13576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation** 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

(MSL) 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Burlington 

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 833 South Spruce Street, Burlington, WA 98233. 

City of Mount Vernon 

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 910 Cleveland Avenue, Mount Vernon, WA 98273. 

City of Sedro-Woolley 

Maps are available for inspection at the Planning and Building Department, City Hall, 325 Metcalf Street, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284. 

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 

Maps are available for inspection at 11404 Moorage Way, La Conner, WA 98257. 

Town of Concrete 

Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 45672 Main Street, Concrete, WA 98237. 

Town of Hamilton 

Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 584 Maple Street, Hamilton, WA 98255. 

Town of La Conner 

Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 204 Douglas Street, La Conner, WA 98257. 

Town of Lyman 

Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 8405 South Main Street, Lyman, WA 98263. 

Unincorporated Areas of Skagit County 

Maps are available for inspection at the Skagit County Department of Planning and Developmental Services, 1800 Continental Place, Mount 

Vernon, WA 98273. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: February 7, 2011. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5828 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36 

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 11–34] 

Jurisdictional Separations and Referral 

to the Federal-State Joint Board 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Jurisdictional separations is 

the process by which incumbent local 

exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. In 

this document, the Commission seeks 

comment on extending the current 

freeze of part 36 category relationships 

and jurisdictional cost allocation factors 

used in jurisdictional separations. 

Extending the freeze would allow the 

Commission to provide stability for, and 

avoid imposing undue burdens on, 

carriers that must comply with the 

Commission’s separations rules while 

the Commission considers issues 

relating to comprehensive reform of the 

jurisdictional separations process. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 28, 2011. Reply comments are 

due on or before April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 80–286, 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:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 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. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 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: 

Daniel Ball, Attorney Advisor, at 202– 

418–1577, Pricing Policy Division, 

Wireline Competition Bureau. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC 

Docket No. 80–286, FCC 11–34, released 

on March 1, 2011. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Background 

1. Jurisdictional separations is the 

process by which incumbent LECs 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. 

The NPRM proposes extending the 

current freeze of part 36 category 

relationships and jurisdictional cost 

allocation factors used in jurisdictional 

separations, which freeze would 

otherwise expire on June 30, 2011, until 

June 30, 2012. Extending the freeze will 

allow the Commission to provide 

stability for, and avoid imposing undue 

burdens on, carriers that must comply 

with the Commission’s separations rules 

while the Commission considers issues 

relating to comprehensive separations 

reform. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13577 

2. The 2001 Separations Freeze Order, 

66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001, froze all 

part 36 category relationships and 

allocation factors for price cap carriers 

and all allocation factors for rate-ofreturn carriers. Rate-of-return carriers 

had the option to freeze their category 

relationships at the outset of the freeze. 

The freeze was originally established 

July 1, 2001 for a period of five years, 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. The 2006 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 71 FR 29843, May 24, 

2006, extended the freeze for three years 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. The 2009 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 74 FR 23955, May 22, 

2009, extended the freeze until June 30, 

2010, and the 2010 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 75 FR 30301, June 1, 

2010, extended the freeze until June 30, 

2011. 

3. In this NPRM the Commission 

seeks comment on extending the freeze 

for one year, until June 30, 2012. The 

proposed extension would allow the 

Commission to continue to work with 

the Federal-State Joint Board on 

Separations to achieve comprehensive 

separations reform. Pending 

comprehensive reform, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that the existing 

freeze should be extended on an interim 

basis to avoid the imposition of undue 

administrative burdens on incumbent 

LECs. The Commission asks 

commenters to consider how costly and 

burdensome an extension of the freeze, 

or a reversion to the pre-freeze part 36 

rules, would be for small incumbent 

LECs, and whether an extension would 

disproportionately affect specific types 

of carriers or ratepayers. Incumbent 

LECs have not been required to utilize 

the programs and expertise necessary to 

prepare separations information since 

the inception of the freeze almost nine 

years ago. If the Commission does not 

extend the separations freeze, and 

instead allows the earlier separations 

rules to return to force, incumbent LECs 

would be required to reinstitute their 

separations processes. Given the 

imminent expiration of the current 

separations freeze, it is unlikely that 

incumbent LECs would have sufficient 

time to reinstitute the separations 

processes necessary to comply with the 

earlier separations rules. 

