Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 7481

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

No. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 00–3523 Filed 2–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket 00–1; DA 00–12]

Amendment of List of Major Television

Markets and Their Designated

Communities

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comment on a proposal to amend the

Commission’s rules which list the major

television markets and their designated

communities by adding the

communities of Merced and Porterville,

California to the hyphenated market of

Fresno-Visalia-Hanford-Clovis,

California (the ‘‘Fresno-Visalia market’’).

A joint petition was filed on March 16,

1988 and at least one of the petitioners

has expressed continued interest in the

Commission acting on this petition. The

joint petitioners seek to add Merced and

Porterville to the Fresno-Visalia market

apparently to be able to assert network

non-duplication rights and syndicated

programming exclusivity on a

hyphenated market basis. The requested

action would also permit the acquisition

of broadcast territorial exclusivity rights

against television stations operating in

Merced and in Porterville. In a related

proceeding, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

(‘‘CC/ABC’’), licensee of television

station KFSN, Fresno, California, filed a

request for amendment or waiver of

§ 76.51 of the Commission’s rules to add

the community of Merced to the FresnoVisalia market. We address both

petitions in this proceeding.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

February 7, 2000 and reply comments

are due on or before February 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Office of the Secretary,

445 12th Street, SW, Room TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments may

be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See

Electronic Filing of documents in

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24, 121

(Friday, January 2, 1998). Comments

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. In

completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address,

and the applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get filing instructions for e-mail

comments, commenters should send an

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

addresses.>’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Fleming at (202) 418–7200 or

via Internet at cfleming@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, DA 00–12, CS

Docket No. 00–1, adopted January 4,

2000 and released January 7, 2000

(‘‘Notice’’). The full text of this Notice

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, or may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(‘‘ITS’), (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or

may be reviewed via Internet at http://

www.fcc.gov?Bureaus/Cable/

NewslReleases/2000/nrcb8022.html.

For copies in alternative formats, such

as Braille, audio cassette or large print,

please contact Sheila Ray at ITS. This

proceeding will be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s

rules. (47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised). Ex

parte presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. (See 47 CFR 1.206(b)(2), as

revised.) Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

Introductory Background

1. In this proceeding, we respond to

a petition for rulemaking filed by

Pappas Telecasting Incorporated

(‘‘Pappas’’), licensee of television station

KMPH(TV), Visalia, California, Retlaw

Enterprises, Inc. (‘‘Retlaw’’), licensee of

television station KJEO(TV), Fresno,

California, and San Joaquin

Communications Corp. (‘‘San Joaquin’’),

licensee of television station KSEE(TV),

Fresno, California, (collectively, the

‘‘Joint Petitioners’’) to amend § 76.51 of

the Commission’s rules to add the

communities of Merced and Porterville

to the ‘‘Fresno-Visalia’’ market. (See 47

CFR 76.51). In a related proceeding,

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (‘‘CC/ABC’’),

licensee of television station KFSN,

Fresno, California, filed a request for

amendment or waiver of § 76.51 of the

Commission’s rules to add the

community of Merced to the FresnoVisalia market. In this proceeding, we

also address CC/ABC’s petition and

consider it a request for amendment of

the applicable rules as it raises the same

issue raised by the Joint Petitioners with

regard to the community of Merced. At

the time the petition was filed, there

were applications on file with the

Commission to commence television

service in the communities of Merced

and Porterville. Subsequent to the filing

of the joint petition, television station

KNSO, Channel 51, was licensed to

Merced and television station KPXF,

Channel 61, was licensed to Porterville.

2. Section 76.51 of the Commission’s

Rules enumerates the top 100 television

markets and the designated

communities within those markets.

Among other things, this market list is

used to determine territorial exclusivity

rights under § 73.658(m) and helps

define the scope of compulsory

copyright license liability for cable

operators. (See 47 CFR 73.658) Certain

cable television syndicated exclusivity

and network non-duplication rights are

also determined by the presence of

broadcast station communities of

license on this list. Some markets

consist of more than one named

community (a ‘‘hyphenated market’’).

Such ‘‘hyphenation’’ of a market is

based on the premise that stations

licensed to any of the named

communities in the hyphenated market

do, in fact, compete with all stations

licensed to such communities. (See

CATV-Non-Network Agreements, 46

FCC 2d 892, 898 (1974). Market

hyphenation ‘‘helps equalize

competition’’ where portions of the

market are located beyond the Grade B

7482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

contours of some stations in the area yet

the stations compete for economic

support. (See Cable Television Report &

Order, 36 FCC 2d 143, 176 (1972).

3. In their petition, Joint Petitioners

argue that the communities of Merced

and Porterville are geographically and

economically part of the Fresno-Visalia

market. The communities are part of the

Fresno-Visalia ‘‘area of dominant

influence’’ or ADI and the FresnoVisalia ‘‘designated market area’’ or

DMA. Joint Petitioners maintain the

communities in the Fresno-Visalia ADI

consist of farming communities and the

local agri-business results in a common

social, cultural, and commercial market

among them.

4. Joint Petitioners further argue that

Porterville is served by television

stations KMPH and KSEE, both of which

place a Grade A signal over the

community. Joint Petitioners maintain

that the proposed television station

would place a predicted Grade B signal

over the communities of Clovis and

Sanger and a significant portion of

Fresno, a Grade A signal over Hanford,

and a City Grade signal over Visalia.

Joint Petitioners further state that each

of the Fresno-Visalia commercial

television stations, except KMSG-TV,

Sanger, is carried on the Porterville

cable system and all are received off-air

by the system. Thus, the Joint

Petitioners argue that the proposed

television station belongs in the FresnoVisalia market and would necessarily

compete with other Fresno-Visalia

stations for programming, advertising

revenues, and audience share.

5. Similarly, with regard to Merced,

Joint Petitioners state that the proposed

television station would compete with

television stations in the Fresno-Visalia

market. The Joint Petitioners state that

the proposed television station would

place a predicted Grade A signal over a

significant portion of the communities

of Fresno and Clovis and would place

a predicted Grade B signal over the

community of Sanger and the remaining

portion of Fresno. The Joint Petitioners

concede that the Grade B signal would

not cover the communities of Hanford

and Visalia but maintain that the

propagation characteristics of the terrain

permits a strong signal in those

communities. The Joint Petitioners

further state that each of the television

stations in the Fresno-Visalia market

places a predicted Grade B signal over

Merced, with the exception of KMPH.

With regard to KMPH, the Joint

Petitioners assert that the station

evidences significant viewership in

Merced because it has a net weekly

circulation of over 50 percent in Merced

County. The Joint Petitioners further

assert that the three network affiliates,

KFSN–TV, KJEO, and KSEE, and

indpendent station KMPH, are carried

on the Merced cable systems and are

received off-air. Thus, the Joint

Petitioners conclude that the proposed

television station would be part of the

Fresno-Visalia market and would

compete with other Fresno-Visalia

market stations for programming,

advertising revenues, and audience

share.

CC/ABC’S Petition

6. In this proceeding, we also address

the petition filed by CC/ABC. CC/ABC,

licensee of television station KFSN,

Fresno, California, requests that the

Commission add the community of

Merced to the Fresno-Visalia market for,

among other reasons, purposes of the

network non-duplication and

syndicated exclusivity rules. CC/ABC

maintains that Merced is geographically

part of the greater Fresno area and

shares common social, cultural, trade,

and economic interests with other

Fresno-Visalia market communities. UA

Cable Systems of California (‘‘UA’’) filed

an opposition to CC/ABC’s petition

arguing that Merced is 55 miles

southeast of Fresno and thus

geographically distant, and that Merced

is not in the same market as FresnoVisalia. To support its assertion that

Merced and Fresno are in different

markets, UA states that the two

communities are in different areas

according to data from the Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (‘‘MSAs’’) and the Rand

McNally Map of Trading Areas

(‘‘Trading Areas’’). UA further states the

television stations in the two

communities do not compete for

advertising revenues as evidenced by

the fact that the Merced Sun-Star

television update, which covers the

community of Merced, did not include

any advertisements for Fresno for the

week of January 2 through January 8,

1993. Conversely, UA states that,

KFSN’s quarterly reports, which

summarizes the Fresno station’s

newscasts, did not identify any

newscast which specifically mentions

issues or programs related to the

community of Merced for the two year

period 1990 through 1992 and does not

serve the area.

7. In the Notice, the Commission

states its belief that a sufficient case for

redesignation of the subject market has

been set forth so that the proposal

should be tested through the rulemaking

process, including the comments of

interested parties. In addition, the

Commission states that the proposal and

CC/ABC’s request appears to be

consistent with the Commission’s

policies regarding redesignation of a

hyphenated television market.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The requirements proposed in this

Notice have been analyzed with respect

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(the ‘‘1995 Act’’) and do not impose new

or modified information collection

requirements on the public.

OMB Approval: None.

Title: In the Matter of Amendment of

§ 76.51 of the Commission’s Rules to

include Merced and Porterville,

California in the Fresno-VisaliaHanford-Clovis Television Market.

Type of Review: None.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:

We certify that the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply

to this rulemaking proceeding because if

the proposed rule amendment is

promulgated, there will not be a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small business

entities, as defined by § 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. A few cable

television system operators will be

affected by the proposed rule

amendment. The Secretary shall send a

copy of this Notice, including the

certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. Public Law 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).

A. Reasons Why Agency Action Is

Being Considered. We undertake this

proceeding to address the proposal by

the Joint Petitioners to add the

communities of Merced and Porterville,

California to the Fresno-VisaliaHanford-Clovis television market. The

proposal, if granted, could help equalize

competition in that hyphenated market

where portions of the market are located

beyond the Grade B contours of some

stations in the area yet the stations

compete for economic support.

B. Legal Basis. The authority for the

action proposed for this rulemaking is

contained in §§ 4(i)–(j), (f), (g), and (r),

and 309(j) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities Impacted.

None.

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and

Other Compliance Requirements. The

Commission is not proposing to impose

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements.

E. Significant Alternatives Which

Minimize the Impact on Small Entities

and Are Consistent With Stated

Objectives. The Notice certifies that

there is no significant impact on small

entities.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 7483

F. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict With the

Commission’s Proposal. None.

G. Report to Congress. The

Commission shall send a copy of this

IRFA along with this Notice in a report

to Congress pursuant to the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1998, codified at 5 USC

801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this IRFA will

also be published in the Federal

Register.

Ordering Clauses

Pursuant to §§ 4(i)–(j) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 USC 154(i)–(j), 303(c), (f),

and (r), and 309(j), notice is hereby

given of the proposed amendment to

Part 76 of the Commission’s rules, in

accordance with the proposals,

discussions, and statements of issues

contained in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, and that comment is

sought regarding such proposals,

discussions, and statements of issues. It

is further ordered that the Commission’s

Office of Public Affairs, Reference

Operations division, shall send a copy

of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business

Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 USC 601 et seq. (1981).

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–2618 Filed 2–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 222 and 229

[Docket Nos. FRA–1999–6439, Notice No.

2 and FRA–1999–6440]

RIN 2130–AA71

Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

SUMMARY: On January 13, 2000, FRA

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Use of

Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail

Grade Crossings (Docket No. FRA–

1999–6439). On the same date FRA

released a Draft Environmental

Assessment (DEIS) (Docket No. FRA–

1999–6440) pertaining to the proposals

contained in the NPRM. In both

documents, FRA stated that public

hearings would be held in a number of

locations throughout the country. This

notice provides information regarding

combined hearings on the NPRM and

DEIS to be held in: Washington, DC; Los

Angeles, California; Pendleton, Oregon;

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and Salem,

Massachusetts. Further notices will be

published and posted on FRA’s web site

(http://fra.dot.gov) regarding hearings to

be held in the remaining locations listed

in the NPRM: Berea, Ohio; South Bend,

Indiana; and Chicago, Illinois.

DATES: Public Hearings: Public hearings

will be held in:

1. Washington, DC on March 6, 2000;

2. Los Angeles area, California on

March 15, 2000;

3. Pendleton, Oregon on March 17,

2000;

4. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on March

28, 2000; and

5. Salem, Massachusetts on April 3,

2000.

All hearings will begin at 9:00 am.

Please see Supplementary Information

for further information concerning

participation in the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearings: Public

hearings will be held at the following

locations:

1. Washington DC: Federal Aviation

Administration Auditorium, Third

Floor, Federal Office Building 10A, 800

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591.

2. Los Angeles area: Doubletree Hotel,

Catalina II Room, 3050 Bristol Street,

Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

3. Pendleton, Oregon: City Council

Chambers, Pendleton City Hall, 500

Southwest Dorian Avenue, Pendleton,

OR 97801.

4. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida: Doubletree

Oceanfront Hotel, 440 Seabreeze Blvd,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316.

5. Salem, Massachusetts: National

Park Service Visitor Center—

Auditorium, 2 New Liberty Street,

Salem, MA 01970.

FRA Docket Clerk: Docket Clerk,

Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10,

FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20590. E-mail address

for the FRA Docket Clerk is

renee.bridgers@fra.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120

Vermont Avenue, SW., Washington, DC

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6299); or

Mark Tessler, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–

493–6038).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any

person wishing to provide testimony at

one of the public hearings should notify

FRA’s Docket Clerk at the address above

at least three working days prior to the

date of the hearing. The notification

should also provide either a telephone

number or e-mail address at which the

person may be contacted. If a

participant will be representing an

organization, please indicate that name

of the organization.

FRA will attempt to accommodate all

persons wishing to provide testimony,

however depending on the number of

people wishing to participate, FRA may

find it necessary to limit the length of

oral comments to accommodate as many

people as possible. Participants may

wish to submit a complete written

statement for inclusion in the record,

while orally summarizing the points

made in that statement.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11,

2000.

S. Mark Lindsey,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal

Railroad Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–3653 Filed 2–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF67

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of the

Comment Period on the Proposed Rule

To Remove the Northern Populations

of the Tidewater Goby From the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), provide notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

proposed delisting of the northern

populations of the tidewater goby

(Eucyclogobius newberryi) from the list

of endangered and threatened wildlife.

The comment period has been reopened

in response to new information

regarding tidewater goby marine

dispersal. This proposal would remove

the northern populations of the

Tidewater goby from protection under

the Act.