        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Bureau of Land Management
        43 CFR Part 2800
        [WO-300-1430-PQ]
        RIN 1004-AE24
        Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding a Competitive Process for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development

          AGENCY:
          Bureau of Land Management.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public comments and suggestions that will be used in preparing a proposed rule to establish a competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy development.

          DATES:
          The BLM will accept comments and suggestions on the ANPR until February 27, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

            Mail: Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Room 2134LM, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE24.

            Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003.

            Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at this Web site.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ray Brady at (202) 912-7312 or Linda Resseguie at (202) 912-7337 regarding the substance of this ANPR. For information on procedural matters or the rulemaking process generally, you may contact Joseph Berry at (202) 912-7442. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to contact the above individuals.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In order to foster the growth and development of the renewable energy sector of the economy and to administer the public lands in a more orderly manner, the BLM believes that a rulemaking is needed to enhance the Agency's ability to establish an efficient competitive process for issuing Right-of-Way (ROW) leases for solar and wind energy development that is based upon the Agency's authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
        The BLM believes that a competitive process would enhance its ability to capture fair market value for the use of public lands, as required under Section 504(g) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)), and ensure fair access to leasing opportunities for renewable energy development. This rulemaking would establish competitive bidding procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders, and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process.
        The purpose of this ANPR is to solicit public comments that will be helpful to the BLM in preparing a subsequent proposed rule, as well as to gather the input that is needed to develop an efficient competitive process for ROW leasing. The scope of the proposed rule will include existing BLM wind and solar policies and guidelines, and terms and conditions of lease authorizations as well as the competitive process.
        To help the BLM prepare the proposed rule, the Agency is seeking public comments and suggestions on the scope of the competitive process. See section III of this ANPR for a list of specific questions relating to this topic.
        I. Public Comment Procedures
        Commenting on the ANPR
        Written comments and suggestions should:

        —Be specific;
        —Explain the reasoning behind your comments and suggestions; and
        —Address the issues outlined in the ANPR.

        For comments and suggestions to be the most useful, and most likely to inform decisions on the content of the proposed rule, they should:

        —Be substantive; and
        —Facilitate the development and implementation of an environmentally and fiscally responsible process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy development.

        The BLM is particularly interested in receiving comments and suggestions in response to the questions listed in section III of this ANPR. These specific questions will focus the feedback on matters most in need of public input for the development of the regulations. This public input will assist the BLM in creating a fair and workable competitive process. All communications on these topics should refer to RIN 1004-AE24 and may be submitted by the methods listed under the ADDRESSES section of this ANPR.

        Comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES section of this ANPR) may not necessarily be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule. Likewise, comments delivered to an address other than those listed under the ADDRESSES section of this ANPR may not necessarily be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule.
        Reviewing Comments Submitted by Others

        Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the personal or messenger delivery address listed under ADDRESSES, during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Those wishing to withhold their name or address (except for the city or town) must state this request prominently at the beginning of their comment, and state a reason for the request. Submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
        II. Background
        Congress has directed the Department of the Interior (Department) to facilitate the development of renewable energy resources. In Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Congress declared that before 2015, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) should seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and geothermal) on public lands with a total combined generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity.
        Since passage of the EPAct, the Secretary has issued several orders that emphasize the importance of renewable energy development on public lands and the Department's efforts to achieve the goal Congress established in Section 211 of the EPAct. The most recent Secretarial Order 3285A1, “Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior,” was issued in February 2010 by Secretary Ken Salazar. The Order established the development of renewable energy on public lands as one of the Department's highest priorities.
        The FLPMA provides comprehensive authority and guidelines for the administration and protection of the public lands and their resources, and directs that the public lands be managed “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield” (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)). One of the principal or major uses defined by FLPMA includes the issuance of ROWs on public lands. The FLPMA also mandates that “the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute” (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(9)).
        Competitive Right-of-Way Procedures
        Title V of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to issue ROWs for electric generation systems on the public lands (including solar and wind energy generation systems). Title V includes the authority to issue a ROW easement, lease, permit, or license as defined by Section 103(f) of FLPMA.
        In June 2005, the BLM completed the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on Wind Energy Development relating to the authorization of wind energy projects on public lands. This Final PEIS provided an analysis of the environmental impact of the development of wind energy projects on public lands in the West and identified approximately 20.6 million acres of BLM public lands with wind energy development potential. However, the Final PEIS did not identify wind energy development leasing areas.

        On December 17, 2010, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy as co-lead agencies published the Draft PEIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. The Draft Solar PEIS assessed the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with solar energy development on public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah (http://solareis.anl.gov). Under the Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft Solar PEIS, the BLM would establish Solar Energy Zones (SEZs), which are areas that have been identified as the most appropriate for development because they contain the highest solar energy potential and fewest environmental and resource conflicts. The BLM included in the Draft Solar PEIS an option to offer lands within SEZs on a competitive basis. This option is further discussed in the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS published on October 28, 2011 (http://solareis.anl.gov). The designation of any SEZs for solar development would be made final upon the approval of a Record of Decision, following completion of a final EIS. Additional solar energy development leasing areas could also be identified and designated in the future through other BLM land use planning efforts.
        The FLPMA does not limit the term of a solar or wind energy ROW lease. In accordance with Title V of FLPMA and the BLM's existing ROW regulations, a solar or wind energy ROW authorization is limited to a “reasonable term” (43 U.S.C. 1764(b) and 43 CFR 2805.11(b)). The regulations further articulate a number of factors that the BLM considers in determining a reasonable term, including the overall costs and useful life of the project. Most major ROW authorizations also include provisions for renewal of the authorization consistent with the provisions of the existing regulations (43 CFR 2805.15(d) and 2807.22). The BLM has established policies related to terms for current solar and wind energy authorizations, but it believes a rule would help further clarify the term of solar and wind energy leasing.
        Due to the substantial investments required for typical solar or wind energy projects and the projected life of these facilities (generally in excess of 20 years), it is in the public interest to provide for a term for solar or wind energy ROW leases that would allow a reasonable period of time for construction, development, and continued operations of sufficient duration to make projects economically feasible. In addition, many Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for the purchase of electricity generated from solar or wind energy facilities are for terms of 20 years or longer. The BLM currently issues all solar energy ROW authorizations for a term not to exceed 30 years. A wind energy development authorization is generally for a term of 25-30 years.
        The existing ROW regulations (43 CFR 2804.23) provide authority for conducting a competitive process but only to resolve competing applications for the same facility or system. For public lands outside of designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas, the BLM expects to continue to use this existing regulatory authority.

        The BLM believes a rulemaking would help to establish a more comprehensive and efficient competitive process for public lands with designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas. This rulemaking would provide the authority to offer lands through a nomination and competitive process instead of simply through an application process. The new regulations could include the following provisions for leasing within designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas.
        • Call for Nominations. A call for nominations would be published to solicit expressions of interest for parcels of land within designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas. Nomination of a specific parcel would require payment of a nomination fee to be determined by the regulations. (Section 304 of FLPMA provides authority to the BLM to establish reasonable filing fees.)
        • Review of Nominations. The BLM would review the nominations to identify parcels of land within designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas that are suitable to be offered competitively and then complete the work necessary, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other required reviews, to prepare the selected parcels for the competitive offer. At this lease stage, the NEPA analysis for parcels would likely tier to the Final Solar PEIS, once it is published, and the BLM's 2005 Wind Energy Development PEIS. Because the 2005 Wind Energy Development PEIS and associated Record of Decision did not identify wind energy development leasing areas, the BLM would designate these areas before considering nominations for a competitive wind energy ROW leasing process.
        • Notice of Competitive Offer. A notice would be published at least 30 days prior to the competitive offer. The notice would include a legal description of the lands involved, the process for conducting the competitive offer, a minimum bid requirement, the qualifications for potential bidders, and the due diligence requirements for the successful bidder to submit a Plan of Development (POD) for the lands involved in the competitive offer. The POD defines the specific development plans of the lease holder.
        • Bonus Bid Competitive Process or Other Competitive Procedures. A variety of competitive bid procedures could be defined by the new regulations. These competitive procedures could include sealed bids, oral auctions or ascending bidding, two-stage (combination of sealed and oral auctions) bidding, or multiple-factor bidding methods. Multiple-factor bidding could include monetary or nonmonetary factors and could be structured similarly to the method that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management provides for offshore wind leasing (30 CFR 285.220). Multiple-factor variables for competitive wind and solar could include, but are not limited to, qualified bidder or other fees, variable cash bonuses, technical merit of the applicant, timeliness, financing and economics, environmental impact, and public benefits. Bonus bids would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury. The bonus bid from the successful bidder would be nonrefundable. All other bids would be returned. The new regulations could define a fee structure and determine whether particular fees might be deposited into the Treasury or be used to reimburse the BLM for administrative and other costs.
        • Issuance of Competitive ROW Leases. A ROW lease would be issued to the successful bidder. The successful bidder would be required to submit a POD within the timeframes specified in the Notice of Competitive Offer and to pay cost recovery fees for review and approval of the POD. The review and approval process for the POD would require compliance with the NEPA and other Federal laws and regulations.
        • Administration of Competitive ROW Leases. To reduce uncertainty about future changes in the terms and conditions of the lease, the competitive ROW lease could be a 30-year fixed-term lease, with specific terms and conditions, and be available for renewal.
        In order to facilitate the efficient development of solar and wind energy within designated energy development leasing areas, the BLM would include a requirement in each ROW lease that the holder submit a POD within a specified period of time and begin construction within the approved timeframes. Each ROW lease would also include terms and conditions requiring the holder to maintain all facilities in accordance with the design standards in the approved POD. There are no specific provisions in the existing regulations regarding such diligent development requirements and the BLM believes a rule would help further define the due diligence development requirements for competitive solar and wind energy leases.
        The BLM also would require that a minimum performance bond be provided for all competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases to ensure compliance with the provisions of the regulations and the terms and conditions of the lease. The BLM believes a rule would be appropriate for defining the performance bonding requirements for competitive solar and wind energy leases.
        III. Description of the Information Requested
        The BLM is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following questions relating to regulations for a competitive process for solar and wind energy development on the public lands:
        1. How should a competitive process be structured for leasing lands within designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas?
        2. Should a competitive leasing process be implemented for public lands outside of designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas? If so, how should such a competitive leasing process be structured?
        3. What competitive bidding procedures should the BLM adopt?
        4. What is the appropriate term for a competitive solar energy ROW lease?
        5. What is the appropriate term for a competitive wind energy ROW lease?
        6. Should nomination fees be established for the competitive process? If so, how should the fees be determined?
        7. How should the bidding process for competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases be structured to ensure receipt of fair market value?
        8. Should a standard performance bond be required for competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases and how should the bond amount be determined?
        9. What diligent development requirements should be included in competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases?
        The BLM is also interested in receiving any other comments regarding the content and structure of the competitive process for solar and wind energy development. Because this discussion is specifically focused on the development of the competitive process, comments are not being requested regarding solar or wind energy environmental issues.

          Marcilynn A. Burke,
          Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management.

      [FR Doc. 2011-33429 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-84-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 14-944]
        Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Posting of Broadband Data From Urban Rate Survey and Seeks Comment on Calculation of Reasonable Comparability Benchmark for Broadband Services

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the posting of the fixed broadband services data collected in the 2013 urban rate survey, and explanatory notes regarding the data, on the Commission's Web site. The Bureau also proposes a specific methodology for calculating the reasonable comparability benchmark for fixed broadband services which would result in a broadband benchmark that ranges from $68.48 to $71.84 for services meeting the current broadband performance standard of 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, with the specific benchmark depending on the associated usage allowance.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before August 20, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may file comments on or before August 20, 2014. All pleadings are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

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

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-0626 or TTY (202) 418-0484.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Wireline Competition Bureau's Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 14-944, released June 30, 2014. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com.

        1. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the posting of the fixed broadband services data collected in the 2013 urban rate survey, and explanatory notes regarding the data, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/urban-rate-survey-data. The Bureau (Bureau) also proposes a specific methodology for calculating the reasonable comparability benchmark for fixed broadband services. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission required that as a condition of receiving Connect America Fund support, recipients must offer voice and broadband services in supported areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for similar services in urban areas. The methodology proposed here would result in a broadband benchmark that ranges from $68.48 to $71.84 for services meeting the current broadband performance standard of 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, with the specific benchmark depending on the associated usage allowance.

        2. Consistent with longstanding Commission precedent for the voice comparability benchmark, we will compute the broadband comparability benchmark based upon a national average. Indeed, the Commission made clear that it expected the Bureau to use a national urban average.
        3. The Bureau Staff Report included herein discusses three potential methods for determining the average urban rate using the data collected in the Survey: Simple rate statistics for specified subsamples; an average rate for offerings meeting a minimum level of service; and regression analysis. The Staff Report also presents the average plus two standard deviations for each approach, thus showing a potential reasonable comparability benchmark for broadband service under each approach. For illustrative purposes, the Staff Report also presents the relevant calculations if the minimum performance obligations were modified as proposed recently by the Commission.
        4. The first approach calculates the average using a subsample of observations based solely on download speed, without regard to usage or upstream speeds. The second approach calculates the average by identifying the subset of observations that meet or exceed a minimum service level, and then for each provider that is captured in that sub-sample, computing the average based on the lowest rate offered by that provider that meets or exceeds the specified service level. The third approach uses a simple weighted linear regression model that takes into account the impact of three dimensions of service on rates: upload speed, download speed, and usage allowance, if any. We summarize below the results under the three approaches.

            Method
            Speed
            Usage allowance

            Average
            Average +2 standard
              deviations

            Service Offerings Meeting 3 to <5 Mbps Downstream
            3 to <5 Mbps/any upload speed
            Any
            $47.48
            $73.22

            Service Offerings Meeting or Exceeding a Minimum Service Level (Upstream, Downstream, Usage)
            4 Mbps/1 Mbps
            100 GB
            54.54
            82.00

            Linear Regression
            4 Mbps/1 Mbps
            100 GB
            44.74
            68.48

            4 Mbps/1 Mbps
            250 GB
            46.76
            70.50

            Analysis
            4 Mbps/1 Mbps
            unlimited
            48.10
            71.84

        5. We propose to use the weighted linear regression model to calculate the average urban rate. Although the regression analysis is more complex than the other methods identified in the Staff Report, regression analysis is well suited to take into account the differences in speed and usage allowance among the service offerings in the sample (and thus reducing the likelihood of having the rates for dramatically higher-speed services increase the benchmark for lower-speed services). Further, we propose to use a subsample of data points to develop the regression, specifically, those data points with download speeds less than or equal to 15 Mbps. We propose to adopt a separate benchmark for services with differing usage levels. Thus, the reasonable comparability benchmark for a high-cost recipient offering a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps/100 GB offering would be $68.48; if that high-cost recipient chose to meet the Commission's broadband performance obligations with a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps/unlimited usage offering, its reasonable comparability benchmark would be $71.84. We seek comment on these proposals.
        6. To the extent parties believe one of the other approaches to determining an average of the data collected in the Survey is preferable, they should explain with specificity the benefits of adopting an alternative approach. Is there some other method of calculating the average urban rate that would better account for the differences in speed and usage allowance among the service offerings?
        Procedural Matters
        A. Paperwork Reduction Act

        7. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 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).
        B. Filing Requirements
        8. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90 and DA 14-944, and may be filed by paper or by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

         Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
         Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
         All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.s
         Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
         U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        9. In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to each of the following:

        (1) Jay Schwarz, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A134, Washington, DC 20554; email: Jay.Schwarz@fcc.gov;

        (2) Alexander Minard, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A334, Washington, DC 20554; email: Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov.

