        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No 06-121; MB Docket No 02-277; FCC 06-93]
        2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review; 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document the Commission seeks comment on how to address issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with respect to rules, as adopted or revised in the 2002 Biennial Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. Concurrently, the next quadrennial review of the broadcast ownership rules is initiated as required by section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

          DATES:
          The Commission must receive comments on or before September 22, 2006, and reply comments on or before November 21, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No 06-121 and/or MB Docket No 06-277, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
          • Mail: Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mania Baghdadi, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-2330. Press inquiries should be directed to Rebecca Fisher, (202) 418-2359, TTY: (202) 418-7365 or (888) 835-5322.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pursuant to Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making should refer to MB Docket No. 06-121 and/or MB Docket No. 02-277. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). The public may view a full copy of this document at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-93A1.doc.

          Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.

        For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

          Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

        People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

          Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). However, depending on the rules adopted as a result of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Report and Order (R&O) ultimately adopted in this proceeding may contain information collections. The Commission will provide a period for public comment on any PRA burdens contained in the R&O and will submit such burdens to the Office of Management and Budget for approval when the R&O is adopted and released.
        I. Introduction

        1. With this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“FNPRM”), MB Docket No. 06-121, MB Docket No. 02-277, FCC 06-93, released July 24, 2006, the Commission seeks comment on how to address issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with respect to the rules as adopted or revised in the 2002 Biennial Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”) requires the Commission to periodically review its media ownership rules to determine “whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” and to “repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.” On June 2, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in its third biennial review of its broadcast ownership rules (“2002 Biennial Review Order”) 68 FR 46286 (August 5, 2003). The 2002 Biennial Review Order addressed all six of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules: the national television multiple ownership rule; the local television multiple ownership rule; the radio-television cross-ownership rule; the dual network rule; the local radio ownership rule; and the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission concluded that neither the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule nor the radio/television cross-ownership rule remained necessary in the public interest. Accordingly, it replaced those rules with new cross-ownership regulations called the Cross Media Limits (“CML”). The Commission also revised its market definition and the way it counts stations for purposes of the local radio ownership rule, revised the local television multiple ownership rule, modified the national television ownership cap, and retained the dual network rule. Several parties sought appellate review of various aspects of the 2002 Biennial Review Order; others filed petitions for reconsideration. The court challenges were consolidated into a single proceeding, and on June 23, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision on review of the 2002 Biennial Review Order, affirming some Commission decisions and remanding others for further Commission justification or modification. (the “Prometheus decision”).
        2. In this FNPRM, we discuss each rule that was remanded individually and invite comment on how we should address the issues remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We encourage commenters to buttress their arguments with current empirical evidence and sound economic theory. Concurrently, this FNPRM initiates the next review of the media ownership rules as required by section 202(h).
        II. Discussion
        3. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission determined that its longstanding goals of competition, diversity, and localism would continue to guide its actions in regulating media ownership. These policy objectives also will guide our actions on remand. In addition to the other requests for comment discussed below, we ask that commenters address whether our goals would be better addressed by employing an alternative regulatory scheme or set of rules.
        4. The Prometheus court noted that the Commission deferred consideration of certain proposals for advancing ownership by minorities. We therefore seek comment on the proposals to foster minority ownership advanced by Minority Media and Telecommunications Council in its filings in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, including those that were listed in the 2002 Biennial Review Order and referenced by the court. Are any of these proposals effective and practical ways to increase minority ownership? If so, how could they best be implemented? Do we have the statutory authority to adopt them? Are there any constitutional impediments to adoption? Are there any other alternatives that we should consider that would be more effective and/or would avoid any statutory or constitutional impediments?
        5. More generally, we urge commenters to explain the effects, if any, that their ownership rule proposals will have on ownership of broadcast outlets by minorities, women and small businesses. We also urge commenters to discuss the potential effects, if any, of the broadcast ownership rules currently in effect, and any changes proposed in this proceeding on advertising markets, the ability of independent stations to compete, the availability of family-friendly and children's programming, the amount of indecent and/or violent content broadcast over-the-air, and the availability of independent programming.
        6. The Commission has a long-standing policy to foster broadcast “localism,” which it has defined as the airing of “programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license.” In its 2002 Biennial Review, the Commission invited comment on the extent to which its broadcast ownership rules were necessary to foster localism. Subsequently, the Commission established its Localism Task Force (“Task Force”) to study the issue of localism and advise the Commission on whether any new rules or policies were required to promote it. In addition, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425 (not published in the Federal Registrar) seeking comment from the public on how broadcasters are serving the interests and needs of their communities, whether the Commission needs to adopt new policies, practices, or rules designed to promote localism in broadcast television and radio; and what those policies, practices, or rules should be. The record compiled in the localism docket, MB Docket No. 04-233, is extensive. The Media Bureau will compile a summary of the comments in the localism proceeding and submit it into this docket. The Commission will consider the evidence received in MB Docket No. 04-233 as it moves forward with this rulemaking.
        7. Finally, we note that the media marketplace continues to evolve. We seek comment on the impact of new technologies and providers such as digital video recorders, video-on-demand, and the availability of television programming and music on the Internet on media consumption and ownership issues.
        A. Local TV Ownership Rule
        8. The Commission's local TV ownership rule, as currently in effect, provides that an entity may own two television stations in the same designated market area (“DMA”) if: (1) The Grade B contours of the stations do not overlap; or (2) at least one of the stations in the combination is not ranked among the top four stations in terms of audience share, and at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or non-commercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the DMA after the combination.
        9. In the 2002 Biennial Review, the Commission revised the local TV ownership rule to permit an entity to own up to two television stations in markets with 17 or fewer television stations, and up to three television stations in markets with 18 or more television stations. The Commission retained the prohibition on combinations involving more than one station ranked among the top four in the market, thus prohibiting combinations in markets with four or fewer television stations. The Commission also eliminated consideration of overlapping Grade B contours, and decided to look instead only at whether a station is assigned by Nielsen to a DMA. All full-power commercial and non-commercial television stations within the DMA would be counted for purposes of applying the rule. The 2002 Biennial Review Order also modified the Commission's criteria for waiver of the local TV ownership rule.
        10. On review, the Prometheus court, remanded the numerical limits of the new rule for further justification. The court upheld the Commission's decision to retain the top four-ranked station restriction. The court also remanded for further consideration the Commission's elimination of the requirement to demonstrate that no out-of-market buyer is reasonably available when seeking a failed, failing, or unbuilt television station waiver.
        11. We invite comment on all of the issues remanded by the Prometheus court regarding the local TV ownership rule. Should the limits on the number of stations that can be commonly owned adopted in the 2002 Biennial Review Order be revised, or is there additional evidence or analysis upon which the Commission can rely to further justify the limits it adopted? How should we address the court's concern that the revised numerical limits allow concentration to exceed the 1800 HHI benchmark relied upon by the Commission in setting the limits? Is there additional evidence to support the Commission's decision to treat capacity as an important factor in measuring the competitive structure of television markets? Is there evidence to support fluidity of television station market shares? Should the limits vary depending on the size of the market? How would any changes impact the need for the top four-ranked restriction?

        12. We also invite comment on the court's remand of the elimination of the requirement that waiver applicants demonstrate that there is no reasonably available out-of-market buyer. Should we reinstate this requirement? Is it unduly burdensome? Are there less burdensome means of ensuring that unnecessary concentration of ownership does not occur? Has the requirement had an effect on minority and/or female ownership of broadcast stations?
        B. Local Radio Ownership Rule
        13. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission retained the local radio numerical limits and the AM/FM service caps that Congress adopted in the 1996 Act. The Commission modified the definition of a local radio market by replacing the contour-overlap approach with an Arbitron Metro market definition, where Arbitron markets exist. The Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding, (MB Docket No. 03-130), to seek comment on how to define local radio markets in geographic areas that are not defined by Arbitron. In addition, the Commission decided to include non-commercial stations when determining the number of radio stations in a market for purposes of the ownership rules.
        14. The Prometheus court concluded that the Commission's decision “to replace contour-overlap methodology with Arbitron radio metro markets was ‘in the public interest’ within the meaning of 202(h)” and that the decision was “a rational exercise of rulemaking authority.” The court also upheld the Commission's attribution of JSAs. The court further held that the Commission had justified its decisions to count noncommercial stations in defining the size of a market and to restrict the transfer of grandfathered combinations except to certain eligible entities. The court remanded the Commission's decision to retain the existing specific local radio ownership limits. The court held that the limits were unsupported by the Commission's rationale that they ensure five equal-sized competitors in most markets. The court further faulted the Commission for not explaining why it could not take actual market share into account when deriving the numerical limits. Finally, the court held that the Commission did not support its decision to retain the AM subcaps.
        15. We invite comment on the issues remanded by the Prometheus court with respect to the local radio ownership limits. In order to address the court's concerns, should the numerical limits be revised, or is there additional evidence that could be used to further justify the limits? If the Commission should revise the limits, what revisions are appropriate? Should we create additional tiers? How should the Commission address the court's concern that the limits adopted do not account for actual market share? Should the rule still seek to ensure a specific number of competitors in a market, and, if so, what is the appropriate benchmark for that number? Finally, should we retain the AM/FM subcaps? Lastly, we seek comment on whether the local radio ownership rule currently in effect is necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.
        C. Cross-Media Limits
        16. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission concluded that neither the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule nor the radio/television cross-ownership rule was necessary in the public interest as the result of competition. The Commission replaced these rules with a single set of cross-media limits. To determine the availability of media outlets in markets of various sizes, the Commission developed a Diversity Index (the “DI”), which it used to analyze and measure the availability of outlets that contribute to viewpoint diversity in local media markets.
        17. The Prometheus court affirmed the Commission's decision to eliminate the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. The court concluded, however, that the specific limits selected by the Commission were not supported by reasoned analysis, and remanded the CML to the Commission for further justification or modification. The court also remanded for further consideration the Commission's decision to assign all outlets within the same media type equal market shares in constructing the DI.
        18. We invite comment on all of the issues remanded by the Prometheus court regarding cross-ownership. Many of these issues relate to the DI. In light of the court's extensive and detailed criticism of the DI, we tentatively conclude that the DI is an inaccurate tool for measuring diversity. Moreover, we recognize that some aspects of diversity may be difficult to quantify. To the extent that we will not use the DI to justify changes to the existing cross-ownership rules, we seek comment on how we should approach cross-ownership limits. Should limits vary depending upon the characteristics of local markets? If so, what characteristics should be considered, and how should they be factored into any limits? We seek comment on the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and the radio/television cross-ownership rule. Are there aspects of television and radio broadcast operations that make cross-ownership with a newspaper different for each of these media? If so, should limits on newspaper/radio combinations be different from limits on newspaper/television combinations? Lastly, are the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and the radio/television cross-ownership rule necessary in the public interest as a result of competition?
        D. Dual Network Rule

        19. The Commission's dual network rule provides “A television broadcast station may affiliate with a person or entity that maintains two or more networks of television broadcast stations unless such dual or multiple networks are composed of two or more persons or entities that, on February 8, 1996, were ‘networks’ as defined in Section 73.3613(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations” (that is, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission determined that the dual network rule was necessary in the public interest to promote competition and localism and retained the rule. The Petitioners in Prometheus did not appeal the Commission's retention of the rule. We seek comment on whether the dual network rule remains necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.
        E. UHF Discount
        20. In Prometheus, the Third Circuit held that challenges to the Commission's national television ownership rule were moot following Congressional action that set the national cap at 39 percent. In so doing, the court also addressed the Commission's UHF discount rule, which we have used in calculating a UHF station's audience reach under the national TV cap. The court stated that the UHF discount rule “is insulated from this and future periodic review requirements” and yet also noted that the “Commission is now considering its authority going forward to modify or eliminate the discount and recently took public comment on the issue.” The court then concluded that that Commission may decide the scope of our authority to modify or eliminate the UHF discount outside of the mandate of section 202(h) of the 1996 Act.
        21. We seek comment on whether the court's holding on the UHF discount rule was ambiguous. We seek comment on whether the Commission should retain, modify, or eliminate the UHF discount. Commenters who urge us to modify or eliminate the UHF discount rule should discuss the basis for our authority to take such action.
        III. Petitions for Reconsideration

        22. A number of parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the 2002 Biennial Review Order. These petitions, opposing pleadings, and replies are listed in Appendix A. The petitions have already been the subject of public notice and comment during their own pleading cycle. Parties who wish to refresh the record concerning the petitions may do so in their comments filed in response to this FNPRM.
        IV. Procedural Matters
        A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 65751 (October 28, 2002), in this proceeding. For the FNPRM, a Supplemental IRFA has been prepared and set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on the Supplemental IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM and should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Supplemental IRFA.
        B. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).
        V. Ordering Clauses
        33. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310, and section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        34. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310, and section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, notice is hereby given of the proposals described in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        35. It is furthered order that MB Docket 03-130 SHALL BE severed from this proceeding.
        36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

