        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 011212298-1298-01; I.D. No. 113001A;]

        Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and Designating Critical Habitat; 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List Atlantic White marlin (Tetrapturus albidus)

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding; request for information and comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces the 90-day finding for a petition to list Atlantic white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) as threatened or endangered throughout its known range and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  NMFS finds that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.  NMFS will conduct a status review of Atlantic white marlin to determine if the petitioned action is warranted.  To ensure that the review is comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting information and comments pertaining to this species and potential critical habitat from any interested party.  NMFS also seeks suggestions from the public for peer reviewers to take part in the peer review process for the Atlantic white marlin status review.

          DATES:
          Comments and information related to this petition finding must be received by February 19, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Requests for copies of the petition, and information and comments on this finding should be submitted to Georgia Cranmore, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Peterburg, FL 33702-2432.  The petition, finding and supporting data are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Lee, NMFS Southeast Region, (727) 570-5312; or David O’Brien, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that NMFS make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.  NMFS’ ESA implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.  In determining whether substantial information exists for a petition to list a species, NMFS takes into account several factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in NMFS’ files.  To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register.  If NMFS finds that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted, section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a status review of the species.  Section 4 (b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to make a finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within 1 year of the receipt of the petition.
        Analysis of Petition
        On September 4, 2001, NMFS received a petition from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and James R. Chambers requesting NMFS to list the Atlantic white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) as threatened or endangered throughout its range, and to designate critical habitat under the ESA.  The petition contained a detailed description of the species, including the  present legal status; taxonomy and physical appearance; ecological and fisheries importance; distribution; physical and biological characteristics of its habitat and ecosystem relationships; population status and trends; and factors contributing to the population’s decline.  Potential threats identified in the petition include: (1) overutilization for commercial purposes; (2) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (3) predation; and (4) other natural or man-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence.  The petitioners also included information regarding how the species would benefit from being listed under the ESA, cited references and provided appendices in support of the petition.
        Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species, subspecies, or a distinct population segment (DPS) of a species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)).  The petitioners requested that NMFS list Atlantic white marlin throughout its entire range.  They are found in warm waters throughout tropical and temperate portions of the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas (Caribbean, Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico).  A highly migratory pelagic species, they are found predominantly in the open ocean over deep water, near the surface in the vicinity of major ocean currents where their prey is concentrated.  Their food resources include small fishes and invertebrates such as squid that can be swallowed whole.
        The petitioners provided a detailed narrative justification for their petitioned action, describing past and present numbers and distribution of Atlantic white marlin.  Information regarding its status was provided for the entire range of the species.  The petition was accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation, including the most recent stock assessment for this species (SCRS/00/23).

        In 1997, the Atlantic white marlin was listed as overfished under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).  In April 1999, NMFS published Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan, which included rebuilding programs and measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality for Atlantic billfish, including white marlin.  The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), responsible for management of tunas and tuna-like fishes of the Atlantic Ocean also considers the Atlantic white marlin to be overfished.  Several binding recommendations have been adopted by ICCAT over the last few years to reduce landings and improve data and monitoring.  The most recent recommendation in November 2000 included a two-phase rebuilding plan involving further landing reductions and the development of more rebuilding measures after the next stock assessments in 2002.

        The petitioners assert that existing protection for Atlantic white marlin at both the national and international level is inadequate to conserve the species or prevent its slide to extinction.  The population's decline has been documented thoroughly by ICCAT's scientific advisors, the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS).  According to the petitioners, the primary cause of the Atlantic white marlin decline is due to bycatch in the international swordfish and tuna fisheries.  The most recent stock assessment conducted in July of 2000 (SCRS/00/23) indicates that by the end of 1999:  (1) the total Atlantic stock biomass had declined to less than 15 percent of its maximum sustainable yield level; (2) fishing mortality was estimated to be at least seven times higher than the sustainable level; (3) overfishing has taken place for over three decades; and (4) the stock is less productive than previously estimated, with a maximum sustainable yield smaller than 1,300 metric tons.  The population’s abundance was last at its long-term sustainable level in 1980.  Reduction in prey species availability may also be a threat to the species, with two of its important prey species, Atlantic bluefish and squid, listed as overfished under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
        Petition Finding
        Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14 (b)(2), NMFS finds that the petitioner presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that a listing of Atlantic white marlin may be warranted.  Under section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this finding requires that NMFS commence a status review on Atlantic white marlin.  NMFS is now initiating this review.  Within one year of the receipt of the petition (by September 3, 2002), a finding will be made as to whether listing the Atlantic population of the white marlin as threatened or endangered is warranted, as required by section 4 (b)(3)(B) of the ESA.  If warranted, NMFS will publish a proposed rule and take public comment before developing and publishing a final rule.
        Listing Factors and Basis for Determination
        Under section 4 (a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered for any one of the following reasons: (1) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.  Listing determinations are made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species.
        Information Solicited

        To ensure that the status review is completed in a timely manner and based on the best available scientific and commercial data, NMFS is soliciting information and comments on whether the Atlantic white marlin is endangered or threatened based on the above listing criteria.  Specifically, NMFS is soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current abundance of Atlantic white marlin; (2) current spatial distribution; (3) population status and trends; (4) information on any current or planned activities that may adversely impact Atlantic white marlin, especially related to the five listing factors identified above; and (4) ongoing efforts to protect Atlantic white marlin and their habitat. NMFS requests that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter’s name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        Critical Habitat
        NMFS is also requesting information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the Atlantic white marlin.  Areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the species should be identified.  Areas outside the present range should also be identified if such areas are essential to the recovery of the species.  Essential features include, but are not limited to: (1) space for individual growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and development of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12 (b)).
        For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS requests information describing (1) the activities that affect the area or that could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic costs and benefits of management measures likely to result from the designation.  NMFS is required to consider the probable economic and other impacts on proposed or ongoing activities in making a final critical habitat designation(50 CFR 424.19).
        Peer Review
        On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270).  The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available.  NMFS is soliciting the names of recognized experts in the field that could take part in the peer review process for this status review.  Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific community, tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups.
        References Cited
        SCRS. 2000.  Report of the ICCAT Billfish Workshop (Miami, FL, USA, July 18-28,2000) - Billfish Detailed Report

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: December 14, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-31285 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51; DA 13-592]
        Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism and A National Broadband Plan for Our Future

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a proposal to clarify the schools and libraries universal service support program (E-rate program) requirements for bundling devices, equipment and services that are ineligible for E-rate support. Under this proposal, beginning in funding year 2014, service providers may no longer offer bundled ineligible components as E-rate eligible even if they determine the bundled offering falls within the scope of the Gift Rule Clarification Order.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before May 23, 2013 and reply comments are due on June 7, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51; DA 13-592, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bryan Boyle or Cara Voth, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Public Notice in CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, and DA 13-592, released April 9, 2013. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

        Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

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

        Furthermore, two copies of each pleading must be sent to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; email: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov and one copy to Bryan P. Boyle, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A100, Washington, DC 20554; email: Bryan.Boyle@fcc.gov.
        I. Introduction

        1. In the Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a proposal to clarify the schools and libraries universal service support program (informally known as the E-rate program) requirements for bundling devices, equipment and services that are ineligible for E-rate support (“ineligible components”) with E-rate eligible services and products. In 2012, the Bureau sought comment on a petition filed by the State E-rate Coordinators Alliance (SECA) seeking clarification of how the Commission's rules requiring cost allocation of ineligible components aligns with language in the Bureau's 2010 Gift Rule Clarification Order (Order) (DA 10-2355) that allowed, under limited circumstances, the bundling of ineligible end-user devices and equipment without cost allocation. Having considered the comments filed in response to the SECA Petition Public Notice, the Bureau now proposes and seeks comment on additional clarifications to remove any potential uncertainty regarding the Commission's requirement for applicants to cost allocate ineligible components when those ineligible components are bundled with eligible services.
        II. Discussion

        2. Based on several unexpected issues that have arisen since the Order was released, we have determined that it may be in the best interest of E-rate applicants, service providers, and the public, for the Bureau to interpret the Commission's rules regarding bundled ineligible components differently than was reflected in the Order. Specifically, we propose to clarify that beginning with applications seeking discounts for E-rate funding year 2014, any ineligible components must be cost allocated, even if bundled with E-rate eligible services and offered to the public or some class of users. As further described herein, we seek comment on this proposal.
        A. Requirements for Bundled Ineligible Components
        3. We propose that, beginning in funding year 2014, service providers may no longer offer bundled ineligible components as E-rate eligible even if they determine the bundled offering falls within the scope of the Order. E-rate applicants may seek E-rate funding for the eligible services portion of any bundled offering but must provide a cost allocation for any ineligible components including, but not limited to, telephone handsets, computers, cell phones, and other components. We make this proposal out of our concern that the Order language that allowed, under limited circumstances, an exemption of our cost allocation requirements, may lead to unintended consequences. We are persuaded by those interested parties who have expressed concern that an open-ended interpretation and widespread use and expansion of this exception could lead to further strain on the E-rate fund, which is capped and already over-subscribed. Moreover, the out-of-pocket expenses at issue are for ineligible components that recipients have always understood to be ineligible for E-rate support. Additionally, to the extent that the real cost to the provider of the “free” or reduced price ineligible component results in a more expensive bundle, the money saved by not paying for the entire bundle will result in more funds being available to other E-rate recipients for E-rate eligible services. We seek further comment on these concerns and related matters.
        4. We make this proposal primarily because the record developed on this issue thus far demonstrates a lack of clarity about the rules regarding cost allocation for bundled ineligible components. We are also not persuaded that the clarifications suggested by stakeholders would be effective because those suggestions could result in excessively burdensome procedures for applicants, service providers and the administrator of the E-rate program, USAC. For example, SECA's proposals and other potential outcomes that include procedures to determine which bundled offerings qualify for an exemption from cost allocation are likely to be administratively unworkable and ultimately costly for the E-rate program. Also, assigning a specific measurement as a maximum threshold for a bundled ineligible component, such as a percentage of a contract price or a specific dollar amount, as at least one commenter recommends, could in turn encourage recipients to set that dollar amount as a goal for spending or might prompt service providers to price equipment just under that maximum. This could further deplete funds, and could have other unintended negative consequences on participant purchasing decisions. Finally, determining whether a bundled service offering is a commercially common practice within the industry, and not a unique offering of an individual service provider, and that the bundled arrangement is currently available to the public and not just to a designated class of subscribers, would require both USAC and ultimately the Commission to perform analysis of individual service provider offerings on a case-by-case basis. We agree that it would be difficult to administer this exemption on a consistent basis without posing a drain on E-rate resources, because it could require additional personnel and market trend analysis that USAC is not prepared for or structured to perform. We seek comment on whether putting measurements and procedures in place to implement the bundling exemption in the Order will cost more to the program than any savings that might be gained by some applicants if we continue to allow the exemption.
        5. We also seek comment on any alternatives to our proposal. We ask commenters that support our proposal to provide a specific rationale for their position. To the extent commenters believe that other interpretations would better serve the Commission's goals, including other proposals that might improve program efficiency while protecting E-rate funds, commenters should provide detailed descriptions of their proposals in their comments. We also welcome suggested alternatives that minimize the impact of these proposals on small businesses as well as comments regarding the cost and benefits of implementing our proposal.
        B. Cost Allocation Procedures
        6. We considered as part of this proposal the likely impact on applicants and we do not anticipate it will cause an unreasonable burden. E-rate program participants have always been required to detail the costs of ineligible components and our proposal would merely require them to apply this requirement to any bundled ineligible components they may have believed to fall within the purview of the Order. Although this may increase the amount of time applicants spend on their applications, we do not believe that this increase will be significant. We recognize, however, that applicants may desire additional guidance on how to best derive the costs of ineligible end-user devices. For example, for situations where component costs are not easily obtained and applicants must rely on their service providers for cost allocation percentages, how can applicants confirm such percentages? We seek comment on whether we should further clarify our current standard for cost allocations to provide additional guidance concerning end-user equipment. We also seek comment whether there are additional ways the Commission could reduce the burden on E-rate recipients that are required to cost allocate bundled components that they may have believed to be exempt from cost allocation in more recent funding years.
        C. Ancillary Components

        7. Finally, our proposal addresses only the cost allocation language in the Order pertaining to the treatment of ineligible components and does not purport to alter the Commission's cost allocation rule, 47 CFR 54.504(e). Other than the Order language, the only existing exception to the cost allocation rules is the exception for ancillary components. An insignificant and strictly “ancillary” component can be bundled into a much broader product or service without cost allocation if the ineligible component is ancillary to the principle use of the eligible component, and is the most cost-effective means of receiving the eligible component functionality. In order for an ineligible component to be ancillary, however, its price cannot be determined separately and independently from the price of the eligible components. SECA asserts that in addition to the Order language, the rules concerning ancillary components may lack clarity and should be addressed by the Bureau. Therefore, we seek comment on whether it is necessary to make changes and, if so, what clarifications could be made to ensure that ineligible components are not bundled under the guise of being ancillary to a much broader product or service. For example, under what circumstances would it be appropriate for an applicant or service provider to assert that a separate piece of equipment, such as a telephone handset, cell phone or tablet, is ancillary to the eligible service it is paired with? Because their prices can almost always be determined independent of any eligible components, we do not think end-user devices could ever be considered ancillary to the services with which they are paired. We seek comment on this position.

        III. Procedural Matters
        A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the rules proposed in this Public Notice. Written 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 Public Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        9. The public notice seeks comment on requirements that apply when service providers seek to bundle devices, equipment and services that are ineligible for E-rate support with E-rate eligible services and products. In the public notice, we propose to clarify that beginning with applications seeking discounts for E-rate fund year 2014, any ineligible components must be cost allocated, even if bundled with E-rate eligible services and offered to the public or some class of users. The Bureau's objective for the proposed rule is to provide clarity to E-rate recipients and service providers and stabilize fund expenditures. The current requirement as interpreted in the Order could further strain the E-rate program because it permits E-rate funding to pay for ineligible components and also lacks sufficient clarity to be interpreted on a consistent and fair basis in the marketplace. This Public Notice seeks comment on the Commission's definition of ancillary services and its relation to E-rate offerings with bundled ineligible components.
        10. The prudent use of limited E-rate funding and clarity about E-rate rules are important to the long-term efficacy of the fund. The proposal contained in this public notice will help to achieve the Commission's goal of maintaining fund solvency and providing clear rules to E-rate recipients.
        C. Legal Basis
        11. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the public notice is contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403.
        D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules May Apply
        12. 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. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
        13. Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
        14. Small entities potentially affected by the proposals herein include eligible schools and libraries and the eligible service providers offering them discounted services.
        15. Schools and Libraries. As noted, “small entity” includes non-profit and small government entities. Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, which provides support for elementary and secondary schools and libraries, an elementary school is generally “a non-profit institutional day or residential school that provides elementary education, as determined under state law.” A secondary school is generally defined as “a non-profit institutional day or residential school that provides secondary education, as determined under state law,” and not offering education beyond grade 12. For-profit schools and libraries, and schools and libraries with endowments in excess of $50,000,000, are not eligible to receive discounts under the program, nor are libraries whose budgets are not completely separate from any schools. Certain other statutory definitions apply as well. The SBA has defined for-profit, elementary and secondary schools and libraries having $6 million or less in annual receipts as small entities. In funding year 2007 approximately 105,500 schools and 10,950 libraries received funding under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Although we are unable to estimate with precision the number of these entities that would qualify as small entities under SBA's size standard, we estimate that fewer than 105,500 schools and 10,950 libraries might be affected annually by our action, under current operation of the program.
        16. Telecommunications Service Providers. First, neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small incumbent local exchange services. The closest size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, we estimate that the majority of entities are small. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis. A “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

        17. Second, neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for wired telecommunications carriers. This provides that a wired telecommunications carrier is a small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. According to the Commission's 2010 Trends Report, rel. Sept. 2012, 359 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these 300 IXCs, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or few employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of interexchange services are small businesses.

        18. Third, neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for wired telecommunications carriers. This provides that a wired telecommunications carrier is a small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. According to the 2010 Trends Report, 1,442 CAPs and competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs) reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange services. Of these 1,442 CAPs and competitive LECs, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive exchange services are small businesses.
        19. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.

        20. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the 2010 Trends Report, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. We have estimated that 261 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
        21. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, since 2007 the Census Bureau has placed paging providers within the broad economic census category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded category of “Paging.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior category and associated data. The data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of paging firms are small.
        22. In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, rel. Feb. 24, 1997, the Commission adopted a size standard for “small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved this definition. An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses was conducted in the year 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area (“EA”) licenses was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses.

        23. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service, rel. Sept. 2012, 291 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of “paging and messaging” services. Of these, an estimated 289 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. We estimate that the majority of common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
        24. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places these firms, whose services might include voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. The latter are within the category of All Other Telecommunications, which has a size standard of annual receipts of $25 million or less. The most current Census Bureau data for all such firms, however, are the 2002 data for the previous census category called Internet Service Providers. That category had a small business size standard of $21 million or less in annual receipts, which was revised in late 2005 to $23 million. The 2002 data show that there were 2,529 such firms that operated for the entire year. Of those, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ISP firms are small entities.
        25. Vendors of Internal Connections: Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional seven had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        26. Vendors of Internal Connections: Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        27. Vendors of Internal Connections: Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 503 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 493 had employment of under 500, and an additional 7 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
        28. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks public comment on proposals for cost allocating bundled ineligible components. The proposed rule could result in minimal additional reporting requirements.
        29. These requirements are already part of 47 CFR 54.504(e) which require a clear delineation of eligible and ineligible services that are included on an application requesting E-rate discounts. The result of the Public Notice could be that small entities that had not been cost allocating certain bundled ineligible components per the Order would again be required to comply with 47 CFR 54.504(e) requirements for cost allocating these components. Small entities that are service providers and vendors in the E-rate program would also be required to reexamine offerings in accordance to any changed requirements.
        F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        30. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
        31. The proposed rulemaking could impose minimal additional burden on small entities. The only additional administrative burden the proposed rulemaking could impose on small entities, however, would be requiring them to cost allocate ineligible components that they may have presumed were exempted from the cost allocation requirements per the Order. Cost allocation requires determining the costs of eligible and ineligible components and reporting the delineation of those costs in a request for E-rate discounts on the FCC Form 471. E-rate recipients had been required to cost allocate ineligible components bundled with eligible services prior to the Order, and are already generally required to cost allocate all ineligible components. Thus, this rulemaking merely removes a short-term exemption that may have been applicable to certain equipment that met the limited qualifications outlined in the Order.
        G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        32. None.
        H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        33. This document seeks comment on a potential new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
        I. Ex Parte Presentations
        34. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Kimberly Scardino,
          Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2013-09421 Filed 4-22-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 102201B]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) will hold an essential fish habitat (EFH) committee meeting on November 5 and 9, 2001, to review the NMFS draft summary of EFH scoping comments and issues, to identify significant issues and preliminary alternatives, and to review the mission of the EFH Committee.  NMFS will hold a workshop November 6 through 9, 2001, to develop a range of alternatives for the designation of EFH and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), and to determine the steps necessary to develop a range of alternatives for the minimization of the effects of fishing on EFH.

          DATES:
          The EFH committee will meet from 10:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2001, and from 8:30 a.m. to noon on Friday, November 9, 2001.  The NMFS EFH workshop will be held Tuesday, November 6 through Friday, November 9.  The workshop will start at 10 a.m. Tuesday and at 8 a.m. Wednesday through Friday.

          ADDRESSES:
          The EFH Committee meetings and the NMFS workshop will meet in Juneau, AK, at the Juneau Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street in Room 445.  On Friday, the EFH Committee will meet in Room 150.
          Questions should be addressed to NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division, Attn:  Cindy Hartmann, 709 West 9th Street, Suite 461, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cindy Hartmann, NMFS, (907) 586-7585, e-mail: Cindy.Hartmann@noaa.gov; or David Witherell, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), (907) 271-2809, e-mail: David.Witherell@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The NPFMC EFH committee was formally established by the NPFMC's acting executive director in May 2001.  The committee was established in response to the need to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the EFH fishery management plan amendments.  For further information about the SEIS, see the notice of intent to prepare an SEIS published in the Proposed Rules section of the Federal Register (66 FR 30396, June 6, 2001).
        The function of the EFH Committee is to serve as a steering committee for the EFH EIS process.  The Committee’s overarching goal is to facilitate input by the industry, conservation community, NPFMC, and general public to the EFH EIS process.  This will be the fourth meeting of the EFH Committee.  Prior meetings were held May 30, August 13 & 14, and October 4, 2001.
        Agenda items for the EFH Committee meeting include:
        1. Discussion of NEPA requirements and objectives;
        2. Discussion of Draft Purpose and Need statement;
        3. Discussion of issues including issue statements, issue categories and key or significant issues;
        4. Discussion of alternatives for EFH and HAPC;
        5. Selection of EFH and HAPC Alternatives to recommend to the NPFMC; and
        6. EFH Committee tasks, timetable and next meeting.
        Although other issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Committee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting.  Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notification.
        Agenda items for the NMFS EFH workshop include the above listed tasks.  Participants at the workshop will also discuss data sources and availability, discuss criteria for selecting an EFH and HAPC alternative, screen EFH and HAPC concepts, evaluate potential EFH and HAPC alternatives, and map and describe EFH by life history stage for managed species.  There will be an evaluation of the workshop and a discussion of the steps necessary to determine effects of fishing on EFH and measures to minimize effects of fishing to the extent practicable.  Tasks will be discussed and possibly assigned and the next workshop date set.
        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cindy Hartmann, (907) 586-7235, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: October 23, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-27040 Filed 10-25-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
        [Docket No. RSPA-03-15852; Notice 1]
        RIN 2137-AD96
        Pipeline Safety: Public Education Programs for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Pipeline Operators

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          The Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) proposes to require all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators to develop and implement public education programs based on the provisions of the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162, Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators.
            1

              1 API RP 1162 provides guidance on development, implementation, and evaluation of pipeline operator “public awareness” programs. Note that “public education programs,” as used in this notice, and “public awareness programs,” as used in API RP 1162, are considered to be the same and are used interchangeably for the purposes of this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by August 23, 2004. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number RSPA-03-15852) by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-40 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          You may obtain copies of this proposed rule or other material in the docket. All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Juan Carlos Martinez (202) 366-1933, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, regarding the subject matter of this proposed rule. Additional information about this initiative may be obtained by accessing RSPA/OPS’ Internet Web page at http://ops.dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        This proposed rule addresses pipeline operator programs to enhance awareness of and communications with:
        • The affected public (i.e., residents and places of congregation, such as businesses and schools) in the vicinity of the pipeline and associated right-of-way.

        • Local and State emergency response and planning officials (i.e., State and county emergency management agencies (EMAs) and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs)).
        • Local public officials and governing councils.
        • Excavators.
        Public education and understanding of pipeline operations is vital to the continued safe operation of pipelines. Pipeline operator public education programs are an important factor in establishing communications and providing information necessary to enhance public understanding of how pipelines function and the public's role in promoting pipeline safety. When effectively and consistently managed, a pipeline operator public education program can provide significant value in enhanced public safety, improved pipeline safety and environmental performance, and enhanced emergency response coordination.
        Enhancing requirements for pipeline operator public education programs is part of a broad effort by RSPA/OPS to enhance safety through promoting improved public communications by the pipeline industry and government pipeline regulators.
        In proposing new requirements for pipeline operator public education programs, RSPA/OPS is also responding to calls by Congress in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355; December 17, 2002) for standards prescribing the elements of public education programs. Simultaneously with this mandate, the pipeline industry has been developing recommendations for pipeline operator public education programs, which resulted in the development of API RP 1162. This standard was developed with extensive collaboration by all segments of the industry, input from RSPA/OPS and State pipeline regulators, and an opportunity for public review and comment. RSPA/OPS is taking advantage of the substantial work accomplished in the completion of this standard to adopt its provisions in this rule.2

            2 A link to API RP 1162 on the API standards Web site may be found at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/rp1162.htm.

        Development of a new rule establishing additional requirements for pipeline operator public education programs is part of RSPA/OPS' broader pipeline safety communications initiative to promote pipeline safety by requiring enhanced communications by the pipeline industry with the public and to increase public awareness of pipeline operations and safety issues. In 2000, RSPA/OPS sponsored a pipeline communications exploratory group under the auspices of the statutorily mandated Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC), composed of representatives of RSPA/OPS, pipeline companies, industry groups, and local jurisdictions. The group met to explore the subject of pipeline communications and to identify opportunities for improvement.
        Recent rulemaking activities by RSPA/OPS (e.g., Liquid and Gas Pipeline Integrity Management, Operator Qualification) included increased efforts to inform the public regarding pipeline safety and regulation. These efforts have included public meetings and public-access Web sites. For example, the following public meetings on the Integrity Management rulemakings were held:
        • November 18-19, 1999, in Herndon, Virginia.
        • February 12-14, 2001, in Arlington, Virginia.
        • August 7-8, 2001, in Houston, Texas.
        • July 23-24, 2002, in Houston, Texas.
        • March 14, 2003, in Washington, DC.
        • April 25, 2003, in Dulles, Virginia.
        The February 2001 public meeting in Arlington, Virginia, included presentations from different stakeholder viewpoints on public communications needs and the nature of additional pipeline information needed by the public, local officials, and emergency responders. Materials from this meeting are available in the electronic docket referenced above.
        Current RSPA/OPS public communications initiatives include:

        • Development and maintenance of a public information Web site http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/pipelineinfo).

        • The Community Assistance and Technical Support (CATS) program with new positions at each RSPA/OPS regional office.
        • A partnership between RSPA/OPS and the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to develop information and training aimed at enhancing the safety of first responders to pipeline accidents and assessing pipeline security risks.
        • A partnership between RSPA/OPS and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council to examine model land use practices by local communities, with an objective of better managing encroachment risks.
        • Development of mechanisms to provide information to local officials, such as the location of pipeline integrity assessments and centralized sources for post-accident information.

        RSPA/OPS also sponsored meetings held in Bellevue, Washington, and Houston, Texas, on the subject of public communications. The general response from the public to these communications efforts by RSPA/OPS was an expressed desire to receive more information on specific pipelines.
        The Bellevue, Washington, meeting (transcript at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/comm/Bellevue_2003_01_29.htm) included panel discussions during which local and State officials, local emergency planners and responders, and public representatives discussed the types of information that these stakeholders would like to receive from pipeline operators, the groups that should receive the information, and the modes of communication that would be effective in conveying the information. The panel members supported increased information from operators to members of the public in areas near pipeline facilities, to local officials of areas intersected by pipelines and areas that could be affected by releases from pipelines, and to emergency responders in areas that could be impacted by releases. The panel members advocated that operators provide this information through a wide range of communication modes, including published material, electronic media, mailings, and live meetings. The panel indicated a variety of information from operators could be important to understanding pipelines and promoting safety. Comments of other attendees at the meeting echoed the panel's comments.
        In response to these comments, RSPA/OPS has supported the pipeline industry's initiatives to develop guidelines for operator public education programs. These initiatives resulted in API RP 1162.
        Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
        On December 17, 2002, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, mandating public education activities by pipeline operators and DOT, with a deadline of one year for performing these activities. These mandates require that:
        • Each pipeline owner and operator carry out a continuing public education program.
        • Each pipeline owner and operator use a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage prevention activities.

        • Each pipeline owner and operator communicate to the public the possible hazards associated with unintended releases from the pipeline facility, including:

        —Physical indications that such a release may have occurred,
        —Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, and
        —How to report a release or other event.

        • Each pipeline owner and operator review its existing public education program for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary to include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline locations.
        • DOT issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective public education program and develop material for use in the program.
        As a first step in responding to these mandates, RSPA/OPS prepared a self-assessment form for each operator's use in reviewing its public education program. The draft form was first distributed to attendees at two public workshops held during September 2003 in Houston, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. The results of the self-assessment (which is based on a self-assessment process defined in API RP 1162) can serve as the basis for defining any necessary improvements to operator programs. RSPA/OPS issued an advisory notice 3
           that required all pipeline operators to complete the self-assessment form and return it to RSPA/OPS by December 17, 2003 (the deadline prescribed in the PSIA).

            3 68 FR 66155, Pipeline Safety: Self-Assessment of Public Education Programs, November 25, 2003. This notice may be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/whatsnew/AdvBulletinADB0308.pdf.

        To more fully implement the mandates of the PSIA, RSPA/OPS encouraged and supported the development of API RP 1162 and is now proposing this rule for pipeline operator public education programs, utilizing the provisions of API RP 1162 for these programs.
        American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice API RP 1162
        In 2001, at the request of RSPA/OPS, API began the development of a new standard for pipeline operator public education programs, designated as API Recommended Practice API RP 1162, through formation of an expanded task force that included representation from gas and liquid transmission pipeline operators and gas distribution pipeline operators. Representatives of RSPA/OPS and the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) (representing State pipeline regulatory agencies) attended all meetings of the task force as observers and provided direction and input into both the process and the content of the standard. RSPA/OPS recognized the potential of the new standard to support its efforts to promote safety through improved public communications.
        The API RP 1162 task force developed a draft standard for comment, which was presented at a meeting in Houston, Texas, on July 25, 2002. The meeting was attended by public officials and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs), as well as pipeline companies. Comments were also invited through the API Web site. Comments were incorporated in a new draft standard that API presented at a subsequent public meeting on pipeline public communications in Bellevue, Washington on January 29, 2003. This meeting was co-sponsored by RSPA/OPS, State pipeline regulators, and pipeline industry organizations. Additional comments were incorporated and a revised draft was issued on May 29, 2003, for API balloting and the beginning of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) review process. A final corrected draft was issued on September 2, 2003. This draft was presented at the September 2003, public workshops held in Houston, TX and Baltimore, MD.

        Pipeline industry organizations generally agreed with the direction of RSPA/OPS and the work of the API RP 1162 committee. In response, API issued a Joint Statement on Enhancing Public Awareness Programs for the Pipeline Industry (May 28, 2003), which committed the industry to adopting “* * * a consensus standard establishing a baseline public awareness program for pipeline operators * * *” and urged RSPA/OPS “* * * to satisfy any need to supplement current requirements for public awareness programs by incorporating [API] RP 1162 into its regulations * * *.” The joint statement was signed by executives of the following organizations:
        • API;
        • Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL);
        • American Gas Association (AGA);
        • Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA);
        • American Public Gas Association (APGA).
        The Proposed Rule
        RSPA/OPS proposes a rule to require each pipeline operator to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with the requirements of API RP 1162. This proposed rule applies to all pipelines regulated under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, including:
        • Interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid transmission pipelines.

        • Interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines.

        • Natural gas distribution pipelines.
        • Oil and gas gathering lines.

        If an operator's current public education program does not comply with API RP 1162, the operator would be required to modify the program to come into compliance. Information on API RP 1162, including a link to the document, may be found at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/rp1162.htm.

