33856 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

State and county Location

Dates and name of newspaper where notice was

published

Chief executive officer

of community

Effective date of modificationCommunity

No.

Lubbock ............... City of Lubbock ........... Apr. 18, 1996, Apr. 25,

1996, Lubbock Avalanche Journal.

The Honorable David R.

Langston, Mayor, City

of Lubbock, P.O. Box

2000, Lubbock,

Texas 79457.

Apr. 1, 1996 ................ 480452

Montgomery ......... Unincorporated areas Apr. 12, 1996, Apr. 19,

1996. Conroe Courier.

The Honorable Alan B.

Sadler, Montgomery

County Judge, 301

North Thompson,

Suite 210, Conroe,

Texas 77301.

Mar. 27, 1996 .............. 480483

Collin .................... City of Plano ............... Apr. 17, 1996, Apr. 24,

1996, Plano Star Courier.

The Honorable James

N. Muns, Mayor, City

of Plano, P.O. Box

860358, Plano, Texas

75086–0358.

Mar. 27, 1996 .............. 480140

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Richard W. Krimm,

Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 96–16700 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

44 CFR Part 67

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance)

flood elevations and modified base

flood elevations are made final for the

communities listed below. The base

flood elevations and modified base

flood elevations are the basis for the

floodplain management measures that

each community is required either to

adopt or to show evidence of being

already in effect in order to qualify or

remain qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The date of issuance of

the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

showing base flood elevations and

modified base flood elevations for each

community. This date may be obtained

by contacting the office where the FIRM

is available for inspection as indicated

in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard

Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

makes final determinations listed below

of base flood elevations and modified

base flood elevations for each

community listed. The proposed base

flood elevations and proposed modified

base flood elevations were published in

newspapers of local circulation and an

opportunity for the community or

individuals to appeal the proposed

determinations to or through the

community was provided for a period of

ninety (90) days. The proposed base

flood elevations and proposed modified

base flood elevations were also

published in the Federal Register.

This final rule is issued in accordance

with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,

and 44 CFR Part 67.

FEMA has developed criteria for

floodplain management in floodprone

areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part

60.

Interested lessees and owners of real

property are encouraged to review the

proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM

available at the address cited below for

each community.

The base flood elevations and

modified base flood elevations are made

final in the communities listed below.

Elevations at selected locations in each

community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Consideration. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Acting Associate Director for

Mitigation certifies that this rule is

exempt from the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act because final

or modified base flood elevations are

required by the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,

and are required to establish and

maintain community eligibility in the

NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis

has been prepared.

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 12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Administrative practice and

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 67—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 67

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.

§ 67.11 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 67.11 are amended as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33857

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

ARIZONA

Camp Verde (town), Yavapai

County (FEMA Docket No.

7166)

Verde River:

Just downstream of State

Route 260 ............................. *3,074

Just upstream of State Route

260 ....................................... *3,075

Just upstream of Montezuma

Castle Highway .................... *3,094

Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Interstate Highway

17 ......................................... *3,107

Approximately 2.62 miles upstream of Interstate Highway

17 ......................................... *3,132

Cherry Creek:

At confluence with Verde River *3,164

At State Route 279 .................. *3,252

At corporate limits (approximately 3,400 feet upstream

of State Route 279) .............. *3,314

Lucky Canyon Wash:

At confluence with Verde River *3,060

At Salt Mine Road ................... *3,100

Approximately 930 feet upstream of Salt Mine Road .... *3,126

Copper Canyon Wash:

At confluence with Verde River *3,063

At Salt Mine Road ................... *3,142

Approximately 980 feet upstream of Salt Mine Road .... *3,164

Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 473 South

Main Street, Camp Verde, Arizona.

