        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42, and 09-197; Report No. 3087]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Joe Redcloud on behalf of Oceti Sakowin Tribal Utility Authority, and John J. Heitmann on behalf of Telrite Corporation d/b/a Life Wireless; i-wireless, LLC; and AmeriMex Communications Corp. d/b/a SafetyNet Wireless.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 19, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 27, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jessica Campbell, phone: 202-418-3609, jessica.campbell@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3087, released February 22, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Bridging the Digital Divide for Low Income Consumers, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, FCC 17-155, published at 83 FR 2075, January 16, 2018, in WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42, and 09-097. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2018-04359 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0030; FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) from 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 petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Bone Cave harvestman or its habitat at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on June 1, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the petition are available in the docket associated with this notice at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://fws.gov/southwest/es/austintexas/ or upon request from the Field Supervisor of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone at 512-490-0057; or by facsimile at 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in a 12-month finding.
        Petition History
        On June 2, 2014, we received a petition from John Yearwood, Kathryn Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, the Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, the American Stewards of Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers requesting that we remove the endangered Bone Cave harvestman from the Federal lists of endangered and threatened species. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
        Previous Federal Actions

        The Bone Cave harvestman was originally listed as endangered on September 16, 1988 (53 FR 36029). In an August 18, 1993, Federal Register document (58 FR 43818), the Service gave the Bone Cave harvestman protection under the Act as a separate species. It had previously been listed as endangered as a part of the Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli), which was subsequently re-classified into two species, and this final rule set forth technical corrections to ensure that the species continued to receive protection under the Act. On March 14, 1994, we published a 90-day finding (59 FR 11755) on a petition to delist the Bone Cave harvestman in which we found that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may have been warranted. A draft recovery plan was available for public review and comment on June 7, 1993, and a final recovery plan was published on August 25, 1994 (Service 1994). On December 4, 2009, we completed a 5-year review of the Bone Cave harvestman, which recommended that the species remain listed as endangered (Service 2009).
        Species Information

        For information on the biology and life history of the Bone Cave harvestman, see the final rule listing this species (53 FR 36029), the Endangered Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan for Travis and Williamson Counties (Service 1994), and the 5-year Status Review for the Bone Cave Harvestman (Service 2009), all posted at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=J009. For information on preserve design and management for karst invertebrate species conservation, see the Karst Preserve Design Recommendations (Service 2012) and the Karst Preserve Management and Monitoring Recommendations (Service 2014) posted at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_KarstInverts.html.

        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any species, including subspecies, of fish, or wildlife, or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are listed under the Act if we determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the lists of endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
        (1) The species is extinct;
        (2) the species is recovered; or
        (3) the original data for classification were in error. According to 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), a species may be delisted when subsequent investigations “show that the best scientific and commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.”
        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether the petition presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action (delisting) may be warranted.
        The petition did not assert that the Bone Cave harvestman is extinct, nor do we have information in our files indicating that the species is extinct.
        The petition asserted that new information indicates that the original data, or our interpretation of the data, used in the listing of this species were in error. The petition also states that significant conservation has been put in place since the species was listed, such that the species is recovered.
        In 2009, we conducted a 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 2009). The purpose of a 5-year status review is to evaluate whether or not the species' status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on a 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the lists of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. As part of the 2009 Bone Cave harvestman review, we evaluated whether the species had met the recovery criteria laid out in the species' recovery plan (Service 1994, pp. 86-89).
        Our recovery handbook (Service 2010) points out that recovery criteria should address the biodiversity principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Schaffer and Stein 2000).

        Resiliency is defined as the ability of a species to persist through severe hardships or stochastic events (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841). A variety of factors contribute to a species' resiliency. These can include how sensitive the species is to disturbances or stressors in its environment, how often they reproduce and how many young they have, and their specific habitat needs. A species' resiliency can also be affected by the resiliency of individual populations and the number of populations and their distribution across the landscape. Protecting multiple populations and variation of a species across its range may contribute to its resiliency, especially if some populations or habitats are more susceptible or better adapted to certain threats than others (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994). The ability of individuals from populations to disperse and recolonize an area that has been extirpated may also influence the species' resiliency. As population size and habitat quality increase, the population's ability to persist through periodic hardships also increases. Healthy populations are more resilient and better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), and variation in rainfall and/or temperatures (environmental stochasticity).

        Redundancy is defined as ensuring a sufficient number of populations to provide a margin of safety to reduce the risk of losing a species or certain representation (variation) within a species due to catastrophic events or other threats. Redundancy is essential for long-term viability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 307, 309-310; Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). This provides a margin of safety for a species to withstand catastrophic events (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) by decreasing the chance of any one event affecting the entire species. Redundancy is about spreading risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species.
        Representation is defined as conserving “some of everything” with regard to genetic and ecological diversity to allow for future adaptation and maintenance of evolutionary potential. Representation and the adaptive capabilities (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) of the Bone Cave harvestman are also important for long-term viability. Because a species' genetic makeup is shaped through natural selection by the environments it has experienced (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308), populations should be protected in the array of different environments in which the invertebrate species occur as a strategy to ensure genetic representation, adaptive capability, and conservation of the species. Generally, the more representation, or diversity, the species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes (natural or human caused) in its environment.
        The recovery plan for the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 1994, pp. 86-88) identifies criteria for reclassification (from endangered to threatened), but does not include delisting criteria because we were uncertain about prospects for recovery and delisting of the species. These recovery criteria are a way of measuring our progress toward recovery. The recovery plan identifies two criteria for reclassifying the species from endangered to threatened:
        (1) Three karst fauna areas (if at least three exist) within each karst fauna region in its range are protected in perpetuity. If fewer than three karst fauna areas exist within a given karst fauna region, then all karst fauna areas within that region should be protected.
        (2) Criterion (1) has been maintained for at least 5 consecutive years with assurances that these areas will remain protected in perpetuity.
        There are six karst fauna regions in Travis and Williamson Counties that are known to contain the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 1994, p. 33): North Williamson, Georgetown, McNeil/Round Rock, Cedar Park, Jollyville Plateau, and Central Austin. These regions are used as a way to facilitate conservation of representation and redundancy (as defined above) throughout the species' range.

        For the purposes of the recovery plan, a karst fauna area “is an area known to support one or more locations of a listed species and is distinct in that it acts as a system that is separated from other karst fauna areas by geologic and hydrologic features and/or processes that create barriers to the movement of water, contaminants, and troglobitic fauna” that live their entire lives underground (Service 1994, p. 76). Karst fauna areas should be far enough apart so that if a catastrophic event (for example, contamination of the water supply, flooding, disease) were to destroy one of the areas, that event would not likely destroy any other area occupied by that species (Service 1994, p. 76).
        To be considered “protected,” a karst fauna area must be sufficiently large to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which the species depends (Service 1994, p. 87). In addition, these areas must also provide protection from threats such as red imported fire ants, habitat destruction, and contaminants.

        The overall recovery strategy for the Bone Cave harvestman includes the perpetual protection and management of an adequate quantity and quality of habitat (three karst fauna areas in each karst fauna regions) that spans the species' geographic range and provides a high probability of the species' recovery and survival over the long term. Adequate quality (as discussed below) and quantity of habitat refers to both size and number of preserved karst fauna areas that are sufficient for supporting the karst invertebrates and the ecosystems upon which they depend (Service 2011, p. 16). The recovery plan criteria call for three karst fauna areas (preserves) in each karst fauna region. The size of karst fauna area preserves should be large enough to ensure resiliency as discussed above and to protect the environmental integrity of the karst ecosystems upon which the species depends. The number of karst fauna area preserves called for in the recovery criteria provides redundancy for the species. A minimal level of redundancy is essential to provide a margin of safety for the species to reduce the risk of losing the species or representation (variation) within the species from catastrophic events or other threats (Shaffer and Stein 2000 pp. 307, 309-310, Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). The Bone Cave harvestman has significant geographic variability across its range, and loss of a significant number of locations in part of its range could result in loss of genetic and ecological diversity. The conservation of multiple karst fauna area preserves across the Bone Cave harvestman's range should provide representation of the breadth of its genetic and ecological diversity to conserve its adaptive capabilities (Schaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308).
        Adequate quality of habitat refers to (1) the condition and configuration of preserved lands with respect to the known localities for the species and (2) the ability of the species' needs to be met to sustain viable populations. Due to the uncertainty in determining population viability of the Bone Cave harvestman, the design of preserves for its protection should be based on estimates and assumptions that favor a high probability for recovery of this species and the ecosystems upon which it depends as discussed below.
        The Endangered Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan for Travis and Williamson Counties (Service 1994) calls for protecting karst fauna areas sufficiently large to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which the species depends. This focus on the ecosystem is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which includes “to provide a means whereby the ecosystem upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” Therefore, we recommend designing karst fauna area preserves to protect occupied karst feature(s) and associated mesocaverns (humanly impassable voids). For further guidance on how to provide for adequate quantity and quality of habitat at specific invertebrate locations, we have developed and refer to our Karst Preserve Design Recommendations (Service 2012).
        According to our preserve design guidelines (Service 2012, p. 3-5), karst fauna area preserves should include the following: (1) Surface and subsurface drainage basins of at least one occupied cave or karst feature; (2) a minimum of 16 to 40 hectares (ha) (40 to 100 acres (ac)) of contiguous, unfragmented, undisturbed land to maintain native plant and animal communities around the feature and protect the subsurface karst community; (3) 105-meter (m) (345-feet (ft)) radius undisturbed area from each cave footprint for cave cricket foraging (cave crickets are an important source of nutrient input to the karst ecosystem) and to minimize deleterious edge effects; and (4) preserves should be free of pipelines, storage tanks, or other facilities (for example, water retention ponds) that could cause contamination.
        In addition, due to the uncertainty in determining population viability and habitat requirements of the Bone Cave harvestman, the design of preserves for its protection should be based on estimates and assumptions that favor a high probability for recovery of the species and the ecosystems upon which it depends. This method follows a precautionary approach, which provides guidance to avert irreversible risk when facing uncertainty (Service 2012, p. A-1). The best available scientific information indicates that this species cannot be reintroduced into existing habitat. Life-history characteristics of this species indicate that it requires stable temperature and humidity (Barr 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250) and suggest that this species cannot be reintroduced because it cannot withstand surface climatic conditions.
        According to anecdotal reports provided to our field office, limited efforts to maintain karst invertebrates in a lab setting have been unsuccessful. Additionally, captive propagation techniques have not been developed for karst invertebrates and may be challenging to develop because of their specific adaptations to subterranean environment. Further, the sample size that would likely be needed to reintroduce a population into a new location cannot be obtained from existing populations due to the cryptic nature of this species and the fact that often only a few individuals are observed per cave survey. Therefore, an attempt to re-establish a population after it has been extirpated is not feasible at this time. In addition, if a preserve is later found to be insufficient to support the species due to surrounding developments being either too close or too dense, the potential for adequately conserving the site is lost.
        Because the Bone Cave harvestman has a relatively long life span and low requirements for food, a decline in population size or even the complete extirpation of the population due to the influence of development or other threats may take years or even decades. Observations of this species over several years on a preserve that is too small for perpetual species preservation may not allow detection of declines that are actually occurring. If these observations are used as evidence that a preserve size was adequate, then the potential for long-term preservation of the species may be lost due to irreversible development surrounding the preserve. Therefore, preserve sizes should be established with caution and be large enough to account for the uncertainty in area requirements for a population.

        According to the petition there are now more known occupied locations identified; there were 6 confirmed caves at listing, 60 confirmed caves at the time the recovery plan was drafted, and 168 confirmed caves in 2009 when the 5-year status review was completed (53 FR 36029, Service 1994, 2009). The petition also states that more locations are likely to be found. We acknowledge there are more known locations since the time those documents were completed and the increase is likely an increase in our knowledge, not a true increase in the number of populations or range; however, species are listed under the Act based on threats and not just the number of sites or size of the range.
        In addition, the petition states that 94 karst preserve areas are currently providing significant conservation. However, many of the existing protected areas referenced in the petition are too small to meet our preserve design recommendations. As part of the 2009 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman, we reviewed the status of all of the known locations of the harvestman (including 83 of the 94 mentioned in the petition) to assess whether the criteria from the recovery plan to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened had been met for the Bone Cave harvestman. We considered the habitat size and condition to evaluate whether the locations could meet the preserve design recommendations (a reflection of the potential to support a resilient population) and then also looked at whether legally binding mechanisms were in place to provide protection of these sites over the long term (in perpetuity).
        Of the locations known at the time of the 5-year review, 21 areas appeared to have the ability to meet the preserve design criteria. Our status review refers to 21 areas, while the petition indicates that the status review considered 28 sites. This discrepancy is because the petition considers each individual cave location, while our status review considered closely located caves to be part of the same karst fauna area. Of these 21 areas, 1 is no longer confirmed to have the species (Barker Ranch Cave No. 1), and 5 are now protected karst fauna areas (Priscilla's Well, Twin Springs, Cobbs Cavern, Karankawa, and Tooth Cave).
        In addition, at most of the remaining locations (of the 21 areas) we are lacking information to confirm that they meet the preserve design criteria (such as surface and subsurface drainage basins, tract acreage, exact locations of the cave, and management activities to protect against threats, such as red imported fire ants). Also, many of these areas do not have a legally binding mechanism that ensures perpetual protection and management. Hence, we are unsure whether those areas have adequate undeveloped acreage, management, or protection mechanisms to ensure the long-term protection and survival of the Bone Cave harvestman.
        Of the five protected karst fauna areas that meet preserve design criteria, four occur in the North Williamson County Karst Fauna Region and one occurs in the Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna Region. However, this species occurs in six karst fauna regions, and four of these have no protected karst fauna areas that are confirmed to meet preserve design recommendations. Therefore, the best available information indicates that the criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened for this species have not been met, nor has adequate representation and redundancy (three karst fauna areas in each karst fauna region) been protected throughout the species' range, leaving the species vulnerable to existing threats including habitat destruction.
        The petition asserts that four additional locations are known since the time of the 5-year review. However, the petition does not provide adequate information that would support whether these four additional locations are in a condition to meet preserve design recommendations. Based on information in our files, we are aware of one additional cave since the 5-year review that may meet preserve design recommendations in the North Williamson Karst Fauna Region; however, it is privately owned, and we are unsure about the property acreage and if the site receives any type of protection or management. Regardless, the amount of protected karst fauna area still falls short of the criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened.
        Further, we reviewed 83 of the 94 caves identified in the petition as receiving some level of protection in the 5-year review. Two of the caves that we did not review (Cobbs Cavern and Whitney West Cave) are now in confirmed karst fauna areas mentioned above (Cobbs Cavern and Twin Springs), one (Pond Party Pit) is in the Beard Ranch Cave area discussed in the 5-year review, and we have no locality information or taxonomic verifications for the remaining caves and this information was not provided in the petition.
        The petition also asserts that threats to the species are not as severe as originally thought. We evaluate that information, below, in respect to the five listing factors.

          Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range. In the 1988 listing rule (53 FR 36029), we stated that the primary threat to the Bone Cave harvestman was the potential loss of habitat due to development activities, which could result in filling in or collapsing of caves; alteration of drainage patterns; increase in flow of sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, and urban run-off into caves; and increase in human visitation and vandalism.
        We also considered additional information on threats to the species when we developed the recovery plan for the species (Service 1994, pp. 59-65) and when we conducted the 5-year status review of the species (Service 2009, p. 2), in which we concluded that no change in the species' status (that is, reclassification to threatened or delisting) was warranted. We also reviewed available threat information in our files and in a 1993 petition when we made our negative 90-day finding on that petition to de-list (59 FR 11755).

        The current petition asserts that “Development activities on the surface may not result in the significant loss or degradation of habitat for T. reyesi as originally thought” and suggests that evidence of this is the species persistence in caves surrounded by developed areas. Examples given in the petition are Inner Space Caverns, Sun City caves, Weldon Cave, Three-Mile Cave, and Four-Mile Cave. However, the observation of the species in these locations does not mean their populations at these locations are thriving or can withstand the long-term impacts from development activities that are expected to occur to karst invertebrate populations in developed areas as discussed in the listing rule, recovery plan, and 5-year status review for the Bone Cave harvestman.

        Bone Cave harvestman populations may be declining or threatened even though they are still observed at a specific site. Information adequate to detect population trends for this species is not readily available and was not provided in the petition. This species has life-history strategies that include characteristics such as low metabolic and reproductive rates, long life spans, and inherently low sample sizes, which make it difficult to detect population response to possible impacts (Poulson and White 1969, p. 977, Howarth 1983, p. 374). We indicated in the 1994 90-day petition finding (59 FR 11755) that more time was needed to detect if the species was declining; however, while more time has passed, we are still lacking adequate data to conduct a trend analysis at most locations, given that it can take decades to detect population trends due to small sample sizes, the difficulty surveying for the species, and their long life spans.

        In addition, some of the threats from development are due to the increased probability of chance events occurring in the future, such as a contaminant event like a pipeline leak, which exists because more contamination sources are in the vicinity of species' locations due to development.
        The petition states that several Sun City caves are examples of areas where the species can persist in developed areas. However, the petition failed to provide data adequate to assess trends in the karst invertebrate populations since the development occurred. In addition, we worked with the Sun City developers when they designed the project to develop strategies that we believed at the time would avoid or minimize the possibility of “take” to listed karst species. While we now believe that most of the Sun City cave preserves are too small to meet our preserve design recommendations for recovery and long-term survival (Service 2012), we expect that the strategies and measures put in place likely have reduced the rate of impacts to the species.
        The commercial cave known as Inner Space Caverns is another example the petition provided where the Bone Cave harvestman continues to persist in a developed area. Although the Bone Cave harvestman may be present at Inner Space Caverns, this does not ensure their populations are robust and secure; they may still be declining, and are at risk due to competition with surface-dwelling invertebrates and other threats associated with development such as the potential for contamination. This cave has an overgrowth of blue-green algae growing near cave lights where the petition states that this species has been observed. This type of algae is known as “lampenflora” and favors surface-dwelling invertebrate species that can out-compete karst invertebrate species (Mulec and Kosi 2009, p. 109, Culver 1986, p. 438), such as the Bone Cave harvestman. The petition failed to provide any data adequate to assess trends in the karst invertebrate population in relation to the time (duration and frequency) that they have been exposed to the artificial lighting. Additionally, part of the cave footprint occurs under a major interstate highway and train tracks, which both present a threat of a contaminant spill that could impact the species in the future.
        Weldon Cave was another example in the petition of a cave occupied by the Bone Cave harvestman within a developed area. Based on the best available information in our files this cave is surrounded by undeveloped open space. Other than a small portion of the subsurface drainage basin potentially being impacted by a school campus, this cave appears to meet our preserve design recommendations but is not within a developed area, as asserted in the petition. Three-Mile Cave and Four-Mile Cave were also provided in the petition as examples of developed caves wherein the Bone Cave harvestman is known to occur. According to the petition, surveys conducted by SWCA in 2008 and 2009 documented the Bone Cave harvestman at these locations. However, detailed survey data were not provided by the petitioners and were not in the SWCA 2009 “Annual Report of Activities Involving Endangered Karst Invertebrates under Threatened and Endangered Species Permit TE800611-2.”

        The petition also states that, since the Bone Cave harvestman uses mesocaverns, it is protected from surface development activities because mesocaverns are “geologically protected.” We are unclear why the petition contends that mesocaverns are protected because mesocaverns are subject to rapid permeation of surface water (Cowan et al. 2007, p. 160), and karst landscapes (including mesocaverns) are particularly susceptible to groundwater contamination because water penetrates rapidly through bedrock conduits providing little or no filtration (White 1988, p. 149).
        One of the major threats to the Bone Cave harvestman is habitat loss due to increasing urbanization. The Bone Cave harvestman is a troglobite, meaning it lives its entire life underground. Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal communities for nutrient input.

        Caves in central Texas that are occupied by federally listed karst invertebrates, such as the Bone Cave harvestman, receive energy (or nutrients) primarily from (1) detritus (decomposing organic matter) that falls or is washed into the caves and (2) energy brought into the caves by cave crickets (Ceuthophilus spp.) (Barr 1968, p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2; Lavoie et al. 2007, p. 114; Taylor 2003, p. 3, 2004, p. 2, 2005, p. 97), which are found in most Texas caves (Reddell 1966, p. 33). Cave crickets forage widely in the surface habitat surrounding the cave. Karst invertebrates feed on the cave cricket eggs (Mitchell 1971, p. 251), feces (Barr 1968, pp. 51-53, Poulson et al. 1995, p. 226), and directly on the crickets themselves (Elliott 1994, p. 15).

        Development within urbanized areas can destroy or alter the surface plant and animal communities on which karst invertebrates depend. As development increases within the cave crickets' foraging area, there may be dramatic shifts in the available food supply within the cave (Taylor et al. 2007, p. 7). The leaf litter and other decomposing material that make up most of the detritus from the surface plant and animal community may also be reduced or altered, resulting in a reduction of nutrient and energy flow into the cave. A study by Taylor et al. (2007) compared caves in urbanized areas that were impacted by development to those in natural areas and found that, even though a small area within a largely urbanized ecosystem may support a cave community where karst invertebrates are occasionally seen, these populations are significantly lower than those found in caves in more natural, less developed ecosystems, most likely as a result of reduced nutrient input. Another study at Lakeline Cave in Travis County, Texas, was conducted in association with the issuance of a habitat conservation plan and accompanying section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued for Lakeline Mall. That study is based on data collected from 1992 through 2011, and it documented a significant decline during that 20-year timeframe in another endangered karst invertebrate, Rhadine persephone, and cave crickets as development increased (ZARA 2012, pp. 8, 10, 12). Further, at Lakeline Mall Cave, no more than three Bone Cave harvestmen have been observed during any single survey (ZARA 2012, p. 11). Also, no Bone Cave harvestmen were seen during 6 years (1993, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2009, and 2010) and 12 surveys in Lakeline Mall Cave (ZARA 2012, p. 11).

        Available information in our files supports our projection in the 1988 listing rule that development and human population would continue to increase within the range of the species. The population of the City of Austin grew from 251,808 people in 1970 to 735,088 people in 2007 (City of Austin 2007). This represents a 192-percent increase over the 37-year period. Population projections from the Texas State Data Center (2012, pp. 496-497), estimate that Travis County will increase 94 percent in population from 1,024,266 in 2010, to 1,990,820 in 2050. The Texas State Data Center also estimates an increase in human population in Williamson County from 422,679 in 2010, to 2,015,294 in 2050 representing a 377-percent increase over a 40-year timeframe. All human population projections from the Texas State Data Center presented here are under a high-growth scenario, which assumes that migration rates from 2000 to 2010 will continue through 2050 (Texas State Data Center and the Office of the State Demographer 2012, p. 9). Urbanization and human population growth and development were identified as a threat in the original 1988 listing rule and continue to represent a threat to the species.

          Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. In the 1988 listing rule for the Bone Cave harvestman, we did not identify any threats under this factor. Likewise, the petition and our review of the information in our files did not identify any threats under this factor.

          Factor C: Disease or predation. In the 1988 listing rule, we stated that increased human population increases the threat of predation by and competition with exotic (non-native) and native surface-dwelling species, such as sow bugs, cockroaches, and red imported fire ants. The petition states that “Recent studies suggest that fire ants may not present as significant or as lasting of a threat to the species as originally believed.” The information cited regarding red imported fire ants is identified in the petition as an article by Porter and Savignano (1990), which we previously considered in our finding on the 1993 petition, and another study by Morrison (2002). The petition states that “a subsequent study by Morrison in 2002 revisited the Porter and Savignano (1990) study area 12 years later and replicated their study.

        Morrison (2002, pp. 2341, 2343-2344) found that arthropod communities had rebounded to pre-RIFA [red imported fire ant]-invasion levels and that all measures of native ant and other arthropod species' diversity had returned to pre-invasion levels. Red imported fire ants were still the most abundant ant species, but not nearly as abundant as during the initial red imported fire ants infestation. He concluded that the impacts to arthropod communities by red imported fire ants might be greatest during and shortly after the initial invasion, but long-term impacts are likely not as significant as once believed. However, we note that Morrison (2002, p. 2342) also states that “it is quite likely that red imported fire ants did contribute directly or indirectly to the disappearance or reduction in numbers of species” and that their study “should not be interpreted as an indication that detrimental effects of invasive ants will simply disappear with time.” In addition, this is not “new information” as we have already reviewed these articles and considered the information they provided in the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan (Service 2011, p. 12) and in our Karst Preserve Management and Monitoring Recommendations (Service 2014, p. 3), which is applicable here as all central Texas endangered karst invertebrates have similar life-history characteristics, and one of the Bexar County invertebrates is in the same genus (Texella) as the Bone Cave harvestman. In addition, red imported fire ants have been found within and near many caves in central Texas and have been observed feeding on dead troglobites, cave crickets, and other species within caves (Elliott 1992, p. 13, 1994, p. 15, 2000, pp. 668, 768; Reddell 1993, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3).

          Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The 1988 listing rule states that “there are currently no laws that protect any of these species or that indirectly address protection of their habitat.”
        While the petition did discuss some new ordinances that appear to have been put in place since the time of listing, we do not have enough information to indicate whether or not these State and local ordinances provide enough protection from all threats to the Bone Cave harvestman.
        The petition states that “the regulatory landscape includes a number of measures contributing to the conservation of the species outside of the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.” For example, they say that protections offered though the City of Austin are adequate to protect the species in Austin, Texas. In the course of our work, we have reviewed these regulations and understand that most caves that are defined by the City of Austin's Environmental Criteria Manual as a cave are provided a 46- to 91-m (150- to 300-ft) set-back area (City of Austin 2014, p. 13-3). However, a 46-m (150-ft) or 91-m (300-ft) set-back is not adequate to meet our preserve design criteria, does not protect the cave cricket foraging area, and potentially does not include the surface and subsurface drainage basins. Further, it is not applicable across the range of the Bone Cave harvestman because the species occurs in Travis and Williamson Counties and the City of Austin does not cover all of those counties.
        The petition states that the City of Georgetown Water Quality Management Plan for the Georgetown salamander will offer protection to the Bone Cave harvestman. They state that this plan encourages the use of best management practices to protect water quality at Georgetown salamander locations. However, there are few Bone Cave harvestman locations that occur near Georgetown salamander locations, so any protection offered to the harvestman would be limited. Further, it is not clear from the petition whether this mechanism is voluntary or if it is regulatory or if it is currently in effect. In addition, the petition did not provide enough detail for us to evaluate all benefits this plan would provide to the Bone Cave harvestman, and it appears that participation in this plan is at least in part voluntary.
        The petition states that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Edwards Rules provide protection to recharge features on the Edwards Plateau and that this provides protection from pollution to the Bone Cave harvestman. In a discussion of Factor D in the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan (Service 2011, p. 13), we state that “the TCEQ water quality regulations do not provide much protection to the species' habitat (see 65 FR 81419-81433 for more information). For example, while some TCEQ practices provide protection from water quality impacts, others, such as sealing cave entrances for water quality reasons, can harm karst invertebrates.” Sealing cave entrances can be harmful by blocking off water (leading to drying) and nutrient input to the karst invertebrate habitat. In addition, not all of the caves and mesocaverns that the Bone Cave harvestman occurs in are considered recharge features and, therefore, would not receive some of the water quality protection measures. Also, not all locations of the Bone Cave harvestman are under the jurisdiction of the Edwards Rules.

          Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. In the 1988 listing rule, we stated that this species is extremely vulnerable to losses because of its severely limited range and because of its naturally limited ability to colonize new habitats. We also stated that the very small size of the species habitat units and the fragile nature of cave ecosystems make them vulnerable to even isolated acts of vandalism. The petition states, “Inner Space Cavern demonstrates that the species can persist in caves with frequent human visitation and may be more tolerant of related habitat modification than originally believed.” They also provide Three-Mile Cave and Four-Mile Cave as examples of caves that have experienced human use yet the species persists. The petition contends that, since the Bone Cave harvestman exists in Inner Space Caverns, human visitation is not a threat. The petition also states that Three-mile and Four-mile Cave had graffiti from the 1890s, 1920s, and 1950s. Yet, no detailed information was provided to demonstrate if these caves experienced continued human use. The petition also indicates that Four-Mile Cave was inaccessible to humans prior to 2009 due to boulders blocking the entrance. In addition, the petition provided no trend analysis for these caves. As stated earlier, the observation of the species in these locations does not mean the populations at these locations have not been impacted (in a way that is short of extirpation) or can withstand the long-term impacts that are expected to occur to karst invertebrate populations in developed areas or from human visitation.

        In the species 5-year status review (Service 2009, p. 18) we said, “Although climate change was not identified as a threat to T. reyesi in the original listing document or in the recovery plan, the species' dependence on stable temperatures and humidity levels opens the possibility of climatic change impacting this species. Therefore, while it appears reasonable to assume that T. reyesi may be affected, we lack sufficient certainty to know how climate change will affect this species.”
        The petitioners state that “the use of small voids or `mesocaverns' within the geologic formations known to support occupied caves mitigates the potential threat of climate change.” We acknowledge that mesocaverns may provide some protection from fluctuations in temperature and humidity that may be induced by climate change. However, the presence of mesocaverns alone will likely not be sufficient to ameliorate all of the effects that climate change may pose to this species. Karst invertebrates depend on stable temperatures and high humidity (Barr 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250). The temperatures in caves are typically the average annual temperature of the surface habitat and vary much less than the surface environment (Howarth 1983, p. 372, Dunlap 1995, p. 76). If average surface temperatures increase, this could result in increased in-cave temperatures, which could affect the Bone Cave harvestman.
        Increased and/or more severe storms as well as prolonged periods of high temperatures and drought between rainfall events associated with predicted climate change effects may also impact the cave environment. Changes in rainfall regimes may affect the harvestman in several ways, including directly either through flooding or indirectly by modifying their habitat or nutrient availability. Changes in rainfall regimes could (1) alter the moisture levels within the caves leaving them drier between floods, which could lead to desiccation of the Bone Cave harvestman and (2) affect the amount and timing of nutrients washed into a cave, potentially resulting in longer periods between nutrient input. These changes to drier and less suitable conditions in the caves will likely cause the Bone Cave harvestman to retreat farther into mesocaverns and away from nutrients that are thought to be located in larger cave passages (Howarth 1987, pp. 5-7), causing individuals to spend more energy trying to acquire nutrients in an already stressed environment. In addition, caves in arid regions have been shown to have smaller invertebrate populations and diversity due to less moisture and nutrient availability (George Veni, National Cave and Karst Research Institute, pers. comm. 2010). Since the Bone Cave harvestman is also sensitive to these habitat parameters, it is reasonable to predict that climate change could affect its populations in a similar manner despite the presence of mesocaverns.

        Further, stochastic (random) events from either environmental factors (for example, severe weather) or demographic factors (which come from the chance events of birth and death of individuals) exacerbate threats to the species because of its small population size (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. 100). The risk of extinction for any species is known to be highly inversely correlated with population size (Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 774-775, O'Grady et al. 2004, pp. 516, 518). In other words, the smaller the population the greater the overall risk of extinction. Therefore, threats to the Bone Cave harvestman are exacerbated by its small population size, which makes it more vulnerable to existing threats.
        Finding

        We have reviewed the petition and also evaluated readily available, related information in our files. The petitioners have based their assessment that the species can thrive in developed areas on information that we have already reviewed (except in 4 caves discovered since the 5-year status review and 7 for which we lack locality information or taxonomic verifications) while working on previous documents (Service 2009, 2012) or on observations that lack a large enough sample size to produce population trend information for the Bone Cave harvestman. The petition provided no trend analysis to indicate that this species can withstand the threats associated with development or climate change over the long term. Based on our review and evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting of the Bone Cave harvestman may be warranted due to recovery, extinction, or error in the original scientific data at the time the species was classified or in our interpretation of the data. However, much progress has been made toward recovery in the North Williamson and Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna Regions. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data and implement conservation actions across the range of the Bone Cave harvestman that will further assist with the conservation of this species. If you wish to provide information regarding the Bone Cave harvestman, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) at any time.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Office.
        Authority

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

           Dated: May 21, 2015.
          Gary Frazer,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-13136 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 43 and 63
        [IB Docket No. 00-231, FCC 00-407]
        2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, Amendment of Parts 43 and 63 of the Commission's Rules

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rule making.

          SUMMARY:
          This document solicits comments on proposed changes to several of the rules relating to international telecommunications services. The Commission initiated this proceeding to determine what rules could be modified or eliminated in light of competition in international telecommunications services. This proceeding is part of the Commission's year 2000 biennial regulatory review. The Commission believes that these proposals will remove unnecessary burdens on the public and the agency.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before January 24, 2001, and reply comments are due on or before February 27, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David Krech, International Bureau, (202) 418-1460.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        1. This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), FCC 00-407, adopted on November 13, 2000, and released on November 30, 2000. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Office of Media Relations, Reference Operations Division, (Room CY-A257) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document is also available for download over the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000//fccI00407.doc. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
        2. This NPRM contains proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.
        Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        3. On November 13, 2000, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine whether it should amend and clarify several of its rules relating to international telecommunications services. The Commission initiated this proceeding in response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires the Commission to review all regulations that apply to operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer necessary in the pubic interest. The Commission solicits comments on all of the proposals and tentative conclusions contained in the NPRM.
        4. Section 63.24 sets out the procedures for review of pro forma assignments and transfers of control of authorizations to provide international telecommunications service. The Commission has found that § 63.24 does not explicitly address many of the types of transactions that should be treated as pro forma. Thus, the Commission proposes to amend the procedures for review of assignments and transfers of control of international service authorizations to match more closely those procedures used for other service authorizations, particularly Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS).

        5. Currently there are two rules addressing assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations. The Commission believes that the current regulatory structure may not be sufficiently flexible for corporate transactions that do not fall into one of the existing categories but should be treated as pro forma. The NPRM solicits comment on the proposals to amend the rules to allow more flexibility to applicants in structuring transactions and provide greater clarity to authorized international carriers regarding assignments and transfers of control.
        6. There has been a steady increase in the number of transactions involving authorizations for different services and requiring intra-agency approval, many of which involve both international Section 214 authorizations and wireless authorizations. Thus, the Commission proposes to modify and consolidate its current rules on assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations so that the new rule more closely tracks the procedures applicable to CMRS. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal.

        7. Currently, § 1.948 governs CMRS's assignments and transfers of control of authorization and provides that a change from less than 50 percent ownership to 50 percent or more ownership shall always be considered a transfer of control. In other situations, whether a controlling interest in transferring is determined on a case-by-case basis considering the distribution of ownership, and the relationships of the owners, including family relationships. The Commission proposes to adopt both of these provisions as part of a consolidated rule that would govern all international Section 214 assignments and transfers, whether substantial or pro forma. The Commission proposes to move the provisions of § 63.18(e)(3), which specify the procedures for seeking prior approval of an assignment or substantial transfer of control, to § 63.24. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposals.

        8. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposal to allow a case-by-case determination of whether an assignment or transfer of control is substantial or pro forma. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt the same case-by-case approach in the FCBA Forbearance Order (63 FR 10338, March 3, 1998) for determining whether transfers of control of international § 214 authorizations are substantial or pro forma. The Commission proposes that the transaction types currently listed in the rules as pro forma should be considered illustrative, not comprehensive. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposals.

        9. The NPRM seeks comment on other proposals to amend § 63.24 so that it more closely tracks the procedures used for CMRS. The NPRM proposes that within 30 days after consummation of a pro forma transaction, the licensee must file an application with the Commission. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal and the specific filing requirements for such an application. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposal that the rules clearly state that both pro forma and transferees and pro forma assignees are required to notify the Commission of either a pro forma transfer of control or assignment, which may be done by letter 30 days after the transaction. The NPRM also seeks comment on proposals to add definitions and explanatory language on assignments and transfers of control as well as procedures to be followed in the event of an involuntary assignment or transfer of control.

        10. The NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's tentative conclusion that the proposed rules, as revised to more closely track the rule used for CMRS, will reduce the regulatory burden on Section 214 authorization holders. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the proposals will provide greater flexibility to Section 214 authorization holders and expanding the possible range of transactions that qualify for filing on a pro forma basis.
        11. The Commission proposes to discontinue the application of the benchmark rates to services provided over facilities-based private lines. The Commission believes that this proposal will relieve an unnecessary burden without adversely affecting competitive safeguards. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposal and conclusion. Comments should address the likelihood that a carrier could successfully evade application of the condition by sending facilities-based switched traffic over facilities-based private lines.
        12. The Commission proposes to modify its rules for discontinuances of service by U.S. international common carriers. The Commission proposes to require prior approval for discontinuances by a U.S. international carrier only for those routes and services for which the carrier is classified as dominant due to its having market power in the provision of that international service on the U.S. end of the route. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal and the tentative conclusion that the discontinuance requirement should apply only to U.S. carriers regulated as dominant due to market power in the U.S. Comments should address under what circumstances, if any, prior Commission approval should be required before a U.S. carrier regulated as dominant under § 63.10 can discontinue service.
        13. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposals to amend the explanatory notes regarding attribution of indirect ownership interests in U.S. and foreign carriers to clarify that whenever an ownership percentage exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control it shall be treated as a 100 percent interest for purposes of applying the multiplier.
        14. The NPRM seeks comment on a number of proposals to amend or eliminate rules that are no longer applicable. The NPRM proposes to eliminate § 63.21(h) because there are no U.S. carriers to which the rule applies. The NPRM proposes to eliminate § 43.81 because the requirement that foreign-owned carriers file certain reports has expired. The NPRM proposes to amend § 63.22 to clarify that a facilities-based carrier may provide service over U.S. facilities, which are not subject to authorization by the Commission, as long as those facilities are not on the Exclusion List. The NPRM also proposes to eliminate confusion over the inconsistency of § 63.22 by removing the general reference to a list of countries in the Exclusion List. The NPRM proposes to eliminate unnecessary duplication of the contents required for international Section 214 applications contained in § 63.09 and § 63.18. The NPRM addresses the duplicative notes that are unnecessary and the proposal to eliminate the first three explanatory notes to § 62.18(h) while retaining the forth note. The NPRM proposes to delete the provision in § 63.20 that specifies the number of copies required to be filed for applications to supplement already authorized facilities.
        15. In addition, the NPRM proposes to eliminate the requirement that a Section 214 application be submitted on computer diskette. The Commission believes that the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) supercedes the computer diskette method for filing applications. Similarly, the NPRM proposes to amend § 63.10(d) to remove the requirement that reports filed by dominant carriers be filed on diskettes. Comments are sought on these tentative conclusions and whether there is any reason to continue to require international Section 214 applications and dominant carrier reports to be filed on computer diskettes.
        Procedural Matters
        16. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding is a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.
        17. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        18. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, directs the Commission to undertake, in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, a review of all regulations issued under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., that apply to operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be “no longer necessary in the public interest.” In particular, the 1996 Act directs the Commission to determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary “as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service.”

