Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14293 

Allergenicity. Codex Alimentarius 

Commision, 47–60. 

3. Ge A, Rivers D, Milne R, Dean DH. 1991. 

Functional Domains of Bacillus thuringiensis 

Insecticidal Crystal Proteins. Refinement of 

Heliothis virescens and Trichoplusiani 

Specificity Domains on Cry1A(c). Journal of 

Biological Chemistry. 266: 17954–17958. 

4. Hofte H, Whitley HR. 1989. Insecticidal 

Crystal Proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. 

Microbiology Review. 53: 242–255. 

5. Honee G, Convents D, Van Rie J, Jansens 

S, Peferoen M, Visser B. 1991. The C– 

Terminal Domain of the Toxic Fragment of a 

Bacillus thuringiensis Crystal Protein 

Determines Receptor Binding. Molecular 

Microbiology. 5: 2799–2806. 

6. Li J, Carroll J, Ellar DJ. 1991. Crystal 

Structure of Insecticidal delta-Endotoxin 

from Bacillus thuringiensis at 2.5 A 

resolution. Nature. 353: 815–821. 

7. Nakamura K, Oshie K, Shimizu M, 

Takada Y, Oeda K, Ohkawa H. 1990. 

Construction of Chimeric Insecticidal 

Proteins Between the 130-kDa and 135-kDa 

Proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. 

aizawai for Analysis of Structure-Function 

Relationship. Agricultural Biological 

Chemistry. 54: 715–724. 

8. Sjoblad RD, McClintock JT, Engler R. 

1992. Toxicological Considerations for 

Protein Components of Biological Pesticide 

Products. Regulatory Toxicology and 

Pharmacology. 15(1): 3–9. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule modifies a tolerance 

exemption under section 408(d) of 

FFDCA in response to a petition 

submitted to the Agency. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

exempted these types of actions from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 

Because this final rule has been 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866, this final rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are modified on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance exemption in this final 

rule, do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or Tribes. 

As a result, this action does not alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or Tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or Tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 

13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. 

In addition, this final rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty or contain 

any unfunded mandate as described 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Keith A. Matthews, 

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 174—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 174 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; 21 U.S.C. 

346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 174.532 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 174.532 Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab 

protein in corn; temporary exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. 

Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis 

eCry3.1Ab protein in corn, in or on the 

food and feed commodities of corn; 

corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop 

are exempt temporarily from the 

requirement of a tolerance when 

Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab 

protein in corn is used as a plantincorporated protectant in accordance 

with the terms of Experimental Use 

Permit 67979–EUP–8. This temporary 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance expires and is revoked on 

March 1, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6035 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8173] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
14294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59. Accordingly, the communities will 

be suspended on the effective date in 

the third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. However, some of these 

communities may adopt and submit the 

required documentation of legally 

enforceable floodplain management 

measures after this rule is published but 

prior to the actual suspension date. 

These communities will not be 

suspended and will continue their 

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A 

notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may legally be provided for 

construction or acquisition of buildings 

in identified SFHAs for communities 

not participating in the NFIP and 

identified for more than a year, on 

FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of 

the community as having flood-prone 

areas (section 202(a) of the Flood 

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 

U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Administrator has determined that this 

rule is exempt from the requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits flood insurance coverage 

unless an appropriate public body 

adopts adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed no 

longer comply with the statutory 

requirements, and after the effective 

date, flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the communities unless 

remedial action takes place. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This rule involves no policies that have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule meets the applicable 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

does not involve any collection of 

information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 

Flood insurance, Floodplains. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 64—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. 

§ 64.6 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 64.6 are amended as 

follows: 

State and Location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current 

effective map 

date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Region IV 

South Carolina: 

McCormick, Town of, McCormick County 450152 July 15, 1975, Emerg; June 25, 1976, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

April 4, 2011 ... April 4, 2011 

McCormick County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

450226 December 29, 1975, Emerg; October 1, 1989, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

*......do ............ do. 

Region V 

Michigan: 

Albion, City of, Calhoun County ............... 260050 July 1, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1982, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14295 

State and Location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current 

effective map 

date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Albion, Township of, Calhoun County ...... 260639 September 12, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 

1982, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Athens, Village of, Calhoun County .......... 260558 March 24, 1977, Emerg; November 15, 1985, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Battle Creek, City of, Calhoun County ..... 260051 July 2, 1975, Emerg; April 4, 1983, Reg; April 

4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Bedford, Township of, Calhoun County. ... 260052 May 30, 1975, Emerg; February 2, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Burlington, Township of, Calhoun County 260651 December 2, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1987, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Burlington, Village of, Calhoun County ..... 260559 November 21, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1987, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Clarence, Township of, Calhoun County .. 260560 May 12, 1977, Emerg; February 18, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Convis, Township of, Calhoun County ..... 260652 December 5, 1975, Emerg; February 11, 

1983, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Eckford, Township of, Calhoun County .... 260653 December 16, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 

1986, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Emmett, Township of, Calhoun County .... 260561 December 5, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Fredonia, Township of, Calhoun County .. 260562 December 22, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 

1987, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Homer, Village of, Calhoun County .......... 260331 December 5, 1975, Emerg; May 3, 1982, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Lee, Township of, Calhoun County .......... 260668 March 26, 1976, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Leroy, Township of, Calhoun County ....... 260655 February 19, 1976, Emerg; March 1, 1987, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Marengo, Township of, Calhoun County .. 260563 May 30, 1979, Emerg; May 17, 1982, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Marshall, City of, Calhoun County ............ 260053 May 13, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1982, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Marshall, Township of, Calhoun County ... 260642 October 9, 1975, Emerg; February 11, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Newton, Township of, Calhoun County .... 260647 November 18, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 

1986, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Pennfield, Charter Township, Calhoun 

County.

260564 August 25, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1982, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Sheridan, Township of, Calhoun County .. 260649 November 20, 1975, Emerg; March 11, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Springfield, City of, Calhoun County ........ 260054 August 11, 1975, Emerg; September 28, 

1979, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Tekonsha, Township of, Calhoun County 260709 July 20, 1977, Emerg; June 4, 1987, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Tekonsha, Village of, Calhoun County ..... 260565 December 19, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1987, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Ohio: 

Archbold, Village of, Fulton County .......... 390603 April 30, 1976, Emerg; January 4, 1985, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Bellville, Village of, Richland County ........ 390604 June 30, 1976, Emerg; March 16, 1989, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Butler, Village of, Richland County ........... 390605 June 24, 1976, Emerg; November 15, 1989, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Delta, Village of, Fulton County ................ 390183 April 28, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1984, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Fayette, Village of, Fulton County ............ 390829 February 8, 1999, Emerg; April 4, 2011, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Lucas, Village of, Richland County ........... 390661 September 24, 1987, Emerg; September 1, 

1993, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Mansfield, City of, Richland County ......... 390477 April 2, 1975, Emerg; January 3, 1986, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Metamora, Village of, Fulton County ........ 390840 July 21, 1982, Emerg; May 16, 1995, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Ontario, Village of, Richland County ........ 390478 July 11, 1975, Emerg; January 30, 1984, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Plymouth, Village of, Huron and Richland 

Counties.

390287 July 30, 1999, Emerg; April 4, 2011, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Richland County, Unincorporated Areas .. 390476 December 11, 1984, Emerg; April 2, 1991, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
14296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

State and Location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Shelby, City of, Richland County .............. 390479 July 30, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1989, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Wauseon, City of, Fulton County .............. 390184 July 22, 1975, Emerg; July 6, 1984, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Wisconsin: 

Arcadia, City of, Trempealeau County ..... 550439 September 30, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 

1991, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Blair, City of, Trempealeau County .......... 550440 February 27, 1975, Emerg; November 16, 

1990, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Eleva, Village of, Trempealeau County .... 550441 May 23, 1975, Emerg; December 5, 1989, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Ettrick, Village of, Trempealeau County ... 550442 July 15, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1982, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Galesville, City of, Trempealeau County .. 550443 February 23, 1976, Emerg; March 16, 1981, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Independence, City of, Trempealeau 

County.