       [FR Doc. E6-12856 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 140218151-4151-01]
        RIN 0648-BD98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 100 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 91 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). This proposed action would add regulations to improve reporting of grenadiers, limit retention of grenadiers, and prevent direct fishing for grenadiers by federally permitted groundfish fishermen and is necessary to limit and monitor the incidental catch of grenadiers in the groundfish fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than June 13, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0023, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0023, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 100 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 91 to the GOA FMP, and the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (collectively, Analysis) prepared for this action are available from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA and BSAI under the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP (collectively, the FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 100 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 91 to the GOA FMP for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2014) 79 FR 25558) with comments invited through July 7, 2014. All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for these amendments and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision.
        Background

        The groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA incidentally catch grenadiers (family Macrouridae) while harvesting target groundfish. For many years, the Council has considered how best to classify grenadiers in the FMPs. As explained in the Analysis (see ADDRESSES), from 1980 to 2010, grenadiers were included in the FMPs in the nonspecified species category. Nonspecified species were defined as a residual category of species and species groups of no current or foreseeable economic value or ecological importance, which are taken in the groundfish fishery as incidental catch and are in no apparent danger of depletion, and for which virtually no data exists that would allow population assessments.
        In 2010, the Council recommended and NMFS removed the nonspecified species category from the FMPs when the FMPs were revised to meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) under Amendment 96 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 87 to the GOA FMP (Amendments 96/87, 75 FR 38454, July 2, 2010). The nonspecified species, including grenadiers, were removed from the FMPs because these species were too poorly understood to set ACLs and AMs or to develop a management regime.
        Amendments 96/87 also amended the FMPs to organize the species remaining in the FMPs according to the National Standard 1 guidelines (50 CFR 600.310). In the National Standard 1 guidelines NMFS recommends two categories for species in an FMP: “stocks in the fishery” and “ecosystem component (EC) species.”
        “Stocks in the fishery” are defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines (§ 600.310(d)(2)). “Stocks in the fishery” include (1) stocks that are targeted, and retained for sale or personal use; (2) stocks that are not directly targeted but are taken incidentally in other directed fisheries, and are retained for sale or personal use; or (3) stocks not targeted or retained but are taken as incidental catch and for which overfishing or overfished status may be a concern.
        NMFS created the EC species category to encourage ecosystem approaches to management and to incorporate ecosystem considerations for species that are not “stocks in the fishery” (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). EC species are defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines (§ 600.310(d)(5)). In order to be designated an EC species, the species or species group should be (1) a non-targeted species or species group; (2) not subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition; (3) not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures; and (4) not generally retained for sale or personal use.
        Amendments 96/87 established the EC category and designated prohibited species (which include salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish (as defined in Table 2c to part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in the FMPs. For EC species, NMFS maintained conservation regulations applicable to the specific EC species. These include prohibiting the retention of prohibited species, prohibiting directed fishing for forage fish, and establishing a limit on the incidental harvest of forage fish while directed fishing for other groundfish species, known as a maximum retainable amount, of 2 percent. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “directed fishing.” Regulations at § 679.20(e) describe the application and calculation of maximum retainable amounts.

