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
14298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

particular, Telesat asks us to impose a 

condition on each U.S. license that 

allows us to modify the assigned orbital 

location by more than one degree from 

an Appendix F location if necessary to 

facilitate coordination with a non-U.S.- 

licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station 

operator. 

Licensing. At the time the 

Commission issued its 17/24 GHz BSS 

Report and Order, there were a number 

of pending applications for 17/24 GHz 

BSS space station authorizations. To 

implement its decisions, the 

Commission directed the International 

Bureau to release a public notice after 

the rules became effective, establishing 

a deadline for applicants to amend 

pending applications to conform to the 

newly adopted rules. The 17/24 GHz 

BSS rules, as modified by the 17/24 GHz 

BSS Sua Sponte Recon, became 

effective on November 23, 2007. In 

December 2007, the Bureau released a 

public notice with instructions for filing 

conforming amendments. The amended 

applications that were acceptable for 

filing were placed on public notice and 

comments were filed by various parties, 

not including Telesat. The Bureau 

subsequently completed processing of 

all of the applications pending at the 

time the 17/24 GHz BSS R&O was 

released. As of the date of this order, the 

Bureau has authorized nine space 

stations in this service. 

The 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order 

also adopted a freeze on filing new 

applications and delegated authority to 

the Bureau to lift the freeze after, among 

other things, the newly adopted 

processing and service rules became 

effective and the pending applications 

were amended to conform to the new 

rules. The Bureau lifted the freeze on 

new 17/24 GHz BSS applications and 

requests for market access by non-U.S.- 

licensed space stations in September 

2008. Since that date, a number of 

entities have filed new applications, 

including requests for access to the 

market in the United States, with the 

Commission. While Telesat has not yet 

filed a request to access the U.S. market 

from a Canadian licensed 17/24 GHz 

BSS space station, one of Telesat’s 

wholly owned subsidiaries, Skynet 

Satellite Corporation (Skynet), has filed 

an application to be a U.S.-licensed 17/ 

24 GHz BSS space station operator. 

Telesat proposes that the Commission 

adopt additional blanket ITU 

coordination conditions for the 17/24 

GHz BSS service. For the reasons stated 

below, we deny Telesat’s request as 

unnecessary. 

Telesat’s argument concerns the 

international coordination obligations of 

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

station operators. Telesat argues that 

there ‘‘may be confusion’’ among 17/24 

GHz BSS applicants regarding their 

international coordination obligations 

with non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS 

operators that have ITU date priority. To 

mitigate any such confusion, Telesat 

requests that the Commission attach 

conditions to any 17/24 GHz BSS 

authorization requiring U.S. licensees to 

coordinate with non-U.S-licensed 

satellite operators that have ITU date 

priority. In light of our existing ITU 

coordination rule and our prior 

statements on this issue, we find 

Telesat’s contention that there ‘‘may be 

confusion’’ regarding ITU coordination 

obligations to be unsupported. Thus, we 

find that any further condition requiring 

ITU coordination, as proposed by 

Telesat, is redundant and is otherwise 

unnecessary as a general matter. 

Similarly, Telesat’s second proposed 

condition—that 17/24 GHz BSS space 

station authorizations are subject to 

modification to an off-grid location to 

facilitate coordination with a foreignlicensed satellite operators with ITU 

priority—is also unnecessary. Section 

25.111(b) of the Commission’s rules 

already explicitly provides that ‘‘[a]ny 

radio station authorization for which 

coordination has not been completed 

may be subject to additional terms and 

conditions as required to effect 

coordination of the frequency 

assignments with other 

Administrations.’’ Thus, specifically 

listing only one theoretical solution to a 

coordination issue is unnecessary. 

Further, such a condition might 

prejudice the Commission’s position in 

a future international coordination. 

Thus, we concur with Intelsat that such 

a condition, in addition to being 

unnecessary, might inject additional 

uncertainty into the four-degree spacing 

framework. 

While we decline to adopt the 

additional blanket coordination 

conditions proposed, Telesat, like any 

other interested party, may propose 

conditions relevant to the unique 

circumstances presented by any specific 

application. The Commission takes such 

comments into consideration when 

reviewing any application and may 

adjust licensing conditions if 

circumstances warrant. A party 

proposing further international 

coordination conditions—in addition to 

the standard condition drawn from 

§ 25.111(b) of the Commission’s rules— 

bears the burden of establishing that its 

proposed condition is required by the 

facts presented in the particular 

application at issue. Finally, although 

we reject Telesat’s petition for 

reconsideration on this point, in 

coordinating U.S.-licensed satellite 

networks with satellite networks of 

other Administrations, we will follow 

the applicable coordination procedures 

set out in the ITU Radio Regulations for 

the particular band segment being 

coordinated. 

The Commission’s DISCO II Order, 12 

FCC Rcd 24094, 62 FR 64167, November 

26, 1997, implemented the marketopening commitments made by the 

United States in the World Trade 

Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on 

Basic Telecommunications Service 

(WTO Basic Telecom Agreement). In 

particular, the DISCO II Order 

established a framework under which 

the Commission considers requests by 

operators of non-U.S.-licensed space 

stations to serve the United States. The 

Commission’s analysis considers the 

effect on competition in the United 

States; eligibility and operating 

requirements; spectrum availability; and 

national security, law enforcement, 

foreign policy, and trade concerns. 

Consequently, we reject Telesat’s 

contention that our technical and 

licensing rules do not apply to non-U.S.- 

licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite 

operators seeking access to the market 

in the United States. The Commission’s 

space station licensing policy for the 17/ 

24 GHz BSS is predicated upon fourdegree orbital spacing between 

geostationary space stations. The 17/24 

GHz BSS service rules allow space 

station operators to operate full-power 

space stations at orbital locations offset 

by up to one degree from an Appendix 

F location in cases where there are no 

licensed or previously filed applications 

for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations less 

than four degrees away from the 

proposed offset space station. This fourdegree orbital spacing framework and 

accompanying offset rules are technical 

rules equally applicable to non-U.S.- 

licensed space stations seeking to access 

the market in the United States. Telesat 

apparently seeks to exempt non-U.S.- 

licensed space stations from our 

technical rules if ITU filings made by 

the licensing Administration on behalf 

of these networks precede those made 

by the United States at nearby orbital 

locations. 

We note, however, our decision here 

does not preclude non-U.S.-licensed 

operators from seeking a waiver of any 

technical rules based on the facts 

presented in a particular market access 

request. Further, while our technical 

rules apply to an application filed 

before the Commission for access to the 

market in the United States, our 

technical rules do not constrain another 

licensing Administration in the context 

of ITU coordination with the United 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14299 

States. In that context, the ITU Radio 

Regulations govern. Thus, our decision 

here is limited to the determination that 

when applying for market access in the 

United States, non-U.S.-licensed 

operators must meet the same legal and 

technical rules as U.S. licensees, and 

where departures from those rules are 

sought, the same waiver standards 

apply. 

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 

303(y), 308, this Order on 

Reconsideration is adopted. 

It is further ordered that Telesat 

Canada’s Petition for Reconsideration 

filed on September 28, 2007 is denied. 

It is further ordered that Telesat 

Canada’s Petition for Reconsideration 

filed on November 21, 2007 is denied. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center shall send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration, 

including the final regulatory flexibility 

act certification, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration, in accordance with 

section 603(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 

(1981). 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Order on Reconsideration in a report to 

be sent to Congress and the General 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6145 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 110223163–1180–01] 

RIN 0648–XA231 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species: Correction To Codify in the 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Endangered Status for Southern 

Resident Killer Whales 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 

correcting amendment to the Code of 

Federal Regulations to identify the 

Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus 

orca) distinct population segment (DPS) 

as an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 

DATES: Effective March 16, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding this 

correcting amendment contact Steve 

Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region, 503– 

231–2317; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, 

Office of Protected Resources, 301–713– 

1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Correcting 

Amendment 

We listed the Southern Resident killer 

whale DPS as an endangered species 

under the ESA on November 18, 2005 

(70 FR 69903). That final rule became 

effective on February 16, 2006, and the 

species was included in the 

enumeration of endangered species at 

50 CFR 224.101(b). In separate and 

unrelated rulemaking, we published a 

final rule on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 

12024), to list the North Pacific right 

whale (Eubalaena. japonica) and North 

Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) as 

separate endangered species under the 

ESA. In that more recent rule the 

Southern Resident killer whale DPS was 

inadvertently dropped from the 

enumeration of endangered species at 

50 CFR 224.101(b). This correcting 

amendment remedies that oversight. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator (AA) 

finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

because it is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest. We 

fully intended the Southern Resident 

killer whale DPS to be listed as an 

endangered species under the ESA and 

expressly stated this intent in the 

November 2005 final rule (70 FR 69903; 

November 18, 2005). We also previously 

provided public notice in the Federal 

Register and considered public 

comments on the 2004 proposed rule 

(69 FR 76673; December 22, 2004). 

Further, this DPS was correctly 

included in the October 2006 and 2007 

issues of the CFR. However, due to a 

clerical error in unrelated rulemaking 

on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12024), the 

DPS was omitted from the list of 

endangered species published at 50 CFR 

224.101 in the October 2008 and 

subsequent issues of the CFR. In order 

to avoid regulatory confusion and 

ensure continuous protections and 

enforcement capability for the Southern 

Resident killer whale, the AA waives 

the requirement for prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment. 

For the same reasons above, the AA 

finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in 

effectiveness and makes this rule 

effective immediately upon publication. 

Because notice and opportunity for 

comment are not required pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the 

analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and has not been prepared. 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

References 

Copies of previous Federal Register 

notices and related reference materials 

are available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Endangered marine and anadromous 

species. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is corrected 

by making the following correcting 

amendment: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 


ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES