        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 76
        [PP Docket No. 00-67; FCC 00-137]
        Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on compatibility between cable television systems and consumer electronics equipment. The NPRM is designed to resolve outstanding compatibility issues, in particular requirements for labeling digital television (DTV) receivers to describe their capabilities to operate with digital cable television systems and questions regarding licensing terms for copy protection technology. Resolving these issues will not only insure that consumers make informed purchasing decisions with respect to DTV equipment but also promote the overall transition from analog to digital television.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2000, and reply comments on or before June 8, 2000. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due May 24, 2000. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection(s) on or before June 26, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jonathan Levy (202-418-2030), Office of Plans and Policy. For additional information concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted April 13, 2000 and released April 14, 2000, addresses compatibility between cable television systems and digital television receivers, set top boxes, and other consumer electronics equipment, in accordance with Section 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 544A. The NPRM seeks comment on two issues: How to label digital television receivers with different features, including the proper designation for receivers providing two-way interactive capability; and licensing terms for copy protection technology.

        The NPRM recognizes that DTV receivers both with and without the IEEE 1394 two-way connector will be able to access an array of cable services. Hence the labeling challenge is to provide descriptions that are informative to consumers, rather than to distinguish among receivers that are and are not “cable-ready.” The NPRM does not propose specific nomenclature, but simply asks for comment on appropriate equipment labeling terminology, in accordance with the requirements of Section 624A. The NPRM also asks for comment on whether the transition from analog to digital requires any changes in Commission requirements for cable operators to offer supplemental equipment to subscribers to enable them to use special features of their television receivers (e.g., picture-in-picture).
        With respect to copy protection technology licensing, the NPRM asks if there are unresolved hardware issues that might prevent consumer electronics manufacturers from designing DTV receivers that will operate with cable systems delivering copy protected digital content. The NPRM also seeks comment on an issue related to the Commission's navigation devices rules. Whether the inclusion of copy protection technology provisions in question of whether certain proposed copy protection technology licensing terms violate the Commission's navigation devices rules.

        Pursuant to the navigation devices rules, cable operators are required by July 1, 2000 to offer separate security modules for use with commercially-available navigation devices, including television receivers and set top boxes. See 47 CFR 76.1200-1210. In order to build a DTV receiver that can receive and display encrypted cable programming by means of a cable-supplied security module, consumer electronics manufacturers need a license for the security module technology so they can incorporate it in the interface that they build into the DTV receiver. Commission rules in essence forbid cable operators from imposing conditions on licensees of their security technology that prohibit those licensees from offering navigation devices that do not perform conditional access or security functions. It has been argued that licensing terms for security modules that impose obligations relating to copy protection, as opposed to conditional access, violate Commission rules. The NPRM seeks comment on this issue in order to ascertain whether any revision or clarification of those rules is needed.
        In order to ensure that consumers have clear information about the capabilities of DTV receivers on the market and in order to encourage the transition from analog to digital video delivery, it is important that the labeling and copy protection technology licensing issues be resolved promptly.
        Procedural Matters
        As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1

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

            1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

          Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules: This NPRM is designed to help ensure that digital television receivers and cable television systems will function smoothly together and to promote the implementation of digital television (“DTV”) service. In order to provide consumers with information about how digital television receivers will operate with cable television systems and thereby avoid consumer confusion, the NPRM seeks comment on labeling of digital television receivers. In order to encourage the provision of valuable digital content and to ensure that copy protection technology licensing issues do not stand in the way of designing DTV receivers that operate with cable television systems, the Notice seeks comment on some outstanding copy protection technology licensing issues as well.

          Legal Basis: Authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 336, and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 336, and 544a.

          Description and Estimate of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply: The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.2
           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.3
           A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.4

            2 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

            3 Id. 601(3).

            4 Id. 632.

        Rules adopted in this proceeding could apply to manufacturers of DTV equipment, including television receivers, set-top boxes and “point of deployment” modules. Distributors of this equipment, including retailers of consumer electronics equipment and, in the case of “point of deployment” modules, cable operators, would also be affected. Labeling rules would require all manufacturers, small and large, to adhere to certain terminology in the descriptive labels that they attach to the receivers that they produce. Regulations relating to copy protection licensing technology could affect the terms and conditions under which manufacturers, small and large, acquire copy protection technology licenses. However, with or without Commission regulations, all those entities would need a license for proprietary technology that they utilize. Cable operators will also be affected by any new requirements to offer supplementary equipment to subscribers to enable them to use special features of their DTV receivers. This proceeding seeks comment on whether the burden, if any, of compliance with rules adopted pursuant to this NPRM could be mitigated for small entities.

          Cable Systems: SBA has developed a definition of small entity for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating less than $11 million in revenue annually. This definition includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau, there were 1,323 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million in revenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.5

            5 U.S. Census Bureau, 1992 Economic Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities at Firm Size 1-123.

        The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company,” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.6
           Based on our most recent information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.7
           Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in this Notice.

            6 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995).

            7 Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). 8 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

        The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 8

           The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.9
           Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450.10
           Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

            8 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

            9 47 CFR 76.1403(b).

            10 Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

          Small Manufacturers: The SBA has developed definitions of small entity for manufacturers of household audio and video equipment (SIC 3651) and for radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment (SIC 3663). In each case, the definition includes all such companies employing 750 or fewer employees.

          Electronic Equipment Manufacturers: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of electronic equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.11
           According to the SBA's regulations, a TV equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.12
           Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities.13
           The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment or how many are independently owned and operated. We conclude that there are approximately 778 small manufacturers of radio and television equipment.

            11 This category excludes establishments primarily engaged in the manufacturing of household audio and visual equipment which is categorized as SIC 3651. See infra for SIC 3651 data.

            12 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

            13 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

          Electronic Household/Consumer Equipment: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of electronic equipment used by consumers, as compared to industrial use by television licensees and related businesses. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to manufacturers of Household Audio and Visual Equipment. According to the SBA's regulations, a household audio and visual equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.14
           Census Bureau data indicates that there are 410 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 386 of these firms have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities.15
           The remaining 24 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Furthermore, the Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment for consumers or how many are independently owned and operated. We conclude that there are approximately 386 small manufacturers of television equipment for consumer/household use.

            14 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3651.

            15 U.S. Small Business Administration 1995 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 3, SIC Code 3651, (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

          Computer Manufacturers: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to computer manufacturers. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of Electronic Computers. According to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small entity.16
           Census Bureau data indicates that there are 716 firms that manufacture electronic computers and of those, 659 have fewer than 500 employees and qualify as small entities.17
           The remaining 57 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 1,000 employees and therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We conclude that there are approximately 659 small computer manufacturers.

            16 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3571.

            17 U.S. Small Business Administration 1995 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 3, SIC Code 3571, (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

          Small Retailers: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to retail sellers of navigation devices. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition. The 1992 Bureau of the Census data indicate: there were 9,663 U.S. firms classified as Radio, Television, and Consumer Electronic Stores (SIC 5731), and that 9,385 of these firms had $4.999 million or less in annual receipts and 9,473 of these firms had $7.499 million or less in annual receipts.18
           Consequently, we tentatively conclude that there are approximately 9,663 such small retailers that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in this NPRM.

            18 U.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 2D, SIC 7812, (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration)(SBA 1992 Census Report). The Census data does not include a category for $6.5 million therefore, we have reported the closest increment below and above the $6.5 million threshold. There is a difference of 88 firms between the $4.999 and $7.499 million annual receipt categories. It is possible that these 88 firms could have annual receipts of $6.5 million or less and therefore, would be classified as small businesses.

          Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: The proposed actions may require manufacturers of DTV equipment to adhere to some labeling standards. Moreover, the proposed actions may affect the terms under which manufacturers acquire licenses to utilize certain copy protection technology in their products. We believe that the impact of any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this NPRM would be minimal. We seek comment on this.

          Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        We believe that our proposals would have the positive result of providing consumers with clear information about the capabilities of DTV equipment and promote the implementation of DTV service. We believe that labeling requirements would have a minimal impact on manufacturers and retailers and that not applying requirements adapted to all manufacturers would defeat the basic purpose of the requirements. Given that manufacturers would need to license copy protection technology that they incorporate in their equipment regardless of our rules, the potential impact of any rules appears to be minimal.19
           We do not believe that different treatment of small and large entities with respect to their technology licensing is warranted. Any supplementary equipment that cable operators might be required to offer to subscribers is likely to be standardized and manufactured in large enough quantities that the cost to small cable operators is unlikely to be substantial.20
           Moreover, cable operators are entitled to recover from subscribers the cost of supplementary equipment offered. Should commenters disagree with any of our conclusions, we welcome comments suggesting ways in which any perceived burden upon small entities could be mitigated.

            19 See Notice ar paras. 18-20.

            20 Id at paras. 14, 17.

          Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules: None.
        This NPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
          Cable television.