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

        11. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Rodger Woock,
          Chief, Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau.

        Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Report
        Possible Methodologies for Establishing Reasonably Comparable Broadband Rates for Fixed Services
        June 30, 2014

          Introduction. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission required that as a condition of receiving Connect America Fund support, recipients must offer voice and broadband services in supported areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for similar services in urban areas. The Commission concluded that rural rates for broadband service would be deemed “reasonably comparable” to urban rates if those rates “fall within a reasonable range of the national average urban rate for broadband service.” It delegated authority to the Wireline Competition and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus to conduct an annual survey of urban broadband rates in order to derive a national range of rates for broadband service. In the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether using two standard deviations would be the appropriate methodology for determining reasonable comparability, or should another methodology be used.
        The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) is working to develop an approach for determining an upper range of rates that could be reasonably comparable to urban broadband prices for a broadband service with characteristics similar to a specified minimum download speed, upload speed and usage allowance. Our objective is to develop an approach that is flexible enough to take account any changes the Commission may make in the future regarding broadband performance obligations for recipients of Connect America funding.

        Developing a methodology for setting a reasonably comparable broadband benchmark involves (1) defining terms and scope based on the USF/ICC Transformation Order, (2) creating a sampling plan, (3) processing the collected data, and (4) analyzing the data. We explain below each step in this process, specifying the decisions that the Bureaus have already made regarding the execution of the urban rate survey and identifying the options for analyzing the data that has been collected.

          Implementation of the Survey—Definitions. In 2013, the Bureaus adopted the form and content of the urban rate survey. We decided to compute the “national average urban rate for broadband service” based on the mean of residential, non-promotional, advertised rates offered to potential new customers by firms in urban areas, i.e. list prices. Given this, we designed a survey and methodology to estimate this parameter. The specific statistical interpretation used for development of the survey and estimation from the data collected is given in the Appendix.
        The Bureaus made the decision not to create a national average urban rate that blends rates derived from fixed and mobile data. Satellite broadband also was excluded from the sampling frame. The Bureaus made the decision not to include existing contracts, but instead to collect rates only for new offered service. The Bureaus made the decision to collect rates on all standalone service plans offered to residential customers. As a result, in our sample, for each plan offered, the provider reported the advertised download bandwidth, the advertised upload bandwidth, the usage allowance (if any), and the monthly rate.
        The Bureaus made a decision to define urban rates based on whether the rate was offered in an urban census tract. A census tract was defined as urban if it contained any census-defined Urban Areas or Urban Clusters. Census tracts served as the geographic unit for which providers were asked to report residential broadband rates.

          Survey Sample Selection. A sample of 500 survey units was randomly selected with replacement. These survey units were chosen by the Bureau's Industry Analysis and Technology Division (IATD) in a two-step process. First, 500 census tracts were randomly selected from all urban census tracts (as defined above). Second, for each of these selected census tracts a provider was chosen, using FCC Form 477 data. This census tract-provider pair constitutes a sampling unit for which a survey was sent. Each of these sampling steps is explained below.

        The frame for the selection of urban census tracts was provided by the Excel file “urbantracts_list_all.xls” which listed 58,331 urban census tracts encompassing the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The first phase in the sample selection process was to randomly select, using household weights, 500 census tracts with replacement from this list of urban census tracts. The selection was weighted proportionately by the number of households in the census tracts which was also provided in the file. The selection was performed using the “RandomChoice” function in Mathematica. The selection process produced an Excel file “urban tracts sample broadband.xls” of 498 unique census tracts; two census tracts were each selected twice.
        An Excel file (“broadband_v2”) listing Fixed Broadband service providers reporting subscribers in the 498 unique census tracts in the sample was prepared based on Form 477 December 2012 filings. The file also gave the number of residential connections each provider had in each census tract in the sample.
        For each of the 500 census tracts in the sample, a service provider was randomly selected from the providers of Fixed Broadband service for that census tract as listed in “broadband_v2” using the “RandomChoice” function in Mathematica. Because different providers in the same census tract may offer service to substantially different numbers of households, the selection was weighted based on the number of residential subscribers for each provider in the census tract as now described.
        A service provider was given weight = 1 if the provider had more than 7% of the total residential subscribers in the census tract. Otherwise, the provider was given the weight = 1/(N+1) where N is the number of providers with 7% or less of the total residential subscribers in the census tract. So, if the census tract had only one service provider with 7% or less of the total residential subscribers in the census tract, that service provider had weight 1/2 while all others had weight 1. If the census tract had two service providers each with 7% or less of the total residential subscribers in the census tract, those two service providers each had weight 1/3 while all others had weight 1.