        The proposed rule would require all pipeline operators to develop and implement public education programs that address the following stakeholder audiences:
        • Affected public.
        • Local officials.
        • Emergency responders.
        • Excavators/Contractors.
        • Land Developers.
        • One-Call Centers.
        For each stakeholder audience, API RP 1162 defines requirements for public education programs, including:
        • The message to be delivered to each audience.
        • The frequency of message delivery.
        • The methods/media to deliver the message.
        The requirements include baseline program requirements, which apply throughout the operator's pipeline system, and supplemental requirements, which apply to specific locations along the pipeline system where relevant location-specific factors make additional education activities necessary. Operators are required to consider the following factors when deciding where supplemental program enhancements should be added to the program, what enhancements should be added, and which audience groups should be the target of the enhancements:
        • Potential Hazards.
        • High Consequence Areas (as defined in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195).
        • Population density.
        • Land development activity.
        • Land farming activity.
        • Third party damage incidents.
        • Environmental considerations.
        • Pipeline history in an area.
        • Specific local situations.
        • Regulatory requirements.
        • Results from previous public education program evaluations.
        • Other relevant needs.

        Baseline and supplemental program requirements for different pipeline operator types are summarized in a set of tables in API RP 1162 that may be found at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/RP1162/Sect-2_Tables_Prelim_Post-to-Web_090903.pdf.

        Each operator is required to establish and periodically update a written public education program covering all program elements. The written program should include:
        • A statement of the company's management commitment to achieving effective public/community education.
        • A description of the roles and responsibilities of personnel administering the program.
        • Identification of key personnel and their titles (including senior management responsible for the implementation, delivery and ongoing development of the program).
        • Identification of the targeted audiences and the information to be communicated to each.
        • Identification of the media and methods of communication to be used in the program, as well as the basis for selecting the chosen method and media.
        • Documentation of the frequency and the basis for selecting that frequency for communicating with each of the targeted audiences.
        • Identification of program enhancements, beyond the baseline program, and the basis for implementing such enhancements.
        • The program evaluation process, including the evaluation objectives, methodology to be used to perform the evaluation and analysis of the results, and criteria for program improvement based on the results of the evaluation.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not consider this proposed rule to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). RSPA does not consider this proposed rule significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979). We prepared a Draft Regulatory Evaluation for this proposed rule and placed it in the public docket for review. The evaluation concludes that there will only be minimal additional costs for operators to comply with the proposed rule, as the rule is based on the API RP 1162, which encompasses consensus industry standard practices. Most operators have existing public education programs, some of which may need to be expanded to meet the requirements of API RP 1162, but this is not expected to involve significant cost. A primary benefit of this rulemaking is complying with Congressional mandates. In addition, increased public awareness that is obtained through the expansion of public education programs is expected to have some benefits due to a potential for fewer pipeline accidents from third party damage and improved emergency response. Pipeline industry organizations have already endorsed the use of API RP 1162 as the basis for new regulatory requirements for pipeline operator public education programs.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA/OPS must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This ensures that the potential impacts of proposed rules on small entities are properly considered. The majority of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are large entities. Of the pipeline operators that are small entities, the majority are gas distribution operators. Two trade associations represent natural gas distribution operators: The AGA and the APGA. The APGA represents municipally-operated gas distribution systems. Conversations between RSPA and APGA indicate that there are approximately 950 municipally operated gas distribution operators. APGA represents 600 of these. Of these 600, APGA estimates that 550 of them would be classified as small entities. The APGA has held two teleconferences for its members concerning implementation of the public education program requirements of API RP 1162. They have indicated that compliance with the provisions of this standard would not represent a significant impact on their members, because of the possibility of flexibility in implementing the standard's requirements. APGA indicated that it would be willing to help small pipeline operators with compliance with this regulation. Based upon the above information showing that the economic impact of this rule on small entities will be minimal, I certify under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule contains some information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), DOT will submit a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis to the Office of Management and Budget for its review and to the docket. The requirements for information collection include development by each pipeline operator of a written public education program in compliance with API RP 1162. In addition, API RP 1162 includes requirements for public education program documentation and recordkeeping. The standard was developed by a pipeline industry group and reflects industry standard practices for these aspects of operator programs. Some operators may have increased required levels of documentation and recordkeeping, but these are not expected to be significant. Therefore, RSPA concludes that this proposed rule contains only a minor additional paperwork burden. RSPA has estimated that it will take each operator an additional 8 hours to submit these programs to RSPA, at a total cost over the industry of $19,200 per year.
        Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
        Executive Order 13175

        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Because this proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
        Executive Order 13132
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). This proposed rule does not propose any regulation that:
        (1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
        (2) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, or
        (3) Preempts State law.
        Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) do not apply. It should be noted that representatives of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), which includes State pipeline safety regulators, have participated extensively in the development and review of API RP 1162, which forms the basis for this proposed rule.
        Unfunded Mandates
        This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. An industry working group, along with participants from NAPSR, developed API RP 1162, which forms the basis for the rule. Industry organizations have endorsed this approach to setting requirements for operator public education programs. RSPA/OPS believes this to be the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        RSPA/OPS has analyzed the proposed rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have preliminarily determined that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the environment. The rule requires development of pipeline operator public education programs that follow API RP 1162. This may result in expanded public education activities by operators, but will not result in physical disruption of the environment in the vicinity of pipelines. These additional public education activities can have a positive environmental effect, if increased public awareness results in a lower frequency of pipeline accidents due to excavation damage or if increased awareness results in lower consequences of pipeline accidents due to more effective emergency response to accidents. These potential positive benefits are not expected to be significant, however. The Environmental Assessment of this proposed rule is available for review in the docket.
        Executive Order 13211
        This proposed rulemaking is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rulemaking has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

