9806 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules
December 8, 1997. Ten (10) winning coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, attribution standards to 40 percent has bidders for geographic area licenses for for small entities. benefited small businesses. the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz 64. In our September 1999 First F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, SMR band qualified as small businesses Biennial Review Order, we concluded Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed under the $15 million size standard. that retention of the CMRS spectrum 61. The lower 230 channels in the 800 cap and cellular cross-interest rule Rules MHz SMR band are divided between serves the public interest. We found that 66. None. General Category channels (the upper the benefits of these bright-line rules in VI. Ordering Clauses 150 channels) and the lower 80 addressing concerns about increased channels. The auction of the 1,053 800 spectrum aggregation continued to make 67. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, MHz SMR geographic area licenses these approaches preferable to exclusive pursuant to the authority of sections 1, (1,050—800 MHz licenses for the reliance on case-by-case review under 4(i), 11, 303(g), and 303(r) of the General Category channels, and 3—800 section 310(d). By setting bright lines for Communications Act of 1934, as MHz licenses for the upper 200 permissible ownership interests, we amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 161, channels from a previous auction) for found that the rules continued to benefit 303(g), and 303(r), that this Notice of the General Category channels began on both the telecommunications industry Proposed Rulemaking is Adopted. August 16, 2000, and was completed on and subscribers, including small 68. It Is Further Ordered that the September 1, 2000. At the close of the businesses, by providing regulatory Commission’s Consumer Information auction, 1,030 licenses were won by certainty and facilitating more rapid Bureau, Reference Information Center, bidders. Eleven (11) winning bidders for processing of transactions. Specifically, Shall Send a copy of the Notice of geographic area licenses for the General we noted that case-by-case review is Proposed Rulemaking, including the Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR especially expensive and time- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, band qualified as small businesses consuming for small businesses, which to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the under the $15 million size standard. often do not have the requisite Small Business Administration. The auction of the 2,800 800 MHz SMR resources. Federal Communications Commission. geographic area licenses for the lower 80 65. In our 2000 biennial regulatory channels of the 800 MHz SMR service review pursuant to section 11, we here Magalie Roman Salas, began on November 1, 2000, and was reexamine our findings and Secretary. completed on December 5, 2000. determinations in September 1999. [FR Doc. 01–3521 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am] Nineteen (19) winning bidders for Since that time, there have been BILLING CODE 6712–01–P geographic area licenses for the lower 80 international and economic channels in the 800 MHz SMR band developments that have significantly qualified as small businesses under the affected CMRS markets. For example, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR $15 million size standard. In addition, consolidation within the CMRS industry there are numerous incumbent site-by- in an effort to create national service Fish and Wildlife Service site SMR licensees on the 800 and 900 footprints has tended to reduce the MHz bands. The Commission awards number of smaller entities providing 50 CFR Part 17 bidding credits in auctions for broadband CMRS on a purely local RIN 1018–AG38 geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz level. As part of this 2000 biennial SMR licenses to firms that had revenues review, we seek to develop a record Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of no more than $15 million in each of regarding whether the CMRS spectrum and Plants; Reopening of Public the three previous calendar years. cap and cellular cross-interest rule Comment Period and Notice of continue to make regulatory and Availability of Draft Economic Analysis D. Description of Projected Reporting, economic sense in CMRS markets in the for Proposed Critical Habitat Recordkeeping and Other Compliance current-, mid-, and long-term. In doing Determination for the Spruce-Fir Moss Requirements so, we generally request comment on Spider 62. This NPRM neither proposes nor whether retention, modification, or anticipates any additional reporting, elimination of the CMRS spectrum cap AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, recordkeeping or other compliance and/or cellular cross-interest rule is Interior. measures. appropriate with respect to small ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of businesses that are licensees in the E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant reopening of public comment period cellular, broadband PCS and/or SMR Economic Impact on Small Entities, and and availability of draft economic services. We seek comment on whether analysis. Significant Alternatives Considered there