        19. As part of the year 2000 biennial regulatory review, the Commission reviewed all of its rules relating to international telecommunications services to identify those rules that could be revised or eliminated. In this proceeding, we propose changes to several of our rules relating to international telecommunications services. Specifically, we propose to amend our rule concerning pro forma assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations to more closely match those used for the assignment and transfer of control of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses. We also tentatively conclude that it is no longer necessary to apply the settlement rate benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide facilities-based international private line services. We also propose to modify our rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where such carriers possess market power in the provision of international service on the U.S. end of the route. Finally, we also propose to amend several rules to clarify the intent of those rules and to eliminate certain rules that no longer have any application. We believe that these proposed changes are in the public interest and will remove unnecessary burdens on the public and the Commission.
        20. Legal basis: The NPRM is adopted pursuant to §§ 1, 4, 11, 214, 218, 219, 220, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 161, 214, 218, 219, 220, 403.
        21. Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposals will apply: RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposals, if adopted. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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. 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.
        22. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such companies that had been operating for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to the SBA's definition, a wireline telephone company is a small business if it employs no more than 1,500 persons, 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812. All but 26 of the 2,321 wireline 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 wireline companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we 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 that fewer than 2,295 of these wireline companies are small entities that might be affected by these proposals.
        23. Specifically, we propose to amend our rule concerning pro forma assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations to more closely match those used for the assignment and transfer of control of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses. We also tentatively conclude that it is no longer necessary to apply the settlement rate benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide facilities-based international private line services. We also propose to modify our rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where such carriers possess market power in the provision of international service on the U.S. end of the route. We also propose to amend several rules to clarify the intent of those rules and to eliminate certain rules that no longer have any application. At this time, we are not certain as to the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposals. We seek comment on the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposals set forth in the NPRM.
        24. Description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements: The proposals made in the NPRM will reduce the recordkeeping and compliance requirements of all companies providing international telecommunications services, including small entities.

        25. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to provide greater flexibility and clarity regarding assignments and transfers of control. Many of the transactions that carriers are entering into involve multiple services. In the NPRM the Commission proposes procedures regarding pro forma assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations that more closely follow those used for the assignment and transfer of control of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses. This should reduce the burdens placed on carriers filing transfers of control or assignments by having similar requirements for both Section 214 authorizations and CMRS licenses. Under the proposed rule carriers will continue to be required to file an application, which can be in the form of a letter, with the Commission no later that thirty days after the assignment or transfer is completed. The application must contain a certification that the transfer of control or assignment was pro forma, and, together with all other previous pro forma transactions, this transfer of control or assignment does not result in a change in the actual controlling party. The letter must also contain the name, address of the transferee/assignee, contact points, and updated ownership information.
        26. The Commission also proposes to remove the settlement rate benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide facilities-based international private line services. The Commission also proposes to modify its rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where such carriers possess market power in the provision of international service on the U.S. end of the route. Only one carrier—Comsat—is currently regulated as dominant on particular routes in its provision of particular services due to the existence of market power on the U.S. end of those routes. Other carriers that are classified dominant solely due to affiliations with foreign carriers will no longer be required to seek prior approval before discontinuing service.
        27. The other proposals in the NPRM will clarify the intent of certain rules and to eliminate other rules that no longer have any application. We believe that these proposed changes are in the public interest and will remove unnecessary burdens on the public and the Commission.
        28. 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: (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.
        29. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) directs the Commission to undertake, in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, a review of all regulations issued under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), that apply to operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be “no longer necessary in the public interest.” In particular, the 1996 Act directs the Commission to determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary “as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service.” As part of the 2000 biennial regulatory review, the Commission reviewed all of its rules relating to international telecommunications services to identify those rules that could be revised or eliminated. In this proceeding the Commission proposes changes to several of its rules relating to international telecommunications services. The Commission believes that the proposals in the NPRM will reduce the economic burdens placed on all companies providing international telecommunications services, including small entities.
        30. Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rules: None.
        31. Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM contains either new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The Commission will submit the proposed information collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. Upon submission to OMB, comments from OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be invited on the proposed information collections contained in the proceeding.
        Ordering Clauses
        32. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 11, 214, 218, 219, 220 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 161, 214, 218, 219, 220, 403, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted and comments are requested.

        33. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 43 and 63
          Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Magalie Roman Salas,
          Secretary.

        Rule Changes
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 43 and 63 as follows:

          PART 43—REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES
          1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104, sec. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.

            § 43.81
            [Removed]
            2. Remove § 43.81.

          PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
          3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            section 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.

          4. Section 63.09 is amended by revising Note 2 to § 63.09 to read as follows:

            § 63.09
            Definitions applicable to international Section 214 authorizations.

              Note 2 to § 63.09:
              Ownership and other interests in U.S. and foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: Attribution of ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any party through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever the ownership percentage for any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100 percent interest. For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X, which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of “carrier,” then X's interest in “carrier” would be 26 percent (the same as Y's interest because X's interest in Y exceeds 50 percent), and A's interest in “carrier” would be 7.8 percent (0.30 × 0.26). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X's interest in “carrier” would be cognizable, while A's interest would not be cognizable.

            5. Section 63.10 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

            § 63.10
            Regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers.

            (d) A carrier classified as dominant under this section shall file an original and two copies of each report required by paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this section with the Chief, International Bureau. The carrier shall also file one copy of these reports with the Commission's copy contractor. The transmittal letter accompanying each report shall clearly identify the report as responsive to the appropriate paragraph of § 63.10(c).

            § 63.18
            [Amended]
            6. Section 63.18 is amended by removing paragraph (e)(3) and Notes 1 through 4 to paragraph (h) and redesignating paragraph (e)(4) as (e)(3) and adding Note to paragraph (h) to read as follows.

              Note to paragraph (h):
              Ownership and other interests in U.S. and foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: Attribution of ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any party through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever the ownership percentage for any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100 percent interest. For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X, which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of “carrier,” then X's interest in “carrier” would be 26 percent (the same as Y's interest because X's interest in Y exceeds 50 percent), and A's interest in “carrier” would be 7.8 percent (0.30 x 0.26). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X's interest in “carrier” would be cognizable, while A's interest would not be cognizable.

            7. Section 63.19 is revised to read as follows:

            § 63.19
            Special procedures for discontinuances of international services.
            (a) With the exception of those international carriers described in paragraph (b) of this section, any international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce or impair service, including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.601:
            (1) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction or impairment at least 60 days prior to its planned action. Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown, another form of notice.
            (2) The carrier shall file with this Commission a copy of the notification on or after the date on which notice has been given to all affected customers.

            (b) The following procedures shall apply to any international carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision of a particular international service because the carrier possesses market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle or remove international trunk lines, and the dominant services being provided through these facilities is not being discontinued, reduced or impaired, shall only be subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service or retires facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an application pursuant to §§ 63.62 and 63.500.
            8. Section 63.20 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

            § 63.20
            Copies required; fees; and filing periods for international service providers.
            (a) Unless otherwise specified the Commission shall be furnished with an original and five copies of applications filed for international facilities and services under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Upon request by the Commission, additional copies of the application shall be furnished. Each application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of this chapter.

            § 63.21
            [Amended]
            9. Section 63.21 is amended by removing paragraph (h) and redesignating paragraphs (i) and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i).
            10. Section 63.22 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 63.22
            Facilities-based international common carriers.

            (b) The carrier may provide service using half-circuits on any U.S. common carrier and non-common carrier facilities that do not appear on an exclusion list published by the Commission. Carriers may also use any necessary non-U.S.-licensed facilities, including any submarine cable systems, that do not appear on the exclusion list. Carriers may not use U.S. earth stations to access non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems unless the Commission has specifically approved the use of those satellites and so indicates on the exclusion list. The exclusion list is available from the International Bureau's World Wide Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/ib.

            11. Section 63.24 is amended by revising the subject heading and paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and by adding new paragraphs (c) through (g) to read as follows.

            § 63.24
            Assignments and transfers of control.
            (a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an international Section 214 authorization may be assigned, or control of such authorization may be transferred by the transfer of control of any entity holding such authorization, to another party, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, only upon application to and prior approval by the Commission.
            (b) Assignments. For purposes of this section, an assignment of an authorization is a transaction in which the authorization is assigned from one entity to another entity. Following an assignment, the authorization is held by an entity other than the one to which it was originally granted.
            (c) Transfers of control. For purposes of this section, a transfer of control is a transaction in which the authorization remains held by the same entity, but there is a change in the entity or entities that control the authorization holder. A change from less than 50% ownership to 50% or more ownership shall always be considered a transfer of control. In all other situations, whether the interest being transferred is controlling must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
            (d) Pro forma assignments and transfers of control. Transfers of control or assignments that do not result in a change in the actual controlling party are considered non-substantial or pro forma. Whether there has been a change in the actual controlling party must be determined on a case-by-case basis with reference to the factors listed in Note 1 to paragraph (d). The types of transactions listed in Note 1 to paragraph (d) shall be considered presumptively pro forma and prior approval from the Commission need not be sought.

              Note 1 to paragraph (d):

              If a transaction is one of the types listed below, the transaction is presumptively pro forma and prior approval need not be sought. In all other cases, the relevant determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis. (1) Assignment from an individual or individuals (including partnerships) to a corporation owned and controlled by such individuals or partnerships without any substantial change in their relative interests; (2) Assignment from a corporation to its individual stockholders without effecting any substantial change in the disposition of their interests; (3) Assignment or transfer by which certain stockholders retire and the interest transferred is not a controlling one; (4) Corporate reorganization that involves no substantial change in the beneficial ownership of the corporation (including re-incorporation in a different jurisdiction or change in form of the business entity); (5) Assignment or transfer from a corporation to a wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiary thereof or vice versa, or where there is an assignment from a corporation to a corporation owned or controlled by the assignor stockholders without substantial change in their interests; or (6) Assignment of less than a controlling interest in a partnership.

            (e) Applications for substantial transactions. (1) In the case of an assignment or transfer of control of an international Section 214 authorization that is not pro forma, the proposed assignee or transferee must apply to the Commission for authority prior to consummation of the proposed assignment or transfer of control.
            (2) The application shall include the information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 63.18 for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. The information requested in paragraphs (h) through (p) of § 63.18 is required only for the transferee/assignee. At the beginning of the application, the applicant shall include a narrative of the means by which the proposed transfer or assignment will take place.
            (3) The Commission reserves the right to request additional information as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in making its public interest determination.
            (4) An assignee or transferee shall notify the Commission no later than 30 days after either consummation of the proposed assignment or transfer of control, or a decision not to consummate the proposed assignment or transfer of control. The notification may be made by letter (sending one copy to the Office of the Secretary and one copy to the Telecommunications Division of the International Bureau) and shall identify the file numbers under which the initial authorization and the authorization of the assignment or transfer of control were granted.
            (f) Applications for non-substantial or pro forma transactions. (1) In the case of a pro forma assignment or transfer of control, the applicant is not required to seek prior Commission approval.
            (2) A pro forma assignee or transferee shall file an application with the Commission no later than 30 days after the assignment or transfer is completed. The application may be made by letter (sending one copy to the Office of the Secretary and one copy to the Chief of the Telecommunications Division of the International Bureau). A single letter may be filed for an assignment of more than one authorization if each authorization is identified by the file number under which it was granted. The applications must contain the following:
            (i) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of § 63.18 for the transferee/assignee,

            (ii) A certification that the transfer of control or assignment was pro forma and that, together with all previous pro forma transactions, does not result in a change in the actual controlling party.
            (3) Upon release of a public notice granting a pro forma assignment or transfer of control, petitions for reconsideration under § 1.106 of this chapter or applications for review under § 1.115 of this chapter of the Commission's rules may be filed within 30 days. Petitioner should address why the assignment or transfer of control in question should have been filed under paragraph (e) of this section rather than under paragraph (f) of this section.
            (g) Involuntary assignments or transfers of control. An involuntary assignment or transfer of control is one that occurs by operation of law. In the case of an involuntary assignment or transfer of control, the applicant must make the appropriate filing no later than 30 days after the event causing the involuntary assignment or transfer of control.

            § 63.53
            [Amended]
            12. Section 63.53 is amended by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating paragraph (c) as (b).

      [FR Doc. 00-32202 Filed 12-19-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-10-P