        When the Council recommended Amendments 96/87, it recognized that as information on a nonspecified species improves, it would consider moving that species back into the FMP, either as a “stock in the fishery” or as an EC species. In 2010, the Council initiated an analysis to consider moving grenadiers back into the FMPs. The Council determined that sufficient information exists for grenadiers to address them in the FMPs, as reflected in the Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). The Analysis provides the best available information on grenadiers and considers two action alternatives: Include grenadiers in the FMP as an EC species, or include grenadiers in the FMP as a “stock in the fishery.”
        Amendments 100/91 to the FMPs
        In February 2014, the Council voted unanimously to recommend Amendments 100/91 to the FMPs to add grenadiers to the EC category in the FMPs. The Council and NMFS recognized that adding grenadiers to the FMPs in the EC category would acknowledge their role in the ecosystem and limit the groundfish fisheries' impact on grenadiers. Adding grenadiers to the EC category would allow for improved data collection and catch monitoring appropriate for grenadiers given their abundance, distribution, and catch. The Council and NMFS determined that grenadiers are not a “stock in the fishery” because (1) grenadiers are not a target stock; (2) they are not generally retained for sale or personal use; and (3) they are not overfished, subject to overfishing, or approaching an overfished or overfishing status. The following information describes why grenadiers would be appropriate to include in the FMPs as an EC species group based on information summarized from the Analysis.
        Grenadiers are not a targeted species group and are not generally retained for sale or personal use. Grenadiers have no current or foreseeable economic value. Section 3.3 of the Analysis explains that grenadiers are incidentally caught in deep water trawl and hook-and-line fisheries, but are not actively targeted or retained. In 2013, there was almost no reported retention of grenadiers in the BSAI (only 1 metric ton (t) or 2,205 pounds (lb)), and only 55 t (121,254 lb) of grenadiers were retained in the GOA. This represents a GOA fishery-wide retention rate of less than one half of one percent. Of this retention of grenadiers, 35 t (77,162 lb) was made into fish meal, 17 t (37,479 lb) was discarded at the dock, 3 t (6,614 lb) was retained for bait, and less than 1 t (2,205 lb) was sold. Thus, there is no evidence that grenadiers are presently being targeted or purposely retained. It is likely that grenadiers are being retained only when mixed with other catch.
        Grenadiers are not generally retained for sale or personal consumption. As explained in Section 3.3.4 of the Analysis, attempts in Alaska to create a marketable product from giant grenadiers have been unsuccessful. Grenadiers have very low protein content, high moisture content, and are generally regarded as mushy and unpalatable. No current market exists for grenadiers, and it is unlikely that one will be developed in the foreseeable future.
        Grenadiers are not generally retained for personal use. A small portion of the total catch of grenadiers is known to be retained for use as bait (e.g., 3 t (6,614 lb) in the GOA in 2013). Although grenadiers may be retained for use as bait in hook-and-line fisheries, there is no indication that this is a general practice throughout the hook-and-line fleets. NMFS notes that existing recordkeeping and reporting for the use of grenadiers is voluntary, and could underestimate the amount of grenadiers used for bait. However, the best available information indicates that grenadiers are not generally retained for bait.

        At the current level of catch, grenadiers are not subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition, and are not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures. Section 3.2 of the Analysis explains that NMFS has been conducting a stock assessment for grenadiers since 2006. At present, stock assessment information for giant grenadier is relatively good compared to many other non-target species off Alaska. Since 2010, the stock assessment has been used to estimate an acceptable biological catch (ABC) and an overfishing level (OFL), using reliable estimates of biomass and natural mortality. Giant grenadier served as a proxy for the grenadier species group and the estimated ABC and estimated OFL are based on giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis) because relatively few other grenadier species (family Macrouridae) are caught in the groundfish fisheries or are taken in NMFS surveys. NMFS estimates the incidental catch of grenadiers in the groundfish fisheries using observer data. In the BSAI, the estimated grenadier OFL is 135,236 t (298 million lb) and the estimated catch is 5,294 t (12 million lb, mean for 2003-2013). In the GOA, the estimated grenadier OFL is 46,635 t (103 million lb) and the estimated catch is 8,707 t (19 million lb, mean for 2003-2013).
        Additionally, the Council recognized that adding grenadiers to the FMPs in the EC category would acknowledge their role in the ecosystem and limit the groundfish fisheries' impact on grenadiers. Section 3.6 of the Analysis describes the current state of research and understanding about the ecological importance of grenadiers. For example, giant grenadiers have an important ecological role given their role as apex predators. Apex predators reside at the top of their food chain and have few to no predators of their own. In bottom trawl surveys conducted by NMFS in the Bering Sea and the GOA, giant grenadiers are the most abundant fish, in terms of weight, in depths from 600 to 3,000 feet (183-914 meters). Giant grenadier extend much deeper than 3,000 feet (914 meters). There are reports that they have been caught deeper than 6,000 feet (1,829 meters), but little is known about their abundance in waters deeper than 3,000 feet because neither the NMFS surveys nor fishing effort presently extend below this depth.
        Proposed Rule
        In addition to adding grenadiers as an EC in the FMPs under Amendments 100/91, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes regulations for groundfish fishery participants to limit and monitor the catch of grenadiers. This proposed rule would:
        • Require recordkeeping and reporting of grenadiers in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries;
        • Add two grenadier species codes;
        • Add grenadier product recovery rates (PRRs);
        • Prohibit directed fishing for grenadiers; and
        • Establish a grenadier maximum retainable amount (MRA) of 8 percent.
        To require recordkeeping and reporting, this proposed rule would make changes to 50 CFR part 679. This proposed rule would add a definition for grenadiers and revise the definition for non-allocated or nonspecified species at § 679.2. This proposed rule would also modify regulations at § 679.5 to require a vessel operator or manager in a BSAI or GOA groundfish fishery to record and report retained and discarded grenadier catch. NMFS notes that this proposed regulation would be expected to improve the collection of information on the catch and retention of grenadiers. Specifically, this proposed regulation would improve the ability for NMFS to monitor the retention of grenadiers for use as bait, or in the unlikely event that grenadiers are retained for sale.

