitive bidding rules is found in various provisions of the Act, including 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, 307, and 309(j). The Commission has established a framework of competitive bidding rules pursuant to which it has conducted auctions since the inception of the auction program in 1994 and would conduct Auction 104. The Commission has directed that OEA, in conjunction with MB, under delegated authority, seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of bidding in each auction.
        44. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Procedures Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed procedures, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small government jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.

        45. The specific procedures and minimum opening bid amounts on which comment is sought in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice will affect directly all applicants participating in Auction 104. There are a maximum of 14 individuals or entities that may become qualified bidders in Auction 104, in which applicant eligibility is closed. Therefore, the specific competitive bidding procedures and minimum opening bid amounts described in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice will affect only the 14 individuals or entities listed in Attachment A to the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice and that are the only parties eligible to complete the remaining steps to become qualified to bid in Auction 104. These specific 14 Auction 104 individuals or entities include firms of all sizes.
        46. Television Broadcasting. This U.S. Economic Census category comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on this data, OEA, in conjunction with MB, estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcast stations are small entities under the applicable size standard.
        47. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,373. Of this total, 1,270 stations (or about 92.5%) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) in November of 2018, and therefore these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
        48. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 388. These stations are non-profit, and therefore are considered to be small entities. 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

        49. According to Commission estimates, there are 2,295 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 3,654 TV translators. Given the nature of these services, it is presumed that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard data does not enable us, however, to make a meaningful estimate of the number of small entities that may participate in Auction 104.
        50. In assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the SBA definition, business control affiliations must be included. 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1). The estimate of the number of small entities that might be affected by Auction 104 likely overstates the estimate because the revenue figure on which business concerns are based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. Moreover, the definition of small business also requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation and that the entity be independently owned and operated. The estimate of small businesses to which Auction 104 competitive bidding rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on these bases and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. OEA, in conjunction with the Media Bureau, are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific LPTV station or TV translator is dominant in its field of operation. In addition, it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and therefore estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
        51. OEA, in conjunction with MB, are unable to accurately develop an estimate of how many of these 14 individuals or entities in this auction are small businesses based on the number of small entities that applied to participate in prior broadcast auctions because that information is not collected from applicants for broadcast auctions in which bidding credits are not based on an applicant's size (as is the case in auctions of licenses for wireless services). OEA, in conjunction with MB, conclude, however, that the majority of Auction 104 eligible bidders would likely meet the SBA's definition of a small business concern.
        52. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The Auction 104 Comment Public Notice proposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities or other auction applicants. The Commission designed the auction application process itself to minimize reporting and compliance requirements for applicants, including small business applicants. To participate in this auction parties will file streamlined, short-form applications in which they certify under penalty of perjury as to their qualifications. Eligibility to participate in bidding is based on an applicant's short-form application and certifications, as well as its upfront payment. In the second phase of the process, there are additional compliance requirements for winning bidders. Thus, a small business that fails to become a winning bidder does not need to satisfy additional requirements of a winning bidder.
        53. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

        54. OEA, in conjunction with MB, intend that the proposals of the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice to facilitate participation in Auction 104 will result in both operational and administrative cost savings for small entities and other auction participants. In light of the numerous resources that will be available from the Commission at no cost, the processes and procedures proposed for Auction 104 in the Auction 104 Comment Public Notice should result in minimal economic impact on small entities. For example, prior to the auction, the Commission will hold a mock auction to allow eligible bidders the opportunity to familiarize themselves with both the bidding processes and systems that will be used in Auction 104. During the auction, participants will be able to access and participate in bidding via the internet using a web-based system, or telephonically, providing two cost-effective methods of participation and avoiding the cost of travel for in-person participation. Further, small entities as well as other auction participants will be able to avail themselves of a telephone hotline for assistance with auction processes and procedures as well as a telephone technical support hotline to assist with issues such as access to or navigation within the electronic FCC Form 175 and use of the FCC's auction system. In addition, all auction participants, including small business entities, will have access to various other sources of information and databases through the Commission that will aid in both their understanding of and participation in the process. These mechanisms are made available to facilitate participation in Auction 104 by all eligible bidders and may result in significant cost savings for small business entities that utilize these mechanisms. These steps, coupled with the advance description of the bidding procedures in Auction 104, should ensure that the auction will be administered efficiently and fairly, thus providing certainty for small entities as well as other auction participants.
        55. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules. None.

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

      [FR Doc. 2019-07458 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Chapter IV
        Office of the Secretary
        45 CFR Subtitle A
        [CMS-9921-NC]
        RIN 0938-ZB45
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Increasing Consumer Choice Through the Sale of Individual Health Insurance Coverage Across State Lines Through Health Care Choice Compacts

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

          ACTION:
          Request for information.

          SUMMARY:
          This request for information (RFI) solicits comment from interested parties on how to eliminate barriers to and enhance health insurance issuers' ability to sell individual health insurance coverage across state lines, primarily pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts. This RFI was written in connection with Executive Order 13813, “Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States,” which directs the Administration, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of health insurance coverage across state lines. HHS is committed to increasing health insurance coverage options under Title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

          DATES:

            Comment Date: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 6, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-9921-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
          Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
          1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.
          2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-9921-NC, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.
          Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
          3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-9921-NC, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

          For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cam Moultrie Clemmons, (206) 615-2338.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Submission of Comments: All submissions received must include the Agency file code CMS-9921-NC for this notice.

          Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments.
        I. Background

        On October 12, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13813, “Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States,” which states the policy of the Administration will be “to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.” 1
           The Executive Order reflects the Administration's intention to put downward pressure on premiums by providing more meaningful choices for consumers and increasing competition. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) intends to work with states to innovate within the health insurance market by considering additional mechanisms for the purchase of individual health insurance coverage that are less burdened by regulatory requirements and will therefore simplify operations and lower costs for health insurance issuers, with the ultimate goal of lowering prices for coverage and increasing options for United States consumers.

            1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/12/presidential-executive-order-promoting-healthcare-choice-and-competition.

        Executive Order 13813 further directs the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and the Federal Trade Commission, within 180 days from the date of the Executive Order, and every 2 years thereafter, to provide a report to the President that details the extent to which existing state and federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of the Executive Order, including the facilitation of the purchase of insurance across state lines, and identifies actions that states or the federal government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of the Executive Order. Comments provided in response to this Request for Information (RFI) may help to inform future reports.
        While there is no federal law that generally prohibits the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines, the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 2
           establishes states as the primary regulators of insurance and declares that a federal law cannot preempt any state law that regulates the business of insurance, or that imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance. While several mechanisms to facilitate the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines exist, such as Interstate Health Compacts enacted through state legislation and the allowance of the sale of insurance from out-of-state insurers by a state, this RFI primarily explores options related to Health Care Choice Compacts related to section 1333 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Pub. L. 111-148) since section 1333 provides a specific role for the federal government.

            2 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015.

        Section 1333 of the PPACA provides for the establishment of a regulatory framework 3
           that allows two or more states to enter into a Health Care Choice Compact. For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, under a Health Care Choice Compact, a health insurance issuer could offer one or more qualified health plans (QHPs) 4
           in the individual health insurance market in any state included in the compact. The QHP generally would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state in which the health insurance coverage was written or issued.5
           Section 1333 of the PPACA does not address the sale of group health insurance coverage across state lines or the sale of individual market policies that are not QHPs. In order to enter into a Health Care Choice Compact, a state must pass legislation, after March 23, 2010, specifically authorizing it to do so. To date, no states have passed legislation authorizing the state to enter into a Health Care Choice Compact as contemplated by section 1333 of the PPACA or created a Health Care Choice Compact, and no issuer has offered health insurance coverage through a Health Care Choice Compact. However, four states (Georgia, Maine, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have passed laws authorizing the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines. Under Georgia law,6
           insurers are authorized to offer individual accident and sickness insurance policies in Georgia that have been approved for issuance in other states, provided specified minimum criteria are met. Under Maine law,7
           domestic insurers or licensed health maintenance organizations that are authorized to transact individual health insurance in Maine are permitted to offer for sale in Maine an individual health insurance policy duly authorized for sale in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Vermont by a parent or corporate affiliate, provided specified minimum criteria are met. Oklahoma law 8
           allows issuers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in a state which has a legislatively approved compact with Oklahoma, and not so authorized in Oklahoma, to issue individual accident and health insurance policies in Oklahoma, provided specified minimum criteria are met. Wyoming law 9
           allows insurers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in a state identified by the Commissioner as having insurance laws sufficiently consistent with Wyoming laws, and so authorized in Wyoming, to issue in Wyoming selected comprehensive individual medical and surgical insurance policies that have been approved in other such states, provided specified minimum criteria are met.

            3 Section 1333 of the PPACA requires that no later than July 1, 2013, the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, issue regulations for the creation of Health Care Choice Compacts. To date, HHS has not promulgated rules implementing section 1333 of the PPACA.

            4 Qualified health plan, or QHP, means a health plan that has in effect a certification that it meets the standards described in subpart C of part 156 issued or recognized by each Exchange through which such plan is offered in accordance with the process described in subpart K of part 155. See 45 CFR 155.20.

            5 Additionally, the issuer would be subject to the market conduct, unfair trade practices, network adequacy, and consumer protection standards (including standards relating to rating), including addressing disputes as to the performance of the contract, of the state in which the policyholder resides. The health insurance issuer must be licensed in or submit to the jurisdiction and be subject to the aforementioned standards of each state in which it offers health insurance coverage under the compact. In addition, the health insurance issuer must notify the policyholder that the coverage may not otherwise be subject to the laws of the state in which the policyholder resides. Under section 1333 of the PPACA, HHS has the authority to approve Health Care Choice Compacts if it determines that they would provide coverage that would be at least as comprehensive as health insurance coverage sold through the Exchanges that offer essential health benefits, provide coverage and cost-sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending at least as affordable as coverage under Title I of the PPACA, provide coverage to at least a comparable number of residents as coverage under Title I of the PPACA, not increase the federal deficit, and not weaken the enforcement of the laws and regulations of any state that is included in the compact that would still apply to the issuer in states in which the purchaser of coverage resides that is not the state in which the coverage was issued or written under the Health Care Choice Compact requirements. To date, HHS has not received any requests for approval of a Health Care Choice Compact.

            6 Ga. Code Ann., sec. 33-29A-30, et seq.

            7 Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, sec. 405-B.

            8 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, sec. 4414.

            9 Wyo. Stat. Ann. sec. 26-18-201, et seq.

        Three other states have passed laws to study the feasibility of selling insurance across state lines.10
           Since 2010, bills that would permit the purchase of health insurance coverage across state lines have been filed but not passed in an additional 11 states.11

            10 Kentucky (2012 Ken. H.B. 265. Sec. 10), Rhode Island (RI General Law 27-67), and Washington (Chapter 303, Laws of the State of Washington 2008, section 8, (SSB 5261)).

            11 Arizona (SB 1593 of 2011), Indiana (HB 1063 of 2011 and HB 1013 of 2013), Minnesota (H 1859 and S 349 of 2015), Montana (H 280 of 2013), New Hampshire (H 327 and S 150 of 2011), New Jersey (A 1558, A 4364, and S 2806 of 2017), Pennsylvania (HB 47 of 2011-12 and SB 346 of 2013-14), South Carolina (S 185 of 2011 and S 886 of 2014), Texas (HCR 90 of 2017), Washington (S 5540 of 2013-14), and West Virginia (HB 2801 and SB 419 of 2011).

        Separately, “Interstate Health Compacts,” also known as “Freedom Health Compacts,” are another type of compact, advocated by Competitive Governance Action and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which could provide broader interstate health markets than the Health Care Choice Compacts under section 1333 of the PPACA. Interstate Health Compacts include a provision allowing for the suspension of the operation of all federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding health care that are inconsistent with the laws and regulations adopted by the member state pursuant to the compact and aim to secure federal funding that is not conditional on any action of the member states.12
           The creation of any such Interstate Health Compact requires formal Congressional approval pursuant to Article 1, Section 10, of the United States Constitution. As of January 2017, at least nine states 13
           have enacted Interstate Health Compacts; however, no requests for Congressional approval of the Interstate Health Compacts have been submitted.

            12 See e.g., Ala. Code sec. 22-21A; Ga. Code Ann. sec. 31-48-1; Ind. Code sec. 12-16.5-1-1, et seq.; Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-6230; Mo. Rev. Stat. sec. 191.025; Okla. St. Ann. tit. 63, sec. 7300; S.C. Code Ann. sec. 44-10-10, et seq.; and Tex. Ins. Code Ann. sec. 5002.001. The legality of suspending the operation of federal law is not addressed herein, but this type of provision likely will face legal challenges.

            13 Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah (expired July 2014).

        No health insurance issuers or consumers appear to have access to the increased flexibility that could be afforded by state laws related to the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines.
        II. Solicitation of Public Comments
        HHS solicits public comments about actions that could further facilitate selling individual health insurance coverage across state lines. Comments are requested in response to the questions below with respect to individual health insurance coverage. The Administration recognizes and strongly supports the fundamental role states play in regulating insurance. Providing states with flexibility to address the unique needs of their health insurance markets is a key component of achieving the goals stated in the Executive Order. This RFI is not intended to inform policy which will preempt state law or otherwise impede the role states play as the primary regulators of insurance.
        A. Expanding Access to Health Insurance Coverage Across State Lines
        1. What are the practical advantages and disadvantages of allowing health insurance issuers to sell individual health insurance coverage across state lines through Health Care Choice Compacts?
        2. What actions could the federal government undertake to facilitate the state implementation of the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to section 1333 of the PPACA?
        3. While four states have passed laws specifically authorizing the sale of individual health insurance across state lines, we understand that no action to implement these laws has been taken. Additionally, nine states have enacted laws authorizing the creation of Interstate Health Compacts, yet we understand that no such Compact has been created. Why have states not taken advantage of these opportunities? Are there federal or state statutory and/or regulatory barriers that prevent states from doing so?
        4. Should HHS promote the sale of QHPs through Health Care Choice Compacts across state lines and why?
        5. How would the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines through Health Care Choice Compacts impact access to QHPs? We are particularly interested in the impact on counties that do not have many options for QHP coverage in their current markets and whether the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines would increase or decrease the number of issuers offering QHPs in these counties.
        6. Are there mechanisms, such as memoranda of understanding or other contractual arrangements, other than Health Care Choice Compacts established pursuant to section 1333 of the PPACA, that states could utilize to facilitate the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines? Would selling health insurance coverage such as short-term, limited-duration insurance; state-regulated farm bureau coverage; or insurance licensed by a state as defined under section 2791(d)(14) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (to include each of the several states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands) 14
           to individuals pursuant to such state agreements help facilitate the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines? Consider whether the type of coverage is relevant to, or would impact, the form or nature of the agreements utilized by states.

            14 On July 14, 2016, the CMS Administrator sent letters to the territories stating the new market reforms in the PHS Act enacted in title I of the PPACA are governed by the definition of “state” set forth in that title, and therefore do not apply to issuers of health insurance coverage in the territories. The letter states the definition of “state” set forth in the PHS Act will apply only to PHS Act requirements in place prior to the enactment of the PPACA, or subsequently enacted in legislation that does not include a separate definition of “state” (as the PPACA does). This analysis applies only to health insurance that is governed by the PHS Act. The PHS Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Internal Revenue Code (Code) requirements applicable to group health plans continue to apply to such coverage. The letters are available at https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Letters/index.html#HealthMarketReforms.

        B. Operationalizing the Sale of Health Insurance Coverage Across State Lines
        1. Is the structure of Health Care Choice Compacts contemplated by section 1333 of the PPACA effective in facilitating the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines? To date, no states have passed laws specifically authorizing the state to enter into a Health Care Choice Compact under section 1333 of the PPACA. Why have states not enacted such laws? Are there any necessary revisions to section to 1333 of the PPACA that would facilitate the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines?
        2. How difficult is it for small and/or regional health insurance issuers to develop provider networks in multiple states that could be used for health insurance coverage sold pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts, and what are the causes of any such difficulties? For individual market health insurance issuers that already have a national provider network, what are the challenges for selling individual health insurance coverage across state lines through Health Care Choice Compacts? In what ways could the federal government facilitate expanding and strengthening provider networks?
        3. How would states allowing health insurance issuers to sell individual health insurance coverage across state lines through Health Care Choice Compacts (if the health insurance coverage only covers health benefits in accordance with federal law and the laws of the state where the coverage is written) impact access to and the utilization of medical services?

        4. What new and existing consumer protections are needed to protect policyholders that reside in one state but purchase individual health insurance coverage from a health insurance issuer in another state pursuant to a Health Care Choice Compact? How would allowing health insurance issuers to sell individual health insurance coverage across state lines impact the ability of state regulators to assist consumers or impact the ability of state courts to resolve legal disputes when the policyholder resides in a state other than that in which the policy was written, pursuant to a Health Care Choice Compact?
        5. To what extent, if any, would the sale of individual health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to a Health Care Choice Compact positively or negatively impact the following populations: Persons with pre-existing conditions; persons with disabilities; persons with chronic physical health conditions; expectant mothers; newborns; American Indians and Alaska Natives and tribal entities; veterans; and persons with behavioral health conditions, including both mental health and substance use disorder conditions?
        6. In general, which statutes or regulations of the issuing state should apply to an individual market policy sold in another state pursuant to a Health Care Choice Compact, and which statutes or regulations, if any, of the state in which the policy is sold should apply? To what extent should policies being sold in another state pursuant to a Health Care Choice Compact be required to cover the state-required benefits of that state, and to what extent should such policies be required to cover the state-required benefits of the issuing state?
        C. Financial Impact of Selling Health Insurance Coverage Across State Lines
        1. What policies, including how premiums and rates are established and reviewed, and how risk is pooled, should be in place with respect to rating and pricing of health insurance coverage sold across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts?
        2. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on health insurance coverage premiums for purchasers of insurance across state lines and for policyholders purchasing in-state insurance in the state where the across-state-lines purchasers live or in the state in which the issuer is located? Would the impact be different for policyholders in different states?
        3. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on policyholders' out-of-pocket expenses? Would the impact be different for different policyholders?
        4. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compact have on a health insurance issuer's operating costs?
        5. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on market participation in each state?
        6. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on competition and the viability of health insurance issuers that elect not to sell health insurance coverage across state lines?
        7. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on health care cost growth and medical inflation?
        8. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on consolidation of health insurance issuers?
        9. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on the market risk pools of the states where the health insurance issuer is domiciled and where the policyholder resides?
        10. What impact would the sale of health insurance coverage across state lines pursuant to Health Care Choice Compacts have on the size and composition of the uninsured population?
        III. Collection of Information Requirements

        This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. This RFI constitutes a general solicitation of comments. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), information subject to the PRA does not generally include “facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof, provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration of the comment.” Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
        IV. Response to Comments

        Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, in the event we issue a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

          Dated: January 28, 2019.
          Seema Verma,
          Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
          Dated: February 14, 2019.
          Alex M. Azar II,
          Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2019-04270 Filed 3-6-19; 4:15 pm]
       BILLING CODE 4120-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 060201021-6021-01; I.D. 100405C]
        RIN 0648-AT73
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Swordfish Quotas

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations governing the North and South Atlantic swordfish fisheries to modify the North and South Atlantic Swordfish quotas for the 2005 fishing year (June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006) to account for updated landings information from the 2003 and 2004 fishing years. This action is necessary to ensure that current quotas are based on the most recent landings information and account for any underharvest from previous fishing years, consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Additionally, this action proposes to implement a subsequent recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) (Recommendation 04-02), which extends the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures. The recommendation specifies that the extension of the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish quota is through the 2006 fishing year, but this proposed action would extend the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures until ICCAT provides a recommendation for a new U.S. allocation of the North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch. ICCAT's Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) plans to conduct a stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish in 2006. If the stock assessment is completed as anticipated, ICCAT intends to review the results during the Fall 2006 meeting and develop new management recommendations. In the event that ICCAT does not recommend a new U.S. allocation, this action proposes to extend the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures until such time as ICCAT provides the recommendation.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. on March 30, 2006.

