Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10343

and future stations would be required to

comply with the proposed 64 dBu limit

when planning future facilities.

10. Comment also is requested on

whether applicants for new facilities (or

those proposing to modify existing

facilities) on Channel 36 or Channel 38

that would be within 87.7 kilometers

(55 miles) of a listed radio astronomy

site should be required to notify CORF

(or some other appropriate radio

astronomy representative) concerning

their proposed facilities. The proposed

rules, coupled with the Commission’s

application processing procedures, are

probably sufficient to ensure protection

to radio astronomy facilities. However,

comment is sought on whether

notification procedures similar to those

contained in Section 73.1030 would

serve any useful purpose. Moreover, if

such notification is considered

expedient, comment is sought on the

most appropriate entity to notify. While

the proposed rules do not contain a

notification requirement, the

Commission may adopt such a

requirement if the comments indicate

that a significant benefit may be

afforded by such notification.

11. Finally, with respect to the

allotment aspects of CORF’s petition,

the Commission proposes to delete the

Channel 38 allotment currently

specified for Hilo, Hawaii. This

proposal appears to have only a very

minimal impact on the TV broadcast

service because both channels 20 and 26

would remain available as vacant nonreserved channel allotments in Hilo.

Further, the Commission proposes to

require that petitions for rulemaking

proposing Channel 36 or 38 allotments

which would be located within 87.7

kilometers (55 miles) of a radio

astronomy site, must demonstrate

compliance with the radio astronomy

facility protection criteria adopted as a

result of this proceeding.

Administrative Matters

Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted

Proceeding

12. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in Commission rules. See

generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203

and 1.1206(a).

Comment Information

13. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415

and 1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before March 31, 1995

and reply comments on or before April

21, 1995. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

plus four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

14. As required by § 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared the following

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the expected impact on small

entities of the proposals suggested in

this document. Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA.

These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the

Notice, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 94 Stat.

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

Reason for Action

Footnote US74 to the Table of

Frequency Allocations contained in

Section 2.106 of the Commission’s rules

specifies that radio astronomy facilities

using the spectrum 608 to 614 MHz (TV

Channel 37) are to ‘‘be protected from

extraband radiation only to the extent

that such radiation exceeds the level

which would be present if the offending

station were operating in compliance

with the technical standards or criteria

applicable to the service in which it

operates.’’ This language is not

sufficiently clear to precisely establish

the protection that radio astronomy

facilities should be afforded. Also,

because the locations of radio

astronomy facilities were not known to

broadcast applicants, the Commission

has authorized construction of full

service and low power television

stations in close proximity to radio

astronomy facilities, thereby potentially

causing interference.

Objectives

This action is intended to eliminate

the possibility of future authorization of

facilities in excessive proximity to radio

astronomy operations. The Commission

proposes to amend its rules to specify

the latitude and longitude of thirteen

radio astronomy sites and to impose a

simple field strength restriction that

would apply to stations authorized on

adjacent channels (i.e., Channels 36 and

38). This would effectively preclude

interference to radio astronomy

facilities.

Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in

this Notice may be found in Sections 4

and 303 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 and

303.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements

None.

Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate,

or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

None.

Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Involved

Because radio astronomy installations

are located in rural areas, the number of

station applications which may be

affected by the field strength

requirement should be very small,

perhaps averaging less than one per

year. In such cases, the applicant would

need to design the facilities to limit the

field strength produced at the radio

astronomy site or possibly select

another site. But because the protection

requirement would be known in

advance, there would be no relocation

cost. There would be no impact on

current broadcast licensees.

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing

the Impact on Small Entities and

Consistent With the Stated Objectives

There are none apparent.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4556 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M
10344 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on the Status Review for the

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Status review; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) provides notice that

the comment period on the status

review of the Queen Charlotte goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis laingi) is reopened.

On August 26, 1994, (59 FR 44124) the

Service announced that sufficient

information was presented in the

petition to list the Queen Charlotte

goshawk as endangered and opened a

comment period until November 25,

1994. On January 4, 1995, (60 FR 425)

the Service extended the comment

period until February 9, 1995. This

notice further extends the comment

period until February 28, 1995. All

interested parties are invited to submit

comments regarding this species’ status.

DATES: Written comments and materials

must be received by February 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments or questions concerning the

status of the petitioned species

described below should be submitted to

the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,

3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau,

Alaska 99801. The petition, findings,

and supporting data are available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Lindell, Endangered Species Biologist

(see ADDRESSES above) (907)/586–7240).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 9, 1994, the Service received

a petition from Mr. Peter Galvin of the

Greater Gila Biodiversity Project and

nine copetitioners requesting listing of

the Queen Charlotte goshawk as

endangered under the Endangered

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). A

notice of positive 90-day finding and

request for additional information was

published on August 26, 1994, (59 FR

44124) regarding this petition. The

Queen Charlotte goshawk occurs from

Vancouver Island British Columbia,

Canada, northward through insular

British Columbia, insular and adjacent

mainland Alaska west of the coastal

mountain range, to the northern portion

of the Alexander Archipelago, in

southeast Alaska. The subspecies may

be endangered by past and planned

removal and fragmentation of mature

forest habitat by clearcut logging.

The initial comment period for the

status review originally closed on

November 25, 1994. Since that date,

parties have expressed interest in

submitting substantive comments. In

order to accommodate these parties, the

Service is extending the comment

period until February 28, 1995. Written

comments may be submitted to the

Service office noted in the Address

section.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

John Lindell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services Field

Office, Juneau, AK 99801.

Authority

The authority of this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: February 16, 1995.

David B. Allen,

Regional Director, Region 7, Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4747 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P