Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28357

document which was published

Monday, April 24, 1995 (60 FR 20052).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Shifflett, Publications Branch,

(202) 418–0310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need of Correction

As published, the final regulation

document contains an error in the

effective date, the window period and

closing date.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on April

24, 1995 of the final regulations, which

were the subject of FR Doc. 95–10026 is

corrected as follows:

On page 20052, in the second column,

in the DATES section, the effective date,

the window period for filing

applications should be June 5, 1995 in

lieu of May 29, 1995.

The closing date for filing

applications should be July 6, 1995 in

lieu of June 13, 1995.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13215 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–68; RM 8486]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Billings,

MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final regulation

document which was published

Monday, April 24, 1995 (60 FR 20052).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Shifflett, Publications Branch,

(202) 418–0310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need of Correction

As published, the final regulation

document contains an error in the

effective date, the window period and

closing date.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on April

24, 1995 of the final regulations, which

were the subject of FR Doc. 95–10025 is

corrected as follows:

On page 20052, in the third column,

in the DATES section, the effective date,

the window period for filing

applications should be June 5, 1995 in

lieu of May 29, 1995.

The closing date for filing

applications should be July 6, 1995 in

lieu of June 13, 1995.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13214 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 94–95; DA 95–1121]

Cable Television Service; List of Major

Television Markets

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, through this

action, amends its rules regarding the

listing of major television markets to

change the designation of the Tampa-St.

Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida

television market to include the

community of Lakeland, Florida. This

action is taken at the request of Public

Interest Corporation, licensee of

television station WTMV(TV), channel

32, Lakeland, Florida.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Rule provisions of Part

76 shall be effective June 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leora Hochstein, Cable Services Bureau,

(202) 416–0800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, CS Docket No. 94–95,

adopted May 16, 1995 and released May

25, 1995. The complete text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(room 239), 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554, and may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857–3800, 1919 M Street

NW., Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of the Report and Order

1. Before the Commission is the

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

adopted on August 12, 1994 and

released on August 15, 1994, 59 FR

43805 (1994), issued in response to a

petition filed by Public Interest

Corporation, licensee of television

station WTMV(TV), channel 32,

Lakeland, Florida (‘‘WTMV’’). The

Notice proposed to amend § 76.51 of the

Commission’s Rules, to change the

designation of the Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, Florida television market to

‘‘Tampa-St. Petersburg-ClearwaterLakeland, Florida.’’ No comments in

opposition to this proposal have been

filed.

Background

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 the scope of

territorial exclusivity rights that

television broadcast stations may

purchase and, in addition, may help

define the scope of compulsory

copyright license liability for cable

operators in certain circumstances.

Certain cable television syndicated

exclusivity and network nonduplication

rights are also determined by the

presence of broadcast station

communities of license on this list.

Some of the 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. Market hyphenation

‘‘helps equalize competition’’ 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.

3. Section 4 of the Cable Television

Consumer Protection and Competition

Act of 1992 (‘‘Cable Act’’), which

amended Section 614 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (‘‘Act’’), requires the

Commission to make revisions needed

to update the list of top 100 television

markets and their designated

communities in § 76.51 of the

Commission’s Rules.

Rule Making Comments

4. The petitioner contends that

WTMV in Lakeland competes directly

with television stations in the Tampa-St.

Petersburg-Clearwater hyphenated

market for audience share and

advertising revenues. Although

Lakeland is located inside the TampaSt. Petersburg ‘‘area of dominant

influence’’ (‘‘ADI’’), the petitioner

argues that because Lakeland is not a

designated community in the above

market, WTMV is considered a ‘‘distant

signal’’ for purposes of compulsory

copyright license liability if carried on

cable systems more than 35 miles from

Lakeland. According to the petitioner,

the consequence of being classified as a

‘‘distant signal’’ is that cable systems

will have to pay significant copyright
28358 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

royalties in order to carry WTMV, and

WTMV, in turn, will have to indemnify

the cable systems for these royalties. In

contrast, stations licensed to

communities specifically designated in

§ 76.51 are considered local for all cable

systems within the 35-miles zones of the

listed communities in a given

hyphenated market and are not subject

to copyright liability. The petitioner

asserts that because WTMV may have to

pay copyright fees attendant to its

carriage as a ‘‘distant signal’’ that

stations in Tampa, St. Petersburg and

Clearwater do not, WTMV is

disadvantaged in its competition with

these stations.

5. In support of its proposal, the

petitioner states that it meets all of the

criteria stipulated by the Commission

for redesignation of the hyphenated

market. The petitioner contends that

Lakeland is sufficiently proximate to

Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater to

be considered part of the Tampa-St.

Petersburg-Clearwater hyphenated

market. According to the petitioner,

Lakeland is only 31 miles from Tampa,

47 miles from St. Petersburg, and 50

miles from Clearwater. The petitioner

maintains that because of this

geographic proximity, Lakeland, Tampa,

St. Petersburg and Clearwater have

shared economic, social and cultural

interests which link them together as a

single television market. The petitioner

submits a contour map showing that

WTMV provides city grade contour

coverage to part of Tampa, Grade A

contour coverage to virtually all of

Tampa, and Grade B contour coverage to

all of St. Petersburg. Clearwater is just

beyond WTMV’s Grade B contour,

however, it is part of the Tampa-St.

Petersburg ADI. A map delineating the

Grade B contours of stations in the

Tampa area reveals that the signal

contours of WTMV substantially overlap

with the signal contours of other

stations in the Tampa-St. Petersburg

ADI. To further support its contention

that WTMV competes directly with

Tampa market stations and is an integral

part of the Tampa-St. Petersburg ADI,

the petitioner asserts that WTMV is

widely recognized as a Tampa market

station. In particular, the petitioner

notes the following: Tampa newspapers

and magazines include WTMV in

television program listings; Tampabased publications have recognized the

station for its programming and

commitment to local service; program

syndicators charge WTMV Tampa

market rates for programming; and

Tampa businesses as well as regional

and national advertisers buy time on

WTMV. In addition, the petitioner states

that WTMV carries many ABC, NBC and

CBS programs when the Tampa network

affiliates preempt their network

programming and that WTMV is the

Tampa television affiliate for the Florida

Marlins major league baseball club. The

petitioner urges the Commission to add

Lakeland to the Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater hyphenated market in order

to redress what the petitioner perceives

as a competitive imbalance between

WTMV and stations licensed to Tampa,

St. Petersburg and Clearwater.

Discussion

6. A ‘‘hyphenated market’’ has been

described by the Commission as a

television market that contains more

than one major population center

supporting all stations in the market,

with competing stations licensed to

different cities within the market area.

In evaluating past requests for

hyphenation of a market, the

Commission has considered the

following as relevant to its examination:

(1) The distance between the existing

designated communities and the

community proposed to be added to the

designation; (2) whether cable carriage,

if afforded to the subject station, would

extend to areas beyond its Grade B

signal coverage area; (3) the presence of

a clear showing of a particularized need

by the station requesting the change of

market designation; and (4) an

indication of benefit to the public from

the proposed change. Each of these

factors helps the Commission to

evaluate individual market conditions

consistent ‘‘with the underlying

competitive purpose of the market

hyphenation rule to delineate areas

where stations can and do, both actually

and logically, compete.’’

7. Based on the facts presented here,

we believe that a case for redesignation

of the subject market has been set forth

so that this proposal should be adopted.

It appears from the information before

us that television stations licensed to

Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater and

Lakeland do compete for programming,

audience and advertisers in the

proposed combined market area, and

that sufficient evidence has been

presented to demonstrate commonality

between the proposed community to be

added to the market designation and the

market as a whole. In addition, no

oppositions to the proposed

rehyphenation have been filed.

8. We note that the issue raised by the

petitioner regarding WTMV’s copyright

license liability has largely been

resolved with the passage of the

Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994,

which amended Section 111(f) of title

17, United States Code. Under this Act,

a station located within the same ADI as

a cable system is no longer considered

a ‘‘distant signal’’ on that system for

purposes of compulsory copyright

license liability and, therefore, is not

subject to the additional copyright fees

attendant to ‘‘distant signal’’ carriage

within the market. Applying the Act to

the facts of this proceeding, WTMV

would not be considered a ‘‘distant

signal’’ if carried on cable systems

located in the Tampa-St. Petersburg ADI

and, therefore, would not face

additional copyright fees relative to

other stations located within the same

ADI. Nevertheless, we find that the

equalization of the regulatory status of

WTMV with stations in Tampa St.

Petersburg and Clearwater through the

inclusion of Lakeland as a named

community in the market is warranted

given that WTMV competes with these

stations for programming, audience and

advertisers. Such a rationalization of the

competitive situation appears to be the

public benefit which congress

anticipated by instructing the

Commission, in Section 614(f) of the

Cable Television Consumer Protection

and Competition Act of 1992, to make

necessary revisions to update the market

list.

9. This proceeding is not intended to

address the specific mandatory cable

carriage, syndicated exclusivity or

network nonduplication obligations of

individual cable systems. Redesignation

of the market reflects in the rules the

general competitive situation that in fact

exists in the local area, allowing the

application of the more specific rules,

including those relating to ‘‘area of

dominant influence’’ changes, to be

addressed from the perspective of a

properly defined market area.

Accordingly, the proposed rule change

will be adopted.

10. Accordingly, it is ordered, that

effective June 30, 1995, § 76.51 of the

Commission’s Rules is amended to

include Lakeland, Florida, as follows:

Tampa-St. Petersburg-ClearwaterLakeland, Florida.

11. It is further ordered, that this

proceeding IS TERMINATED.

12. This action is taken by the Cable

Services Bureau pursuant to authority

delegated by § 0.321 of the

Commission’s rules. 47 CFR 0.321.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Part 76 of Chapter I of title 47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28359

PART 76—CABLE TELEVISION

SERVICE

1. The authority citation for Part 76

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

2. Section 76.51 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(28) to read as

follows:

§ 76.51 Major television markets.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(28) Tampa-St. Petersburg-ClearwaterLakeland, Florida

* * * * *

Federal Communications Commission.