          Survey Data Collection. The Bureau contacted each provider that had been selected in the sampling stage. Each provider was asked to report rates for all standalone broadband plans in one or more census tracts. These providers were asked to report these rates via a specially-designed online system for which each provider was given login access. If a provider did not currently offer residential service in the census tract, the provider would indicate this and otherwise report nothing. Providers reported rates beginning December 17, 2013, continuing for several weeks thereafter.

          Analysis of the Collected Data—Data Preparation. The Bureau received responses for 498 census tracts from 81 service providers. A total of 2211 rows of data were recorded. A total of 63 rows did not provide monthly rate data, for the following reasons:
        • The row gave no indication that the census tract was served by the provider (54).
        • The row was an erroneous entry (4).
        • The row indicated service at a specified level was provided but no rates were given (3).
        • The row indicated that service would be provided at a higher level in the future (1).
        • The row was a duplicate entry (1).
        In two separate cases identical rates were provided for the same service for the same provider in the same census tract; in each of these two cases, the two duplicate rows were merged into a single row. In addition, some service providers offered the same service in a census tract using digital subscriber line (DSL) and fiber to the home (FTTH) technologies reporting rates for each technology on separate rows. There were 41 such cases where the two rows were merged by averaging the rates for DSL and FTTH technologies. As a result, a total of 2105 monthly rates for broadband service were provided by 71 providers for 444 census tracts.
        Values for reported download speeds ranged from 0.5 to 20480 and values for reported upload speeds ranged from 0.125 to 1024. All values were expected to be entered in Mbps, but some respondents evidently entered the relevant data as Kbps. For consistency, speed values entered in the survey were converted as shown in the table below:

          Table 1—Speed Conversions

            Speed entered
            Speed

            0.256 or 256
            0.25

            0.384 or 384
            0.375

            0.512 or 512
            0.5

            0.768 or 768
            0.75

            1.024 or 1024
            1

            20.48 or 20480
            20

        The rates presented below represent the sum of the Monthly Charge, Surcharge, and Other Mandatory Charge (if any) reported by the respondents. In cases where a maximum and minimum charge was provided by the respondent, the average of the maximum and minimum was used.
        Two service offering rates from Nitelog Inc were excluded from the analysis as apparent outliers. The rates were $1,250 and $1,999 for 25/25/Unlimited and 50/50/Unlimited using Fixed Wireless technology. The next highest reported monthly rate was $399.95 for 505/100/250 service.
        One service offering from Digis LLC for 5/5/Unlimited service using Fixed Wireless technology at a monthly rate of $271.45 was also excluded from the analysis as an apparent outlier. The next highest reported monthly rate for 5/×/Unlimited service was $87.45 for 0.75 Mbps upload speed. The third highest reported monthly rate for 5/×/Unlimited service was $61.45 for 2 Mbps upload speed which was also offered by Digis LLC.

          Potential Options. The goal is to develop an approach for determining an upper range of rates that could be reasonably comparable to the national average urban rate for similar broadband services. For purposes of the following discussion, the Bureau defined “similar services” as those with a download speed, upload speed, and usage allowance close to the minimum performance specifications of a download speed of 4 Mbps, an upload speed 1 Mbps, and a usage allowance of 100 GB per month. We note, however, that the options presented could be adapted for use with services offering differing speeds and/or usage allowances and thus would be flexible enough to take account any changes the Commission may make in the future regarding broadband performance obligations.
        The following analysis explicitly does not select a specific methodology or benchmark. Rather, we present several potential methodologies for determining an upper range that could be adopted by the Bureau at a future date as a benchmark and discuss the benefits and challenges of each. The selection of a method and a value to select with that method are decisions that will be made after further public comment.
        The first method is to calculate relatively simple rate statistics for specified subsamples; for example, all rates for observations with the specified download speed, or all rates for observations from providers that offer a service that meets or exceeds a minimum service level. Both of these approaches have the disadvantage of including and/or excluding observations that are close, but not identical to the specified broadband service requirement. A variant of these approaches would be to develop an average rate for a selection of similar services, while testing how sensitive the resulting range is to any given choice of similar services. A third approach uses regression analysis to account for the multiple dimensions of broadband service (i.e. download bandwidth, upload bandwidth, and usage allowance).

        As a general note, in each methodology, we only present in the main body of the text the point estimates. However, it is important to remember that each point estimate has a statistical error and therefore has a confidence interval around it. Thus, if the statistical error is known, we could say with 95% confidence that the population value lay within a specific interval of its estimate from the sample.

