20950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules requiring cellular providers not to Authority Television Systems and Their Impact on prohibit resale should be extended to Existing Television Broadcast Service, apply to most CMRS providers. 9. This action is taken pursuant to 52 Fed. Reg. 28346, July 29, 1987). Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, 332, However, Channel 32 can be allotted to 5. Additionally, the Notice tentatively and 403 Communications Act as Weaverville in compliance with the concludes that, as in the case of cellular amended; 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, terms of the freeze Order at a restricted carriers, a time limitation on the 208, 332, and 403. site. Coordinates used for Channel 32 at obligation to require resale of the 10. Accordingly, it is ordered that Weaverville are 40–54–45 and 122–52– services of one facilities-based CMRS notice is hereby given of the proposed 15. provider to another facilities-based regulatory changes described above, and CMRS provider is appropriate. The DATES: Comments must be filed on or that comment is sought on these Notice tentatively concludes that, as in before June 15, 1995, and reply proposals. the case of cellular service, once the comments on or before June 30, 1995. newer entrant in a market is fully 11. It is further ordered that pursuant ADDRESSES: Federal Communications operational the rationale for prohibiting to applicable procedures set forth in Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. resale restrictions between facilities- Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the In addition to filing comments with the based carriers, i.e., to offset any Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and FCC, interested parties should serve the competitive advantage gained as a result 1.419, comments shall be filed with petitioner, as follows: Mark C. Allen, of a service provider’s ‘‘headstart’’, William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, 3745 McHale Way, Redding, CA 96001. ceases to exist. The Notice seeks Federal Communications Commission, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment on whether, as in the case of Washington, DC 20554 on or before June cellular, the resale requirement should 14, 1995, and reply comments shall be Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) remain in effect until the termination of filed with the Secretary on or before July 418–2180. the fill-in period of the particular 14, 1995. To file formally in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a service, which the Commission proceeding, parties must file an original synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of previously established in its Rules, or and five copies of all comments, reply Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. whether some other period is comments, and supporting comments. 95–48, adopted April 14, 1995, and appropriate. Parties wishing each Commissioner to released April 24, 1995. The full text of receive a personal copy of their this Commission decision is available 6. Finally, the Notice tentatively comments must file an original plus for inspection and copying during concludes that the Commission should nine copies. normal business hours in the FCC’s not impose a general obligation Federal Communications Commission. Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M requiring CMRS providers to Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The interconnect with resellers seeking to William F. Caton, complete text of this decision may also install their own switching equipment Acting Secretary. be purchased from the Commission’s between the CMRS provider’s network copy contractors, International facilities and the facilities of the local [FR Doc. 95–10472 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am] Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857– exchange carrier and the interexchange BILLING CODE 6712±01±M 3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, carrier. Washington, D.C. 20037. Ex Parte Rules Provisions of the Regulatory 47 CFR Part 73 Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to 7. This is a non-restricted notice and this proceeding. comment rule making proceeding. Ex [MM Docket No. 95±48, RM±8590] Members of the public should note parte presentations are permitted, that from the time a Notice of Proposed except during the Sunshine Agenda Television Broadcasting Services; Rule Making is issued until the matter period, provided they are disclosed as Weaverville, CA is no longer subject to Commission provided in the Commission’s Rules.1 AGENCY: Federal Communications consideration or court review, all ex Commission. parte contacts are prohibited in Regulatory Flexibility Act Commission proceedings, such as this ACTION: Proposed rule. one, which involve channel allotments. 8. As required by Section 603 of the See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. governing permissible ex parte contacts. § 601 et seq. (1981), the Commission has SUMMARY: This document requests prepared an Initial Regulatory comments on a petition for rule making For information regarding proper Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the filed by Mark C. Allen, requesting the filing procedures for comments, see 47 expected impact of the policies and allotment of UHF television Channel 32 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. rules proposed in this Notice on small to Weaverville, California, as that List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 entities. The IRFA is contained in community’s first local television Appendix B to the Notice. The Secretary service. Weaverville is located within Television broadcasting. shall cause a copy of this Notice, the prohibited co-channel minimum including the IRFA, to be sent to the distance (174.5 miles) to the Federal Communications Commission. Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Sacramento-Stockton television market, John A. Karousos, Business Administration in accordance one of the designated markets affected with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory by the Commission’s current freeze on Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Flexibility Act. allotments and applications pending the Division, Mass Media Bureau. outcome of an inquiry into the use of [FR Doc. 95–10470 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am] 1 See generally, Section 1.1206(a) of the advanced television systems in Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.1206(a). broadcasting. (See Order, Advanced BILLING CODE 6712±01±F Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20951

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Concurrent with the development of a Background conservation strategy for Arizona Fish and Wildlife Service willow on Federal lands, the Tribe has On November 20, 1992, the Service developed a management plan that 50 CFR Part 17 published a proposal to list the Arizona addresses the conservation of Arizona willow as endangered with critical willow on the Reservation. The Tribe’s RIN 1018±AB83 habitat (57 FR 54747). At that time the ‘‘Arizona Willow Management Plan: An species was known only from high Interim Approach to High-Elevation Endangered and Threatened Wildlife elevation streams and wet meadows in Riparian and Cienega Ecosystem and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed the Mount Baldy vicinity of Apache Management on the Fort Apache Indian Rule to List the Plant Salix arizonica County, Arizona, located primarily on Reservation’’ is consistent with, and (Arizona Willow) as Endangered With the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests complementary to, the strategies and Critical Habitat and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation intent set forth in the AWCAS. (Reservation). Threats identified in the Specific protection to Arizona willow AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed rule included livestock and from cattle herbivory is provided on Interior. wildlife impacts, water impoundments NF’s and Reservation lands. Arizona and diversions, roads, recreational use, ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. willow is protected through rested development and maintenance of ski pastures, livestock exclusion fencing, resort facilities, disease, alteration of and/or construction of protective cages. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service natural hydrologic regimes, and changes On FS lands, no livestock use of any (Service) withdraws a proposal to list in species composition and structure of pasture is allowed without the plant Salix arizonica (Arizona the riparian community, including implementation of specific actions to willow) as an endangered species with invasion of nonnative vegetation protect Arizona willow. Management critical habitat under the Endangered (especially Kentucky bluegrass, Poa plans for each FS allotment that Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). pratensis) brought about by historic and includes Arizona willow habitat will be The Service finds that evidence now current livestock use. revised within the guidelines set forth available, discussed below, does not In June 1993, following publication of in the AWCAS prior to removal of site- justify listing of the species as proposed. the proposal, the Service was notified of specific protections. Additional field surveys have provided a previously misidentified herbarium Herbivory by wildlife, especially elk new data indicating that the species has specimen of Arizona willow collected in in Arizona, has been identified as a a wider distribution and greater 1913 from the then-named ‘‘Sevier threat to Arizona willow. The AGFD has abundance than previously known. A Forest’’ in southern Utah. Preliminary implemented strategies to reduce elk multi-agency ‘‘Arizona Willow surveys in Utah during the summer of herd sizes within Arizona willow Conservation Agreement and Strategy’’ 1993 by the Service did not locate habitats in Arizona, and have (AWCAS) signed April 7, 1995, has been Arizona willow. Surveys initiated by the committed to maintain stable or developed that commits several Federal U.S. Forest Service (FS) resulted in continued reductions of herd sizes and State agencies to specific actions to rediscovery of Arizona willow in Utah pending results of herbivory studies. immediately reduce site-specific threats, on June 30, 1994. Subsequent FS The Tribe has also initiated actions to to provide long-term protection and surveys documented Arizona willow on stabilize elk herd size. Both the AGFD habitat improvement, and to carry out the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests, and the UDWR have provided specific proactive conservation actions. The Cedar Breaks National Monument, and commitments to aggressively manage White Mountain Apache Tribe (Tribe) adjacent private land. The extent of wildlife populations consistent with has developed the ‘‘Arizona Willow some individual populations of Arizona monitoring and research information on Management Plan: An Interim Approach willow plants in Utah far exceeds all Arizona willow. to High-Elevation Riparian and Cienega populations in Arizona. Arizona willow habitat is further Ecosystem Management on the Fort On September 6, 1994, the Regional conserved through other measures, Apache Indian Reservation’’ which is Foresters of the Southwestern and including the application of FS consistent with, and complementary to, Intermountain Regions of the FS and the Standards and Guidelines, and the the strategies and intent set forth in the Regional Director of the Service’s White Mountain Apache Tribe Codes AWCAS. Although Arizona willow is Southwest Region made a joint decision and Tribal Council Resolutions. These still considered rare and potentially to develop a conservation agreement for protection actions provide for buffers vulnerable, the new distribution data in Arizona willow on Federal lands to from timber harvest activities, road combination with the management ensure the long-term conservation of the closures and off-road vehicle commitments in the AWCAS and the species throughout its range. This also restrictions, relocation of recreational tribal plan, reduce the relative required the participation of several trails; restrictions on dispersed magnitude and severity of threats to the non-Federal partners (Arizona Game camping, and informational signing. species so that listing is no longer and Fish Department (AGFD) and Utah Detailed monitoring of Arizona considered warranted. Division of Wildlife Resources willow and a variety of research projects (UDWR)). A FS policy statement, jointly and studies on its population biology ADDRESSES: The complete file for this issued by the Regional Foresters of the and ecology are being undertaken to notice is available for public inspection Southwestern and Intermountain fully understand the implications of by appointment, during normal business Regions on December 19, 1994, initiated land management actions. Such studies hours, at the Arizona Ecological actions to reduce threats on the National are being implemented through various Service’s State Office, 2321 West Royal Forests (NF), including designation of cooperative efforts by the Apache- Palm Road., Suite 103, Phoenix, FS representation on the Arizona Sitgreaves NFs, Dixie NF, Fishlake NF, Arizona, 85021–4951. Willow Interagency Technical Team. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Arizona Willow Interagency Experiment Station, Cedar Breaks Bruce K. Palmer, at the above address Technical Team was formed to develop National Monument, White Mountain (602/640–2720). and implement the AWCAS. Apache Tribe, AGFD, UDWR, and the 20952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Service. These studies will help DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Fishery Conservation and Management determine appropriate management Act (Magnuson Act). practices and identify suitable areas for National Oceanic and Atmospheric The FMPs are implemented by expanding and augmenting depauperate Administration regulations that appear at 50 CFR parts populations. 672, 675, and 676. General regulations 50 CFR Parts 672, 675, and 676 that also govern the groundfish fisheries The designation of special appear at 50 CFR part 620. These fishery management areas, such as Botanical [Docket No. 940414104±5104±01; I.D. regulations generally distinguish 110194B] Areas, Research Natural Areas, and between fish taken in directed fishing essential habitat, are being evaluated RIN 0648±AF53 efforts and fish of other species that are and incorporated into a review process taken incidentally, sometimes referred under the National Environmental Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; to as ‘‘bycatch.’’ Policy Act. Special management area Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea Typically, a fishery for a certain designation assures the priority of and Aleutian Islands Area; Maximum species is open to directed fishing until Arizona willow management and long- Retainable Bycatch Amounts specified amounts of that species are term conservation of the species within taken or are projected to be taken, at a multiple-use land management AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries which point the fishery is closed to framework. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and directed fishing. Once a fishery for a Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), particular species is closed to directed Continued implementation of the Commerce. fishing, that species may be retained AWCAS for management of Arizona ACTION: Proposed rule; request for only as bycatch in fisheries for other willow on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, comments. species that remain open. The current Dixie NF, Fishlake NF, and Cedar fishery regulations specify standards for Breaks National Monument, and the SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revised determining what constitutes directed implementation of the ‘‘Arizona Willow regulations for directed fishing fishing, and the proportions of retained Management Plan: An Interim Approach standards in the groundfish fisheries in catches that represent allowable bycatch to High-Elevation Riparian and Cienega the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering levels. Once the catch of a species Ecosystem Management on the Fort Sea and Aleutian Islands management exceeds, or is projected to exceed, its Apache Indian Reservation’’ are area (BSAI). The proposed rule would total allowable catch (TAC) limit, that expected to accomplish significant simplify and clarify the regulations. In species may not be retained and must be conservation of Arizona willow without place of directed fishing standards, the discarded at sea. its being listed. proposed rule would specify retainable Current regulations at 50 CFR percentages from which the maximum 672.20(g) and 675.20(h) specify a large The Service has determined that amounts of fish that may be retained as number of species-, area-, gear-, and Arizona willow does not warrant listing bycatch in fisheries that are closed to management goal-specific directed under the Act and places this plant in directed fishing can be derived. The fishing standards for the GOA and BSAI, category 3C of the plant notice of proposed changes are expected to respectively. The current regulations review. Category 3C species are those promote compliance with groundfish define directed fishing in terms of the species for which information now in regulations and to facilitate enforcement proportion of the retained catch of one the possession of the Service indicates efforts. This action is intended to further species in relationship to the retained that the species is more abundant or the objectives of the fishery catch of other species. Directed fishing widespread than previously thought and management plans (FMPs) for the standards range from 1 percent to 35 for which substantial threats do not groundfish fisheries off Alaska. percent with a general default of 20 exist. If further research or changes in DATES: Comments must be submitted by percent. Under current regulations habitat indicate a significant decline in May 30, 1995. arrowtooth flounder may not be used to the species, it may again be included in calculate retainable amounts of other ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to categories 1 or 2, and its listing status Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries groundfish species because arrowtooth may be reevaluated. Management Division, Alaska Region, flounder was sometimes being harvested NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK solely for the purpose of providing Author 99802 (Attn: Lori Gravel). Individual directed catch against which retainable copies of the environmental assessment/ bycatch quantities were calculated and The primary author of this proposed regulatory impact review prepared for accumulated. These regulations were intended to rule is Bruce K. Palmer (see ADDRESSES this action may be obtained from the reduce harvest rates of groundfish section). same address. species when their TAC limits are being FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaja Authority approached. At the same time, the Brix, 907–586–7228. directed fishing standards were The authority for this action is section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The intended to reduce waste and minimize 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species domestic groundfish fisheries in the the need to discard fish at sea by Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the allowing retention of incidental et seq.). GOA and the BSAI are managed by groundfish bycatch, after closure of the NMFS in accordance with the Fishery directed fishery until the TAC limit is Dated: April 25, 1995. Management Plan for Groundfish of the achieved. Mollie H. Beattie, Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery In spite of increased specificity, Management Plan for the Groundfish directed fishing standards have often Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian failed to prevent overharvest or [FR Doc. 95–10579 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am] Islands. The FMPs were prepared by the underharvest of groundfish. North Pacific Fishery Management Furthermore, the existing regulations BILLING CODE 4310±55±P Council (Council) under the Magnuson have not eliminated undesirable fishing