550444 July 5, 1974, Emerg; September 27, 1991, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Osseo, City of, Trempealeau County ....... 550445 August 19, 1975, Emerg; September 5, 1990, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Pigeon Falls, Village of, Trempealeau 

County.

550446 March 26, 1976, Emerg; September 16, 1988, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Strum, Village of, Trempealeau County ... 555583 April 9, 1971, Emerg; May 13, 1972, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Trempealeau, Village of, Trempealeau 

County.

555584 May 28, 1971, Emerg; December 12, 1972, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Trempealeau County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

555585 May 14, 1971, Emerg; December 22, 1972, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Whitehall, City of, Trempealeau County ... 550449 February 7, 1975, Emerg; November 16, 

1990, Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Region VI 

Arkansas: 

Fulton, Town of, Hempstead County ........ 050086 April 22, 1975, Emerg; August 3, 1982, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Hempstead County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

050436 March 28, 1995, Emerg; October 1, 2007, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Texas: 

Crockett, City of, Houston County ............ 480359 June 24, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1980, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Grapeland, Town of, Houston County ...... 480873 March 15, 2001, Emerg; August 1, 2008, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Houston County, Unincorporated Areas ... 480872 July 2, 1993, Emerg; August 1, 2008, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Lovelady, City of, Houston County ........... 480874 June 22, 1990, Emerg; March 1, 1991, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Maverick County, Unincorporated Areas .. 480470 N/A, Emerg; September 23, 1996, Reg; April 

4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Woodville, City of, Tyler County ............... 481035 August 1, 1979, Emerg; October 26, 1982, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Region VII 

Iowa: 

Anamosa, City of, Jones County .............. 190174 July 25, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1987, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Jones County, Unincorporated Areas ....... 190919 March 21, 1979, Emerg; September 30, 1988, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Monticello, City of, Jones County ............. 190175 November 27, 1974, Emerg; April 2, 1979, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Olin, City of, Jones County ....................... 190176 July 12, 1976, Emerg; February 1, 1987, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Missouri: 

Cameron, City of, Clinton County ............. 290104 August 25, 1975, Emerg; August 24, 1984, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Gower, City of, Buchanan and Clinton 

Counties..

290105 June 23, 1975, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Lathrop, City of, Clinton County ............... 290704 June 22, 1976, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; 

April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

Plattsburg, City of, Clinton County ........... 290106 March 31, 1975, Emerg; February 2, 1983, 

Reg; April 4, 2011, Susp.

......do ............. do. 

*do = Ditto. 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14297 

Code for reading third column: Emerg. —Emergency; Reg. —Regular; Susp. —Suspension. 

Dated: March 8, 2011. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6058 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 06–123; FCC 10–188] 

The Establishment of Policies and 

Service Rules for the BroadcastingSatellite Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission denies 

two petitions for reconsideration filed 

by Telesat Canada (Telesat) challenging 

certain aspects of the processing and 

technical rules adopted for the 17/24 

GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service 

(BSS). Specifically, we decline to adopt 

Telesat’s proposal that the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) impose additional blanket 

international coordination licensing 

conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz 

BSS space stations. Finally, we are not 

persuaded by Telesat’s argument that 

the Commission’s technical and 

procedural rules concerning assignment 

of orbital locations and frequencies are 

inapplicable to requests filed by nonU.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space 

stations operators seeking to access the 

market in the United States. 

DATES: Effective April 15, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Kelly, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, at 202–418–7877 

or via e-mail at Andrea.Kelly@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Second Order on 

Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06– 

123, FCC 10–188, adopted October 29, 

2010 and released November 1, 2010. 

