        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Ch. I
        [FCC 01-132; CC Docket No. 01-92]
        Intercarrier Compensation; Reciprocal Compensation

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document seeks comment on the concept of a unified intercarrier compensation regime, including alternative approaches such as “bill and keep.” It addresses intercarrier compensation-related problems arising from the introduction of local competition, and of new services and technologies, into telecommunications markets.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before August 21, 2001, and submit reply comments on or before October 5, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-B204, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. See “Comment Filing Procedures,” below, for more detailed instructions on filing comments and reply comments in this proceeding.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jane Jackson, Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1520.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC Docket No. 01-92, FCC 01-132, adopted April 19, 2001, and released April 27, 2001. The full text of the NPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of the NPRM may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, telephone (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. The full text of the NPRM may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.doc. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or at <mcontee@fcc.gov>.
        Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate goals for a new intercarrier compensation regime, including efficient use of the network, and efficient investment in, and deployment of, network infrastructure (including investment in broadband). The NPRM seeks comment on the extent to which any proposed regime achieves technological and competitive neutrality, while minimizing regulatory intervention. It also seeks comment on the feasibility of a new regime, the relative trade-offs, and the importance of having a unified regime altogether.
        The NPRM seeks comment on certain assumptions about intercarrier compensation. For example, do both parties benefit from a call, despite the current regime's simplifying requirement for originating callers to pay for both origination and termination? What is the extent to which terminating carriers have monopoly power over loop access? How much does that bill and keep avoid regulatory intervention in the allocation of common costs, and empower end users to exercise direct control over their access arrangements?
        The NPRM seeks comment on the relative efficiencies of bill-and-keep arrangements. It questions the validity of the Commission's previous determination that bill and keep is only efficient when there are no traffic-sensitive costs of termination, and only permissible when traffic between two networks is relatively balanced while the rates are symmetric. It asks whether bill and keep would preclude efficient forms of price discrimination (e.g., differential rates for network cost recovery). Furthermore, the NPRM seeks comment on how to address the treatment of transport costs, including approaches proposed by two Commission staff working papers that are discussed in the NPRM. It also seeks comment on the relative sizes of transactions costs (i.e., measuring and billing) for the various alternatives, and the impact of bill-and-keep on the opportunities for regulatory arbitrage that currently exist in, e.g., Internet telephony, termination of ISP-bound traffic, and terminating access charges for interstate voice traffic.
        The NPRM also seeks comment on the potential disadvantages of a bill-and-keep arrangement, including: (a) Incentives for carriers to locate central offices inefficiently; (b) how to determine the incremental cost of interconnection when networks are less-than-fully provisioned; (c) the potential for unwanted calls to increase; and (d) the potential for ISPs to begin to charge traffic-sensitive rates or higher flat rates to end users.
        With regard to specific services, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt bill and keep for ISP-bound traffic. The NPRM asks about local exchange carrier (LEC) cost recovery, and any effects on unbundled network element (UNE) pricing, if the Commission should move to a bill-and-keep regime for all ISP-bound traffic.
        The NPRM also seeks comment on the relative benefits of bill and keep for all traffic subject to section 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (“the Communications Act”), versus the current per-minute reciprocal compensation rates imposed by most states. The NPRM specifically addresses issues concerning points of interconnection, three-carrier calls, and the question of whether bill-and-keep rate structures satisfy the requirements of sections 251(b)(5) and 252(d)(2) of the Communications Act.
        In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's legal authority over interconnection between LECs and commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) under section 332 of the Communications Act, and on the adoption of a new LEC-CMRS intercarrier compensation regime. With regard to interstate access charges, the NPRM seeks comment on the eventual application of a bill-and-keep regime, and asks whether it is appropriate to phase in a new access charge regime in stages.
        Apart from moving to a bill-and-keep regime, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the existing calling-party's-network-pays regime could be reformed to address the problems that motivate this rulemaking. As such, it seeks comment on rate level issues (e.g., identifying “additional costs” under section 252(d)(2) of the Communications Act, and applying presumptive ILEC cost proxies), rate structure issues, single point of interconnection issues, virtual central office codes, and administrative feasibility.
        The NPRM also seeks comment on the impacts of moving to a new regime on end user rates, and universal service. Furthermore, it seeks comment on legal issues concerning the authority for a new regime, together with the effect of proposals for a unified regime on the division of jurisdictional responsibility between the Commission and the states.
        Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on the impact of a new regime on interconnection agreements between international carriers, and on interconnection agreements between Internet backbones. It asks about the potential impact on small entities that may result from the adoption of a new regime. It concludes by seeking comment on any further possible approaches to intercarrier compensation that are not addressed in the NPRM.

        Regulatory Flexibility Act Final Analysis

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

        I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

        The existing intercarrier compensation regime applies different sets of rules to different types of carriers and to different types of traffic. Basically, this patchwork of rules can be broken down into: (1) reciprocal compensation rules, which apply to the exchange of local traffic; and (2) access rules that apply to traffic exchanged between local carriers and long-distance carriers. Both sets of rules are “calling-party's-network-pays” (CPNP) arrangements (i.e., they require the calling party's network to pay the called party's network to terminate a call). Both sets of rules are also subject to numerous exceptions, such as the enhanced service provider (ESP) exemption from access charges.
        This NPRM is motivated by numerous problems that have appeared recently concerning the existing rules governing intercarrier compensation. A primary concern is the opportunity, under the current regime, for profit-seeking behavior to take advantage of cost or revenue disparities that are due solely to regulation. For example, competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) often target Internet service providers (ISPs) as customers in order to become net-recipients of traffic, and thus profit from reciprocal compensation revenues. Similarly, Internet Protocol (IP) telephony threatens to erode access revenues for LECs because it is exempt from the access charges that traditional long-distance carriers must pay. Another major concern is that local carriers possess monopoly power over terminating access. As a result, CLECs often impose access charges that far exceed the regulated access charges of incumbent LECs. Finally, the current regime can generate inefficient traffic-sensitive end-user rates, and can also create incentives for entities to claim to be networks in order to qualify for interconnection, rather than to simply subscribe as a customer.
        II. Legal Basis

        The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 4, 201-202, 303 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 201-202, 303 and 403, and sections 1.1, 1.411 and 1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 and 1.412.
        III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 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 rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization” and “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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. 5 U.S.C. 632.

        A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96 percent) are small entities. According to SBA reporting data, there were 4.44 million small business firms nationwide in 1992. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

        The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be the data that the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service report. In a recent news release, the Commission indicated that there are 4,822 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.
        The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing “Radiotelephone Communications” and “Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone” to be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies falling within the two categories, and the number of small businesses in each. We then attempt to further refine those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.

        We have included small incumbent LECs (small ILECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small ILECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

          Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (“Census Bureau”) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small ILECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.” For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small ILECs that may be affected by the new rules.

          Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to the SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small ILECs. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate 2,295 or fewer small telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies are small entities or small ILECs that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small providers of local exchange services (LECs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,335 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that 1,335 or fewer providers of local exchange service are small entities or small ILECs that may be affected by the new rules.

          Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 204 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 204 or fewer small-entity IXCs that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 349 CAP/CLEC carriers and 60 other LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 349 or fewer small-entity CAPs and 60 or fewer other LECs that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of operator services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 21 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of operator service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 21 or fewer small-entity operator service providers that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to pay telephone operators. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 758 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 758 or fewer small-entity pay telephone operators that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Resellers (including debit card providers). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other than radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 454 toll and 87 local entities reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone service. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 454 or fewer small-toll-entity resellers and 87 or fewer small-local-entity resellers that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Toll-Free 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, and 877 numbers in use. According to our most recent data, at the end of January 1999, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,692,955; the number of 888 numbers that had been assigned was 7,706,393; and the number of 877 numbers assigned was 1,946,538. We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,692,955 or fewer small-entity 800 subscribers, 7,706,393 or fewer small-entity 888 subscribers, and 1,946,538 or fewer small-entity 877 subscribers that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM.

          Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all 12 of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, we do not know the number of cellular licensees, since a cellular licensee may own several licenses. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of cellular service providers nationwide appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). The report places cellular licensees and Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees in one group. According to recent data, 808 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular or PCS services. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 808 small cellular service carriers.

          220 MHz Radio Service-Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and 4 nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone communications companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to a 1995 estimate by the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, assuming that this general ratio has not changed significantly in recent years in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.

          220 MHz Radio Service-Phase II Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 62 FR 15978, we adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. Nine hundred and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: 3 nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (REAG) licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: 1 of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, 47% of the REAG licenses and 54% of the EA licenses. As of January 22, 1999, the Commission announced that it was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase II licenses won at auction. A second 220 MHz Radio Service auction began on June 8, 1999 and closed on June 30, 1999. This auction offered 225 licenses in 87 EAs and 4 REAGs. (A total of 9 REAG licenses and 216 EA licenses. No nationwide licenses were available in this auction.) Of the 215 EA licenses won, 153 EA licenses (71%) were won by bidders claiming small business status. Of the 7 REAG licenses won, 5 REAG licenses (71%) were won by bidders claiming small business status.

          Private and Common Carrier Paging. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging services. A small business will be defined as either: (1) An entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million; or (2) an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than $15 million. Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging services, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to recent data, 172 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or “other mobile” services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 172 small paging carriers. We estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

          Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. As noted above in the section concerning paging service carriers, the closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is that for radiotelephone (i.e., wireless) companies, and recent data show that 172 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or “other mobile” services. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 172 small mobile service carriers.

          Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the C block auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for blocks D, E and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission held another auction (Auction No. 22) of C, D, E and F block licenses for PCS spectrum returned to the Commission by previous license holders. In that auction, 48 bidders claiming small business, very small business or entrepreneurial status won 272 of the 341 licenses (80%) offered. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees includes the 90 winning C block bidders, the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E and F blocks, and the 48 winning bidders from Auction No. 22, for a total of 231 small-entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

          Narrowband PCS. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions, however, have not yet been scheduled. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees, and no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for our purposes here, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

          Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition.

          Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

          Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). The Commission awards bidding credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses to two tiers of firms: (1) “small entities,” those with revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years; and (2) “very small entities,” those with revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The regulations defining “small entity” and “very small entity” in the context of 800 MHz SMR (upper 10 MHz and lower 230 channels) and 900 MHz SMR have been approved by the SBA. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for our purposes here, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz (upper 10 MHz) and 900 MHz SMR bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small and very small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, 263 licenses were won by bidders qualifying as small and very small entities. In the 800 MHz SMR auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and very small entities.

          Marine Coast Service. Between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of this auction, and for future public coast auctions, the Commission defines a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. A “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the Commission's definition, which has been approved by the SBA.

          Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For our purposes here, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. Under this definition, we estimate that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities.

          Local Multipoint Distribution Service. The Commission held two auctions for licenses in the Local Multipoint Distribution Services (LMDS) (Auction No. 17 and Auction No. 23). For both of these auctions, the Commission defined a small business as an entity, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, having average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A very small business was defined as an entity, together with affiliates and controlling principals, having average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. Of the 144 winning bidders in Auction Nos. 17 and 23, 125 bidders (87%) were small or very small businesses.

          24 GHz—Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. The rules that we may later adopt could affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to licensees in the 24 GHz band. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules for the radiotelephone industry, providing that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing fewer than 1,500 persons. The 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most recent information available, shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. This information notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. Both Teligent and TRW, Inc. appear to have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, it appears that no incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

          Future 24 GHz Licensees. The rules that we may later adopt could also affect potential new licensees on the 24 GHz band. Pursuant to 47 CFR 24.720(b), the Commission has defined “small business” for Blocks C and F broadband PCS licensees as firms that had average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This regulation defining “small business” in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by the SBA. With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, we shall use this definition of “small business” and apply it to the 24 GHz band under the name “entrepreneur.” With regard to “small business,” we shall adopt the definition of “very small business” used for 39 GHz licenses and PCS C and F block licenses: businesses with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million. Finally, “very small business” in the 24 GHz band shall be defined as an entity with average gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The Commission will not know how many licensees will be small or very small businesses until the auction, if required, is held. Even after that, the Commission will not know how many licensees will partition their license areas or disaggregate their spectrum blocks, if partitioning and disaggregation are allowed.

          39 GHz. The Commission held an auction (Auction No. 30) for fixed point-to-point microwave licenses in the 38.6 to 40.0 GHz band (39 GHz Band). For this auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity, together with affiliates and controlling interests, having average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A very small business was defined as an entity, together with affiliates and controlling principals, having average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these definitions. Of the 29 winning bidders in Auction No. 30, 18 bidders (62%) were small business participants.

          Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS). This service involves a variety of transmitters, which are used to relay data and programming to the home or office, similar to that provided by cable television systems. In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined small businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $40 million. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. These stations were licensed prior to implementation of section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Licenses for new MDS facilities are now awarded to auction winners in Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) and BTA-like areas. The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 BTAs. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 meet the definition of a small business.
        MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations authorized prior to the MDS auction. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. This definition includes MDS systems, and thus applies to incumbent MDS licensees and wireless cable operators which may not have participated or been successful in the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million annually. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, we find there are approximately 892 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

          Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's definition for radiotelephone communications.

          Wireless Communications Services (WCS). This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radio-location and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the WCS auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one winning bidder that qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number of geographic area WCS licensees affected includes these eight entities.

          General Wireless Communication Service (GWCS). This service was created by the Commission on July 31, 1995 by transferring 25 MHz of spectrum in the 4660-4685 MHz band from the federal government to private sector use. The Commission sought and obtained SBA approval of a refined definition of “small business” for GWCS in this band. According to this definition, a small business is any entity, together with its affiliates and entities holding controlling interests in the entity, that has average annual gross revenues over the three preceding years that are not more than $40 million. By letter dated March 30, 1999, NTIA reclaimed the spectrum allocated to GWCS and identified alternative spectrum at 4940-4990 MHz. On February 23, 2000, the Commission released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 00-32 proposing to allocate and establish licensing and service rules for the 4.9 GHz band.
        IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

        There are certain transaction costs for terminating access, including measuring and billing. Under the existing CPNP regime, the terminating LEC bills the originating network, whereas under bill and keep, the terminating LEC may bill its own customers. The NPRM seeks comment on the relative transaction costs of each proposal, weighed against the other efficiencies of the various alternatives. Transaction costs can increase under a bill-and-keep arrangement, for example, since each carrier may be responsible for measuring and billing its own customers for all traffic, rather than merely measuring and billing the originating carrier.
        Apart from the transaction costs for termination, the NPRM more broadly suggests that a new regime could free regulators from allocating transport costs, and from setting the level and structure of termination rates. Where rates had once been set by regulation, individual carriers, including small entities, could inherit this responsibility.
        As a result of rules from this proceeding, incumbent LECs and CLECs may be required to discern the amount of traffic carried on their networks that is bound for ISPs. In addition, such incumbent LECs and competitive entrants may be required to produce information regarding the costs of carrying ISP-bound traffic on their networks.
        The NPRM seeks comment on the extent to which a new regime would comply with reciprocal compensation obligations regarding traffic balances and symmetrical rates. If rules should follow on this issue, they may require carriers to report traffic imbalances, corresponding to rate symmetry. This is especially true in the context of LEC-CMRS interconnection, in which the NPRM seeks comment on the feasibility of cost studies that CMRS carriers could use to justify separate treatment.
        V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
        Although the transaction costs for terminating access can increase under a bill-and-keep arrangement, the impact on small entities would be minimal since measuring and billing is already a fundamental component of their operations. Furthermore, the advantages of a bill-and-keep regime, in providing clearer demarcations of cost between carriers, appear to outweigh the minimal increase in transaction costs that could occur under bill and keep. With regard to the related task of allocating transport costs, the same reasoning applies to small entities in that the clearer demarcations between carriers inherent in bill and keep outweighs the potential burden of setting the level and structure of termination rates. Regardless, many small entities are competitive entrants such as CLECs, which currently enjoy specific exemptions from ILEC rate regulation.

        A potential benefit may accrue to small-entity LECs transporting ISP-bound traffic. As discussed above, the Commission may adopt rules that may require incumbent LECs and CLECs to discern the amount of traffic carried on their networks that is bound for ISPs. As a result of such rules, incumbent LECs and CLECs, including small-entity incumbent LECs and CLECs, will be able to receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic that they might not otherwise receive. The NPRM separately requests comment on alternative proposals.
        The NPRM seeks comment on the issue of asymmetrical compensation for unbalanced traffic. Although small entities could experience an increase in reporting and recordkeeping when submitting cost studies to this effect, if adopted, such a requirement would more accurately serve the revenue requirements of small entities in relation to larger competitors.
        Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on additional impacts on small entities that may result from any new intercarrier compensation regime. When seeking comment on the alternative of contractual arrangements for intercarrier compensation, the NPRM asks commenters to address the potential impacts of such a market-based approach on small entities, such as the refusal to carry traffic.
        VI. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        None.
        Comment Filing Procedures

        Pursuant to sections 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 1.430, interested parties may file comments within 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments within 135 days after publication in the Federal Register. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 01-92. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, which in this instance is CC Docket No. 01-92. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the body of the message: “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-B204, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by paper, parties should also serve: (1) Paul Moon, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 3-C423, Washington, DC 20554; (2) Jane Jackson, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554; and (3) the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857-3800, with copies of any documents filed in this proceeding. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to Wanda Harris, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in a Windows-compatible format using Microsoft Word or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number—in this case, CC Docket No. 01-92), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase: “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

        Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. We also strongly encourage that parties track the organization set forth in the NPRM to facilitate our internal review process.

        Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.200(a), which permits the Commission to adopt modified or more stringent ex parte procedures in particular proceedings if the public interest so requires, we announce that this proceeding will be governed by “permit-but-disclose” ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under 47 CFR 1.1206. Designating this proceeding as “permit-but-disclose” will provide an opportunity for all interested parties to receive notice of the various technical, legal, and policy issues raised in ex parte presentations made to the Commission in the course of this proceeding. This will allow interested parties to file responses or rebuttals to proposals made on the record in this proceeding. Accordingly, we find that it is in the public interest to designate this proceeding as “permit-but-disclose.”
        Parties making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.206(b) as well. Interested parties are to file any written ex parte presentations in this proceeding with the Commission Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554, and serve with copies: (1) Paul Moon, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 3-C423, Washington, DC 20554; (2) Jane Jackson, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554; and (3) International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857-3800.

        Because many of the matters on which we request comment in this NPRM may call on parties to disclose proprietary information such as market research and business or technical plans, we suggest that parties consult 47 CFR 0.459 about the submission of confidential information.
        Ordering Clauses

        The actions of the Commission herein ARE TAKEN pursuant to sections 4, 201-202, 303 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 201-202, 303 and 403, and sections 1.1, 1.411 and 1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 and 1.412.

        The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Magalie Roman Salas,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 01-12759 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Chapter I
        [MB Docket No. 07-57; FCC 07-119]
        Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Transferor, to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; comments requested.

          SUMMARY:
          Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. submitted applications seeking permission to transfer control of Commission licenses and authorizations held by XM and Sirius to a single, combined entity. The proposed transfer conflicts with language which prohibits such a combination in an earlier Commission order. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeks comment on whether the language in question constitutes a binding Commission rule and, if so, whether the Commission should waive, modify, or repeal the prohibition in the event that the Commission determines that the proposed merger, on balance, would serve the public interest.

          DATES:
          Interested parties may file comments on the NPRM on or before August 13, 2007, and reply comments on or before August 27, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the NPRM may be accessed from the Internet homepage of the Federal Communications Commission via the following hyperlink: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-119A1.pdf. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

          • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
          Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rosemary C. Harold, (202) 418-7200, Royce Sherlock, (202) 418-7030, or Marcia Glauberman, (202) 418-7046, of the Media Bureau.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The NPRM was adopted by the Commission on June 25, 2007, and released on June 27, 2007.

          Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission certifies that the outcome of this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Currently, only XM and Sirius hold licenses to provide SDARS service. Because SDARS service requires significant capital for operation, the Commission believes it is unlikely that a small entity, as defined by the Small Business Administration, would have the financial wherewithal to become an SDARS licensee.1

            1 The small business size standard for the census category, “Radio Networks,” which includes radio satellite broadcasting, is $6.5 million or less in receipts, per year. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 51511.

          Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Thus, it 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).

          Ex Parte Information. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          William F. Caton,
          Deputy Secretary.