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

      [FR Doc. 00-10448 Filed 4-26-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-72; RM-11888; DA 21-271; FR ID 18713]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the Federal Register of March 25, 2021, concerning a petition for rulemaking filed by WLUK Licensee, LLC (Licensee) requesting the substitution of channel 18 for channel 12 at Green Bay, Wisconsin in the DTV Table of Allotments. The document contained the incorrect call sign in the summary section.

          DATES:
          April 2, 2021.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joyce Bernstein, Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Correction
        In FR Doc. 2021-06155, in the Federal Register of March 25, 2021, on page 15853, in the third column, correct the Summary caption to read:

          SUMMARY:
          The Video Division has before it a petition for rulemaking filed November 27, 2020 (Petition) by WLUK Licensee, LLC (Licensee), the licensee of WLUK-TV (FOX), channel 12, Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Licensee requests the substitution of channel 18 for channel 12 at Green Bay, Wisconsin the digital television (DTV) Table of Allotments.

          Dated: March 25, 2021.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2021-06854 Filed 4-1-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-1027; MB Docket No. 04-127, RM-10941; MB Docket No. 04-128, RM-10942; MB Docket No. 04-129, RM-10943; MB Docket No. 04-130, RM-10944; MB Docket No. 04-131, RM-10945; MB Docket No. 04-132, RM-10946; MB Docket No. 04-133, RM-10947; MB Docket No. 04-134, RM-10948, MB Docket No. 04-135, RM-10949, RM-10950; MB Docket No. 04-136, RM-10951; MB Docket No. 04-137, RM-10952; MB Docket No. 04-138, RM-10953, RM-10954]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Augusta, WI, Barnwell, SC, Burnet, TX, Denver City, TX, Fountain Green, UT, Hayward, WI, Liberty, PA, Shenandoah, VA, St. Marys, WV, Susquehanna, PA, Toquerville, UT, and Van Alstyne, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth twelve reservation proposals requesting to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reserving certain vacant FM allotments for noncommercial educational use in Augusta, WI, Barnwell, SC, Burnet, TX, Denver City, TX, Fountain Green, UT, Hayward, WI, Liberty, PA, Shenandoah, VA, St. Marys, WV, Susquehanna, PA, Toquerville, UT, and Van Alstyne, TX. The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed Youngshine Media, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 298A at Liberty, PA for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *298A at Liberty are 41-29-28 North Latitude and 77-12-22 West Longitude. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 227A at Susquehanna, PA, vacant Channel 256C3 at Barnwell, SC, vacant Channel 240A at Burnet, TX, vacant Channel 248C2 at Denver City, TX, and vacant Channel 260A at Van Alstyne, TX for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *227A at Susquehanna are 41-55-44 North Latitude and 75-31-50 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *256C3 at Barnwell are 33-24-29 North Latitude and 81-16-43 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *240A at Burnet are 30-51-5 North Latitude and 98-17-35 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *248C2 at Denver City are 33-1-53 North Latitude and 102-48-47 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *260A at Van Alstyne are 33-27-8 North Latitude and 96-27-21 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 2004, and reply comments on or before June 25, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Arthur H. Harding, Esq., Christopher G. Wood, Esq., Mark B. Denbo, Esq., c/o Youngshine Media, Inc., Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P., 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; Patrick J. Vaughn, General Counsel, American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803; Peter Gutmann, Esq., c/o Intermountain Educational Communications, Inc., Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, 1401 I Street, NW., Seventh Floor, Washington, DC 20005; David A. O'Connor, Esq., c/o Calvary Chapel of St. George, Holland & Knight LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006; Jeffrey D. Southmayd, Esq., c/o Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc., Southmayd & Miller, 1220 19th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036; Mark Follett, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc., 2300 Riverside Drive, Green Bay, WI 54301; Thomas P. Taggart, Trustee/Counsel, Fine Arts Radio, Inc., 8 Ransom Road, Athens, OH 45701; and Kenneth E. Satten, Esq., Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., and Rebecca A. Schillings, c/o West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20037.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket Nos. 04-127, 04-128, 04-129, 04-130, 04-131, 04-132, 04-133, 04-134, 04-135, 04-136, 04-137, 04-138, adopted April 14, 2004 and released April 19, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Intermountain Educational Communications, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 260A at Fountain Green for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *260A at Fountain Green are 39-37-42 North Latitude and 111-38-24 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Calvary Chapel of St. George proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 280C at Toquerville, UT for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *280C at Toquerville are 37-15-12 North Latitude and 113-17-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc. and American Family Association proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 296A at Shenandoah, VA for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *296A at Shenandoah are 38-30-0 North Latitude and 78-36-33 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 268C3 at Augusta, WI and vacant Channel 232C2 at Hayward, WI for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *268C3 at Augusta are 44-40-11 North Latitude and 90-57-55 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *232C2 at Hayward are 46-15-4 North Latitude and 91-23-1 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Fine Arts Radio, Inc. and West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 287A at St. Marys, WV for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *287A at St. Marys are 39-18-3 North Latitude and 81-15-19 West Longitude. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Pennsylvania is amended by adding Channel *298A and by removing Channel 298A at Liberty; and by adding Channel *227A and by removing Channel 227A at Susquehanna.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South Carolina, is amended by adding Channel *256C3 and by removing Channel 257C1 at Barnwell.1

                1 In MM Docket No. 00-18, the Audio Division substituted Channel 257C1 for 256C3 at Barnwell, SC, reallotted Channel 257C1 to Pembroke, Georgia, and modified the license of Station WBAW to specify operation on Channel 257C1 at Pembroke. As such, Channel 256C3 was allotted to Barnwell, SC as a replacement service. See 66 FR 55596, published November 2, 2001.

            4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Channel *240A and by removing Channel 240A at Burnet; by adding Channel *248C2 and by removing Channel 248C2 at Denver City; by adding Channel *260A and by removing Channel 260A at Van Alstyne.
            5. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Utah, is amended by adding Channel *260A and by removing Channel 260A at Fountain Green; and by adding Channel *280C and by removing Channel 280C at Toquerville.
            6. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Virginia, is amended by adding Channel *296A and by removing Channel 296A at Shenandoah.
            7. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under West Virginia, is amended by adding Channel *287A and by removing Channel 287A at St. Marys.
            8. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wisconsin, is amended by adding Channel *268C3 and by removing Channel 268C3 at Augusta; and by adding Channel *232C2 and by removing Channel 232C2 at Hayward.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Peter H. Doyle,
            Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-10682 Filed 5-10-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58 and CC Docket No. 01-92; Report No. 3047]
        Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for reconsideration and clarification.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Mary J. Sisak on behalf of Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc., et al, Michael R. Romano on behalf of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, Robert W. Schwartz on behalf of Madison Telephone Company, Derrick B. Owens on behalf of WTA-Advocates For Rural Broadband.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before August 15, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 8, 2016.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, email: Suzanne.Yelen@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3047, released July 11, 2016. 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 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, FCC 16-33, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, in WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92. This Notice 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: 4.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2016-17900 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 010903D]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Issues and Options paper for Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (HMS FMP); Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability (NOA) of an issues and options paper; notice of public scoping meetings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the availability of a paper on issues and options for Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks.  The issues-and-options paper examines management options to rebuild or prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks, consistent with the large coastal sharks (LCS) and the small coastal sharks (SCS) stock assessments, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other relevant Federal laws.  NMFS is requesting comments on a wide range of commercial and recreational management measures including, but not limited to, quotas, minimum sizes, and prohibited species.

          DATES:
          Comments on this action must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time, March 17, 2003.

          The public scoping meetings will be held in February and March.  For specific dates and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on this action should be mailed to Christopher Rogers, Chief, NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or faxed to (301) 713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via email or Internet.  Copies of the issues and options paper can be obtained from the HMS website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hmspg.html, or by contacting Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713-2347.

          The public scoping meetings will be held in Silver Spring, MD; Montauk, NY; Ocean City MD; Manteo, NC; Cocoa Beach, FL; Madeira Beach, FL; and Port Aransas, TX.  For specific locations, see
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713-2347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
        Background
        On November 15, 2002, NMFS published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS (67 FR 69180).  In this notice, NMFS also announced its intent to amend the HMS FMP. Based on the 2002 stock assessments, NMFS believes the implementation of new management measures via an amendment to the HMS FMP is necessary to rebuild or prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks. NMFS anticipates completing this amendment and any related documents by January 1, 2004.
        Large Coastal Sharks
        The LCS complex is composed of several species including, but not limited to, sandbar, blacktip, spinner, bull, and tiger sharks. Since the 1993 Shark Fishery Management Plan, LCS have been considered overfished. The latest stock assessment of LCS in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, available in October 2002 (67 FR 64098), provides an update on the status of LCS stocks and projects their future abundance under a variety of catch levels in waters off the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The 2002 assessment includes catch estimates, new biological data, and a number of fishery-independent catch rate series, as well as extended fishery-dependent catch rate series.
        The results for the LCS complex indicate that overfishing could still be occurring and the resource may be overfished. However, for sandbar sharks, the stock assessment indicates that, while overfishing is occurring, the current biomass is near, or somewhat above, maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Additionally, the stock assessment indicates that no reduction in catch for blacktip sharks is needed to maintain the stock at current levels and that some increase may be sustainable in the long term. Under the term of a court-approved settlement agreement, this stock assessment was independently peer reviewed.  The peer review process was completed on December 20, 2003.  The peer reviews were generally positive.

