58940

Federal Register

/Vol. 74, No. 219/Monday, November 16, 2009/Notices

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).

hours are 8a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except holidays. To besure someone is there to help you,please call (202) 690-2817 beforecoming.

Other Information:

Additionalinformation about APHIS and itsprograms is available on the Internet at(

http://www.aphis.usda.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Dr.Shirley Wager-Page, Chief, PestPermitting Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD20737-1237; (301) 734-8453.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

The Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) is proposingto issue permits for the release of aninsect,

Megamelus scutellaris

, into thecontinental United States for use as a biological control agent to reduce theseverity of water hyacinth infestations.Water hyacinth originated in lowlandtropical South America and was firstintroduced into the United States in thelate 1800s. Its erect, free-floating habitand attractive flowers made its usepopular in ornamental ponds andgarden pools which inevitably led to thespread of the plant by humans. Theindividual rosettes reproduce to formextensive floating mats which, inmature stands, extend a meter or moreabove the water’s surface. Theinvasiveness of water hyacinth resultsfrom its rapid growth, its ability toreinfest via seeds or plant fragments,and its lack of natural enemies.Infestations negatively affect watertraffic, water quality, infrastructure forpumping and hydroelectric operations,water use, and biodiversity. The plantcan also cause property damage duringfloods, water loss due toevapotranspiration, and an increase inmosquito populations.Existing water hyacinth managementoptions include chemical control,draining, and harvesting. However,these management measures areineffective, expensive, temporary, havenon-target impacts, or disturb the lifecycles of the currently released insectsused for biological control of waterhyacinth. Thus, a permit application has been submitted to APHIS for thepurpose of releasing an insect,

scutellaris

, into the continental UnitedStates for use as a biological controlagent to reduce the severity of waterhyacinth infestations.APHIS’ review and analysis of theproposed action are documented indetail in an environmental assessment(EA) titled ‘‘Field Release of

Megamelusscutellaris

, Berg (Hemiptera:Delphacidae), for Biological Control of Water Hyacinth

Eichhornia crassipes

Mart. (Solms) (Pontederiales:Pontederiaceae) in the ContinentalUnited States’’ (July 2009). We aremaking the EA available to the publicfor review and comment. We willconsider all comments that we receiveon or before the date listed under theheading

DATES

at the beginning of thisnotice.The EA may be viewed on theRegulations.gov Web site or in ourreading room (see

ADDRESSES

above forinstructions for accessingRegulations.gov and information on thelocation and hours of the reading room).You may request paper copies of the EA by calling or writing to the person listedunder

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

. Please refer to the title of theEA when requesting copies.The EA has been prepared inaccordance with: (1) The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA), as amended (42U.S.C. 4321 etseq.), (2) regulations of the Council onEnvironmental Quality forimplementing the procedural provisionsof NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPAImplementing Procedures (7 CFR part372).Done in Washington, DC, this 9

dayof November 2009.

Kevin Shea,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. E9–27393 Filed 11–13–09 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURERural Utilities Service

RIN: 0572–ZA01

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Telecommunications andInformation Administration

Docket Number: 0907141137–91375–05RIN: 0660–ZA28

Broadband Initiatives Program andBroadband Technology OpportunitiesProgram

AGENCIES

Rural Utilities Service (RUS),Department of Agriculture, and NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA), Department of Commerce.s

ACTION

Joint Request for Information.

SUMMARY

RUS and NTIA announce therelease of a joint Request for Information(RFI) seeking public comment on certainissues relating to the implementation of the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP)and the Broadband TechnologyOpportunities Program (BTOP). This isthe second joint RFI that the agencieshave issued since the enactment of theAmerican Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (Recovery Act), whichestablished these broadband initiatives.The input the agencies expect to receivefrom this process is intended to informthe second round of funding. Inparticular, the agencies seek to gatherinformation that will help them improvethe broadband programs by enhancingthe applicant experience and makingtargeted revisions to the first Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA), if necessary.

DATES

Comments must be received byNovember 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. EasternStandard Time.