          NMFS will hold two public hearings to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed swordfish regulations. Additional public hearings will be considered upon request and must be received by 5 p.m. on March 1, 2006 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The public hearing dates are:
          1. Monday, March 13, 2006, 4-6 p.m., Silver Spring, MD.
          2. Friday, March 17, 2006, 2-5:30 p.m., Gloucester, MA.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing locations are:
          1. Gloucester - Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; and
          2. Silver Spring - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SSMC IV, NOAA Auditorium, 1301 East West Highway, Silver Spring 20910.
          Written comments on the proposed rule or the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Draft EA/RIR/IRFA) may be submitted to Megan Caldwell, Fisheries Management Specialist, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, using any of the following methods:
          • Email: SF1.100405C@noaa.gov.
          • Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Rule to Adjust the North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas.”
          • Fax: 301-713-1917.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: I.D. 100405C.

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP)and other relevant documents are also available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Megan Caldwell, by phone: 301-713-2347; by fax: 301-713-1917; or by email: Megan.Caldwell@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 1999 FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the recommendations of ICCAT.
        North Atlantic Swordfish Quota
        Prior to the 2002 meeting, ICCAT conducted a stock assessment examining the North Atlantic swordfish population. The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) concluded that the stock could support an increase in the total allowable catch (TAC) of North Atlantic swordfish. According to the stock assessment, the biomass at the start of 2002 was estimated to be 94 percent of the biomass needed to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The SCRS felt that there was a greater that 50-percent chance that a TAC of 14,000 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww) would allow the stock to rebuild to MSY by the end of 2009. Based on this information, ICCAT recommended a TAC of 14,000 mt ww for 2003, 2004, and 2005, which is an increase from 10,400 mt ww in 2002. Of the 14,000 mt ww, the United States is allowed to catch 3,877 mt ww (2,915.0 mt dressed weight (dw)) in 2003 and 3,907 mt ww (2,937.6 mt dw) in 2004 and 2005 (Recommendation 02-02).
        On November 23, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement the ICCAT recommendations for the North Atlantic swordfish quotas in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (69 FR 68090). Pursuant to 50 CFR 635.27(c)(3)(ii), total landings below the annual North Atlantic swordfish quota shall be added to the following year's quota. Any carryover is to be apportioned equally between the two semi-annual fishing seasons.
        The 2003 preliminary reported landings were 1,509.0 mt dw, resulting in an underharvest of 2,517.8 mt dw. These preliminary landings were previously used to adjust the quota for the 2004 fishing year (November 23, 2004; 69 FR 68090). The final landings for 2003 were 1,822.5 mt dw, thus decreasing the 2003 underharvest to 2,275.1 mt dw.
        This action would adjust the total available quota for the 2004 fishing year to account for the final 2003 landings information. The 2004 North Atlantic swordfish baseline quota was 2,937.6 mt dw. The baseline quota plus the final 2003 underharvest would result in a total 2004 quota of 5,212.7 mt dw. The preliminary landings for the 2004 directed and incidental fishery are 1,475.0 mt dw. In addition to these landings, the United States transferred 18.8 mt dw to Canada, resulting in an underharvest of 3,398.5 mt dw for the 2004 fishing year after deducting dead discards.
        Under this action, the underharvest from the 2004 fishing year (3,398.5 mt dw) would be added to the 2005 baseline quota (2,937.6 mt dw) for an adjusted 2005 North Atlantic swordfish quota of 6,336.1 mt dw. The reserve category would be allocated 101.5 mt dw, the incidental category would be allocated 300 mt dw, and the remaining quota would be divided into two equal semiannual quotas of 2,967.3 mt dw for the periods of June 1, 2005, through November 30, 2005, and December 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006.
        The 2002 ICCAT recommendations included management measures for the North Atlantic swordfish fishery from 2003, 2004, and 2005 with the expectation that a new stock assessment would be reviewed by the SCRS in 2005. The North Atlantic swordfish stock assessment has been postponed until 2006; therefore in 2004, ICCAT recommended that the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish quotas be extended until new stock status information is available (Recommendation 04-02). This action proposes to implement the 2004 ICCAT recommendation. Extending the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures is not expected to have a significant impact on the stock because the quota has been underharvested for the past several years, restrictions on the pelagic longline fleet remain unchanged, and permits and effort continue to be low.
        South Atlantic Swordfish Quota
        The SCRS also conducted a stock assessment of South Atlantic swordfish in 2002. Due to discrepancies between several of the datasets, reliable stock assessment results could not be produced. However, the SCRS noted that the total reported catches have decreased since 1995. ICCAT set a South Atlantic swordfish TAC of 15,631 mt ww in 2003, 15,776 mt ww in 2004, 15,956 mt ww in 2005, and 16,055 mt ww in 2006. Of these amounts, the United States is allocated 100 mt ww (75.2 mt dw) in 2003, 2004, and 2005 and 120 mt ww (90.2 mt dw) in 2006 (Recommendation 02-03).
        The November 2004 final rule also implemented the ICCAT recommendations for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (68 FR 68090). As mentioned above, the regulations also require that landings below the annual South Atlantic quota shall be added to the following year's quota.

