Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 11127

Discussion

The manufacturer’s original analysis

of the HPT 1st to 2nd stage turbine

spacer P/N 23058369 low-cycle fatigue

life computed a cleared life of 20,000

cycles. When the part number was

reanalyzed for low-cycle fatigue life, it

was determined that the stress

concentration factor in the cooling slots

was incorrect and the stresses associated

with the forward cooling slots were

higher than predicted. The updated

analysis indicates that the low-cycle

fatigue life limit of P/N 23058369

should be reduced from 20,000 cycles to

9,400 cycles.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other RR AE 3007A and AE

3007C model engines of the same type

design, the proposed AD would require

removal and replacement of HPT 1st to

2nd stage turbine spacer P/N 23058369

before it reaches its new reduced engine

cycle life limit. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in HPT 1st to

2nd stage turbine spacer failure, which

could result in an uncontained engine

failure and damage to the airplane.

Economic Impact

There are approximately 378 engines

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 300

engines installed on 150 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It will take approximately

13 work hours per engine to accomplish

the removal and replacement of the

affected HPT 1st to 2nd stage spacer.

The 13 work hours cited include

teardown and rebuilding from the

module level, but not engine removal.

Engines are rarely scheduled off-wing

solely for the purpose of replacement of

time-expired components.The average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$10,012 per engine. Based on these

figures, the FAA estimates the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators, to be $3,237,600. Because

most of the fleet field parts are below

the new value, special scheduling

should not be required.

Regulatory Impact

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications, as defined in

Executive Order 13132, because it

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.

Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted

with state authorities prior to

publication of this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Rolls-Royce Corporation: Docket No. 2000–

NE–41–AD.

Applicability: This AD is applicable to

Rolls-Royce (RR) Corporation (formerly

Allison Engine Company) AE 3007A and AE

3007C model engines with high pressure

turbine (HPT) 1st to 2nd stage turbine spacer

part number (P/N) 23058369 installed. These

engines are installed on but not limited to

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) EMB–145 and Cessna 750 series

airplanes.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (c)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance

Compliance with this AD is required as

indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent HPT 1st to 2nd stage turbine

spacer-failure, which could result in an

uncontained engine failure and damage to

the airplane, accomplish the following:

New Reduced Engine Cycle Life Limit

(a) For all RR Corporation AE 3007A and

AE 3007C model engines with HPT 1st to

2nd stage turbine spacer, P/N 23058369

installed, remove spacer before reaching the

new reduced engine cycle life limit of 9,400

cycles and replace with a serviceable part.

(b) Revise the airworthiness limitations

section of the Instruction for Continued

Airworthiness, as follows: P/N

23058369=9,400 cycles.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Chicago

Aircraft Certification Office. Operators shall

submit their request through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO).

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Chicago

ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 13, 2001.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–4393 Filed 2–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–01–002]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New

Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

11128 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

a change to the regulation governing the

operation of the SR 46 (St. Claude

Avenue) bridge, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile

6.2 East of Harvey Lock), the SR 39

(Judge Seeber/Claiborne Avenue) bridge,

mile 0.9 (GIWW mile 6.7E), and the

Florida Avenue bridge, mile 1.7 (GIWW

mile 7.5E), across the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal in New Orleans,

Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The proposal

would codify the historic

accommodation with marine interests

that allows the bridges to remain closedto-navigation and open to vehicular

traffic during the morning and afternoon

rush hours. The proposed regulation

would require the bridges to open on

signal; except that, from 6:45 a.m. to

8:30 a.m. and from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

federal holidays, the draws need not

open for the passage of vessels. The

draws shall open at any time for a vessel

in distress. This change would allow for

the uninterrupted flow of commuter

traffic while still providing for the

reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

April 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

Commander (obc), Eighth Coast Guard

District, 501 Magazine Street, New

Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3396, or

deliver them to room 1313 at the same

address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The Commander, Eighth Coast

Guard District, Bridge Administration

Branch maintains the public docket for

this rulemaking. Comments and

material received from the public, as

well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection or

copying at the Bridge Administration

Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Frank, Bridge Administration

Branch, 504–589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (CGD08–01–002),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

confirmation of receipt of your

comments, please enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope. We

will consider all comments and material

received during the comment period.