ADDRESSES

Interested parties areencouraged to file commentselectronically via e-mail to broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov. Papercomments should be sent to: BroadbandInitiatives Program, Rural UtilitiesService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop1599, Washington, DC 20250, andBroadband Technology OpportunitiesProgram, National Telecommunicationsand Information Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce, HCHB Room4887, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Forgeneral inquiries regarding BIP, contactDavid J. Villano, AssistantAdministrator, TelecommunicationsProgram, Rural Utilities Service, email: bip@wdc.usda.gov, telephone: (202)690–0525. For general inquiriesregarding BTOP, contact AnthonyWilhelm, Deputy AssociateAdministrator, Infrastructure Division,Office of Telecommunications andInformation Applications, NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration, email: btop@ntia.doc.gov, telephone: (202)482–2048.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

OnFebruary 17, 2009, President Obamasigned the Recovery Act into law.

TheRecovery Act establishes five statutorypurposes: to preserve and create jobsand promote economic recovery; toassist those most impacted by therecession; to provide investmentsneeded to increase economic efficiency

VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:00 Nov 13, 2009Jkt 220001PO 00000Frm 00004Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM16NON1

m s t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S

58941

Federal Register

/Vol. 74, No. 219/Monday, November 16, 2009/Notices

Recovery Act §3(a), 123 Stat. at 115-16.

74 Fed. Reg. at 33107.

Recovery Act, div. A, tit. I, 123 Stat. at 118-19.

74 Fed. Reg. at 33113.

Id.

at 33105.

by spurring technological advances inscience and health; to invest intransportation, environmentalprotection, and other infrastructure thatwill provide long-term economic benefits; and to stabilize state and localgovernment budgets.

Consistent with these statutorypurposes, the Recovery Act providesRUS and NTIA with $7.2 billion toexpand access to broadband services inthe United States. In so doing, itrecognizes the growing importance of access to broadband services toeconomic development and to thequality of life of all Americans.Specifically, the Recovery Act expandsRUS’s existing authority to make loansand provides new authority to makegrants for the deployment andconstruction of broadband systems inrural America. The purpose of theexpanded RUS broadband authority isto improve access to broadband in ruralareas without service or that lacksufficient access to high-speed broadband service, and to facilitateeconomic development. In addition, theRecovery Act requires NTIA to establishBTOP, which makes available grants fordeploying broadband infrastructure inunserved and underserved areas in theUnited States, enhancing broadbandcapacity at public computer centers, andpromoting sustainable broadbandadoption. In facilitating the expansionof broadband communications servicesand infrastructure, both programs willadvance the objectives of the RecoveryAct by spurring job creation andstimulating long-term economic growthand opportunity.On March 9, 2009, RUS and NTIAjointly issued an initial RFI seekingpublic comment on issues relating to theimplementation of these programs. Morethan 1,000 public comments werereceived in response to the RFI andthese comments were used to developthe NOFA, which was published in the

Federal Register

on July 9, 2009. TheNOFA allocated up to $4 billion infunding for BIP and BTOP projects,including Broadband Infrastructureprojects, Public Computer Centerprojects, and Sustainable BroadbandAdoption projects. It also set forth keydefinitions that are used in theprograms, established basic eligibilityrequirements and evaluation criteria,and provided additional information forapplicants on how to obtain funding. Inresponse to the NOFA, RUS and NTIAreceived over 2,200 applicationsrequesting nearly $28 billion in funding,with projects reaching across all 50states, five territories, and the District of Columbia.Before initiating the second round of funding, RUS and NTIA are requestingadditional public comment on certainaspects of BIP and BTOP. RUS andNTIA seek to improve the applicantexperience and strengthen the programimpact of BIP and BTOP in achievingRecovery Act objectives. Please notethat topics discussed in this request forinformation will not apply to the initialfunding round, but will apply only tothe second round.

Matters To Be Considered:

Information is being sought on thetopics discussed herein. Interestedparties are invited to submit commentsfor the record on these topics.Comments must be received byNovember 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. EasternStandard Time.

I. The Application and Review Process

A. Streamlining the Applications.

For the first round of funding,applicants were required to complete a broadband infrastructure application,public computer center application, orsustainable broadband adoptionapplication, depending on the type of project being proposed. For eachapplication, the NOFA requiredapplicants to respond to a number of questions and submit certain data.Those applicants considered highlyqualified after completion of step one of the review process were required tosubmit additional information during astep two ‘‘due diligence’’ phase tosubstantiate the representationsprovided in the application.

Somestakeholders, especially applicantscompleting the broadband infrastructureapplication, stated during the firstround application process thatcompleting the initial application wasoverly burdensome based on thequestions asked and the number of attachments required. RUS and NTIAtentatively conclude that the applicationprocess should be streamlined. In whatways should RUS and NTIA streamlinethe applications to reduce the burden onapplicants, while still obtaining therequisite information to fulfill thestatutory requirements set forth in theRecovery Act? Should the agenciesmodify the two-step review process, andif so, how? Should certain attachments be eliminated, and if so, which ones?Should the agencies re-examine the useof a single application for applicantsapplying to both BIP and BTOP to fundinfrastructure projects? How shouldNTIA link broadband infrastructure,public computer center and sustainableadoption projects through theapplication process?1. New Entities.What type of information should RUSand NTIA request from new businesses,particularly those that have been newlycreated for the purpose of applying forgrants under the BIP and BTOPprograms? For example, should theagencies eliminate the requirement toprovide historical financial statementsfor recently-created entities?2. Consortiums and Public-PrivatePartnerships.Similarly, how should the application be revised to reflect the participation of consortiums or public-privatepartnerships in the application process?Should certain critical information berequested from all members of suchgroups, in addition to the designatedlead applicant, to sufficiently evaluatethe application? If so, what type of information should RUS and NTIArequest?3. Specification of Service Areas.The broadband infrastructureapplication required applicants tosubmit data on a census block level inorder to delineate the proposed fundedservice areas. Some applicants foundthis requirement burdensome. Whatlevel of data collection anddocumentation should be required of applicants to establish the boundaries of the proposed funded service areas?4. Relationship between BIP and BTOP.The Recovery Act prohibits a projectfrom receiving funding from NTIA inareas where RUS has funded a project.

Section VI.C.1.a.i of the NOFA requiredthat infrastructure applicationsconsisting of proposed funded serviceareas which are at least 75 percent rural be submitted to and considered underBIP, with the option of additionalconsideration under BTOP.

Accordingto the NOFA, NTIA will not fund suchan application unless RUS has declinedto fund it.

RUS and NTIA are presentlyreviewing joint applications consistentwith the process set forth in the NOFA.Should these kinds of ruralinfrastructure applications continue to be required to be submitted to RUS orshould the agencies permit ruralapplications to be submitted directly toNTIA, without having to be submitted toRUS as well, and if so, how shouldNTIA and RUS proceed in a manner that

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:41 Nov 13, 2009Jkt 220001PO 00000Frm 00005Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM16NON1

m s t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S

58942

Federal Register

/Vol. 74, No. 219/Monday, November 16, 2009/Notices

Id.

at 33107.

Id.

at 33110.

rewards the leveraging of resources andthe most efficient use of Federal funds?Are there situations where it is better togive a loan to an applicant as opposedto a grant? Are there applicants forwhich a loan would not be acceptable,and if so, how should the programsconsider them?

B. Transparency and Confidentiality.

Consistent with the Administration’spolicy and the Recovery Act’s objectiveto ensure greater transparency ingovernment operations, RUS and NTIAare considering whether they shouldpermit greater access, consistent withapplicable Federal laws and regulations,to certain applicant information to otherapplicants, policymakers, and thepublic, including state and tribalgovernments. Should the public begiven greater access to application datasubmitted to BIP and BTOP? Which datashould be made publicly available andwhich data should be consideredconfidential or proprietary? Forexample, RUS and NTIA tentativelyconclude that the application’sexecutive summary should be madepublicly available for the second roundof funding.

C. Outreach and Support.

For the initial round of funding, RUSand NTIA provided multiple means of applicant support and outreach,including hosting national workshopsand minority outreach seminars,publicly releasing an applicationguidance manual, posting responses toFrequently Asked Questions onwww.broadbandusa.gov, andestablishing a Help Desk that fieldedthousands of telephone and e-mailinquiries. What method of support andoutreach was most effective? Whatshould be done differently in the nextround of funding to best assistapplicants?

D. NTIA Expert Review Process.

During the first round of funding,NTIA utilized panels of at least threeindependent reviewers to evaluateBTOP applications.

A number of stakeholders have questioned whetherthis is the most effective approach toevaluating BTOP applications. Tofurther the efficient and expeditiousdisbursement of BTOP funds, shouldNTIA continue to rely on unpaidexperts as reviewers? Or, should weconsider using solely Federal orcontractor staff?

II. Policy Issues Addressed in theNOFA

A. Funding Priorities and Objectives.

Section IV.B of the NOFA establishesthe funding limits for the first round of BIP and BTOP funding.

In particular,RUS set aside approximately $2.4 billion in funding, with up to $1.2 billion available for last mile projects,up to $800 million available for middlemile projects and up to $325 millionavailable for a national reserve. NTIAallocated up to $1.2 billion for broadband infrastructure projects, up to$50 million for public computer centerprojects, up to $150 million forsustainable broadband adoptionprojects, and up to $200 million as anational reserve. Many parties havepublicly made suggestions as to how theNOFA could be modified to ensure thatthe Recovery Act funds make thegreatest impact possible. RUS and NTIAwelcome suggestions for targetedfunding proposals and seek comment onhow they can better target theirremaining funds to achieve the goals of the Recovery Act. Below we set forthsome examples of types of projects wecould specifically target. We seekcomment on these proposals as well asany others.RUS and NTIA request commentersthat are proposing a more targetedapproach for round 2 projects to supporttheir proposal with quantitativeestimates of the projected benefits of adopting such an approach. Forexample, commenters should quantifythe impact of their proposal based onsuch metrics as the number of community anchor institutionscommitting to service, the number of last mile providers committing to utilizemiddle mile projects, the number of endusers reached by the proposal, thenumber of new jobs created, directlyand indirectly, and the projectedincrease in broadband adoption rates, aswell as any other metrics necessary tojustify the adoption of their proposaland ensure that the benefits of theRecovery Act are being realized.Commenters should explain the basisand method of calculation for thequantifications they provide.1. Middle Mile ‘‘ComprehensiveCommunity’’ Projects.Should RUS and/or NTIA focus on orlimit round 2 funding on projects thatwill deliver middle mile infrastructurefacilities into a group of communitiesand connect key anchor institutionswithin those communities? Ensuringthat anchor institutions, such ascommunity colleges, schools, libraries,health care facilities, and public safetyorganizations, have high-speedconnectivity to the Internet cancontribute to sustainable communitygrowth and prosperity. Such projectsalso have the potential to stimulate thedevelopment of last mile services thatwould directly reach end users inunserved and underserved areas.Additionally, installing such middlemile facilities could have atransformative impact on communitydevelopment by driving economicgrowth.Should we give priority to thosemiddle mile projects in which there arecommitments from last mile serviceproviders to use the middle milenetwork to serve end users in thecommunity? Should the agencies’ goal be to fund middle mile projects thatprovide new coverage of the greatestpopulation and geography so that wecan be assured that the benefits of broadband are reaching the greatestnumber of people? Should we targetprojects that create ‘‘comprehensivecommunities’’ by installing highcapacity middle mile facilities betweenanchor institutions that bring essentialhealth, medical, and educationalservices to citizens that they may nothave today? Should certain institutions,such as educational facilities, be givengreater weight to reflect their impact oneconomic development or a greater needor use for broadband services? If so,what specific information should RUSand NTIA request from theseinstitutions?To the extent that RUS and NTIA dofocus the remaining funds on‘‘comprehensive community’’ projects,what attributes should the agencies belooking for in such projects? Forexample, are they most sustainable tothe extent that they are public-privatepartnerships through which theinterests of the community are fullyrepresented? Should we consider thenumber of existing community anchorinstitutions that intend to connect to themiddle mile network as well as thenumber of unserved and underservedcommunities and vulnerablepopulations (i.e., elderly, low-income,minority) that it will cover? How shouldRUS and NTIA encourage appropriatelevels of non-Federal (State, local, andprivate) matching funds to becontributed so that the potential impactof Federal funds is maximized? Inaddition, should we consider the extentof the geographic footprint as well asany overlap with existing serviceproviders?