William H. Johnson,

Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–13213 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 673

[Docket No. 950223058–5058–01; I.D.

022395A]

Scallop Fishery off Alaska; Closure of

Federal Waters to Protect Scallop

Stocks

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Emergency interim rule;

extension of effective date; response to

comments.

SUMMARY: An emergency interim rule

that closed Federal waters off Alaska to

fishing for scallops is in effect through

May 30, 1995. NMFS extends the

emergency rule for an additional 90-day

period (through August 28, 1995) to

prevent overfishing of scallop stocks in

an uncontrolled fishery for scallops in

Federal waters by vessels fishing

outside Alaska State’s regulatory

authority to govern the scallop fishery.

This emergency closure is intended to

control an unregulated scallop fishery in

Federal waters until a Federal fishery

management plan can be implemented.

NMFS also responds to comments

submitted on the interim emergency

rule as published in the Federal

Register on March 1, 1995, for

comment. No change to the emergency

rule was made as a result of NMFS’

response to comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim regulations

published on March 1, 1995

(60 FR 11054, as corrected at 60 FR

12825, March 8, 1995) are extended

from May 31, 1995, through August 28,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Salveson, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS

published an emergency interim rule in

the Federal Register on March 1, 1995

(60 FR 11054) that closed Federal waters

off Alaska to fishing for scallops. The

closure was intended to prevent

unregulated and uncontrolled fishing

for scallops in Federal waters during the

period of time the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council)

prepared a Fishery Management Plan for

the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMP).

Although the State of Alaska has

implemented regulations to manage the

scallop fishery off Alaska, these

regulations can be applied by the State

only to vessels registered under the laws

of the State of Alaska (section 306 (a)(3)

of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation

and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et

seq. (Magnuson Act). Continued fishing

for scallops by one or more vessels not

registered with the State of Alaska poses

significant conservation and

management concerns that can be

effectively addressed in a timely manner

only through emergency closure of

Federal waters off Alaska. Further

background and descriptive information

is contained in the preamble to the

emergency rule published in the

Federal Register March 1, 1995.

The Council has submitted a

proposed FMP to the Secretary of

Commerce for review and approval.

Proposed regulations to implement the

FMP were published in the Federal

Register May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24822).

Given the statutory review and

implementation schedule for FMPs set

out under sections 303 and 304 of the

Magnuson Act, the Council requested

NMFS to reimplement the emergency

closure of Federal waters off Alaska for

an additional 90 days as authorized

under section 305(c)(3)(B) of the

Magnuson Act. NMFS concurs that this

period of time is necessary for the

preparation and implementation of a

Federal management program for

scallops in Federal waters and

reimplements this emergency rule for

the maximum period of time authorized

under the Magnuson Act.

Two letters of comments on the

emergency rule as published in the

Federal Register March 1, 1995, were

received within the comment period

and are summarized in the Response to

Comments section, below. After review

of the comments received, NMFS

determined that no change to the

emergency rule is warranted.

This emergency interim rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

Response to Comments

Two letters of comments were

received within the comment period

that ended March 10, 1995. A summary

of the comments and NMFS’ response

follows.

Comment 1. NMFS’ implementation

of the emergency rule was based upon

a recommendation from the Council that

was contrived at an illegally constituted

teleconference meeting in violation of

specific procedural requirements set

forth in the Magnuson Act, 16 U.S.C.

1852(j).

Response. The Chairman of the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) had very little time to respond

to the emergency situation resulting

from uncontrolled fishing for scallops

off Alaska that precipitated the

emergency rule. If necessary, NMFS was

prepared to take action to promulgate

emergency regulations without Council

involvement to address the emergency

in as timely manner as possible. The

Council’s ability to convene an

emergency meeting and its

recommendation to proceed with the

emergency rule simply lent further

indication of the widespread support for

closure of Federal waters to protect

scallop stocks.

Furthermore, NMFS conducted an

independent review of the emergency

action recommended by the Council.

Based on the administrative record,

NMFS concurred with the Council’s

determination that immediate closure of

Federal waters off Alaska was necessary

to address the scallop management void

and to address concerns of localized

overfishing of scallop stocks. NMFS

followed the appropriate procedures

and established the rational basis for the

decision to implement the emergency

rule. Any alleged procedural

irregularities at the Council level did

not affect the Agency’s independent

determination to proceed with this

action.

Comment 2. Absolutely no

justification exists for issuance of an

emergency rule closing Federal waters

off Alaska to fishing for scallops given

that a single vessel operating outside

Alaska State’s regulatory authority

could not cause overfishing of the

scallop resource off Alaska.

Response. NMFS disagrees. Recent

participation in the scallop fishery by at

least one vessel not registered with the

State of Alaska, contemplation by other

vessel owners of fishing in Federal