Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2469

auction. The partitioned areas must

conform to established geopolitical

boundaries and each area must include

all portions of the wireline service area

of the rural telephone company

applicant that lies within the service

area.

12. The application processing rules

contained in Parts 21 and 94 would be

used for the 37 GHz service (as well as

the 39 GHz service). Auction winners

will be required to file a long form by

a specific date, generally within 10

business days after the close of the

auction. If the winning bidder intends to

provide a common carrier service it

would file FCC Form 494, and if it

intends to provide a private use it

would file FCC Form 402. After the

Commission receives the winning

bidder’s down payment and the longform application, the long-form

application would be reviewed to

determine if it is acceptable for filing.

Upon acceptance for filing of FCC Form

494, a Public Notice announcing this

fact would be released, triggering the

filing window for petitions to deny. If

the Commission denies all petitions to

deny, and is otherwise satisfied that the

applicant is qualified, a Public Notice

announcing the grants will be issued.

Winning bidders would have five

business days after the issuance of the

Public Notice to complete payment of

their licenses. The Commission would

then have ten business days to grant the

licenses.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Radio.

47 CFR Part 2

Radio.

47 CFR Part 21

Communications common carriers,

Communications equipment, Radio.

47 CFR Part 94

Communications equipment, Radio,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–1247 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–181, RM–8727]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Bagdad

and Chino Valley, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by 21st Century Radio Ventures,

Inc., permittee of Station KAKP(FM),

Channel 280A, Bagdad, Arizona,

requesting the substitution of Channel

280C3 for Channel 280A at Bagdad, the

reallotment of Channel 280C3 to Chino

Valley, Arizona, and modification of the

authorization for Station KAKP(FM) to

specify Chino Valley as its community

of license, pursuant to the provisions of

Section 1.420(g) and (i) of the

Commission’s Rules. Coordinates for

Channel 280C3 at Chino Valley are 34–

43–46 and 112–29–22. Chino Valley is

located within 320 kilometers (199

miles) of the United States-Mexico

border, and therefore, the Commission

must obtain concurrence of the Mexican

government to this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 11, 1996, and reply

comments on or before March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: 21st Century

Radio Ventures, Inc., Attn.: James L.

Primm, President, 530 Wilshire Blvd.,

Suite 301, Santa Monica, CA 90401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy

Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–181, adopted December 11, 1995,

and released January 19, 1996. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Center (Room 239),

1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–1423 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–180, RM–8730]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Ingalls,

KS

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition by Dana J.

Puopolo requesting the allotment of

Channel 242C1 to Ingalls, Kansas.

Channel 242C1 can be allotted to

Ingalls, Kansas, in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements without the

imposition of a site restriction. The

coordinates for Channel 242C1 at Ingalls

are 37–49–48 and 100–27–06.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 11, 1996, and reply

comments on or before March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Dana J. Puopolo, 37 Martin

Street, Rehoboth, Massachusetts 02769

(Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–180, adopted December 8, 1995, and

released January 19, 1996. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–
2470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–1421 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AB80

Migratory Bird Hunting: Amended Test

Protocol for Nontoxic Shot Approval

Procedures for Shot and Shot

Coatings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The principal purpose of this

action is to promulgate a rulemaking

that will update and amend the current

nontoxic shot approval procedures by

establishing a 3-tiered approval process.

Shot approval will be considered at

each tier with the testing becoming

progressively more demanding. An

environmentally benign shot could be

granted approval at the first tier. This

process is designed to include both

candidate shot and shot coatings.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be received by March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

notice should be addressed to: Director

(FWS/MBMO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW.,

Washington, DC 20240. Comments

received on this notice will be available

for public inspection during normal

business hours in Room 634, Arlington

Square Building, 4401 No. Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Schmidt, Chief, or Keith Morehouse,

Staff Specialist, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, 703/358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Service is proposing to revise and

update the existing nontoxic shot

approval procedures by establishing a 3-

tiered approval process. Shot approval

will be considered at each tier with the

testing becoming progressively more

demanding. An environmentally benign

shot could be granted approval at the

first tier. This approval process is

designed to include both candidate shot

and shot coatings. The Service and

applicant have concluded much of the

currently identified nontoxic testing

required for bismuth-tin shot and the

process was shown to be both confusing

and cumbersome. The Service believes

that this procedure needs to be modified

because:

1. From an ecosystem management

standpoint, species in addition to

waterfowl species need to be

considered;

2. Since the original regulations were

promulgated, important advances have

occurred in the field of ecological risk

assessment that can be applied to this

process;

3. Time, expense and burden on

applicants and the Federal Government

can be reduced without risk to wildlife;

and

4. From an animal welfare standpoint,

the numbers of test animals used can be

reduced.

It should be noted, however, that

while these procedures were put in

place in 1986, the Service had not had

any submission requesting approval of

nontoxic shot until the bismuth-tin shot

application of 1994. From our

experience with the bismuth-tin shot

approval process, it has been

determined that procedures should be

modified to accommodate situations

where less than full testing is indicated.

Thus, the Service and the National

Biological Service (NBS) have

cooperatively developed an alternative

draft set of procedures proposed to be

used for approving nontoxic shot as

well as coatings that would replace the

testing requirements presently

contained in § 20.134. As with the

current procedures, the proposed set of

approval procedures carries the

assumption that the applicant has the

burden of proof that the candidate

coating or shot is nontoxic.

The system proposed is 3-tiered and

is meant to gradually increase the

difficulty of the level of testing based on

a test-in/test-out principle. That is,

those candidate materials not approved

as a result of subjecting them to the

standards set at Tier 1 would be

subjected to the standards of Tier 2, and

so forth, i.e., test-in. If the candidate

material is approved at Tier 1 there

would be no requirement to proceed to

Tier 2 or 3, i.e., test-out. The criteria for

requiring testing under Tier 2 standards

would be met if data is incomplete or

inconclusive as a result of review of

materials and analyses conducted at

Tier 1. Similarly, the criterion for

requiring testing under Tier 3 standards

would be met if material is found to

have some poorly defined level of toxic

effects at Tier 2.

As currently proposed by this

regulation, Tier 1 would set out

comprehensive and detailed

requirements that must be provided to

the Service in order for the Service to

grant approval. Based on the Service’s

evaluation of whatever Tier 1

information could be gathered, the

Service would make a decision to grant

approval or require Tier 2 testing. That

is, the scope of the new procedures

outlined in Tier 1 would include: (1)

Statements of use, chemical

characterization, production variability

and volume of use. The Service would

request the specifics on the chemical

compound(s) to be used and a complete

analysis of potential environmental

toxicity, as well as the thickness in the

case of coating(s) and percentage of the

coating in comparison to the total shot

weight; (2) information on the

toxicological effects of the material,

including an ecological risk assessment

on the toxicological effects of the

coating and an assessment explaining

why the applicant believes the coating

or base material(s) does not pose

toxicity problems for wildlife; and (3)

information on the environmental fate

and transport of the material. The

Service would seek information on

changes, if any, that are produced by

firing the shot, the estimated half-life of

the material and estimates of the

environmental concentrations that are

apt to be expected. Tier 1 procedures

also contain a set of requirements

defining the Service’s responsibility in

evaluating the submitted data/

information.

Previously codified candidate shot

testing procedures would be divided

between Tiers 2 and 3, with the in vitro

erosion rate testing and the short-term

(30-day) acute toxicity testing part of

Tier 2, and the chronic exposure under

adverse conditions and the chronic

exposure reproduction testing part of

Tier 3. Tier 2 will also include a test

protocol that would assess the potential

for the candidate shot to affect aquatic

organisms, such as fish and/or