          List of Subjects
          49 CFR Part 192
          Agency procedures, Gas, Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Public education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
          49 CFR Part 195
          Agency procedures, Hazardous liquid, Oil, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Public education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA/OPS proposes to amend parts 192 and 195 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

          2. Section 192.7 is amended to revise the table in paragraph (c)(2) by adding a new item B.(5) to read as follows:

            § 192.7
            Incorporation by reference.

            (c) * * *
            (2) * * *

                Source and name of referenced material
                49 CFR reference

                A. * * *

                B. * * *

                (5) API RP 1162 “Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators” (2003)
                § 192.616

                *    *    *    *    *

            3. Section 192.616 is revised to read as follows:

            § 192.616
            Public education.

            Each pipeline operator shall establish a continuing public education program to enable all interested and affected parties to recognize a gas pipeline emergency, to react safely to the emergency, and to report the emergency to the operator or appropriate public officials. Each operator is required to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with standard API RP 1162 (IBR, see § 192.7).

          PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
          4. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109 and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

          5. Section 195.3 is amended to revise the table in paragraph (c) by redesignating items B.(13) through B.(16) as B.(14) through B.(17) and adding a new item B.(13) to read as follows:

            § 195.3
            Material incorporated by reference.

            (c) * * *

                Source and name of referenced material
                 49 CFR reference

                A. * * *

                B. * * *

                (13) API RP 1162 “Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators” (2003)
                § 195.440; 195

                (14) API Recommended Practice 2003 “Protection Against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents” (6th edition, 1998)
                §§ 195.134; 195.444; 195.405(a)

                (15) API Publication 2026 “Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service” (2nd edition, 1998)
                § 195.405(b)

                (16) API Recommended Practice 2350 “Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities” (2nd edition, 1996)
                § 195.428(c)

                (17) API Standard 2510 “Design and Construction of LPG Installations” (7th edition, 1995)
                §§ 195.132(b)(3); 195.205(b)(3); 195.264(b)(2); 195.264(e)(4); 195.307(e); 195.428(c); 195.432(c)

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            6. Section 195.440 is revised to read as follows:

            § 195.440
            Public education.

            Each pipeline operator shall establish a continuing public education program to enable all interested and affected parties to recognize a hazardous liquid pipeline emergency, to react safely to the emergency, and to report the emergency to the operator or appropriate public officials. Each operator is required to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with the requirements of standard API RP 1162 (IBR, see § 195.3).

            Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2004.
            Stacey L. Gerard,
            Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 04-12993 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 15
        [ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; DA 20-632; FRS 16892]
        Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Denial of request for comment period extension.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Office of Engineering and Technology respond to Ultra Wide Band Alliance (UWB Alliance) request seeking a 30-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2020. It is the general policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. The Commission denies the request of UWB Alliance to extend the deadline for filing comments and replies in the Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band proceeding.

          DATES:
          Request on comment extension for the proposed rule published at 85 FR 31997, May 28, 2020, denied June 16, 2020.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0636, Nicholos.Oros@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Order, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, DA 20-632, adopted June 16, 2020, and released June 16, 2020. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/uwb-alliances-request-extension-comments-deadline-denied.

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

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Ronald T. Repasi,
          Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.

      [FR Doc. 2020-15476 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 177 and 392
        [Docket Numbers PHMSA-2010-0319 (HM-255) & FMCSA-2006-25660]
        RIN 2137-AE69 & 2126-AB04
        Highway-Rail Grade Crossing; Safe Clearance

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 1, 2011, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) requested that PHMSA and FMCSA extend the comment period for the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing; Safe Clearance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which was published on January 28, 2011, by 60 days. CVSA believes the extension is necessary to gain feedback from its members who will be attending the CVSA Spring Workshop Meeting from April 11-14, 2011. This notice reopens the public comment period for the NPRM from March 29, 2011, to April 29, 2011.

          DATES:
          Comments on the NPRM are due by April 29, 2011.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            At FMCSA: Mr. Thomas Yager, Driver and Carrier Operations; or MCPSD@dot.gov. Telephone (202) 366-4325. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. At PHMSA: Mr. Ben Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On March 1, 2011, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) requested that PHMSA and FMCSA extend the comment period for the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing; Safe Clearance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which was published on January 28, 2011 (76 FR 5120), by 60 days. CVSA believes the extension is necessary to gain feedback from its members who will be attending the CVSA Spring Workshop Meeting from April 11-14, 2011.
        PHMSA and FMCSA believe that other potential commenters to this rulemaking will benefit from an extension as well, and that 30 days is sufficient time to allow CVSA to gain feedback from its members during its Spring Workshop and prepare its comments. Accordingly, PHMSA and FMCSA reopens the comment period for all comments on the NPRM and its related documents to April 29, 2011.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2011, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.

          By the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
          William Bronrott,
          Deputy Administrator.
          By the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
          Bizunesh Scott,
          Chief Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2011-7554 Filed 3-28-11; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P