       [FR Doc. E7-13485 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BD03
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 102

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 102 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 102 would implement a Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program for sablefish in the Aleutian Islands regulatory area. The proposed CQE Program would be similar to the existing CQE Program in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 102 is necessary to provide additional fishing opportunities in fishery dependent communities of the Aleutian Islands and sustain participation in the sablefish IFQ fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the BSAI FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 102 must be received no later than 5 p.m., Alaska local time (A.l.t.), on December 31, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2013-0048, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0048, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

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

          Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and proposed rule for Amendment 102 and the RIR/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the regulatory amendment to allow IFQ derived from D share halibut quota share to be fished on category C vessels in Area 4B are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan (FMP) or FMP amendment it prepares to the Secretary for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires the Secretary, upon receiving an FMP, to immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment.
        Amendment 102 to the BSAI FMP would revise the individual fishing quota program (IFQ Program) for the sablefish fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. The IFQ Program for the fixed-gear commercial fisheries for halibut and sablefish in waters in and off Alaska is a limited access privilege program implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program limits access to the BSAI halibut and sablefish fisheries to those persons holding quota share (QS) in specific management areas. The amount of halibut and sablefish that each QS holder may harvest is calculated annually and issued as IFQ in pounds.
        In 2002, the Council recommended revisions to IFQ Program regulations and policy to allow a non-profit entity to hold QS on behalf of residents of specific rural communities located adjacent to the coast of the GOA. NMFS implemented the Council's recommendations as Amendment 66 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) in 2004 (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). Amendment 66 implemented the community quota entity program (CQE Program) to allow these communities to form new non-profit organizations called CQEs to purchase catcher vessel QS under the IFQ Program. GOA CQEs that purchase QS on behalf of an eligible community may lease the resulting annual IFQ to fishermen who are residents of the community. The GOA CQE Program was developed to allow a distinct set of small, remote, coastal communities in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska to purchase halibut and sablefish QS for use by community residents in order to help minimize adverse economic impacts of the IFQ Program on such communities and provide for the sustained participation of the communities in the IFQ fisheries.

        The Council recommended the CQE Program for the GOA, but not for communities located adjacent to the coast of the BSAI. The CQE Program adopted by the Council, and implemented by NMFS, was specifically intended to provide opportunities to remote coastal communities in the GOA that met specific criteria that included historic participation in the GOA halibut and sablefish fisheries. The Council did not apply the CQE Program to the BSAI because nearly all small, remote, coastal communities in the BSAI also participate in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) that is authorized under section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS annually withholds a proportion of the IFQ allocation of halibut and sablefish for use as a CDQ reserve. The CDQ reserve of halibut and sablefish is allocated to CDQ groups that represent 65 coastal communities throughout the BSAI. This allocation to the CDQ Program allows the distribution of benefits from that allocation to be shared among the residents of the CDQ Program communities. In contrast, the CQE Program authorizes communities to purchase halibut and sablefish QS for use by community residents. At the time the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, the CQE Program for the GOA, communities located in the BSAI did not meet the geographic scope, or intent, of the CQE Program.
        In February 2010, the Council received a proposed amendment to the BSAI FMP from the Adak Community Development Corporation, on behalf of the community of Adak. The proposal recognized that there may be opportunity for Adak and other similarly situated communities in the Aleutian Islands to maintain and improve access to commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries through a community QS holding program similar to the GOA CQE Program. The Council initiated a formal discussion paper for review in December 2010. During its review, the Council considered the discussion paper and comments from the public, NMFS, and the State of Alaska. The Council initiated a formal analysis of the alternatives to develop an Aleutian Islands CQE program. Formal analysis was completed for initial review in October 2011 and a preferred alternative was selected. The Council's preferred alternative had several associated components and options that comprised the structure and provisions of the program which were based on those of the CQE Program in the GOA. The Council took final action in February 2012 and recommended Amendment 102 to the BSAI FMP to establish a CQE Program in the Aleutian Islands.
        The basic provisions of proposed Amendment 102 are similar to those in the GOA FMP as described in the CQE Program for GOA communities (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23681), and as amended by Amendment 94 to the GOA FMP (Feb. 22, 2013, 78 FR 12287) because the goals of the GOA CQE Program and the proposed Aleutian Islands CQE Program are similar. The Council, however, determined that the Aleutian Islands Program would differ in certain ways in order to address the Council's requirements for the proposed Aleutian Islands CQE Program. The provisions of Amendment 102 to the BSAI FMP are summarized here.
        Community Quota Share Purchases
        Amendment 102 would revise the BSAI FMP to allow a CQE representing an eligible Aleutian Islands coastal community to be eligible to purchase and hold commercial catcher vessel sablefish QS under the IFQ Program as defined and described in the BSAI FMP.
        1. Eligible Community
        A potentially eligible community would need to meet all the following criteria to participate in the proposed Aleutian Islands CQE Program: (a) Be located within the Aleutian Islands; (b) not be eligible for the CDQ Program; (c) have a population of more than 20 and less than 1,500 persons based on the 2000 U.S. Census; (d) have direct access to saltwater; (e) lack direct road access to communities with a population greater than 1,500 persons; (f) have historic participation in the halibut and sablefish fisheries; and (g) be specifically designated on a list adopted by the Council and included in regulation. These specific criteria for community eligibility, with the exception of criteria (a) and (b), would be identical to those implemented for the GOA CQE Program. Under these criteria, only one community, Adak, AK, would be eligible.
        Amendment 102 would revise the BSAI FMP to establish that the administrative entity (i.e., the CQE) eligible to hold sablefish QS on behalf of the eligible community of Adak must also be the entity approved by NMFS under Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs to hold the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab allocation on behalf of Adak. This provision differs from the GOA CQE Program in that the Council specifically designated the entity that holds the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab allocation on behalf of Adak to the be non-profit CQE representing Adak. However, the governing body of Adak must approve the CQE to operate on behalf of the community. The CQE approval by a community governing body is required under the GOA CQE Program.
        2. Management Areas
        Amendment 102 would revise the BSAI FMP to allow a qualified non-profit organization to purchase and hold sablefish QS and associated IFQ designated for the Aleutian Islands subarea on behalf of any community meeting the qualifying criteria described above. NMFS believes that at this time, Adak is the only Aleutian Islands community that would meet the qualifying criteria. The CQE could assign the resulting annual sablefish IFQ to fixed gear sablefish fishery participants according to defined CQE Program provisions.
        3. Use and Ownership Provisions
        a. Individual community use cap. Amendment 102 would revise the BSAI FMP to establish a community use cap that would limit the amount of sablefish QS that each eligible community, as represented by a CQE, could purchase and hold. Amendment 102 would establish the CQE use cap for sablefish equal to 15 percent of the Aleutian Islands sablefish QS pool (4,789,874 QS units).
        b. Cumulative community use cap. A cumulative community use cap would limit the amount of sablefish QS that all Aleutian Islands CQEs could purchase and hold collectively. Under the proposed action, Adak would be the only eligible community; therefore, the community use cap of 15 percent of the Aleutian Islands sablefish QS pool (4,789,874 QS units) also would serve as the cumulative community use cap.
        c. Quota share blocks. Two block provisions would be applicable to an Aleutian Islands CQE under this FMP amendment. The first block provision would allow an Aleutian Islands CQE to purchase both blocked and unblocked Aleutian Islands sablefish QS, without restrictions on the size of blocked QS that may be held.
        The second block provision would limit the number of QS blocks an Aleutian Islands CQE could hold. This limit would be the same as the limit currently applied to a GOA CQE. Under the current GOA CQE Program, each community represented by a CQE is limited to holding, at any point in time, a maximum of 5 blocks of sablefish QS in the Aleutian Islands subarea.