          Rate Estimates for Services with the Specified Download Speed. The first approach we consider is the estimation of candidate benchmark values directly from rates from those observations for the specified download speed. Under this approach, we would specify the relevant download speed, say, 4 Mbps, and the relevant cutoff, say, the sample average plus two standard deviations. If rates were normally distributed, this upper bound would represent an unbiased estimate of the rate that was higher than 97.5% of all rates with the download speed of interest. For the reasons discussed below, we would not recommend this approach. However, it has expositional value because it illustrates both the nature of our sample and the problems in trying to define an upper range of rates.
        Table 2 below provides estimates of monthly broadband rate statistics for different download speeds or download speed groups. “Responses” is the number of responses out of the 498 received used in the estimate. “Number of Providers” is the number of different providers represented in the observations. All of the remaining seven columns starting with “Median Rate ($)” contain weighted estimates; for each observation, the weight used was the sum of the weights described earlier for service providers in the census tract of the observation. These weights were used in all methodologies described in this document. “% with Unlimited Usage Allowance” is the weighted estimated percentage of offers for services at the specified speed that have an unlimited usage allowance. In Table 2 we present statistics combining all observations for services with download bandwidths between 3 and 4 Mbps. For the combined 3 through 4 Mbps grouping, the mean plus two standard deviations value is $73.22.

          Table 2—Rate Estimates Within Download Speed Bands

            Downloanspeed (mbps)

            Number ofproviders

            Responses
            Medianrates
              ($)

            Averagerates
              ($)

            Std devrates
              ($)

            Ave+2SDrates
              ($)

            95%Quantile
              ($)

            97.5%Quantile
              ($)

            % Withunlimited
              usage
              allowance

            0-2
            28
            236
            39.78
            40.59
            10.92
            62.43
            53.99
            69.99
            38

            3-4
            45
            242
            44.99
            47.48
            12.87
            73.22
            64.99
            64.99
            50

            5
            12
            67
            45.99
            46.32
            7.27
            60.85
            59.95
            61.45
            23

            6
            14
            125
            49.95
            48.78
            7.60
            63.98
            50.94
            58.97
            23

            7
            5
            33
            45.99
            48.37
            4.94
            58.24
            54.95
            69.49
            20

            8
            4
            17
            50.94
            57.38
            19.27
            95.93
            95.00
            95.00
            29

            9
            2
            2
            62.99
            63.82
            1.44
            66.71
            66.32
            66.32
            100

            10
            18
            47
            52.00
            58.84
            17.44
            93.72
            99.00
            121.45
            76

            11-15
            34
            154
            55.99
            60.56
            15.67
            91.90
            74.99
            74.99
            78

            16-25
            26
            309
            64.95
            61.19
            14.95
            91.10
            75.94
            96.00
            29

            26-50
            43
            292
            76.95
            86.03
            21.17
            128.37
            115.99
            149.00
            54

            51-100
            27
            104
            94.99
            102.45
            33.63
            169.70
            123.00
            200.29
            87

            101-150
            18
            162
            114.95
            123.76
            16.79
            157.34
            144.99
            144.99
            40

            151-1000
            13
            75
            304.99
            281.91
            69.52
            420.95
            399.95
            399.95
            82

        The key drawback of this approach is that it only takes into consideration one dimension of the service (i.e. download bandwidth) even though a priori we would expect upload bandwidth and usage allowances also to be reflected in the price (for example, this approach would average together a 4/0.4/10 service with a 4/4/1,000 service, if both of those existed). The benefit of this approach, if not its practical usefulness, is that it is straightforward and easily understandable.

          Rate Estimates for Service Offerings Meeting or Exceeding a Minimum Service Level. Another approach that focuses on urban rates that meet or exceed a specified minimum service level (MSL) would be to compute the average of the minimal monthly rate for each service provider that meets or exceeds the MSL. To illustrate this approach, a subset of the sample was created consisting of all rates for offerings that met or exceeded the MSL. Then, from this subset, the lowest monthly rate was found for each service provider. For each provider, each census tract with service offered at the provider's lowest rate was included in the estimate. The following table presents estimates of several statistics for monthly service rates based on the observations selected as described above with MSL=4/1/100 and for MSL=10/1/100.

          Table 3—Rate Estimates for Service Offerings Meeting or Exceeding a Minimum Service Level

            MSL
            Providers
            Observations
            Median
            Average
            Ave+2SD
            97.5% Quantile

            4/1/100
            64
            353
            $49.95
            $54.54
            $82.00
            $89.00

            10/1/100
            59
            255
            54.99
            58.05
            84.15
            79.95

        The benefit of this approach is its simplicity and that it includes all providers offering service meeting or exceeding the MSL. The negatives of this approach are that:
        • It incorporates observations into the benchmark for urban services with characteristics that are far above the MSL, which are not “similar” services; and
        • it may exclude services that are very close to, but do not quite meet the MSL.

          A More General Approach to Selecting Sub-samples. Both of the approaches just examined involve the selection of sub-samples for analysis (all those rates for services that deliver the minimum download speed, and the minimum rate for each provider that has at least one service that meets or exceeds the MSL). However, in both cases observations below the MSL (or its proxy) are excluded. A variation on these approaches is to include observations for offerings with differing characteristics within a certain range or ranges below the chosen MSL as well as above the MSL. The challenge of doing so, however, is deciding what is the appropriate range that should be deemed “similar” to the specified performance standard.