We may change this proposed rule in

view of comments received.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. You may submit a request for

a public meeting by writing to the

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard

District, Bridge Administration Branch

at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why a public meeting would

be beneficial. If we determine that a

public meeting would aid this

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place to be announced in the

Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

To meet the needs of commuters who

cross these three bridges in the morning

and afternoon en route to and from work

in the Lower Ninth Ward area of New

Orleans and in St. Bernard Parish, the

Coast Guard is proposing to codify the

historic accommodation with marine

interests that allows the bridges to

remain closed-to-navigation and open to

vehicular traffic during the morning and

afternoon rush hours.

Concerns regarding the ability of

vehicular traffic to transit across the

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal date back

to the 1970’s. In June 1976, five New

Orleans area legislators, in conjunction

with the Dock Board, requested a

change in the operating regulations

governing their bridges across the Inner

Harbor Navigation Canal. The Coast

Guard spent many months attempting to

reach an amiable resolution to the

concerns of both vehicular and marine

traffic. In April 1977, the Coast Guard

began a test schedule to allow the three

bridges to remain closed-to-navigation

during the morning and evening while

attempting to meet the reasonable needs

of navigation.

In August 1977, a second schedule

was tested which made some

modifications to the original test

schedule. No final rule was published

following the test period; however, the

schedule remained in effect and this

schedule continued until 1988.

In 1988, the Louisiana Statute RS

34:28 was amended to require both the

St. Claude Avenue and Claiborne

Avenue bridges be kept open to

vehicular traffic for extended periods

during morning and evening rush hours.

The Coast Guard objected to the statute

stating that the federal government

exercises jurisdiction over the operation

of bridges over navigable waters. A

subsequent Louisiana Attorney

General’s opinion on Act 453 of 1988

ruled it to be unconstitutional.

In December 1988, the Dock Board,

the Corps of Engineers, a representative

from the American Waterways

Operators, and the Coast Guard met to

discuss the operations of the bridges. It

was reiterated that the St. Claude bridge,

immediately adjacent to the south lock

gate of the lock, was controlled by the

operations of the lock. It was

determined at this meeting that the lock

would schedule a river-to-lake lockage

followed immediately by a lake-to-river

lockage to encompass the rush hour

time frame. Following the meeting,

another test schedule for the operation

of the bridges was published in the

Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners,

the local newspaper and by notice from

the Port of New Orleans as follows:

(1). Morning Bridge Operations: 6:45

a.m.–8:15 a.m., Monday through Friday.

(a). St. Claude Avenue bridge—Closedto-navigation between 6:45 a.m. and 7

a.m. and remains closed for a

continuous one hour period, with the

next opening no earlier than 7:45 a.m.;

(b). Claiborne Avenue bridge—Closedto-navigation from 6:45 a.m. to 8:15

a.m.; (c). Florida Avenue bridge—Open

to northbound and southbound

navigation traffic during one opening

not to exceed 10 minutes between 7 a.m.

and 8 a.m.

(2). Afternoon Bridge Operations: 4:30

p.m.–6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

(a). St. Claude Avenue bridge—Closedto-navigation between 4:45 p.m. and

5:15 p.m. and remains closed for a

continuous one hour period, with the

next opening no earlier than 5:45 p.m.;

(b). Claiborne Avenue bridge—Closedto-navigation from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30

p.m.; (c). Florida Avenue bridge—Open

to northbound and southbound

navigation traffic during one opening

not to exceed 10 minutes between 5

p.m. and 6 p.m.

This schedule was to be tested for a

three-month period. However, during

that three-month period, a vessel

allision occurred at the Florida Avenue

bridge which made the test invalid. The

test was continued past this period and

no Special Operation Regulation was

ever completed.