        d. Vessel size. An Aleutian Islands CQE could purchase and hold all categories of Aleutian Islands sablefish catcher vessel QS (B share and C share QS). The IFQ derived from sablefish B share and C share QS could be used on any size vessel regardless of the QS vessel category from which the IFQ was derived as long as the QS is held by a CQE.
        4. Transfer Provisions
        a. CQE transfer of QS. On an annual basis, an Aleutian Islands CQE could transfer sablefish IFQ derived from QS held by the CQE. CQEs holding QS may lease the IFQ derived from those QS only to residents of the eligible community with the exception that on an annual basis for a period of 5 years after the effective date of implementation of the program, a CQE may lease annual IFQ derived from CQE held QS to non-residents of the eligible community. After the 5-year period, the CQE must lease annual IFQ derived from CQE held QS to residents of the eligible community.
        b. Limit on IFQ per lessee. Any CQE owning catcher vessel QS could lease, but could not exceed, 50,000 pounds of sablefish IFQ per lessee annually. The 50,000-pound (22.7-mt) limit would include any quota owned by the individual (lessee).
        c. Limit on IFQ per vessel. No vessel could be used, during any fishing year, to harvest more than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt) of IFQ sablefish derived from QS held by a CQE, and no vessel used to harvest IFQ sablefish derived from CQE held QS could be used to harvest more IFQ sablefish than the vessel use caps specified in § 679.42(h). A vessel could be used to harvest additional IFQ from non-CQE-held QS up to the overall vessel use cap applicable in the IFQ Program, if the overall vessel use cap were greater than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt). If the vessel use cap in the IFQ Program were lower than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt) in a given year, then the lowest vessel use cap would apply.
        d. Sale of QS. An Aleutian Islands CQE holding sablefish catcher vessel QS could only transfer the QS to another CQE eligible community or any person meeting the provisions outlined in Section 3.7.1.4 of the BSAI FMP. At this time, Adak would be the only community eligible to be represented by a CQE in the Aleutian Islands; therefore, a CQE representing Adak could only transfer its catcher vessel QS to an individual or initial recipient eligible under the IFQ Program rules. An Aleutian Islands CQE could not transfer Aleutian Islands sablefish QS to any of the GOA CQEs eligible to hold QS under the GOA CQE Program because those CQEs are prohibited under existing regulations from purchasing QS outside the GOA.
        e. Purposes of sale. An Aleutian Islands CQE may only transfer QS for one of the following purposes: to generate revenues to sustain, improve, or expand the program; or to liquidate the CQE's QS assets for reasons outside the program. Should an eligible community transfer their QS for reasons not consistent with these purposes, the CQE administrative entity would not be qualified to purchase and hold QS on behalf of that community for a period of 3 years.

        A RIR was prepared for Amendment 102 that describes the CQE Program, the purpose and need for this action, the management alternatives evaluated to address this action, and the economic and socioeconomic effects of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES). An IRFA is also included in the proposed rule for Amendment 102 that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (see ADDRESSES).
        Amendment 102 and its proposed implementing regulations are designed to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the national standards, and other applicable law. The proposed amendment and implementing regulations particularly address national standard 8, which provides that conservation and management programs shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Act, take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. The IFQ Program for Pacific halibut is implemented under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. The Council does not have a halibut fishery management plan. The Council and Secretary of Commerce, however, consider the impacts of all the IFQ management measures on fishery-dependent communities. If Amendment 102 is approved, then sablefish and halibut components would be implemented in one rule. Amendment 102 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the BSAI FMP, and other applicable laws.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 102 and associated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 102 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS evaluation under Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m., A.l.t., on the last day of the comment period (see DATES). Comments received by the end of the comment period will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 102. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 102.

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

          Dated: October 29, 2013.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-26106 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013; FRL-10010-38-Region 5]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fridley Commons Park Well Field Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notification of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Fridley Commons Park Well Field Superfund Site (Fridley Well Field Site or Site) located in Fridley, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Minnesota, through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 23, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013, by one of the following methods:

            https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

            Email: Deletions@usepa.onmicrosoft.com.

          Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the public to submit comments via email or at https://www.regulations.gov.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-1999-0013 and at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id=0506449 or you may contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

          The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Karen Cibulskis, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 at (312) 886-1843 or via email at cibulskis.karen@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Introduction
          II. NPL Deletion Criteria
          III. Deletion Procedures
          IV. Basis for Site Deletion

        I. Introduction
        EPA Region 5 announces its intent to delete the Fridley Well Field Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

        EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III of this document discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV of this document discusses where to access and review information that demonstrates how the deletion criteria have been met at the Fridley Well Field Site.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

        ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
        Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures apply to deletion of the Fridley Well Field Site:
        (1) EPA consulted with the State of Minnesota prior to developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.
        (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.
        (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.
        (4) The State of Minnesota, through the MPCA, has concurred with deletion of the Fridley Well Field Site from the NPL.

        (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, an announcement of the availability of the Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Columbia Heights/Fridley Life. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Fridley Well Field Site from the NPL.

        (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0013 and at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id=0506449.

        If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site from the NPL, the EPA will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions, and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the docket listed above.
        Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
        IV. Basis for Site Deletion
        The EPA placed copies of EPA's Final Close Out Report for the Site and other documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket. The material provides explanation of EPA's rationale for the deletion and demonstrates how the Fridley Well Field Site meets the deletion criteria. This information is made available for public inspection in the docket identified above.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300:
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: June 4, 2020.
          Kurt Thiede,
          Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2020-12538 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P