        Copies of the LCS stock assessment and peer review are available for review (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Management Options
        Small Coastal Sharks
        The SCS complex comprises four species including Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, bonnethead, and finetooth. The 1992 stock assessment classified SCS as being fully utilized. The 2002 stock assessment of SCS in the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico indicates that the current level of removals is sustainable for the SCS aggregate. Aggregate biomass levels for the SCS aggregate are estimated at or above those which could produce MSY, and are not considered to be overfished. However, recent fishing mortality of finetooth sharks exceeds the fishing mortality at MSY, indicating overfishing is occurring for this species.

        Copies of the SCS stock assessment and the peer review of the LCS stock assessment are available for review (see ADDRESSES).
        Management Options
        NMFS requests comments on management options for this action.
        Specifically, NMFS requests comments on commercial management options including quota levels, regional and seasonal quotas, trip limits, minimum sizes, the application of dead discards and state landings after a Federal closure to the quota, the counting quota of over- and underages, and fishery closure and opening notices. Additionally, NMFS request comments on recreational management options including retention limits, minimum sizes, authorized gear, and landing requirements. NMFS also seeks comment regarding deep water and prohibited shark species, display quotas, time/area closures and the organization of species groupings. Comments received on this action will assist NMFS in determining the options for rulemaking to conserve and manage shark resources and shark fisheries.
        Within the comment period established in this action, NMFS will hold seven public scoping meetings to gather public comment on the implementation of new management measures for Atlantic sharks.
        Schedule of Public Scoping Meetings
        The dates, times, and locations of the meetings are scheduled as follows:

          1. Monday, February 10, 2003 - Silver Spring, MD, 1-6 p.m.

        Holiday Inn
        8777 Georgia Avenue
        Silver Spring, MD 20910
        Contact: Karyl Brewster-Geisz @ (301) 713-2347

          2. Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - Montauk, NY,7-9 p.m.

        Montauk Fire House

        12 Flamingo Avenue
        Montauk, NY 11954
        Contact: Heather Stirratt @ (301) 713-2347

          3. Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - Coco Beach, FL, 7-9 p.m.

        Cocoa Beach Public Library
        550 North Brevard Avenue
        Cocoa Beach, FL 32931
        Contact: Greg Fairclough @ (727) 570-5447

          4. Thursday, February 27, 2003 - Madeira Beach, FL,7-9 p.m.

        City of Madeira Beach, City of Madeira Beach Auditorium
        300 Municipal Drive
        Madeira Beach, FL 33708
        Contact: Greg Fairclough @ (727) 570-5447

          5. Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - Ocean City, MD, 7-9 p.m.

        Ocean City Council Chambers
        301 Baltimore Avenue
        Ocean City, MD 21842
        Contact: Karyl Brewster-Geisz @ (301) 713-2347

          6. Thursday, March 6, 2003 - Manteo, NC, 7-9 p.m.

        North Carolina Aquarium
        Roanoke Island
        Airport Road
        Manteo, NC 27954
        Contact: Heather Stirratt @ (301) 713-2347

          7. Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - Port Aransas, TX,7-9 p.m.

        University of Texas
        Marine Science Institute
        Visitor's Center (located on Cotter St. near beach)
        750 Channel View Drive
        Port Aransas, TX 78373
        Contact: Heather Stirratt @ (301) 713-2347
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heather Stirratt, (301) 713-2347.

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

          Dated: January 22, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-1786 Filed 1-24-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RIN 0648-XG955
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Amendment 12 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; notice of intent; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the availability of a scoping document and its intent to initiate an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Given recent revisions to the National Standard guidelines and recent NMFS policy directives, which aim to improve and streamline fishery management procedures to enhance their utility for managers and the public, NMFS has determined it is necessary to: Reassess current HMS FMP objectives to reflect the changing needs of the HMS fisheries, and potentially adopt revised FMP objectives; review stock status determination criteria (SDC) for internationally-managed HMS and adopt such criteria, rather than continue to apply domestic criteria, which at times differ; review the standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) for certain HMS fisheries and update, if necessary; consider triggers for initiating allocation reviews for quota-managed HMS stocks and adopt such triggers, if appropriate; and consider revising the publication date of the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report and adopt such revision. The goal of the scoping document is to examine potential options and modify domestic HMS fishery management measures to be consistent with the national standards guidelines and recent NMFS policy directives, and to request additional information and input from consulting parties and the public prior to development of Amendment 12 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP.

          DATES:
          One webinar will be held on October 9, 2019. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for webinar date and instructions. NMFS requests receipt of any comments on the scoping document by November 4, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the scoping document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0096, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0096, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Rick Pearson, NMFS/SF1, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Copies of the scoping document and supporting documents are available from the HMS Management Division website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-12-2006-consolidated-hms-fishery-management-plan-msa-guidelines-and-national or constituents can contact Rick Pearson by phone at 727-824-5399 or Sarah McLaughlin at 978-281-9260 for hard copies.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rick Pearson at 727-824-5399 or Sarah McLaughlin at 978-281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that any FMP or FMP amendment be consistent with ten National Standards. In 2016, NMFS revised the National Standard guidelines to improve and streamline the guidelines to enhance their utility for managers and the public and provide flexibility in meeting current Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates (81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016). The final rule included a recommendation that FMP objectives should be reassessed on a regular basis to reflect the changing needs of the fishery over time. Although no time frame was prescribed, the National Standard guidelines indicated that NMFS should provide notice to the public of the expected schedule for review.

        The National Standard guidelines final rule also indicated that, for stocks managed under international agreement, NMFS may use the SDC defined by the relevant international body (e.g., the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas). Although the National Standard guidelines final rule does not require a review of international SDC, it allows NMFS to consider their appropriateness and applicability.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that any FMP, with respect to any fishery, establish an SBRM to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery. On January 19, 2017, NMFS published a final rule (82 FR 6317) to interpret and provide guidance on this Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement. Specifically, each FMP must identify the required procedure or procedures that constitute the SBRM for a fishery and conduct an analysis that explains how the SBRM meets the purposes described in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the changes in the SBRM guidelines, NMFS has determined that it is necessary to consider amending the HMS FMP to update SBRMs for some fisheries and to add fisheries for which SBRMs are not yet described (including tuna greenstick fishery, swordfish buoy gear fishery, and recreational speargun fishery).

        On February 23, 2017, NMFS issued Fisheries Allocation Policy Directive 01-119 (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/fisheries-management-policy-directives), which describes a mechanism to ensure that fisheries allocations are periodically evaluated. The policy and directives establish three steps in an allocation review process, with the first step occurring if a review is triggered. Categories of triggers that can be used to initiate an allocation review include: Public interest, time, or indicators. The policy directive also requires the identification of one or more triggers for each fishery with a quota allocation that meets the definition contained in the revised policy directive. The scoping document for Draft Amendment 12 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP begins the process for considering allocation triggers for quota-managed HMS.
        Finally, the HMS SAFE report is a public document that provides a summary of scientific information concerning the most recent biological condition of stocks, stock complexes, and marine ecosystems, essential fish habitat (EFH), and the social and economic condition of recreational and commercial HMS fishing interests, fishing communities, and the fish processing industries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that SAFE reports summarize, on a periodic basis, the best scientific information available concerning the past, present, and possible future condition of the stocks, EFH, marine ecosystems, and fisheries being managed under Federal regulation. In 2008, NMFS published a final rule for Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (73 FR 40657, July 15, 2008) that, among other things, required the publication of the HMS SAFE report by the fall of each year. The scoping document for Draft Amendment 12 begins the process for considering adjusting the publication date of the HMS SAFE report to account for unexpected delays, while remaining compliant with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
        In this scoping document, NMFS begins the process of re-assessing HMS FMP objectives, considering international SDCs for HMS managed under international agreement, updating HMS FMP SBRM to include fisheries which are not yet described, considering allocation criteria for quota-managed HMS, and adjusting the timing for publication of the annual HMS SAFE Report.
        Request for Comments

        NMFS requests additional information and comments from consulting parties and the public on the scoping document. The document includes a summary of the anticipated purpose and need of the FMP amendment and the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of conservation and management of some potential options. The scoping document is available online at the HMS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-12-2006-consolidated-hms-fishery-management-plan-msa-guidelines-and-national. One webinar will be held (see Table 1 for webinar time and instructions) to provide the opportunity for public comment. These comments will be used to assist in the development of the upcoming amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP.

          Table 1—Time and Instructions of the Scoping Webinar and Conference Call

            Date
            Time
            Webinar instructions

            October 9, 2019
            2:00-4:00 p.m

              Link: https://noaanmfs-events1.webex.com/noaanmfs-events1/onstage/g.php?MTID=ea75b63983365ec291964d9bc1a6fb968.

                Event Password: NOAA.

                Dial In: 888-843-6167.

                Passcode: 3439062.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public scoping meetings and on conference calls or webinars to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the webinar and conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the Agency; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). A NMFS representative will attempt to structure the webinar and conference call so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject matter. If attendees do not respect the ground rules they will be asked to leave the webinar or conference call.

        NMFS anticipates that Draft Amendment 12 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP will be available in 2020 and that Final Amendment 12 will be available in 2021.

          Dated: August 28, 2019.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-18939 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI21

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milk-vetch)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the threatened Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milk-vetch) in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, California, and the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the proposed critical habitat rule that was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2002 (67 FR 62926), need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until April 21, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and information should be sent to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. Written comments may also be sent by fax to 805/644-3958 or hand-delivered to our office at the above address. You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail). For instructions, see Public Comments Solicited under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rick Farris or Anna Toline of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at 805/644-1766.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On October 9, 2002, we proposed to designate approximately 170 ha (420 ac) of land in three units in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties as critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (67 FR 62926). We accepted public comments on this proposed rule until December 9, 2002. Private lands comprise approximately 33 percent of the proposed critical habitat, and State lands comprise 67 percent. No Federal lands are proposed for inclusion. No federally listed animal species are known to occur on the proposed critical habitat units.

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The economic analysis shows that the proposed designation is not likely to result in any consultation costs pursuant to section 7 of the Act. As a result, the analysis concluded that the potential economic cost attributed to the proposed designation is expected to be $0. The draft analysis is available on the Internet and from the mailing address in the ADDRESSES section above. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We have reopened the comment period at this time in order to accept the best and most current scientific and commercial data available regarding the proposed critical habitat determination for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, and the draft economic analysis associated with the designation of critical habitat. Previously submitted written comments on the critical habitat proposal need not be resubmitted. We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:

        You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to the Field Supervisor (see
          ADDRESSES section). Hand deliveries must be made during normal business hours.
        You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: fw1venturamilkvetch@fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of any special characters and any form of encryption. Also, please include “Attn: RIN 1018-AI21” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at 805/644-1766.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat and the draft economic analysis, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address above. You may obtain copies of the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.r1.fws.gov. or by writing to the Field Supervisor at the address above.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions for organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposal or the draft economic analysis. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) Does the analysis accurately capture and discuss plans or potential for development or conversion to agriculture within the area proposed to be designated;

        (2) Does the analysis adequately address the indirect effects e.g.: property tax losses due to reduced home construction, losses to local business due to reduced construction activity
        (3) Does the analysis accurately define and capture opportunity costs.
        (4) Does the analysis adequately address the likelihood of “stigma effects” and costs associated with the designation; and
        (5) Does the analysis adequately address the likely effects and resulting costs arising from the California Environmental Quality Act and other State laws as a result of the designation.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others used in the development of the proposed critical habitat and draft economic analysis, is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Rick Farris (see
          ADDRESSES section)
        Authority

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

          Dated: March 7, 2003.
          Paul Hoffman,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-6292 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Status of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Status review; reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our review of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) to determine if candidate status is warranted. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered or Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. During or prior to April of 2008, we will make a determination concerning the results of the status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and, shortly thereafter, we will publish this determination in the Federal Register.
          Comments previously submitted on the status of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in preparation of the final revised status review.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments and information from all interested parties for our use in the status review and in preparing a revised finding until September 17, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any of the following methods:
          1. You may mail or hand-deliver your written comments and information to Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113.
          2. You may fax your comments to Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at (505) 346-2542.
          3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to R2FWE_AL@fws.gov.

          4. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of the candidate status review, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the street address above (telephone: (505) 346-2525).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone: (505) 346-2525; facsimile: (505) 346-2542). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        For background information on the events leading to our notice of intent to initiate a status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, refer to our notice published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28664).
        Request for Information

        On May 22, 2007, we published a notice of intent to initiate a candidate status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout (72 FR 28644). We accepted public comments for inclusion in the status review for 45 days, ending July 6, 2007. In response to requests from interested parties, we are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days (see DATES) to offer all interested parties an opportunity to submit data and information for inclusion in our status review for this species.

        Our determination of candidate status for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout must be based upon the best available scientific and commercial data, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We request that you submit any information on the Rio Grande cutthroat trout not previously submitted for our review. We are particularly interested in any relevant information gathered since June 2002 concerning the following:

        (1) Current population status (e.g., population estimates, age-structure, trend) for any of the populations of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, including methodology used for population estimation and confidence intervals if available;
        (2) Rio Grande cutthroat trout's susceptibility to whirling disease, and distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout infected by whirling disease in New Mexico and Colorado;
        (3) Distribution of Tubifix tubifix (tubificid worms), an intermediate host of the parasite known to cause whirling disease in trout, and the susceptibility of these worms to the parasite in the streams of New Mexico and Colorado;
        (4) Genetic classification of any Rio Grande cutthroat trout population(s);
        (5) Condition of occupied habitat;
        (6) Restoration projects that have been completed, including translocation, new barrier construction or barrier repair, habitat improvement projects, or nonnative trout removal projects;
        (7) Results of barrier surveys;
        (8) Distribution of nonnative trout or their population size and structure in streams currently occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat trout;
        (9) Status of any of the thirteen “core” populations identified in the 2002 status review (see 67 FR 39936);
        (10) Current and future threats to Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations and remaining habitat areas;
        (11) Other regulatory mechanisms that address those threats; and the success of those mechanisms to date; and
        (12) Whether any portion of the range of the species is a significant portion of the range, and whether there are threats in that portion sufficient to meet the standards for listing under the Act.
        Our candidate status review will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received, including all previous comments and information submitted during the 2002 candidate status review. As such, information provided during the previous status review does not need to be resubmitted.

        If you are submitting e-mail comments, please include “Attn: Rio Grande cutthroat trout” in your e-mail subject header. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail, contact us directly by calling our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office at (505) 346-2525. Please note that comments must be received by the date specified in the DATES section in order to be considered and that the e-mail address (R2FWE_AL@fws.gov) will be unavailable at the termination of the public comment period.
        Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest Ecological Services Regional Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: August 10, 2007.
          H. Dale Hall,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-16144 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 71
        [Docket No. FAA-2207-29055; Airspace Docket 07-ASO-19]
        Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice proposes to amend the Class D airspace and establish E4 airspace at Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL. As a result of an evaluation, it has been determined the Class D airspace should be reduced and Class E4 airspace should be established for Jacksonville Cecil Field F Airport. Additional controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight rules (IFR) operations at Jacksonville Cecil Field Airport.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29055/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see Addresses section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melinda Giddens, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Comment Invited
        Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenter wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29055/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenters. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
        Availability of NPRMs

        An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
        The Proposal

        The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D and establish Class E airspace at Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL.  The current Class D airspace supporting IFR operations can be reduced and E4 airspace established to contain operations at Jacksonville Cecil Field Airport.  This proposed action would provide the additional controlled airspace, extending upward from the surface to support the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Runway (RWY) 9 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Jacksonville Cecil Field.  Class D and E4 airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 6000 of FAA Order 7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.  The Class D and E4 airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
        The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.  It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.  Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code.  Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.  Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
        This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103.  Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.  This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E4 airspace at Cecil Field in Jacksonville, FL.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
          Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

        The Proposed Amendment
        In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

          PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
          1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

            §71.1
            [Amended]
            2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

              Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

              ASO FL D Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL [Revised]
              Cecil Field, FL
              (Lat. 30°13′07″ N, long. 81°52′36″ W)
              Herlong Airport
              (Lat. 30°16′40″ N, long. 81°48′21″ W)

              That airspace extending upward from the surface, to and including 2,600 feet MSL, within a 4.3-mile radius of Cecil Field; excluding that airspace within the Jacksonville NAS Class D airspace area and that airspace within the Jacksonville Whitehouse Class D airspace area and that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Herlong Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

              Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area.

              ASO FL E4 Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL [NEW]
              Cecil Field, FL
              (Lat. 30°13′07″ N, long. 81°52′36″ W)
              Cecil VOR
              (Lat. 30°12′47″ N, long. 81°53′27″ W)

              That airspace extending upward from the surface, to and including 1,900 feet MSL, within 2.4 miles each side of the Cecil VOR 286° radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 7 miles west of the VOR. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

            Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 9, 2007.
            Barry A. Knight,
            Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.

      [FR Doc. 07-5984 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-M