        NMFS would modify regulations in Table 2c to part 679 to add two grenadier species codes so that NMFS could track the retention of giant grenadiers and other grenadier species. NMFS would remove grenadiers from Table 2d to part 679. Section 2 of the Analysis notes that nearly all grenadiers encountered in the groundfish fisheries are giant grenadiers; therefore, it is not necessary to establish more than two species codes for grenadiers (one for giant grenadiers and one for all other grenadier species) to provide the information necessary to adequately monitor grenadier catch.
        This proposed rule would modify Table 3 to part 679 to include PRRs for grenadiers of 100 percent for whole fish, 50 percent for headed and gutted fish, and 24.3 percent for fillets. These PRRs are established based on food science studies of grenadiers that estimated product recovery rates (see Section 3.3.4 of the Analysis for additional detail).
        These proposed regulatory changes would enable NMFS to collect data on the harvest and disposition of grenadier catch retained in the groundfish fisheries. The proposed changes in recordkeeping and reporting, definition of grenadier species codes, and grenadier PRRs would aid NMFS in determining if grenadiers become generally retained for sale or personal use, and would provide the information needed in any potential future consideration to modify the designation of grenadiers in the FMPs as a “stock in the fishery.”
        This proposed rule would revise regulations at § 679.20(i) and§ 679.22(i) to prohibit directed fishing for grenadiers at all times in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. NMFS proposes prohibiting directed fishing as a precautionary measure to prevent groundfish fishermen from directed fishing for grenadiers without a clear and conscious decision by the Council to provide that opportunity. This prohibition is consistent with the regulations for other EC species. NMFS prohibits directed fishing for forage fish and prohibits retaining or possessing prohibited species, except as provided under the Prohibited Species Donation Program. As noted in Section 4.6 of the Analysis, prohibiting directed fishing would prevent the development of an uncontrolled fishery on grenadiers in the absence of applicable management measures.
        This proposed rule would add a grenadier incidental catch species MRA of 8 percent to Table 10 to part 679 and Table 11 to part 679. The MRA is the percentage of the retained catch of a species closed for directed fishing (incidental catch species) to the retained catch of a species open for directed fishing (basis species). An 8 percent MRA would allow vessels fishing for groundfish to retain a quantity of grenadiers equal to but no more than 8 percent of the round weight or round weight equivalent of groundfish species open to directed fishing that are retained on board the vessel during a fishing trip. The requirement to not exceed MRA proportions at any time during a trip limits the vessel operators' ability to maximize incidental catch of grenadiers.
        Section 2.2 of the Analysis provides additional detail on MRA management. The Council and NMFS considered a range of MRA percentages of 2 to 20 percent for grenadiers. The Council recommended and NMFS agrees that an 8 percent MRA is not likely to substantially increase the incentive for vessels to retain grenadiers relative to a lower MRA percentage (e.g., 2 percent), but would limit the amount of incidental catch more conservatively than a higher MRA percentage (e.g., 20 percent). Given the lack of any market for grenadiers, NMFS has no indication that grenadier retention is likely to increase beyond current levels. Section 2.2 of the Analysis notes that a de minimus amount of grenadiers are retained in the BSAI, and only 0.1 percent of all groundfish fishing trips in the GOA would be expected to exceed an MRA of 8 percent. Therefore, an MRA of 8 percent would be expected to accommodate all current fishing practices and, if a market should develop, this MRA would limit the potential retention of grenadiers until the Council and NMFS could develop measures to manage grenadiers appropriately.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to not be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

        An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and qualitative measures. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended Amendments 100/91 based on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis section.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this proposed action are contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble and are not repeated here. A summary of the IRFA follows. Copies of the IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Proposed Action
        In the GOA, NMFS estimates that there are a total of 1,114 small catcher vessels and 5 small catcher/processors. The majority of these (581) are catcher vessels in the hook-and-line gear sector. In the BSAI, NMFS estimates that there are 118 small catcher vessels and 7 small catcher/processors. NMFS estimates that 72 small shoreside processors would be directly regulated by this action. This number includes entities located in both the BSAI and GOA, as some groundfish may be caught in one area and delivered to the other. Thus, NMFS estimates that the total number of small entities that would be directly regulated by this action is 1,316 small entities (1,232 catcher vessels, 12 catcher/processors, 72 shoreside processors).
        Description of Significant Alternatives that Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
        The two aspects of this proposed rule that directly regulate small entities are the requirement to report grenadier catch under regulations at § 679.5(a)(3) and the requirement that vessels not exceed an MRA of 8 percent, under regulations at Tables 10 and 11 to part 679. These requirements would have a de minimus economic impact on small entities, as explained in Section 5.7 of the Analysis. The reporting requirements were the same under all of the action alternatives.

        The Council considered an MRA range of 2 percent to 20 percent, ultimately choosing an 8 percent grenadier MRA. The Council selected an 8 percent MRA to accommodate the current amount of grenadiers incidentally caught. The Council considered that there are very few instances when grenadier retention exceeds 8 percent; however, allowing a higher MRA of as much as 20 percent may not meet the objectives of providing precautionary management and placing limits on harvest, as identified in the purpose and need for the action.
        Thus, there are no significant alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of accounting for grenadier catch or MRA management and minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.
        Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
        NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules.
        Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
        The proposed rule would modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the vessels and processors participating in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.
        Presently, NMFS requires catcher vessel operators, catcher/processor operators, buying station operators, mothership operators, shoreside processor managers, and stationary floating processor managers to record and report all FMP species in logbooks, forms, eLandings, and eLogbooks. Recording is optional for non-FMP species. Grenadiers are currently listed as non-FMP species.
        The proposed rule would amend regulations to change the status of grenadiers (giant grenadiers and other grenadiers) from non-FMP species to FMP species and require operators to record and report grenadier species in logbooks, forms, eLandings, and eLogbooks. If operators retain and land grenadiers, then landings and disposition would be reported on fish tickets and production reports.
        Collection-of-Information Requirements
        This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which have been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0213 (paper recordkeeping and reporting) and OMB Control Number 0648-0515 (electronic recordkeeping and reporting). However, this rule only mentions these collections and does not change either collection-of-information.

        Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: May 8, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 773 et seq
            .; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq
            .; Pub. L. 108-447.

        2. In § 679.2, add a definition for “Grenadiers” in alphabetical order and revise the definition for “Non-allocated or nonspecified species” to read as follows:

          § 679.2
          Definitions.

            Grenadiers (see Table 2c to this part and § 679.20(i)).

            Non-allocated or nonspecified species means those fish species, other than prohibited species, for which TAC has not been specified (e.g., prowfish and lingcod).

        3. In § 679.5, revise paragraph (a)(3) introductory text, and paragraphs (c)(3)(vi)(F) and (c)(4)(vi)(E) to read as follows:

          § 679.5
          Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
          (a) * * *
          (3) Fish to be recorded and reported. The operator or manager must record and report the following information (see paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for all groundfish (see Table 2a to this part), prohibited species (see Table 2b to this part), forage fish (see Table 2c to this part), and grenadiers (see Table 2c to this part). The operator or manager may record and report the following information (see paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for non-groundfish (see Table 2d to this part):

          (c) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (vi) * * *
          (F) Species codes. The operator must record and report required information for all groundfish (see Table 2a to this part), prohibited species (see Table 2b to this part), forage fish (see Table 2c to this part), and grenadiers (see Table 2c to this part). The operator may record and report information for non-groundfish (see Table 2d to this part).

          (4) * * *
          (vi) * * *
          (E) Species codes. The operator must record and report the required information for all groundfish (see Table 2a to this part), prohibited species (see Table 2b to this part), forage fish (see Table 2c to this part), and grenadiers (see Table 2c to this part). The operator may also record and report the required information for non-groundfish (see Table 2d to this part).

        4. In § 679.20, revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (i) Forage fish and grenadiers—(1) Definition. See Table 2c to this part.
          (2) Applicability. The provisions of § 679.20(i) apply to all vessels fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or GOA, and to all vessels processing groundfish harvested in the BSAI or GOA.
          (3) Closure to directed fishing. Directed fishing for forage fish and grenadiers is prohibited at all times in the BSAI and GOA.
          (4) Limits on sale, barter, trade, and processing. The sale, barter, trade, or processing of forage fish or grenadiers is prohibited, except as provided in paragraph (i)(5) of this section.
          (5) Allowable fishmeal production. Retained catch of forage fish or grenadier not exceeding the maximum retainable amount may be processed into fishmeal for sale, barter, or trade.

        5. In § 679.22, add paragraph (i) to read as follows:

          § 679.22
          Closures.

          (i) Forage fish and grenadiers closures. See § 679.20(i)(3).

        6. Revise Table 2c to part 679 to read as follows:

          Table 2c to Part 679—Species Codes: FMP Forage Fish Species (all species of the following families) and Grenadier Species

            Species identification
            Code

            FORAGE FISH:

            Bristlemouths, lightfishes, and anglemouths (family Gonostomatidae)
            209

            Capelin smelt (family Osmeridae)
            516

            Deep-sea smelts (family Bathylagidae)
            773

            Eulachon smelt (family Osmeridae)
            511

            Gunnels (family Pholidae)
            207

            Krill (order Euphausiacea)
            800

            Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae)
            772

            Pacific Sand fish (family Trichodontidae)
            206

            Pacific Sand lance (family Ammodytidae)
            774

            Pricklebacks, war-bonnets, eelblennys, cockscombs and Shannys (family Stichaeidae)
            208

            Surf smelt (family Osmeridae)
            515

            GRENADIERS:

            Giant Grenadiers (Albatrossia pectoralis)
            214

            Other Grenadiers
            213

        10. Revise Table 2d to part 679 to read as follows:

          Table 2d to Part 679—Species Codes: Non-FMP Species

            Species description
            Code

              GENERAL USE

            Arctic char, anadromous
            521

            Dolly varden, anadromous
            531

            Eels or eel-like fish
            210

            Eel, wolf
            217

            GREENLING:

            Kelp
            194

            Rock
            191

            Whitespot
            192

            Jellyfish (unspecified)
            625

            Lamprey, pacific
            600

            Lingcod
            130

            Lumpsucker
            216

            Pacific flatnose
            260

            Pacific hagfish
            212

            Pacific hake
            112

            Pacific lamprey
            600

            Pacific saury
            220

            Pacific tomcod
            250

            Poacher (Family Algonidae)
            219

            Prowfish
            215

            Ratfish
            714

            Rockfish, black (GOA)
            142

            Rockfish, blue (GOA)
            167

            Rockfish, dark
            173

            Sardine, Pacific (pilchard)
            170

            Sea cucumber, red
            895

            Shad
            180

            Skilfish
            715

            Snailfish, general (genus Liparis and genus Careproctus)
            218

            Sturgeon, general
            680

            Wrymouths
            211

            Shellfish:

            Abalone, northern (pinto)
            860

            Clams:

            Arctic surf
            812

            Cockle
            820

            Eastern softshell
            842

            Pacific geoduck
            815

            Pacific littleneck
            840

            Pacific razor
            830

            Washington butter
            810

            Coral
            899

            Mussel, blue
            855

            Oyster, Pacific
            880

            Scallop, weathervane
            850

            Scallop, pink (or calico)
            851

            SHRIMP:

            Coonstripe
            864

            Humpy
            963

            Northern (pink)
            961

            Sidestripe
            962

            Spot
            965

            Snails
            890

            Urchin, green sea
            893

            Urchin, red sea
            892

        11. Revise Table 3 to part 679 to read as follows:

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP14MY14.031

          EP14MY14.032

          EP14MY14.033

        12. Revise Table 10 to part 679 to read as follows:

          EP14MY14.034

          EP14MY14.035

          EP14MY14.036

        13. Revise Table 11 to part 679 to read as follows:

          EP14MY14.037

      [FR Doc. 2014-11050 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-2673; MB Docket No. 04-340; RM-11062]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Crosbyton, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford requesting the allotment of Channel 264C3 at Crosbyton, Texas as that community's first local service. The coordinates for Channel 264C3 at Crosbyton are 33-41-30 NL and 101-06-31 WL. There is a site restriction 12.5 kilometers (7.7 miles) east of the community.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before October 18, 2004, and reply comments on or before November 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford, 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205 and Gene A. Bechtel, Esquire, Law office of Gene Bechtel, 1050 17th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2738.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 04-340, adopted August 25, 2004, and released August 27, 2004. The full text of this Commission notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com.

        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, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 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.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Crosbyton, Channel 264C3.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-20533 Filed 9-9-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P