          Rate Estimates from a Weighted Linear Regression Model. The third approach is based on a weighted linear regression model. This has an important advantage over the use of simple averages in that it provides a formalized means of estimating the various degrees to which the different service characteristics (download speed, upload speed, and usage allowance) influence rates. However, it also requires similar decisions to those made above. Because inclusion of observations from services dramatically different from a MSL plan might influence the ultimate benchmark, it may be appropriate to use a subsample, that is, to fit a model using data only in the region of interest for the MSL. In particular, we found that standard deviations of rates with less than 15 Mbps download speed tend to be smaller than those at higher download speeds. Consequently, using a model fitting all the data as opposed to one fitting data using observations in the lower range of speeds could result in overestimation of the standard deviation appropriate to the MSL and consequently also the benchmark rate.
        To illustrate this approach, we applied a multidimensional weighted linear regression technique to all services with download bandwidths of 15 Mbps or less. This sub-sample of the data encompassed 995 rates from 65 different providers. The rates in this sub-sample ranged from $11.46 to $151.45 with a weighted standard deviation of $14.22. We undertook a weighted linear regression fit based on the following model:

        Average Monthly Rate ($) = K0 + KD D + KU U − KA A
        for download speed in Mbps (D), upload speed in Mbps (U), and usage allowance in GB (A = 1/UsageAllowance or 0 if unlimited usage) was used. We estimated the parameters as:

        Average Monthly Rate ($) = 41.247 + 1.02463 D + 2.75597 U − 335.676 A.

        The weighted R Squared was 0.30 and each estimated coefficient was significant at the 0.1% confidence level.
        The table below shows the model's average monthly rate estimates for various service levels.

          Table 4—Estimates of Average Monthly Rate Based on the Linear Regression Model

            Speed (Mbps)down/up

            Usage allowance (GB)
            100
            250
            No limit

            3/.5
            $42.34
            $44.36
            $45.70

            3/1
            43.72
            45.73
            47.08

            4/1
            44.74
            46.76
            48.10

            5/.5
            44.39
            46.41
            47.75

            5/1
            45.77
            47.78
            49.13

            6/.5
            45.42
            47.43
            48.77

            6/1
            46.79
            48.81
            50.15

            10/1
            50.89
            52.91
            54.25

        The table below shows the standard deviation of error for the average monthly rate estimates in Table 4.

          Table 5—Standard Deviation of Error in Estimates of Average Monthly Rate in Table 4

            Speed (Mbps) down/up
            Usage allowance (GB)
            100
            250
            No limit

            3/.5
            $0.71
            $0.44
            $0.57

            3/1
            0.74
            0.45
            0.57

            4/1
            0.73
            0.40
            0.52

            5/.5
            0.74
            0.43
            0.54

            5/1
            0.73
            0.39
            0.49

            6/.5
            0.78
            0.47
            0.56

            6/1
            0.75
            0.40
            0.48

            10/1
            0.96
            0.65
            0.65

        A 95% confidence interval for the estimates in Table 4 would be roughly +/− twice the values in Table 5.
        Various quantile levels can be estimated using the following table with the equation
        Monthly Rate Quantile P = Average Monthly Rate + QP SD
        where SD is the weighted standard deviation about the regression fit ($11.87).

          Table 6—Quantiles of the Standard Normal Distribution

            P
            QP

            90%
            1.282

            95%
            1.645

            97.5%
            1.960

            99%
            2.326

        Using the equation above, the table below shows the model's average monthly rates plus twice the standard deviation for the same set of service levels as in Table 4; these values are roughly the 97.5% quantiles for the rates.

          Table 7—Estimates of Average Monthly Rate Plus 2 Standard Deviations  Based on the Linear Regression Model

            Speed (Mbps) down/up
            Usage allowance (GB)
            100
            250
            No limit

            3/.5
            $66.08
            $68.10
            $69.44

            3/1
            67.46
            69.47
            70.82

            4/1
            68.48
            70.50
            71.84

            5/.5
            68.13
            70.15
            71.49

            5/1
            69.51
            71.52
            72.87

            6/.5
            69.16
            71.17
            72.51

            6/1
            70.53
            72.55
            73.89

            10/1
            74.63
            76.65
            77.99

        For example, using the above estimated regression model to set a broadband reasonable comparability benchmark for the minimum service characteristics based on the average rate plus twice the standard deviation:
        • If the minimum broadband performance standard is 4/1 Mbps with a 100 GB usage allowance, then the reasonable comparability benchmark would be $68.48.
        • If the minimum broadband performance standard is 10/1 Mbps with a 100 GB usage allowance, then the reasonable comparability benchmark would be $74.63.
        Not surprisingly, these numbers are lower than the results of the second approach which includes observations that exceed the specified minimum service standard. These estimates from linear regression take into account various service characteristics, while the previous approach utilized observations for services with differing service characteristics without adjusting for those characteristics. We note, however, these are only examples.

          Technical Background. The sample process was designed to estimate the mean and standard deviation of the distribution of available service rates for broadband service in urban areas. These estimates could then be used as input for establishing benchmarks; for example, the mean plus twice the standard deviation is a possible upper limit based on the approximate 97.5 percentile of a normal distribution.
        At a conceptual level, the “distribution of available service rates in urban areas” could be captured through the following process:
        1. For each household in an urban area in the United States, list all the service providers offering fixed broadband service to that household and the service rates they offer for each level of service.