        The 2004 South Atlantic swordfish landings were below the adjusted 2004 quota. Therefore, this action proposes to carry over the underharvest into the 2005 fishing year. There were no directed South Atlantic swordfish landings during the 2004 fishing year. The adjusted quota for the 2004 fishing year was 334.3 mt dw (75.2 mt dw baseline plus 259.1 mt dw carried over from the 2003 fishing year). Therefore, this action proposes to combine 2005 baseline quota (75.2 mt dw) with the carryover from 2004 fishing year (334.3 mt dw), increasing the total 2005 South Atlantic swordfish quota to 409.5 mt dw. There is no incidental catch quota for South Atlantic swordfish.
        Requests for Comments
        NMFS will hold two public hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES) to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding this proposed rule. These hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Megan Caldwell at 301-713-2347 at least 5 days prior to the hearing date. For individuals unable to attend a hearing, NMFS also solicits written comments on the proposed rule (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27 (c)(3)(ii) and (iii), this action proposes to adjust the 2005 North and South Atlantic swordfish annual quotas to account for the underharvest from previous fishing years. Additionally this action proposes to implement the 2004 ICCAT recommendation, which extends the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures. The proposed quota for the North Atlantic swordfish fisheries would be apportioned equally between the two semi-annual fishing seasons in the North Atlantic region. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this rule are necessary to ensure continued progress toward the conservation goals of ICCAT, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks.
        The measures proposed in this rule are not expected to alter fishing practices or fishing effort significantly and therefore should not have any further impacts on endangered species, marine mammals, or critical habitat beyond those considered in the June 2001 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on Atlantic HMS Fisheries and the June 2004 BiOp for the HMS pelagic longline (PLL) fisheries. In the June 2001 BiOp, it was determined that the continued operation of the Atlantic HMS rod and reel fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale, humpback, fin, or sperm whales, or Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles. The June 2004 BiOp determined that the continued operation of the PLL fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles.
        NMFS has since promulgated regulations required by the 2004 BiOp to avoid jeopardy of leatherback sea turtles, such as sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures for all Atlantic vessels with PLL gear onboard. In addition, NMFS has implemented regulations requiring PLL vessels to use only 18/0 hooks with whole mackerel and/or squid in the Northeast Distant (NED) Statistical Reporting Area, and 16/0 hooks and/or 18/0 hooks everywhere outside the NED using whole finfish or squid, and to possess and use sea turtle release equipment with specified sea turtle handling and release protocols. Handling and release guidelines are also required to be posted in the wheelhouse. NMFS has also implemented several time/area closures between 1999 and 2002, which in combination with the previously mentioned restrictions have contributed to the quota underages for both the North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas since 2000. In 2004, there were 390 commercial swordfish directed and incidental permit holders, but only 142 vessels reported commercial swordfish landings. Because NMFS is not altering the current restrictions on the PLL fishery, the increased quota is not expected to increase effort.
        An additional short term consideration is the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the pelagic longline fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. The effort in this area is not likely to increase during the 2005 fishing year.
        Thus, NMFS feels that the current level of incidental takes of protected species is not likely to be impacted by this proposed change. Accordingly, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is expected from this proposed action as this proposed rule is not expected to adversely affect protected species.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action proposes to modify the North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas for the 2005 fishing year to account for the underharvest in previous fishing years. Additionally, this action proposes to extend the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures pursuant to a 2004 ICCAT (Recommendation 04-02). These actions are necessary to comply with the recommendations of ICCAT, the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, and the measures in the FMP for Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish.
        The commercial swordfish fishery is composed of fishermen who hold a swordfish directed, incidental, or handgear permit and the related industries including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers, all of which NMFS considers to be small entities. In 2004, there were 390 commercial permit holders and 142 vessels reported landing swordfish commercially. About 90 percent of the vessels reporting commercial swordfish landings used pelagic longline gear. In 2005, the commercial swordfish permit holders declined to 372 permits for directed, incidental, and handgear permits. In 2004, there were also 24,843 HMS Angling permit holders who could land swordfish recreationally (i.e., not for profit), and 4,113 charter/headboat permit holders authorized to land swordfish. Other sectors of highly migratory species fisheries, such as dealers, processors, bait houses, and gear manufacturers, could be indirectly affected by the final regulations.
        The proposed increased quota could potentially result in revenue increases; however, U.S. fishermen have not met either the North or South Atlantic swordfish quotas since 2000. For example, in 2004, the North Atlantic swordfish fishery had an underharvest of 3,398.5 mt dw and the South Atlantic swordfish fishery had an underharvest of 334.2 mt dw. The proposed action would result in a quota that is greater than current catches. Thus, NMFS does not believe that the net benefits and costs would change significantly as a result of the proposed quota increases.