4. The extended freeze would be 

implemented as described in the 2001 

Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, 

price-cap carriers would use the same 

relationships between categories of 

investment and expenses within part 32 

accounts and the same jurisdictional 

allocation factors that have been in 

place since the inception of the current 

freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return 

carriers would use the same frozen 

jurisdictional allocation factors, and 

would use the same frozen category 

relationships if they had opted 

previously to freeze those as well. 

Comment Filing Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 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 in the DATES

section of this document. 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, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site 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 email 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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

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 must 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). 

Ex Parte Requirements 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 and 

1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). See 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

In the 1997 Separations NPRM, the 

Commission noted that the network 

infrastructure by that time had become 

vastly different from the network and 

services used to define the cost 

categories appearing in the 

Commission’s part 36 jurisdictional 

separations rules, and that the 

separations process codified in part 36 

was developed during a time when 

common carrier regulation presumed 

that interstate and intrastate 

telecommunications service must be 

provided through a regulated monopoly. 

Thus, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding with the goal of reviewing 

comprehensively the Commission’s part 

36 procedures to ensure that they meet 

the objectives of the 1996 Act. The 

Commission sought comment on the 

extent to which legislative changes, 

technological changes, and market 

changes might warrant comprehensive 

reform of the separations process. 

Because over twelve years have elapsed 

since the closing of the comment cycle 

on the 1997 Separations NPRM, and 

over eight years have elapsed since the 

imposition of the freeze, and because 

the industry has experienced myriad 

changes during that time, we ask that 

commenters, in their comments on the 

present NPRM, comment on the impact 

of a further extension of the freeze. 

The purpose of proposed extension of 

the freeze is to ensure that the 

Commission’s separations rules meet 

the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to 

allow the Commission additional time 

to consider changes that may need to be 

made to the separations process in light 

of changes in the law, technology, and 

market structure of the 

telecommunications industry. 

Legal Basis 

The legal basis for the NPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201–205, 

215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201– 

205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254 and 410, 

and §§ 1.1200 through 1.1216 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 

through 1.429, and 1.1200 through 

1.1216. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities To Which Rules May 

Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of, and, where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having 

the same meaning as the terms ‘‘small 

business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under section 3 of the 

Small Business Act. Under the Small 

Business Act, a ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

We have included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted 

above, a ‘‘small business’’ under the RFA 

is one that, inter alia, meets the 

pertinent small business size standard 

established by the SBA, and is not 

dominant in its field of operation. 

Section 121.201 of the SBA regulations 

defines a small wireline 

telecommunications business as one 

with 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, the SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

contends that, for RFA purposes, small 

incumbent LECs are not dominant in 

their field of operation because any such 

dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. 

Because our proposals concerning the 

part 36 separations process will affect 

all incumbent LECs providing interstate 

services, some entities employing 1500 

or fewer employees may be affected by 

the proposals made in this NPRM. We 

therefore have included small 

incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, 

although we emphasize that this RFA 

action has no effect on the 

Commission’s analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for providers of 

incumbent local exchange services. The 

closest applicable size standard under 

the SBA rules is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

the SBA definition, a carrier is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 1,311 incumbent 

LECs reported that they were engaged in 

the provision of local exchange services. 

Of these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 

1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees 

and 287 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

incumbent LECs are small entities that 

may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

None. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance and reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. 