        2. Concatenate all the lists from each household into a single list.

        The resulting list of rates is the distribution of available service rates in urban areas for fixed broadband service at various levels of service.
        If we were to focus on the rates for a specific level of service, the mean and standard deviation of available rates would be

          EP21JY14.002

        From a practical standpoint, an equivalent result may be obtained by surveying service providers offering the relevant service in urban areas to obtain data on their rates. In this frame, the equivalent mean of the distribution of available rates is obtained as the weighted sum of rates offered by service providers in each census tract. Similarly, the equivalent standard deviation of the distribution of available rates is obtained as the square root of the weighted sum of squared differences between the mean rate of the distribution and rates offered by service providers in each census tract.

          EP21JY14.004

        In order to estimate the mean and the standard deviation, a sample of service providers offering fixed broadband service were surveyed for rates they offer in a sample of urban census tracts. The sampling process was as follows:
        • A census tract i was randomly selected with probability H
          i/H where H
          i is the number of households in census tract i and H is the sum of the H
          i over all census tracts.
        • A carrier k was randomly selected from the K
          i carriers offering service in census tract i with probability W
          ik/W
          i

        • This process is repeated n = 500 times to obtain 500 sampling units. We note that sampling units could appear multiple times in the sample.
        The mean of the rate distribution was estimated as the ratio of total dollars in rate offers to the total number of rates. We note that the total number of available rates is not known, so it must be estimated from the sample as well as the estimate of total dollars in rate offers. Consequently, an estimate of the mean of available rates based on this sample is

          EP21JY14.005

          where

            X
            j = W
            ik
            Y
            ik from the jth sampling unit (census tract i and carrier k),

            P
            j = probability of selecting the jth sampling unit = (H
            i/H)
            (W
            ik/W
            i
            ) for the jth sampling unit,

            Z
            j = Wi from the jth sampling unit,

            Q
            j = probability of selecting the jth urban area = H
            i/H)

        The estimate of the mean can be simplified to

          EP21JY14.006

        where Y
          j is the rate Y
          ik and F
          j is W
          i/H
          i for the jth sampling unit.

        The values for the W
          i are not known. As described in the main text, weights between 0 and 1 were assigned to carriers in each census tract of the sample based on their share of residential subscribers in the tract. These weights are expressions of W
          ik/H
          i (the fraction of households carrier k offers service in census tract i) and therefore F
          i is the sum of these weights for carriers in census tract i. Similarly, the estimate of the standard deviation is

          EP21JY14.007

      [FR Doc. 2014-17117 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Two Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notification of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on two petitions to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate status reviews of the Temblor legless lizard (Anniella alexanderae) and Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) to determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the species and factors that may affect their status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month petition findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on June 17, 2021. As we commence our status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or their habitats. Any information we receive during the course of our status reviews will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are initiating status reviews, please provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the “Search” button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more information).

            Species common name
            Contact person

            Temblor legless lizard

            Michael Fris, Project Leader, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 916-414-6700, Michael_Fris@fws.gov.

            Santa Ana speckled dace

            Scott Sobiech, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760-431-9440, Scott_Sobiech@fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., “list” a species), remove a species from the List (i.e., “delist” a species), or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify” a species) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).

        A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
        If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table—Status Reviews

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Temblor legless lizard
            FWS-R8-ES-2021-0024

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2021-0024.

            Santa Ana speckled dace
            FWS-R8-ES-2021-0023

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2021-0023.

        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Temblor Legless Lizard
        Species and Range
        Temblor legless lizard (Anniella alexanderae); California.
        Petition History
        On October 20, 2020, we received a petition dated the same, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that we list the Temblor legless lizard as an endangered or threatened species and designate critical habitat for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Temblor legless lizard due to potential threats associated with the following: Oil and gas development, urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and industrial solar projects (Factor A); and climate change and wildfires (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0024 under Supporting Documents.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Santa Ana Speckled Dace
        Species and Range
        Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus); Southern California.
        Petition History
        On May 11, 2020, we received a petition dated the same, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that we list the Southern California population of the speckled dace (Santa Ana speckled dace), either as a taxonomically defined species or as a distinct population segment under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), as an endangered or threatened species and designate critical habitat for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned entity (Santa Ana speckled dace) may be a distinct population segment (DPS) and that the petitioned action may be warranted due to potential threats associated with the following: Dams, reservoirs, and water diversions; barriers to migration and movement; roads; pollution; mining; concentrated recreational use; and off-road vehicle use (Factor A); predation (Factor C); and drought, wildfires and flooding, introduced species, climate change, and population fragmentation (Factor E). We further find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to fully ameliorate the identified threats (Factor D), although there is also information indicating that these regulatory mechanisms and other conservation efforts provide some protection to the Santa Ana speckled dace.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0023 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Temblor legless lizard and Santa Ana speckled dace present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
        Request for Information for Status Reviews
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
        (d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends.
        (2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above) that are the basis for making a listing, delisting, or reclassification determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning the status review by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, as well as information that is readily available, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Martha Williams,
          Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-12814 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P