10204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 18, 2001.

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and

371.

2. Section 180.425 is amended by

alphabetically adding commodities to

the table in paragraph (a) to read as

follows:

§ 180.425 Clomazone; tolerances for

residues.

(a) General.* * *

Commodity Parts per

million

*****

Vegetable, cucurbit, group ....... 0.05

Vegetable, tuberous and corm,

except potato, subgroup ....... 0.05

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–3619 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[WT Docket No. 99–168; CS Docket No. 98–

120; MM Docket No. 00–39; FCC 01–25]

Clearing of the 740–806 MHz Band;

Conversion to Digital Television

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission adopts mechanisms and

makes determinations intended to

facilitate the clearing of the 740–806

MHz band to allow for the introduction

of new wireless services, and to promote

the early transition of analog television

licensees to digital television service

(‘‘DTV’’). The Commission adopts rules

and policies that allow the private

sector to determine the band-clearing

mechanisms that will best suit

broadcasters’ and potential new 700

MHz licensees’ needs. By this action,

the Commission also builds upon the

policies adopted in the Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making in this

proceeding (‘‘700 MHz MO&O and

FNPRM’’) in which it provided guidance

regarding its review of regulatory

requests filed in connection with

voluntary private agreements that would

accelerate the DTV transition and open

the 700 MHz band for new uses.

DATES: Effective February 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nese Guendelsberger or Bill Huber of

the Auctions and Industry Analysis

Division at (202) 418–0660 (voice), (202)

418–7233 (TTY), or Martin Liebman or

Stanley Wiggins of the Policy Division

at (202) 418–1310 (voice), (202) 418–

7233 (TTY), Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of a Third Report and Order

(‘‘Third R&O’’) in WT Docket No. 99–

168, adopted on January 18, 2001, and

released on January 23, 2001. The

complete text of the Third R&O is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257),

445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. It

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 445 12th Street, SW,

Room CY–B400, Washington, DC 20554,

(202) 314–3070. The Third R&O is also

available on the Internet at the

Commission’s web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/

2001/fcc01025. Alternative formats

(computer diskette, large print, audio

cassette and Braille) are available to

persons with disabilities by contacting

Martha Contee at (202) 418–0260, TTY

(202) 418–2555, or at mcontee@fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Third Report and Order

1. By this Third R&O, the Commission

adopts mechanisms and makes

determinations intended to facilitate the

clearing of the 740–806 MHz band to

allow for the introduction of new

wireless services, and to promote the

early transition of analog television

licensees to DTV. The 746–806 MHz

band at issue has historically been used

exclusively by television stations

(Channels 60–69). The incumbent

television broadcasters are permitted by

statute to continue operations until their

markets are converted to digital

television, which is not scheduled to

occur until December 31, 2006, and that

date may be extended under certain

circumstances. Congress has, however,

mandated that the Commission

commence competitive bidding for the

commercial licenses well before the

scheduled termination date of the DTV

transition. In the 700 MHz MO&O and

FNPRM, (65 FR 42879 and 65 FR 42960,

July 12, 2000), the Commission

provided guidance on its review of

applications for approval of regulatory

requests associated with voluntary

agreements accelerating the transition of

incumbent analog television licensees

and opening these bands for new 700

MHz licensee use. The Third R&O

announces additional policies to

facilitate voluntary band clearing

agreements among incumbent

broadcasters and new wireless

licensees.

2. Cost-Sharing Rules. The

Commission concludes that it is not

necessary or appropriate to adopt costsharing rules to assist in clearing the

700 MHz band. Based on the record, the

Commission finds that the new 700

MHz commercial wireless licensees

should be able to enter into cost-sharing

agreements without Commission rules.

Therefore, the Commission leaves all

cost-sharing arrangements to

negotiations among successful auction

bidders in this band.

3. Three-Way Voluntary Transition

Agreements. The Commission adopts a

general presumption, standards of

review, and policies for three-way

agreements among incumbent Channel

59–69 broadcasters and new 700 MHz

wireless licensees that are similar to

those adopted in the 700 MHz MO&O

and FNPRM for bilateral agreements

between broadcasters and new 700 MHz

wireless licensees. Three-way band

clearing agreements would provide for

TV incumbents in the 700 MHz band to

relocate their operations to lower band

TV channels that would be voluntarily

cleared by the lower band TV

incumbents. The Commission finds that

adopting guidelines for three-way

agreements similar to those established

for bilateral agreements should help

negotiating parties and serve the public

interest by providing a measure of

certainty regarding the conditions under

which a regulatory request to implement

a three-way agreement may be

approved. The presumption the

Commission will apply to three-way

agreements will be the same as the

presumption adopted for bilateral

agreements. Thus, the Commission will

presume that the public interest is

substantially furthered when an

applicant demonstrates that the grant of

its request will both result in certain

specific benefits and avoid specific

detriments. To obtain this presumption,

an applicant must first demonstrate that

grant of its request would result in one

of the following: (i) Make new or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 10205

expanded wireless service, such as

‘‘2.5G’’ or ‘‘3G’’ services, available to

consumers; (ii) clear commercial

frequencies that enable provision of

public safety services; or (iii) result in

the provision of wireless service to rural

or other underserved communities. To

obtain the presumption, the applicant

must also show that grant of its request

would not result in any one of the

following: (i) The loss of any of the four

stations in the designated market area

with the largest audience share; (ii) the

loss of the sole service licensed to the

local community; or (iii) the loss of a

community’s sole service on a channel

reserved for noncommercial educational

broadcast service.

4. As was stated in the 700 MHz

MO&O and FNPRM, the presumption is

not conclusive or dispositive. In specific

cases where the presumption applies,

for instance, the Commission will

consider whether special or unique

factors involving loss of broadcast

service are sufficient to rebut the

presumption. When the presumption is

not established or is rebutted, the

Commission will review regulatory

requests by weighing the loss of service

and the advent of new wireless service

on a case-by-case basis. In conducting

this analysis, the Commission will

consider all relevant public interest

factors regarding the provision of

wireless services, the acceleration of the

DTV transition, and the loss of

broadcast service. The Commission will

consider as a relevant factor in its public

interest determination, for instance, the

extent to which a station’s signal will

remain available, after implementation

of the agreement, to a significant

number of its viewers in the licensee’s

service area.

5. The standards adopted in the Third

R&O for reviewing regulatory requests

made in connection with three-way

voluntary agreements will enable the

Commission to weigh both the benefits

associated with recovery of the

spectrum for new wireless uses and any

loss of service to the broadcast

community. The same loss of service

analysis will be applied to both bilateral

and three-way band clearing agreements

in light of the fact that they will

contribute to the same process of

facilitating the transition to DTV and

clearing the 700 MHz band for new

services.

6. Although the factors involved in a

loss-of-service analysis will be the same

for three-way and bilateral agreements,

their application to three-way

agreements may in some circumstances

require two loss-of-service analyses to

assure that effectuation of the agreement

would be consistent with the public

interest. In those cases, the Commission

will do such an analysis separately for:

(i) People in the service area of the

relocation channel that is temporarily

suspending service, and (ii) people in

the service area of the Channel 59–69

incumbent. If the two signals— i.e., the

relocation channel’s signal (Channel 2–

58 range) and the relocating channel’s

signal (Channel 59–69 range)—have

been provided from the same location

with the same coverage characteristics,

the loss-of-service analysis would

appear to be identical to that for a

bilateral agreement, but with the focus

on the loss of the relocation signal

rather than the Channel 59–69 signal.

Because the Channel 59–69 signal

would continue to be available within

approximately the same service area, the

only loss the Commission would need

to focus on would be that of the signal

of the relocation channel. In other

words, the Commission would need to

ascertain that the presumption is met

only for the relocation channel. In other

circumstances, however, the

Commission would need to conduct two

separate loss-of-service analyses and

each station involved should separately

satisfy the requirements set forth to

qualify for the favorable presumption. If

one of the channels involved does not

qualify for the presumption, then the

Commission will make a public interest

determination on a case-by-case basis. A

three-way agreement may also, in some

cases, expand a service area. Such

expansion, which would generally tend

to promote the public interest, would

have to be considered in conjunction

with any interference issues. The

Commission will consider as relevant

factors in its public interest

determination the extent to which a

station’s signal remains available to

viewers located within its previous

service area, as well as the substitution

of a relocating station’s programming for

the programming previously available to

viewers of the relocation channel.

7. Interference Issues. Interference

issues may arise under a three-way

agreement that do not arise under a

bilateral agreement. Specifically, while

a bilateral agreement contemplates that

a broadcaster relinquish one of its two

TV allotments, a three-way agreement

involves the relocation of a Channel 59–

69 operation into a lower band

allotment, which may potentially give

rise to interference issues with respect

to neighboring TV stations.

8. The Third R&O finds that no

interference issues should arise if the

relocating station’s signal is to be

broadcast in the same mode (i.e., the

relocation involves an analog operation

moving into an analog allotment or a

digital operation relocating into a digital

allotment) from the same location as the

lower band incumbent’s signal using the

same or lower power and the same or

lower antenna height. In all other

situations the proposed change must

satisfy the Commission’s prescribed

interference protection standards for

digital or analog operations, as

applicable, and the Commission will

address each such proposed assignment

on a case-by-case basis.

9. A modification could, for instance,

involve either the relocation of an

analog operation or the relocation of a

digital operation. If the modification

involves the relocation of a digital

operation either (i) into an analog

allotment; or (ii) into a digital allotment,

where the relocated station does not

operate at the same location or with the

same or lower power and the same or

lower antenna height as the lower band

incumbent, the Commission will require

such modification to comply with the

provisions of § 73.623(c) of its rules.

That rule section spells out technical

criteria for DTV modifications,

including minimum desired-toundesired (‘‘D/U’’) signal ratios, which

protect co- and adjacent channel DTV

and analog assignments from

interference. If the modification

involves the relocation of an analog

operation either (i) into a digital

allotment; or (ii) into an analog

allotment, where the relocated station

does not operate at the same location or

with the same or lower power and the

same or lower antenna height as the

lower band incumbent, the Commission

will require such modification to

comply with the provisions of §§ 73.610

and 73.698 of its rules in instances

where an analog operation may affect

the operation of another analog

allotment, and the provisions of

§ 73.623(c) in instances where an analog

operation may affect the operation of a

digital allotment.

10. The Commission declines to adopt

a new ‘‘no interference’’ standard that

would prohibit any new involuntary

interference to existing licensees. The

Commission believes that relocation

proposals that can be achieved in a

manner consistent with its existing

interference protection standards should

be encouraged so as to facilitate the

congressional intent underlying the

allocation of these bands for new

wireless uses.

11. The Commission will entertain

negotiated interference agreements

pursuant to § 73.623(g) of its rules,

which is limited to possible agreements

between relocating DTV stations and

any existing TV stations that are entitled

to interference protection under the

10206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Commission’s rules. Pursuant to that

section, parties may reach negotiated

agreements, notwithstanding the fact

that the agreements would result in

increased interference to a DTV or

analog television station above the

minimum technical criteria for DTV

allotments, provided that the station

agrees in writing to accept the

interference and/or to implement an

exchange of channel allotments in the

same community, same market, or

adjacent markets. Under § 73.623(g), the

grant of such applications must be

consistent with the public interest.

These cases will be reviewed on a caseby-case basis. As with interference

agreements negotiated under § 73.623(g)

in other contexts, the Mass Media

Bureau will evaluate these cases in the

first instance, and it is the Commission’s

intent that the significance of any

service gains and losses should be

considered seriously in the evaluation

of whether the negotiated interference

agreement should be approved.

12. The Third R&O also confirms that

broadcasters may file applications for

exchanges of DTV allotments on an

intra-community, intra-market, or intermarket basis, provided that the

exchanges do not result in additional

interference beyond the Commission’s

de minimis standard to other stations or

that all affected stations agree to accept

any additional interference that would

result from the exchange, and that all

other requirements of the DTV allotment

rules are satisfied with respect to the

application(s).

13. The Third R&O notes that any

interference-related requests in

connection with a voluntary band

clearing agreement will be considered

together with the other regulatory

requests to implement that agreement.

14. Procedural Issues. In the Third

R&O, the Commission makes clear its

commitment to processing all regulatory

requests associated with band clearing

agreements as expeditiously as possible.

The Commission also clarifies the

procedures that will apply to such

requests and adopts certain procedural

changes designed to streamline the

review process. Requests that require a

change to the DTV Table of Allotments

will generally be subject to existing

procedures found in § 73.622 of the

Commission’s rules. Under certain

circumstances, however, the

Commission will not use a rulemaking

proceeding to make a DTV allotment

change. Moreover, the following

principles will govern whether the

Commission will employ routine part 73

application procedures or rulemaking

proceedings, regardless of whether a

DTV assignment is being exchanged

with another DTV assignment, an analog

TV assignment is being exchanged with

another analog TV assignment, a DTV

assignment is being moved to an analog

TV allotment, or an analog TV

assignment is being moved to a DTV

allotment. Proposals submitted in

connection with three-way band

clearing agreements where both

broadcasters are licensed to the same

community and the result will not be

the dereservation of a noncommercial

educational allotment, will be processed

under routine application procedures

(i.e., a rulemaking proceeding would not

be necessary) and will be subject to

public notice and comment procedures.

In addition, proposals to change the

community of license will be processed

under routine application procedures so

long as the relocating broadcaster

complies with all community-of-license

obligations and coverage requirements

for both communities, and the situation

for the community that is losing a

station is consistent with the 700 MHz

band-clearing presumptions. In both

such cases, the Mass Media Bureau will

evaluate these proposals in the first

instance, and it is the Commission’s

intent that the significance of any

service gains and losses should be

considered seriously in the evaluation

of whether the proposal should be

approved. The Commission also

delegates to the Mass Media Bureau

authority to make minor, administrative

changes to the analog or DTV Table to

reflect changes authorized by the grant

of applications, such as changing an

analog TV allotment to a DTV allotment.

In addition, consistent with the

Commission’s existing rules,

broadcasters will be permitted to

negotiate swaps of DTV channel

allotments pursuant to application

procedures, provided that they comport

with existing policies (i.e., exchanges of

DTV allotments on an intra-community,

intra-market, or adjacent-market basis

will be entertained, provided that the

exchanges do not result in additional

interference beyond the Commission’s

de minimis standard to other stations or

that all affected stations agree to accept

any additional interference that would

result from the exchange, and that all

other requirements of the DTV allotment

rules are satisfied with respect to the

application(s)). The Third R&O does

note, however, that a rulemaking

proceeding will be required in

situations in which a broadcaster

proposes to add a new channel

allotment, to change the community of

license of an existing allotment (except

in the circumstances mentioned), or to

dereserve an existing noncommercial

educational allotment, and existing

Commission allotment policies will be

applied. The Third R&O also clarifies

that in such rulemaking proceedings to

modify the DTV Table of Allotments in

conjunction with band clearing

agreements, the proposals would not be

subject to counterproposals from other

parties, as is usually the case in

broadcast allotment rulemaking

proceedings.

15. In managing the transition to DTV,

the Commission has, as a general matter,

prohibited broadcasters from

terminating their analog service early,

and has determined that analog

television and DTV facilities should be

licensed under a single, paired license.

In the 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM, the

Commission decided to allow early

termination of analog service to

accommodate voluntary agreements. To

effectuate that policy, the Third R&O

clarifies that a broadcaster will not be

jeopardizing its license by agreeing to

relinquish one of the two allotments

under its license, subject to prior

Commission authorization, to effectuate

a band clearing agreement. This is a

narrow departure from the general

principle that the DTV/analog license is

a single license and thus that neither

channel can be transferred separately.

The Commission believes that this

approach will, without an undue

adverse effect on the public’s overall

receipt of broadcasting service, expedite

the full commercial and public safety

use of the 700 MHz spectrum specified

in section 337 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and the

transition to DTV. The Third R&O also

clarifies that if as a result of a three-way

agreement a broadcaster is left with only

an analog television channel, it must

convert to DTV by the applicable date

set forth in § 73.624(d) of the

Commission’s rules.

16. Temporary Relocation to

Channels 52–58. The Third R&O does

not prohibit voluntary agreements that

would result in TV stations currently

operating on Channels 60–69 relocating

temporarily into Channels 52–58, which

will be subject to future licensing for

wireless services. The Commission

recognizes that there are potential

benefits and costs associated with

temporary relocation to Channels 52–58

resulting from voluntary agreements.

The potential benefit includes allowing

the incumbent broadcasters the

opportunity to continue operating,

while clearing the spectrum for new

wireless licensees. The Commission will

consider any public interest costs in its

review of any requests submitted in

connection with voluntary agreements

to relocate temporarily into Channels

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 10207

52–58 under the standards that have

been set out in this proceeding.

17. Secondary Auctions. A secondary

band clearing auction would be a

mechanism to determine the price that

would be paid by 700 MHz licensees to

TV incumbents who agree to clear their

channels in the 700 MHz band. The

Commission recognized in the 700 MHz

MO&O and FNPRM that a secondary

auction mechanism may produce

significant benefits, and does not depart

from that finding in the Third R&O. The

Commission also finds that the private

sector is better suited to determine what

mechanisms interested parties might

demand and to implement a secondary

auction in a manner that is most

responsive to broadcasters’ and

potential bidders’ needs. The

Commission does not therefore intend at

this time to conduct a secondary

auction.

18. The Commission will rely on

private secondary auctions and any

other such voluntary, comprehensive

band clearing arrangements among new

700 MHz licensees and incumbent

broadcasters that would result in the

voluntary early transition of this band to

new services. The Commission cannot

know whether individually negotiated

arrangements or private auctions will be

the more effective voluntary clearing

mechanism and supports giving parties

a choice, so long as the approach is

consistent with Commission policies

and rules. Based on the record, the

Commission finds that a privately

conducted secondary auction may be

conducted in a manner that would not

interfere with the integrity and

operations of the Commission’s

spectrum auction process. The Third

R&O reminds parties that where a

secondary auction leads to private band

clearing agreements, the Commission

must approve any regulatory requests

necessary to the effectuation of such

agreements.

19. Collusion Issues. The Third R&O

clarifies that the Commission’s anticollusion rules, set forth at § 1.2105(c),

do not prohibit participation in a

secondary auction or band clearing

agreements, but that parties need to

keep those requirements in mind. For

instance, to the extent that negotiating a

band clearing agreement or the terms of

participation in a secondary auction

conveys information about bids, bidding

strategies, or settlements to other

applicants for licenses in the same

geographic license areas in the

Commission’s auction, such

communications would be prohibited

while the anti-collusion rule is in effect,

unless the parties have identified each

other on their short-form applications as

parties to a bidding arrangement under

§ 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). However, to the

extent that such negotiations are not

with other ‘‘applicants’’ for licenses in

the same geographic license areas or do

not convey prohibited information, such

communications would not be

prohibited under the anti-collusion rule

and negotiations could continue after

the short-form deadline. Many of the

parties conducting and participating in

private secondary band clearing

auctions are not likely to be

‘‘applicants’’ subject to the

Commission’s prohibition on collusion.

20. Accordingly, the Commission

reminds parties participating in

secondary auctions or entering into

three-way agreements to remain mindful

of their obligations under the

Commission’s anti-collusion rules. In

this regard, the Commission notes that

with respect to auctions of licenses in

the 700 MHz band, a band clearing

agreement or contract to participate in a

secondary auction constitutes an

agreement that relates to licenses being

auctioned, and is covered by the

disclosure requirement of

§ 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). Disclosure of the

parties to any agreements on short-form

auction applications also provides a

‘‘safe harbor’’ against allegations that

communications in connection with

such agreements constitute

communications prohibited under the

anti-collusion rules. Where agreements

are not reached before the short-form

filing deadline, participants in

secondary auctions or parties entering

into three-way agreements should

educate all involved in such activities

about these obligations, and might

consider establishing procedures to

insulate individuals from others’

auction-related communications or

taking other precautionary steps to

prevent collusive conduct from

occurring.

21. Proposal to Cap Clearing Costs.

The Commission will not adopt cost

recovery guidelines at this time. The

Commission believes that both

voluntary clearing agreements and a

private secondary auction plan would

be more likely to succeed without the

use of cost guidelines. Further, the

record of this proceeding contains little

detail about how to structure any such

guidelines.

22. Digital Must-Carry. Although the

Commission did not seek comment in

the 700 MHz MO&O and FNPRM on the

digital must-carry issue, a number of

commenters urge the Commission to

adopt DTV must-carry rules in order to

encourage band clearing. The

Commission finds in the Third R&O that

the requests of commenters in this

proceeding for adoption of various DTV

must-carry rules have in most respects

been resolved in Carriage of Digital

Television Broadcast Signals, CS Docket

No. 98–120, First Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

FCC 01–22, ¶¶52–56 (released January

23, 2001), as well as in WHDT–DT

Channel 59, Stuart, Florida, Petition for

Declaratory Ruling that Digital

Broadcast Stations Have Mandatory

Carriage Rights, CSR–5562–Z,

Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC

01–23, ¶¶12–15 (released January 23,

2001). The Commission also defers

consideration of other issues raised by

commenters, such as the mandatory

dual carriage of a station’s digital and

analog signals during the digital

television transition, pending

development of an improved record in

the DTV Must-Carry proceeding.

23. Other Relocation Proposals.

Certain commenters argue that, should

there be a ‘‘lone holdout’’ of an

incumbent broadcaster in a market

where substantial clearing has occurred,

it might well threaten the success of the

transition to DTV and the ability of new

700 MHz licensees to deploy rapidly

new wireless technologies in this

spectrum. Holdouts may be a sign of a

market imperfection or failure that

might impede the proper functioning of

the market, and may prevent efficient

outcomes of secondary auctions and

band clearing negotiations among new

700 MHz wireless licensees and

incumbent Channel 59–69 broadcasters.

24. In the Third R&O, the Commission

cites its previous observation that in the

majority of cases efficient spectrum

markets will lead to use of spectrum for

the highest value end use, and states its

belief that voluntary agreements

between broadcasters and licensees

should result in the effective clearing of

the 700 MHz band. The Commission

notes that this view is broadly shared by

most commenters, which advocate a

voluntary, market-based approach to

clearing incumbent broadcast operations

from Channels 59–69. However, the

Commission will revisit this issue in the

future if necessary.

25. Other Proposals to Accelerate the

DTV Transition. In light of the limited

scope of comments on proposals

regarding sharing of spectrum, the

Commission concludes that there is

insufficient interest to warrant adoption

of rules of general applicability at this

time.

26. Band Clearing Relating to the

Auction of Channels 52–59. The

Commission finds that it is appropriate

to gain additional experience with

innovative, voluntary band clearing

mechanisms before making judgments

10208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

about whether to extend them for use in

bands other than those used for

Channels 60–69. Thus, the Commission

defers the issue of employing such

mechanisms in conjunction with the

auction of spectrum used for Channels

52–59 to its upcoming proceeding on

service rules for this spectrum.

Procedural Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Paperwork Reduction Act

27. Section 213 of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law

106–113, 113 Stat. 2502, states that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (as well as

certain provisions of the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996 and

the Paperwork Reduction Act) shall not

apply to the rules and competitive

bidding procedures governing the

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz band

(currently used for television broadcasts

on channels 60–69). Because the

policies and rules adopted in the Third

R&O relate only to assignments of those

frequencies, no Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis or Paperwork

Reduction Analysis is necessary.

Ordering Clauses

28. Authority for issuance of this

Third R&O is contained in sections 1, 2,

4(i), 5(c), 7(a), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308,

309(j), 309(k), 311, 316, 319, 324, 331,

332, 333, 336, 337, 614, and 615 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),

155(c), 157(a), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308,

309(j), 309(k), 311, 316, 319, 324, 331,

332, 333, 336, 337, 614, and 615, the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000,

Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 2502, and

§ 1.425 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 1.425.

29. Accordingly, it is ordered that part

73 of the Commission’s rules is

amended as specified. Pursuant to

section 213 of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2000, these rule

amendments are effective February 14,

2001. It is further ordered that the

Petition for Rulemaking filed by

Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC on

April 24, 2000 is granted to the extent

discussed in the Third R&O.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcast services, Wireless

telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as

follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

2. Section 73.607 is amended by

redesignating the undesignated text as

paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§ 73.607 Availability of channels.

* * * * *

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of

this section, an application may be filed

for a channel or community not listed

in the TV Table of Allotments if it is

consistent with the rules and policies

established in the Third Report and

Order in WT Docket 99–168 (FCC 01–

25), adopted January 18, 2001. Where

such a request is approved, the Mass

Media Bureau will change the Table of

Allotments to reflect that approval.

3. Section 73.622 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph

(c)(1) and adding new paragraph (c)(2)

to read as follows:

§ 73.622 Digital television table of

allotments.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)

of this section, an application may be

filed for a channel or community not

listed in the DTV Table of Allotments if

it is consistent with the rules and

policies established in the Third Report

and Order in WT Docket 99–168 (FCC

01–25), adopted January 18, 2001.

Where such a request is approved, the

Mass Media Bureau will change the

DTV Table of Allotments to reflect that

approval.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–3711 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 660

[Docket No. 001226367-0367-01; I.D.

1215OOE]

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

Foreign Fishing; Fisheries off West

Coast States and in the Western

Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish

Fishery; Annual Specifications and

Management Measures; Corrections

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Corrections to the 2001

specifications for the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the 2001 groundfish

fishery specifications and management

measures for the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery, which were

published on January 11, 2001.

DATES: Effective Febraury 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko,

NMFS, (206) 526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 2001 fishery specifications and

management measures for groundfish

taken in the U.S. exclusive economic

zone and state waters off the coasts of

Washington, Oregon, and California, as

authorized by the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan,

were published in the Federal Register

on January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338). The

specifications contained a number of

errors that need to be corrected.

Corrections

In the rule FR Doc. 01-560, in the

issue of Thursday, January 11, 2001 (66

FR 2338), make the following

corrections:

1. On page 2359, in the third column,

the first five lines of paragraph IV.A

(6)(e)(ii), and paragraph IV.A

(6)(e)(ii)(A) are corrected to read as

follows: ‘‘used. To determine the round

weight, multiply the processed weight

times the conversion factor.

(A) Headed and gutted. The

conversion factor for headed and gutted

lingcod is 1.5.’’

2. On page 2362 in the second and

third columns, paragraphs IV.A. (20)(i)

and (ii) are corrected to read as follows:

‘‘(i) The western CCA is an area south

of Point Conception that is bound by