As described above, seven years have 

elapsed since the imposition of the 

freeze, thus, we ask commenters, in 

their comments on the present NPRM, 

address the impact of a further 

extension of the freeze. We seek 

comment on the effects our proposals 

would have on small entities, and 

whether any rules that we adopt should 

apply differently to small entities. We 

direct commenters to consider the costs 

and burdens of an extension on small 

incumbent LECs and whether the 

extension would disproportionately 

affect specific types of carriers or 

ratepayers. 

Implementation of the proposed 

freeze extension would ease the 

administrative burden of regulatory 

compliance for LECs, including small 

incumbent LECs. The freeze has 

eliminated the need for all incumbent 

LECs, including incumbent LECs with 

1500 employees or fewer, to complete 

certain annual studies formerly required 

by the Commission’s rules. If an 

extension of the freeze can be said to 

have any affect under the RFA, it is to 

reduce a regulatory compliance burden 

for small incumbent LECs, by abating 

the aforementioned separations studies 

and providing these carriers with greater 

regulatory certainty. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

The NPRM does not propose any new 

or modified information collections 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new, modified, or proposed 

‘‘information collection burden for small 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13579 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telephone, and Uniform 

System of Accounts. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 36 as follows: 

PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL 

SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; 

STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR 

SEPARATING 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY 

COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, 

TAXES AND RESERVES FOR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 

1. The authority citation for part 36 

continues to read: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i) and 

(j), 205, 221(c), 254, 403, and 410. 

2. In 47 CFR part 36 remove the words 

‘‘June 30, 2011’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘June 30, 2012’’ in the 

following places: 

a. Section 36.3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); 

b. Section 36.123(a)(5), and (a)(6); 

c. Section 36.124(c), and (d); 

d. Section 36.125(h), and (i); 

e. Section 36.126(b)(5), (c)(4), (e)(4), 

and (f)(2); 

f. Section 36.141(c); 

g. Section 36.142(c); 

h. Section 36.152(d); 

i. Section 36.154(g); 

j. Section 36.155(b); 

k. Section 36.156(c); 

l. Section 36.157(b); 

m. Section 36.191(d); 

n. Section 36.212(c); 

o. Section 36.214(a); 

p. Section 36.372; 

q. Section 36.374(b), and (d); 

r. Section 36.375(b)(4), and (b)(5); 

s. Section 36.377(a), (a)(1)(ix), 

(a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), (a)(4)(vii), 

(a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii); 

t. Section 36.378(b)(1); 

u. Section 36.379(b)(1), and (b)(2); 

v. Section 36.380(d), and (e); 

w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and 

x. Section 36.382(a). 

[FR Doc. 2011–5817 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 11–372; MB Docket No. 11–38; RM– 

11621] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Hebbronville, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Charles Crawford, proposing the 

substitution of Channel 282A for vacant 

Channel 232A at Hebbronville, Texas. 

The proposed substitution of Channel 

282A at Hebbronville accommodates the 

hybrid application, which requests the 

substitution of Channel 232A for 

Channel 282A at Benavides, Texas. See 

File No. BNPH–20070502ADP. A staff 

engineering analysis indicates that 

Channel 282A can be allotted to 

Hebbronville consistent with the 

minimum distance separation 

requirements of the Rules with a site 

restriction 11 kilometers (6.8 miles) 

northwest of the community. The 

reference coordinates are 27–23–18 NL 

and 98–44–26 WL. The proposed 

Channel 282A at Hebbronville is located 

320 kilometers from the Mexican 

Border. Therefore, Mexican concurrence 

has been requested. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 21, 2011, and reply 

comments on or before May 6, 2011. 

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, 2215 Cedar Springs Rd., 

#1605, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

11–38, adopted February 25, 2011, and 

released February 28, 2011. The full text 

of this Commission decision 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 20554. 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 via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed 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). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, 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, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Texas, is amended by 

removing Channel 232A at 

Hebbronville, and by adding Channel 

282A at Hebbronville. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5814 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1