In 1994, the Coast Guard wrote a letter

to the Dock Board to request a meeting

to discuss the operation of the lock and

bridges as no official Special Operation

Regulations had ever been established

for the three bridges. Following the

meeting, hours for closure for the St.

Claude bridge were extended to 6:45

a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 11129

p.m. and the hours for closure for the

Florida Avenue bridge were extended to

6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to

6:30 p.m.

Since 1988, our office has received

only one complaint from a vehicular

user of the St. Claude bridge regarding

traffic delays at the bridge. No

complaints have been received from

waterway users.

During the past several years,

although no regulation has ever been

established, all parties have accepted

the spirit of the ‘‘closure’’.

The Coast Guard wishes to codify the

accepted historic practices of these three

bridges. Presently, the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal Lock averages 32

lockings per day. During the hours of

6:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., vehicular traffic

averages between 400 and 600 vehicles

westbound and between 100 and 200

vehicles eastbound per 15 minute

period on the St. Claude Avenue bridge.

During the hours of 4:45 p.m. to 6:15

p.m., vehicular traffic averages between

400 and 500 vehicles eastbound and

between 100 and 200 vehicles

westbound per 15 minute period on the

St. Claude Avenue bridge. The Florida

Avenue bridge averages approximately

1100 cars during the entire morning

curfew and approximately 800 cars

during the entire afternoon curfew

period. Traffic counts for the SR 39

(Judge Seeber/Claiborne Avenue) were

unavailable; however, Claiborne Avenue

is the main artery for traffic between

Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes and

traffic counts would be expected to be

higher on this roadway. The Claiborne

Avenue bridge also provides a vertical

clearance of 40 feet above mean high

water in the closed-to-navigation

position, which is significantly greater

than the other two bridges.

Another factor to be considered is the

relocation of the Industrial Canal Lock.

The Corps of Engineers has begun

driving test piles to relocate the existing

lock. The new lock will be located

between the Florida Avenue bridge and

the Claiborne Avenue bridge. The

Florida Avenue bridge has been

declared an obstructive bridge and will

be replaced within the next several

years. During the relocation of the lock,

the St. Claude Avenue bridge will be

replaced by a new bridge. A temporary

bridge is planned to be constructed

while the existing bridge is removed

and replaced. The Claiborne Avenue

bridge will be modified to increase the

elevation of the bridge to maintain the

existing vertical clearance of the bridge

following the relocation of the lock. The

subject closures will help relieve trafficrelated congestion resulting from

construction. As of this date, only the

Florida Avenue bridge is scheduled to

be replaced. No other bridge permit

applications have been received by the

Coast Guard at this time.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the

implications of the proposed regulations

and their effect on the marine traffic

transiting through this area. The

proposed rule would establish the same

operation schedules for all three draws

to facilitate the flow of vehicular traffic

during rush hours while still meeting

the reasonable needs of navigation.

Based upon the information provided,

the Coast Guard is proposing a change

to the regulation governing the

operation of the draws of the SR 46 (St.

Claude Avenue) bridge, mile 0.5 (GIWW

mile 6.2E), the SR 39 (Judge Seeber/

Claiborne Avenue) bridge, mile 0.9

(GIWW mile 6.7E), and the Florida

Avenue bridge, mile 1.7 (GIWW mile

7.5E), across the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal in New Orleans,

Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The proposed

regulation would require the bridges to

open on signal; except that, from 6:45

a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:45 p.m. to

6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except federal holidays, the draws need

not open for the passage of traffic. The

draws shall open at any time for a vessel

in distress.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office

of Management and Budget has not

reviewed it under that Order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,

February 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

unnecessary.

This proposed rule maintains the

existing historically accepted curfews

with a minor change allowing the bridge

to remain closed-to-navigation an

additional 30 minutes.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises

small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule would affect

the following small entities: the owners

or operators of vessels intending to

transit the Inner Harbor Navigation

Canal between mile 0.5 and mile 1.7

during the hours of 6:45 a.m. to 8:30

a.m. and 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday

through Friday except federal holidays.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

If the rule would affect your small

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact the Bridge

Administration Branch, Eighth Coast

Guard District at the address above.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13132 and have

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a state, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

11130 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce

burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

This proposal will change an existing

special drawbridge operating regulation

promulgated by a Coast Guard Bridge

Administration Program action. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend part 117 of title 33, Code of

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. In § 117.458, paragraphs (a) and (b)

are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and

(c) and a new paragraph (a) is added to

read as follows:

§ 117.458 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal,

New Orleans.

(a) The draws of the SR 46 (St. Claude

Avenue) bridge, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile

6.2E), the SR 39 (Judge Seeber/Claiborne

Avenue) bridge, mile 0.9 (GIWW mile

6.7E), and the Florida Avenue bridge,

mile 1.7 (GIWW mile 7.5E), shall open

on signal; except that, from 6:45 a.m. to

8:30 a.m. and from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45

p.m. , Monday through Friday, except

federal holidays, the draws need not

open for the passage of vessels. The

draws shall open at any time for a vessel

in distress.

* * * * *

Dated: February 12, 2001.

Paul J. Pluta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–4331 Filed 2–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–336; MM Docket No. 01–36, RM–

10047]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Jamestown, Alfred, Canaseraga, NY;

and DuBois, PA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Vox

Allegany, LLC, requesting the

substitution of Channel 270B1 for

Channel 270A at Jamestown, New York,

and the modification of Station

WHUG(FM)’s license accordingly. To

accommodate the upgrade, petitioner

also proposes the substitution of

Channel 246A for Channel 270A at

Alfred, New York, and the modification

of Station WZKZ(FM)’s license

accordingly; the substitution of Channel

270A for vacant Channel 246A at

Canaseraga, New York; and the

modification of the reference

coordinates of Station WMOU–FM,

Channel 271B, Du Bois, Pennsylvania.

Channel 270B1 can be substituted at

Jamestown in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 7.9 kilometers (4.9 miles)

south at petitioner’s requested site. The

coordinates for Channel 270B1

Jamestown are 42–12–40 North Latitude

and 79–22–40 West Longitude. See

Supplementary Information, supra.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 2, 2001, reply comments on

or before April 17, 2001.

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: David G. O’Neil, Esq., 1350

Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 900,

Washington, DC 20036–1701 (Counsel

for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making and Order to

Show Cause, MM Docket No. 01–36,

adopted January 31, 2001, and released

February 9, 2001. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Information Center (Room CY–A257),

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

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Additionally, Channel 246A can be

substituted at Alfred with a site

restriction of 7.9 kilometers (4.9 miles)

south at Station WZKZ(FM)’s presently

authorized site; Channel 270A can be

substituted at Canaseraga with a site

restriction of 8.8 kilometers (5.5 miles)

east at petitioner’s requested site; and

the reference coordinates for Channel

271B at Du Bois can be modified with

a site restriction of 20.3 kilometers (12.6

miles) east at petitioner’s requested site.

The coordinates for Channel 246A at

Alfred are 42–11–25 North Latitude and

77–49–17 West Longitude; the

coordinates for Channel 270A at

Canaseraga are 42–26–21 North Latitude

and 77–40–29 West Longitude; and the

coordinates for Channel 271B at Du Bois

are 42–11–25 North Latitude and 77–

49–17 West Longitude. The allotment of

Channel 270B1 at Jamestown will result

in a short-spacing to Station CFNY–FM,

Channel 271C1, Brampton, Ontario.

Therefore, since Jamestown, Alfred,

Canaseraga, and Du Bois are located

within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the

U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of

the Canadian government has been

requested, with the allotment at

Jamestown being sought as a specially

negotiated, short-spaced allotment. In

accordance with Section 1.420(g) of the

Commission’s Rules, we will not accept

competing expressions of interest for the

use of Channel 270B1 at Jamestown, or

require petitioner to demonstrate the

availability of an additional equivalent

class channel for use by such parties.