continues to be a need for these 63. The RFA requires an agency to rules to ensure that new entrants, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and describe any significant alternatives that including small businesses, have access Wildlife Service, announce the it has considered in reaching its to spectrum licenses both at auction and availability of the draft economic proposed approach, which may include in the secondary market. We inquire analysis for the proposed designation of the following four alternatives (among whether these bright-line rules continue critical habitat for the spruce-fir moss others): (1) The establishment of to create efficiencies and reduce spider (Microhexura montivaga). We differing compliance or reporting transaction costs for small business. We also provide notice that the public requirements or timetables that take into consider the impact on small businesses comment period for the proposal is account the resources available to small if we were to adopt alternative reopened to allow all interested parties entities; (2) the clarification, approaches that rely more heavily on to submit written comments on the consolidation, or simplification of case-by-case review. We also seek proposal and the draft economic compliance or reporting requirements specific comment on various aspects of analysis. Comments previously under the rule for small entities; (3) the these rules that particularly affect small submitted during the comment period use of performance, rather than design, business, such as the whether our need not be resubmitted as they will be standards; and (4) an exemption from September 1999 decision to increase incorporated into the public record and
VerDate 11
will be fully considered in the final Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina the Cherokee National Forest in determination on the proposal. (Harp 1992; pers. observation 1995; Jane Tennessee; and the areas of Grandfather DATES: The original comment period Thompson, The Nature Conservancy, Mountain that are proposed for critical closed on December 5, 2000. The pers. comm. 1997); Mount LeConte in habitat designation are privately owned. comment period is hereby reopened Tennessee (Coyle 1997); and Mount Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that until April 13, 2001. We must receive Buckley (Coyle, pers. comm. 2000) and we designate or revise critical habitat comments from all interested parties by Roan Mountain in North Carolina and based upon the best scientific and the closing date. Any comments that we Tennessee (Coyle 1999). The Mount commercial data available and after receive after the closing date will not be Mitchell population is believed to be taking into consideration the economic considered in the final decision on this extirpated (Harp 1992), and both the impact, and any other relevant impact, proposal. Mount Collins and Clingmans Dome of specifying any particular area as populations, if still present, are critical habitat. We may exclude an area ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft from critical habitat if we determine that economic analysis are available on the extremely small, with only one spruce- the benefits of excluding the area Internet at http://southeast.fws.gov/ fir moss spider having been found at outweigh the benefits of including the hotissues/hot_index.html or by writing each of these two sites in recent years (Harp 1991, 1992). area as critical habitat, provided such to or calling the State Supervisor, The microhabitat of the spruce-fir exclusion will not result in the Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and moss spider appears to be virtually extinction of the species. Consequently, Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, restricted to certain areas of rock we have prepared a draft economic Asheville, North Carolina 28801; outcrops and boulders in Fraser fir and/ analysis concerning the proposed telephone 828/258–3939. or fir-dominated spruce-fir forests. The critical habitat designation, which is If you wish to comment, you may primary threat to, and reason for, the available for review and comment at the submit your comments by any one of recent decline of the spruce-fir moss above Internet and mailing addresses. several methods: spider at all of the sites from which it 1. You may submit written comments Public Comments Solicited has been recorded appears to be and information to the State Supervisor, associated with the loss of suitable moss We solicit comments on the draft Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and habitat, due primarily to the loss of economic analysis described in this Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, mature Fraser firs (Coyle, in litt., 1991, notice, as well as any other aspect of the Asheville, North Carolina 28801. 1999; Harp 1991, 1992; Service 1998). proposed designation of critical habitat 2. You may hand-deliver written On February 6, 1995, we listed the for the spruce-fir moss spider. Our final comments to our Asheville Field Office, spruce-fir moss spider as endangered determination on the proposed critical at the above address or fax your (60 FR 6968) under the Endangered habitat will take into consideration comments to 828/258–5330. Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). comments and any additional 3. You may send comments by The primary threat to the species was information received by the date electronic mail (e-mail) to identified as deterioration of the specified above. All previous comments l john [email protected]. For directions on spider’s high-elevation forest habitat and information submitted during the how to submit electronic filing of due primarily to exotic insects and comment period need not be comments, see the ‘‘Public Comments possibly to past land use history, air resubmitted. Written comments may be Solicited’’ section. pollution, and other factors not yet fully submitted to the State Supervisor (see Comments and materials received, as understood. On October 6, 2000, we ADDRESSES section). well as supporting documentation used published in the Federal Register a Please submit electronic comments as in preparation of this proposed rule, proposal to designate critical habitat for an ASCII file format and avoid the use will be available for public inspection, this species (65 FR 59798). The proposal of special characters and encryption. by appointment, during normal business includes: (1) Areas at and above 1,646 Please also include ‘‘Attn: [RIN hours at the above address. meters (m) (5,400 feet (ft)) in elevation number]’’ and your name and return FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John in the Great Smoky Mountains National address in your e-mail message. If you A. Fridell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist Park (GSMNP) on and/or in the vicinity do not receive a confirmation from the (see ADDRESSES section). of Mount LeConte in Sevier County, system that we have received your e- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tennessee, and Mount Collins, mail message, contact us directly by Clingmans Dome, and Mount Buckley in calling our Asheville Field Office (see Background Swain County, North Carolina, and ADDRESSES section). The spruce-fir moss spider is the Sevier County, Tennessee; (2) areas at Our practice is to make all comments, smallest of the mygalomorph spiders, and above 1,646 m (5,400 ft) in including names and home addresses of with adults measuring only 2.5 to 3.8 elevation at Grandfather Mountain in respondents, available for public review millimeters (0.10 to 0.15 inch) in length Avery, Caldwell, and Watauga Counties, during regular business hours. (Coyle 1981, Service 1995). The species’ North Carolina; and (3) portions at and Individual respondents may request that coloration ranges from light brown to a above 1,646 m (5,400 ft) in elevation at we withhold their home address from darker reddish brown, and there are no Roan Mountain, Avery and Mitchell the rulemaking record, which we will markings on the abdomen (Harp 1992). Counties, North Carolina, and Carter honor to the extent allowable by law. In Microhexura montivaga is known from County, Tennessee. All of the areas on some circumstances, we would only the highest mountain peaks (at and or in the vicinity of Mount LeConte, withhold from the rulemaking record a above 1,646 m (5,400 ft) in elevation) in Mount Collins, Clingmans Dome, and respondent’s identity, as allowable by the Southern Appalachian Mountains of Mount Buckley that are proposed for law. If you wish for us to withhold your North Carolina and Tennessee. critical habitat designation are within name and/or address, you must state Recent and ongoing surveys funded the boundaries of the GSMNP; all of the this prominently at the beginning of by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest areas of Roan Mountain that are your comments. However, we will not Service, and us indicate that proposed for critical habitat designation consider anonymous comments. We reproducing populations of the spruce- are within the boundaries of the Pisgah will make all submissions from fir moss spider still survive on National Forest in North Carolina and organizations or businesses, and from
VerDate 11
individuals identifying themselves as overturned that decision and remanded In its May 20, 1993, finding regarding representatives or officials of the rule to the agency. The District Illinois River winter steelhead, NMFS organizations or businesses, available Court concluded that NMFS erred in announced that it would conduct an for public inspection in their entirety. relying on the expected effects of future expanded status review to identify all conservation measures when making its coastal steelhead ESUs within References Cited final listing determination. In light of California, Oregon, and Washington and A complete list of all references cited the Court’s order and of the need to to determine whether any identified in this document is available upon formally solicit any new information ESUs warranted listing under the ESA request from the Asheville Field Office regarding the status of KMP steelhead, (58 FR 29390). Subsequently, on (see ADDRESSES section). the agency now re-proposes to list the February 16, 1994, NMFS received a Author KMP steelhead ESU as a threatened petition from the Oregon Natural species under the ESA. Resources Council and from 15 co- The primary author of this document DATES: Public hearings on this proposal petitioners to list all steelhead (or is John A. Fridell (see ADDRESSES will be held on February 22, 2001, in specific ESUs, races, or stocks) within section). Gold Beach, OR, and Eureka, CA. the States of California, Oregon, Authority The authority for this action is Comments on this proposal must be Washington, and Idaho. In response to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific this petition, NMFS announced the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). time, on March 5, 2001. Comments will expansion of its status review of Dated: January 18, 2001. not be accepted if submitted via e-mail steelhead to include inland steelhead H. Dale Hall, or the Internet. populations occurring in eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife ADDRESSES: Two public hearings on this Idaho (59 FR 27527, May 27, 1994). Service. proposal will be held: (1) on Thursday, On March 16, 1995, NMFS identified February 22, 2001, from 6:30 p.m. to 9 [FR Doc. 01–2270 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am] a KMP steelhead ESU and published a BILLING CODE 4310–55–U p.m at the Gold Beach City Hall, City proposed rule to list it as a threatened Council Chambers, 29592 Ellensburg species under the ESA (60 FR 14253). Avenue, Gold Beach, OR; and (2) on The proposed ESU included steelhead DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Thursday, February 22, 2001, from 6:30 populations inhabiting coastal river p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Eureka Inn, 518 7th basins between the Elk River in Oregon National Oceanic and Atmospheric Street, Eureka, CA. and the Klamath River in California, Comments on this proposed rule and Administration inclusive. Subsequent to this proposal, requests for reference materials should the agency completed a coastwide status 50 CFR Part 223 be sent to the Chief, Protected Resources review of steelhead (NMFS, 1996a) that Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 [Docket No. 010118020-1020-01; I.D. identified a total of 15 steelhead ESUs NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, 010801A] in the states of Washington, Oregon, OR 97232-2737. Comments may also be Idaho, and California. By August 9, RIN 0648-AO86 sent via facsimile (fax) to (503) 230- 1996, the agency had proposed 10 5435, but will not be accepted if steelhead ESUs, including KMP Endangered and Threatened Species: submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Threatened Status for One steelhead, for listing as threatened or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evolutionarily Significant Unit of endangered under the ESA (61 FR Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig Steelhead in California and Oregon 41541). While the agency had proposed Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Chris Mobley, listing KMP steelhead prior to the other AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 301-713-1401. ESUs, unresolved issues and practical Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: considerations made it more prudent to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Previous Federal ESA Actions Related consider a final determination on KMP Commerce. to West Coast Steelhead steelhead in the context of final listing ACTION: Proposed rule; request for decisions for all West Coast steelhead comments. The first petition to address steelhead ESUs. in the Klamath Mountains Province or On August 18, 1997, NMFS published SUMMARY: NMFS’ completed ‘‘KMP’’ (named after a geological a final rule listing five ESUs as Endangered Species Act (ESA) status province in southwest Oregon and threatened and endangered under the reviews for steelhead (Oncorhynchus northwest California) was received on ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate mykiss) populations in Washington, May 5, 1992, and dealt with winter document published on the same day, Oregon, Idaho, and California resulted steelhead in the Illinois River, a NMFS determined that substantial in proposed listings for several tributary to Oregon’s Rogue River. The scientific disagreement remained for steelhead Evolutionarily Significant agency conducted a status review of this five proposed ESUs, including the KMP Units (ESUs), including a Klamath population (NMFS, 1993) and published steelhead ESU (62 FR 43974, August 18, Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead a May 20, 1993, determination (58 FR 1997). In accordance with section ESU. Steelhead in this ESU inhabit 29390) wherein NMFS concluded that 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred coastal river basins between the Elk Illinois River winter steelhead did not its decision on these five steelhead River in Oregon and the Klamath River warrant listing because they did not ESUs for 6 months for the purpose of in California, inclusive. After reviewing represent a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA. soliciting additional data. During this 6- additional information, including However, NMFS recognized that this month period of deferral, NMFS’ biological data on the species’ status population was part of a larger ESU scientist evaluated new information and an assessment of protective efforts, whose extent had not yet been regarding the status of these proposed NMFS concluded in 1998 that this ESU determined, but whose status might steelhead ESUs. This new information did not warrant listing. However, the warrant listing because of declining resulted in the updating of status review U.S. District Court for the Northern trends in steelhead abundance observed documents for these five ESUs (NMFS, District of California (Court) recently in several southern Oregon streams. 1997; NMFS, 1998).
VerDate 11