        In the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the November 24, 2004, final rule (69 FR 68090), the criteria used to evaluate the potential impacts include analysis of gross revenues in recent years from pelagic longline logbook data. In future fishing years, the present value of gross and net revenues for the swordfish fishery at the ex-vessel level could increase, but that would depend on the extent to which fishermen can expand their effort to catch the quota. For example, increasing the North Atlantic swordfish quotas by 3,398.5 mt dw could increase ex-vessel revenues by as much as $23.5 million if the entire adjusted quota were caught; and increasing the South Atlantic swordfish quota by 334.3 mt dw could increase the ex-vessel revenues by $2.3 million. Based on existing regulations, including time/area closures, minimum sizes, and permit restrictions, it is unlikely that there will be an increase in effort in the fishery. If effort is increased, U.S. fishermen would potentially experience positive benefits as a result of this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS has determined preliminarily that these regulations would be implemented in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of those coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean that have approved coastal zone management programs. Letters have been sent to the relevant states asking for their concurrence.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Management, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: February 7, 2006.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 635.27, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) is revised to read as follows:

          § 635.27
          Quotas.

          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) A swordfish from the North Atlantic stock caught prior to the directed fishery closure by a vessel for which a directed fishery permit, or a handgear permit for swordfish, has been issued is counted against the directed fishery quota. The annual fishery quota, not adjusted for over- or underharvests, is 2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing year beginning June 1, 2004. The annual quota is subdivided into two equal semiannual quotas of 1,468.8 mt dw: one for June 1 through November 30, and the other for December 1 through May 31 of the following year.

      [FR Doc. E6-1980 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 218
        [Docket No. 201207-0329]
        RIN 0648-BJ90
        Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Construction at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 2020-27300 appearing on pages 83001 through 83026 in the issue of Monday, December 21, 2020, make the following correction:
        (1) On page 83001, in the second column, in the DATES section, change “January 20, 2021” to read “January 21, 2021.”

      [FR Doc. C1-2020-27300 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1301-00-D