The full text of the Second Order on 

Reconsideration is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. When 

ordering documents from BCPI please 

provide the appropriate FCC document 

number (for example, FCC 07–174, 

Order on Reconsideration). The full text 

may also be downloaded at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

call the Consider & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

or 202–418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis 

The Commission denied two petitions 

for reconsideration filed by Telesat 

Canada (Telesat) challenging certain 

aspects of the processing and technical 

rules adopted for the 17/24 GHz 

Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). 

Specifically, we decline to adopt 

Telesat’s proposal that the Commission 

impose additional blanket international 

coordination licensing conditions on 

U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space 

stations. Commission provisions for 

imposing additional coordination 

requirements already exist and can be 

invoked, if needed, on a case-by-case 

basis. While we reject Telesat’s petition 

for reconsideration on this point, we 

will continue to follow the applicable 

coordination procedures set out in the 

International Telecommunication 

Union’s (ITU) Radio Regulations for the 

particular band segment being 

coordinated. Finally, we are not 

persuaded by Telesat’s argument that 

the Commission’s technical and 

procedural rules concerning assignment 

of orbital locations and frequencies are 

inapplicable to requests filed by nonU.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space 

stations operators seeking to access the 

market in the United States. These rules 

apply to both U.S.- and non-U.S.- 

licensed operators. 

In May 2007, the Commission 

released a Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 

46939, August 22, 2007. In the 17/24 

GHz BSS R&O, the Commission decided 

to apply the first-come, first-served 

licensing process to applications for 

geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)-like 

space stations in this service. At the 

same time, the Commission also 

adopted technical rules, including a 

framework in which 17/24 GHz BSS 

space stations would operate at orbital 

locations spaced at four degree 

intervals, as set forth in 17/24 GHz BSS 

R&O Appendix F (known as Appendix 

F locations). In adopting this fourdegree spacing framework, the 

Commission recognized that rigid 

application of the spacing plan would 

not serve the public interest because at 

some Appendix F locations there might 

be undesirable operational constraints 

required to coordinate physical 

operations with co-located satellites, or 

because there might be a co-primary 

Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) or other 

ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving 

feeder-link signals in the 17.3–17.8 GHz 

band at or very near that location. As a 

result, the Commission also provided 

the flexibility to operate at locations 

offset from the Appendix F locations 

with accompanying reductions in power 

and interference protection. In addition, 

the Commission adopted limits for 

uplink and downlink power levels to 

minimize the possibility of harmful 

interference, stipulated criteria to 

facilitate sharing in the 24.75–25.25 

GHz and 17.3–17.8 GHz bands, adopted 

a minimum antenna diameter, and 

adopted antenna performance 

standards. The Commission also 

adopted its proposal to apply the DISCO 

II framework to requests by non-U.S.- 

licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 

operators to serve the market in the 

United States. In addition, the 

Commission adopted geographic service 

rules to require space station licensees 

to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii. 

At the same time, the Commission 

issued a Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeking comment on 

coordination parameters relating to 

space-path and ground-path interference 

between 17/24 GHz BSS systems and 

DBS service systems operating in the 

17.3–17.8 GHz band. 

On September 28, 2007, the 

Commission, sua sponte, released an 

Order on Reconsideration, 72 FR 60272, 

October 24, 2007 to provide space 

station operators additional flexibility to 

operate full-power space stations at 

orbital locations offset by up to one 

degree from an Appendix F location, in 

instances where there are no licensed or 

prior-filed applications for 17/24 GHz 

BSS space stations less than four 

degrees away from the proposed offset 

space station. In response to the 17/24 

GHz BSS Sua Sponte Recon, Telesat 

filed a second petition for 

reconsideration arguing that the 

additional flexibility did not resolve 

issues it raised in its original petition for 

reconsideration. Telesat reiterates its 

requests that we impose specific 

additional conditions on each U.S.- 

licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station 

relating to international coordination. In 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES