17864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 23, 1996 / Proposed Rules

constituents released from the carbon

are adequately controlled or destroyed,

rather than emitted to the atmosphere

(BID page 6–115). It is not clear that the

subpart P standards, taken by

themselves, provide this assurance,

since subpart P standards do not contain

substantive air emission controls. Thus,

in addition to soliciting comment on the

information in the docket, the EPA

solicits comment on whether some

further limitation should be necessary if

subpart P facilities are to be eligible. For

example, should eligibility be limited to

facilities whose regeneration units

provide adequate protection from the

emission of desorbed organics? If so, is

it appropriate to require compliance

with subpart CC, or comparable controls

to ensure such protection? The EPA will

consider all comments on the new data

received by the close of the comment

period when making a final regulatory

determination on the regulatory

requirements for this regulation.

This notice does not represent the

only provision of the final subpart CC

standards which the EPA is considering

revising. The EPA is planning to publish

technical amendments to the rule

within the next two months which will

include revisions described in the

August 14, 1995 Federal Register

document entitled, ‘‘Proposed rule; data

availability’’ (60 FR 41870), as well as

a finding on the issue discussed in

today’s notice.

Dated: April 11, 1996.

Richard Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–9973 Filed 4–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 96–90, FCC 96–169]

Telecommunications Act of 1996;

Broadcast License Terms

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We issue this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’) to

implement Section 203 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(‘‘Telecom Act’’) (Broadcast License

Terms). Section 203 eliminates the

statutory distinction between the

maximum allowable license terms for

television stations and radio stations,

and provides that such licenses may be

for terms ‘‘not to exceed 8 years.’’

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules

is necessary to conform them to Section

203 of the Telecom Act. We seek

comment on our proposal to amend our

rules to extend broadcast license terms

to 8 years, as well as on our proposal for

implementing this change within the

framework of existing license renewal

cycles.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

May 20, 1996, and reply comments are

due on or before June 4, 1996. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due on or before May 20,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Somers (202–418–2130), Mass

Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rule

Making in MM Docket No. 96–90, FCC

96–169, adopted April 11, 1996 and

released April 12, 1996. The complete

text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making Extending License Terms for

Broadcast Facilities

1. Section 307(c) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. § 307(c), authorizes

the Commission to establish the period

or periods for which licenses shall be

granted or renewed. Prior to the

enactment of the Telecom Act, Section

307(c) provided that the licenses of

television stations, including low power

TV stations, could be issued for a term

of no longer than 5 years. It further

provided that license terms for radio

stations, including auxiliary facilities,

could be for a period not to exceed 7

years. These were the maximum

allowable license terms and the

Commission had the discretion to grant

or renew a broadcast license for a

shorter period if the public interest,

convenience, and necessity would be

served by such action. Consistent with

these statutory provisions, Section

73.1020 of the Commission’s Rules

currently states that ‘‘[r]adio

broadcasting stations will ordinarily be

renewed for 7 years and TV broadcast

stations will be renewed for 5 years.

However, if the FCC finds that the

public interest, convenience and

necessity will be served thereby, it may

issue either an initial license or a

renewal thereof for a lesser term.’’

Section 73.1020 also sets forth a renewal

schedule for broadcast stations based on

the geographical region of the country in

which each station is located.

2. Section 203 of the Telecom Act

amends Section 307(c) of the

Communications Act to read as follows:

Each license granted for the operation of a

broadcasting station shall be for a term of not

to exceed 8 years. Upon application therefor,

a renewal of such license may be granted

from time to time for a term of not to exceed

8 years from the date of expiration of the

preceding license, if the Commission finds

that public interest, convenience, and

necessity would be served thereby.

Consistent with the foregoing provisions of

this subsection, the Commission may by rule

prescribe the period or periods for which

licenses shall be granted and renewed for

particular classes of stations, but the

Commission may not adopt or follow any

rule which would preclude it, in any case

involving a station of a particular class, from

granting or renewing a license for a shorter

period than that prescribed for stations of

such class if, in its judgment, the public

interest, convenience, or necessity would be

served by such action.

3. Length of License Terms. Although

the language of Section 203 of the

Telecom Act lengthens the maximum

permissible broadcast license term to 8

years for both television and radio

stations, the statute does not require the

Commission to extend license terms to

8 years as a matter of course. The

statutory language provides that licenses

are to have terms ‘‘not to exceed 8

years’’ and expressly states that the

Commission ‘‘may’’ grant renewals for

terms not to exceed 8 years if the public

interest would be served thereby.

Moreover, the language indicates that

the Commission may, by rule, adopt

different license terms for different

classes of stations. Given this discretion

under the statute regarding how we

might amend our rules, we believe it is

appropriate to determine through notice

and comment rulemaking the proper

length of broadcast license terms as a

general matter.

4. For several reasons, we propose to

amend our Rules to provide that

broadcast licenses ordinarily have the

maximum 8-year term authorized under

the statute. First, the practice of

ordinarily granting television and radio

licenses for the maximum terms will

reduce the burden to broadcasters of

seeking the periodic renewal of their

licenses and the associated burdens on

the Commission. Second, it is consistent

with past Commission practice; our
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 23, 1996 / Proposed Rules 17865

current rules provide for the maximum

license terms in accordance with

previous statutory maximum terms of 5

years for television stations and 7 years

for radio stations. Finally, this approach

is consistent with the legislative history

of the Telecom Act. While the statutory

language provides the Commission

discretion in this area, the Conference

Report indicates that Congress intended

the Commission to adopt the maximum

term, stating that Section 203 of the

Telecom Act ‘‘extends the license term

for broadcast licenses to eight years for

both television and radio.’’

5. We seek comment on this proposal

to amend Sections 73.1020 and 74.15 of

our Rules to provide that the

Commission will ordinarily grant

licenses for the 8-year terms allowed by

Section 203 of the Telecom Act.

Irrespective of what the Commission

ultimately determines to be an

appropriate standard license term, we

note that Section 203 of the Telecom

Act explicitly reserves the

Commission’s authority to grant

individual licenses for less than the

statutory maximum if the public

interest, convenience, and necessity

would be served by such action.

6. Classes of Stations. Section 203 of

the Telecom Act states in part:

‘‘the Commission may by rule prescribe the

period or periods for which licenses shall be

granted and renewed for particular classes of

stations. * * *’’ While this provision provides us

authority to designate different license terms

for particular classes of stations (provided that

they do not exceed 8 years), we propose to

treat all but experimental broadcast stations

uniformly.

7. With respect to television and radio

stations the statute eliminates the

current distinction between these

services for purposes of establishing the

maximum allowable license terms. In

this regard, the legislative history states:

‘‘By applying a uniform license term

* * * for all broadcast station licenses,

the Committee simply recognizes that

there is no reason for longer radio

license terms than for television

licenses. The Committee intends that

applying a uniform license term * * *

for radio and television licenses will

enable the Commission to operate more

efficiently in the awarding of new or

renewed licenses for all broadcast

licenses.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 104–204,

Section 304, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 122

(1995).

8. Similarly, we propose to track the

approach we take with full-service

stations and adopt an 8-year license

term for FM and TV translator facilities

and low power TV stations, as well as

for international broadcasting stations.

This approach is consistent with our

previous decision to treat these different

classes of stations uniformly. See Report

and Order in MM Docket No. 92–168, 59

FR 63049, December 7, 1994. We further

propose to continue our practice, set

forth in Sections 74.15(b) and (c) of our

Rules, of tying the license terms for

auxiliary and booster facilities to the

license terms of the broadcast stations

with which they are associated. We seek

comment on these proposals.

9. Finally, we propose to continue our

practice, set forth in Section 74.15(a) of

our Rules, of issuing licenses for

experimental broadcast stations for a

term of 1 year. We believe that a longer

license term would not be warranted for

this class of station and seek comment

on this proposal.

10. Implementation of Amended

License Term Provisions. Section 203 of

the Telecom Act and the legislative

history are silent as to whether existing

broadcast station licenses may be

modified immediately to conform to any

new license terms that may be adopted.

11. The implementation issue is

important because of the logistics

involved in renewing broadcast

licenses. Under Sections 73.1020 and

74.15 of the Commission’s Rules, all of

the licenses for a particular class of

broadcast stations expire at fixed

intervals over a 3-year period. To stagger

the processing of renewal applications

and thus perform this task more

efficiently, the country is divided into

18 different regions containing 1 or

more states for purposes of establishing

synchronized schedules for radio and

television license renewals. The radio

renewal schedule and the television

renewal schedule operate on separate

and distinct cycles that do not run

concurrently. Accordingly, once all

radio licenses have been renewed as

scheduled, there is a 50-month hiatus

before the radio renewal cycle begins

again. Similarly, once all television

licenses have been renewed as

scheduled, there is also a 26-month

hiatus before the television renewal

cycle begins again.

12. Because of the cyclical nature of

this process, any change in the length of

the license term implemented in the

middle of a renewal cycle could

adversely affect the synchronization of

the whole process.

13. By the time the Telecom Act of

1996 was enacted in February 1996, the

renewal cycle had already begun for

radio stations in several regions of the

country. The practical effect of this

situation is that radio licenses that have

already been renewed for the current

maximum allowable 7-year term will

have shorter terms than radio licenses

renewed later in the renewal cycle, if we

adopt the 8-year term we now propose.

When these previously granted licenses

expire the radio renewal process will no

longer be synchronized. We wish to

maintain the efficiencies inherent in the

existing synchronized schedule of

renewal cycles. Should we ultimately

adopt an 8-year license term, we

therefore propose to implement it as

follows. For broadcast renewal

applications that are granted after the

effective date of a decision in this

proceeding, we propose to ordinarily

grant the renewed license for the

maximum proposed term of 8 years. For

renewal applications that have been

filed as part of the current renewal cycle

(i.e., the cycle beginning October 1,

1995 for radio stations) and that have

been granted only the maximum 7-year

license term provided under our current

rules because they were processed prior

to a decision in this proceeding, we

propose to extend by rule the already

renewed 7-year license term for such

stations to the proposed 8-year term.

These licenses will thus be modified by

rule to have the new maximum term

and will come up for renewal in

synchronization with future radio

renewal cycles. The Commission

adopted a similar approach in 1983

when it extended existing common

carrier and satellite licenses from 5 to 10

years. As noted in that decision, the

Commission’s authority to modify the

provisions of existing licenses by

rulemaking has been upheld on several

occasions. This type of approach is also

consistent with the discretion we are

given by the Telecom Act to prescribe

rules governing the period or periods for

which licenses are granted for particular

classes of stations. We solicit comment

on this proposed approach for

implementing the new maximum

broadcast license terms authorized by

the Telecom Act.

14. By this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making we request comments on how to

best implement the provisions of

Section 203 of the Telecom Act.

Specifically, we seek comment on

whether we should amend Sections

73.1020, 73.733, and 74.15 of the

Commission’s Rules to provide that

broadcast licenses ordinarily should

have 8-year terms, the maximum

provided under the Telecom Act. We

also seek comment on the treatment of

different classes of broadcast stations

and how best to implement the

transition to any amended license term

in an equitable manner given that the

renewal cycle has already begun.

15. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i), 303(r),

and 307(c) of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
17866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 23, 1996 / Proposed Rules

303(r), and 307(c), and Sections

0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.45 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 0.204(b),

0.283 and 1.45.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting, Television

broadcasting.

47 CFR Part 74

Radio broadcasting, Television

broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10051 Filed 4–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 040896C]

50 CFR Part 630

Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries; Public

Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Additional public hearing;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: On April 12, 1996, NMFS

announced four public hearings to

receive comments from fishery

participants and other members of the

public regarding proposed amendments

to regulations governing the Atlantic

swordfish fisheries. NMFS now

announces one additional public

hearing.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received on or before May 2,

1996. The hearing is scheduled for April

25, 1996, from 7–10 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to William Hogarth, Acting

Chief, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division, Office of

Fisheries Conservation and Management

(F/CM), National Marine Fisheries

Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Clearly mark the

outside of the envelope ‘‘Atlantic

Swordfish Comments.’’ The additional

hearing will be held at the following

location:

Pompano Beach Civic Center

1801 NE 6th Street

Pompano Beach, FL 32060

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Hogarth at 301–713–2339;

Kevin Foster at 508–281–9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS

announces an additional public hearing

on the Atlantic swordfish proposed rule

(61 FR 15212, April 5, 1996). The

announcement of the four original

meetings was published April 12, 1996

(61 FR 16236) and included background

information that is not repeated here.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16

U.S.C. 971 et seq.

Dated: April 16, 1996.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–9868 Filed 4–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Part 659

[Docket No. 960409106–6106–01; I.D.

031196A]

RIN 0648–AG26

Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern

Atlantic States; Amendment 1

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement Amendment 1 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region (FMP). Amendment 1 would:

add rock shrimp to the FMP’s

management unit; prohibit trawling for

rock shrimp in an area off the Florida

east coast; require permits for dealers,

vessels, and vessel operators involved in

the rock shrimp fishery; require dealers

to report information needed to monitor

the fishery; and require that the initial

sale, trade, barter, or transfer of rock

shrimp harvested from the exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) occur only

between permitted dealers and

permitted vessels. Based on a

preliminary evaluation of Amendment

1, NMFS disapproved the measure

requiring a vessel operator permit. The

proposed rule would implement the

remaining measures in Amendment 1.

The intended effect is to protect critical

habitat and conserve and manage the

rock shrimp fishery.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule must be sent to the Southeast

Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive

Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL

33702.

Requests for copies of Amendment 1,

which includes a regulatory impact

review, an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (IRFA), a social impact

analysis, and an environmental

assessment, should be sent to the South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

(South Atlantic Council) One Southpark

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407–

4699, telephone: 803–571–4366, FAX:

803–769–4520.

Comments regarding the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in

this proposed rule should be sent to

Edward E. Burgess, Southeast Regional

Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center

Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702, and

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB),

Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:

NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter J. Eldridge, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP

was prepared by the South Atlantic

Council and is implemented through

regulations at 50 CFR part 659 under the

authority of the Magnuson Act. Add

Rock Shrimp to the Management Unit

In the FMP, rock shrimp are included

as part of the fishery, but they are not

included in the management unit,

because there are no management

measures specific to rock shrimp.

Amendment 1 contains management

measures applicable to rock shrimp,

including closing one area to trawling,

and permitting and reporting

requirements; therefore, rock shrimp

would be included in the management

unit.

Area Closed to Rock Shrimp Trawling

Amendment 1 proposes to prohibit

trawling for rock shrimp between 27°30′

N. lat. and 28°30′ N. lat. in the area

extending shoreward of the 100-fathom

(183-m) depth contour (as shown on the

latest edition of NOAA chart 11460) to

80°00′ W. long. The Council is

proposing this measure to minimize the

impacts of rock shrimp trawling on

important live-bottom habitat, including

the slow-growing, fragile Oculina coral

species in and adjacent to the Oculina

Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern

(HAPC).

Oculina coral is fragile and

particularly vulnerable to damage due to

bottom trawling. The largest known

concentrations of Oculina occur in a

narrow band extending from Cape

Canaveral, FL south through the HAPC.

The Oculina formations provide