———

Yavapai County (unincorporated areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7166)

Verde River:

Just upstream of State Route

260 ....................................... *3,074

Just upstream of Montezuma

Castle Highway .................... *3,094

Just upstream of Interstate

Highway 17 .......................... *3,107

Just downstream of Middle

Verde Indian Reservation .... *3,132

Chino Valley Stream—East:

At confluence with Chino Valley Stream ............................ *4,732

At Center Street ....................... *4,760

Approximately 1.55 miles upstream of confluence with

Chino Valley Stream ............ *4,796

Approximately 1.79 miles upstream of confluence with

Chino Valley Stream ............ *4,808

Approximately 3.69 miles upstream of confluence with

Chino Valley Stream ............ *4,906

Miller Creek:

Approximately 3,400 feet

downstream of U.S. Route

89 ......................................... *4,458

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Approximately 2,350 feet

downstream of U.S. Route

89 ......................................... *4,463

Approximately 1,300 feet

downstream of U.S. Route

89 ......................................... *4,468

Approximately 300 feet downstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,473

Approximately 600 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,478

Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,483

Approximately 2,250 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,488

Approximately 3,100 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,493

Approximately 3,800 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,498

Approximately 4,350 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,503

Approximately 4,900 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,508

Approximately 5,600 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,513

Approximately 6,400 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,519

At corporate limits (upstream

of City of Prescott) ............... *5,478

At Idylwild Drive ....................... *5,517

At Pine Drive ............................ *5,612

Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of Pine Drive (at limit

of detailed study) .................. *5,672

Cherry Creek:

At corporate limits .................... *3,314

Approximately 200 feet upstream of corporate limits (at

limit of detailed study) .......... *3,318

Texas Gulch Main Stem:

At confluence with Aqua Fria

River ..................................... *4,490

At Quarter Horse Lane ............ *4,536

At confluence of Texas Gulch

West Branch ......................... *4,568

Texas Gulch West Branch:

At confluence with Texas

Gulch Main Stem ................. *4,568

Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of confluence with

Texas Gulch Main Stem ...... *4,600

Approximately 1.20 miles upstream of confluence with

Texas Gulch Main Stem ...... *4,660

Approximately 1.58 miles upstream of confluence with

Texas Gulch Main Stem ...... *4,700

Zalesky Wash Main Stem:

Approximately 0.04 mile upstream of confluence with

Verde River .......................... *3,259

Approximately 0.86 mile upstream of confluence with

Verde River .......................... *3,293

Robert Wash:

At U.S. Route 89 ..................... *4,394

Approximate 0.25 mile upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,398

Telephone Tank Wash:

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

At confluence with Green

Wash .................................... *4,394

At U.S. Highway 89 ................. *4,404

Approximately 0.88 mile upstream of confluence with

Green Wash ......................... *4,434

Telephone Tank Wash Breakout:

At confluence with Green

Wash .................................... *4,388

At confluence of Robert Wash *4,394

At divergence from Telephone

Tank Wash ........................... *4,430

J.W. Draw:

At confluence with Green

Wash .................................... *4,394

At Bayberry Drive .................... *4,412

At Naples Street ...................... *4,462

Approximately 0.41 mile upstream of Naples Street ....... *4,488

Green Wash:

At confluence with Big Chino

Wash .................................... *4,364

At Big Chino Road ................... *4,388

Just upstream of Grand Canyon Road .............................. *4,398

At Apsen Drive ......................... *4,460

Approximately 0.36 mile upstream of Enid Drive ............ *4,504

Dry Well Wash:

At confluence with Clayton

Canyon Wash ....................... *4,420

At Patricia Road ....................... *4,502

At Barbara Road ...................... *4,598

Approximately 500 feet upstream of Barbara Road ...... *4,608

Clayton Canyon Wash:

Approximately 0.08 mile upstream of confluence with

Big Chino Wash ................... *4,376

Just downstream of Clayton

Canyon Dam ........................ *4,480

Just upstream of Clayton Canyon Dam ............................... *4,500

At Barbara Road ...................... *4,520

Approximately 320 feet upstream of Barbara Road ...... *4,525

Timon Wash:

Approximately 0.50 mile upstream of confluence with

Big Chino Wash ................... *4,395

At Ahonen Road ...................... *4,438

At Barbara Road ...................... *4,524

Approximately 320 feet upstream of Barbara Road ...... *4,528

Model Creek:

Just upstream of U.S. Route

89 ......................................... *4,460

Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,461

Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,464

Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,467

Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,473

Approximately 4,400 feet upstream of U.S. Route 89 ...... *4,476

West Fork Miller Creek:
33858 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,460

Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,463

Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,465

Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,470

Approximately 4,500 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,474

Approximately 4,800 feet upstream of confluence with

Model Creek ......................... *4,475

Maps are available for inspection at the Yavapai County

Flood Control District, 500

South Marina Street, Prescott,

Arizona.

CALIFORNIA

Red Bluff (city), Tehama

County (FEMA Docket No.

7170)

Reeds Creek:

Approximately 430 feet upstream of Southern Pacific

Railroad ................................ *268

Just downstream of South

Jackson Street ..................... *271

Approximately 180 feet downstream of western corporate

limits ..................................... *279

East Sand Slough:

Just upstream of Gilmore

Ranch Road extended, at

corporate limits ..................... *267

Approximately 150 feet downstream of Antelope Boulevard ...................................... *269

Approximately 550 feet upstream of Antelope Boulevard ...................................... *271

Brewery Creek Tributary:

Approximately 750 feet downstream of Monroe Avenue ... *274

Approximately 130 feet downstream of Monroe Avenue ... *280

Just upstream of Monroe Avenue ....................................... *291

Maps are available for inspection at the Community Development Department, City of

Red Bluff, City Hall, 555 Washington Street, Red Bluff, California.

NEW MEXICO

Bernalillo County and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. 7166)

Rio Grande:

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Approximately 1,000 feet

downstream of Interstate 25 *4,902

Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Interstate 25 ......... *4,906

At confluence with South Diversion Channel ................... *4,924

Rio Grande East Overbank:

Approximately 1,300 feet

downstream of Interstate 25 *4,900

Just downstream of Interstate

25 ......................................... *4,903

Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Interstate 25 ......... *4,905

Approximately 20,400 feet upstream of Interstate 25 ......... *4,922

Arroyo A–B:

Approximately 150 feet north

of Amalia Road .................... *4,970

Approximately 550 feet north

of Amalia Road .................... *4,980

Just upstream of Sage Road ... *4,995

Ponding area west of Arenal

Canal .................................... *4,951

Ponding area northwest of

intersection of Sage Road

and Coors Boulevard ........... *5.001

Ponding area north of Tower

Road and west of Coors

Boulevard ............................. *5,029

Arroyo A–C:

Approximately 1,140 feet

downstream of Gonzales

Road ..................................... *5,006

Just upstream of Gonzales

Road ..................................... *5,008

Approximately 630 feet upstream of intersection of Forsythe Road and Corregidor

Place .................................... *5,012

Ponding area just upstream of

Old Coors Road ................... *5,012

Arroyo B–A:

Approximately 100 feet upstream of Unser Boulevard *5,087

Just upstream of 86th Street ... *5,115

Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of 86th Street (limit

of detailed study) .................. *5,133

Ponding area west of 94th

Street and south of Central

Avenue ................................. *5,169

Arroyo B–B:

Approximately 650 feet downstream of Unser Boulevard *5,081

Just upstream of 86th Street ... *5,105

Approximately 400 feet upstream of 90th Street ........... *5,135

Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of 90th Street (limit

of detailed study) .................. *5,171

Shallow flooding between

Stinson Street and 300 feet

upstream of 75th Street ....... *5,080

Arroyo B–C:

Just upstream of Unser Boulevard ...................................... *5,079

Approximately 80 feet downstream of 86th Street ........... *5,093

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Approximately 240 feet downstream of 94th Street ........... *5,120

Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of 94th Street (limit

of detailed study) .................. *5,140

Shallow flooding between

Unser Boulevard and Abeyta

Road ..................................... #1

Ponding Area 18: *5,009

Ponding Area:

Along Trujillo Road approximately 500 feet east of Bataan Drive ............................. *5,009

Ponding Area:

Along Dennison Road approximately 500 feet east of Bataan Drive ............................. *5,009

Ponding Area:

North of Eucariz Avenue approximately 500 feet east of

Bataan Drive ........................ *5,008

Ponding Area:

Along Yerba Road south of

Eucariz Avenue .................... *5,002

Ponding Area:

Between Coors Boulevard and

Corona Drive and between

Redlands Road and Pheasant Avenue ........................... *5,100

Maps are available for inspection at the Bernalillo County

Planning Office, One Civic

Plaza Northwest, Fifth Floor,

Room 5025, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Albuquerque Planning Department,

One Civic Plaza Northwest,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

WYOMING

Laramie (city), Albany County

(FEMA Docket No. 7170)

Laramie River:

Approximately 2,260 feet

downstream of Curtis Street *7,129

Just upstream of Curtis Street *7,132

Just downstream of new Wyoming Highway ....................... *7,137

Just upstream of Interstate

Highway 80 .......................... *7,141

Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Interstate Highway

80 ......................................... *7,143

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Laramie,

City Engineer’s Office, City

Hall, 406 Ivinson Street, Laramie, Wyoming.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33859

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Richard W. Krimm,

Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 96–16699 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20 and 24

[WT Docket No. 96–59; GN Docket No. 90–

314; FCC 96–278]

Broadband Personal Communications

Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This Report and Order

amends the Commission’s broadband

Personal Communications Services

(‘‘PCS’’) rules. The Commission

concludes that the present record is

insufficient to support the race-based F

block rules under the strict scrutiny

standard of judicial review required by

the Supreme Court’s decision in

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pen ̃ a, or

to support the gender-based rules under

the intermediate scrutiny standard that

currently applies to those rules. Taking

account of the need to award the

remaining broadband PCS licenses

expeditiously and to promote the rapid

deployment of new services to the

public, as well as the statutory objective

of disseminating licenses among a wide

variety of applicants, the Commission

makes the F block rules race- and

gender-neutral to avoid the delay that

would likely result from legal

challenges to the special provisions for

minority- and women-owned

businesses. The Commission also

amends its D, E, and F block rules and

broadband PCS rules generally to

streamline procedures, reduce

administrative burdens, and minimize

the possibility of insincere bidding and

bidder default. Finally, the Commission,

in response to Cincinnati Bell

Telephone Co. v. FCC, eliminates the

cellular/PCS cross-ownership rule and

the PCS spectrum cap in favor of the 45

MHz cap on Commercial Mobile Radio

Services spectrum.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Bollinger, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–

0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order in WT Docket No. 96–59; GN

Docket No. 90–314; FCC 96–278,

adopted June 21, 1996, and released

June 24, 1996. The complete text is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, DC. The

complete text may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of the Report and Order

I. Introduction

1. In this Report and Order, the

Commission modifies the competitive

bidding and ownership rules for

broadband Personal Communications

Services (‘‘PCS’’). Many of the rule

modifications concern the treatment of

‘‘designated entities,’’ i.e., small

businesses, rural telephone companies,

and businesses owned by members of

minority groups and women, under the

broadband PCS F block rules. The

Commission also amends the D, E, and

F block rules and other broadband PCS

rules in order to encourage sincere

bidding, streamline the auction process,

and lessen administrative burdens. In

addition, in response to the remand

from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati Bell

Telephone Co. v. FCC, 69 F.3d 752 (6th

Cir. 1995), the Commission modifies the

rules governing cellular licensees’

ownership of broadband PCS licenses in

all frequency blocks.

II. Rules Affecting Designated Entities

A. Meeting the Adarand Standard

2. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.

Pen ̃ a, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), the

Supreme Court held that all racial

classifications, whether imposed at the

federal, state or local government level,

must be analyzed by a reviewing court

under strict scrutiny, which requires

such classifications to be narrowly

tailored to further a compelling

governmental interest. An intermediate

scrutiny standard of review (under

which a provision is constitutional if it

serves an important governmental

objective and is substantially related to

achievement of that objective) applies to

gender-based measures. Having

evaluated the record before it, the

Commission concludes that this record

is insufficient to support the race- and

gender-based F block provisions and

revises the F block rules in this Report

and Order to make them race- and

gender-neutral. Overall, the commenters

agree that this approach will best serve

the goal of rapidly conducting the F

block auction with the least risk of

judicial delay. Moreover, this type of

approach was upheld by the D.C. Circuit

Court of Appeals, which held in

Omnipoint v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620 (D.C.

Cir. 1996), that the Commission acted

reasonably in concluding that, in light

of the additional time it would take to

develop a record to support the raceand gender-based provisions of the C

block rules, it should revise these rules

by providing the most favorable terms to

all small businesses. The Commission

concludes that making the F block rules

race- and gender-neutral will serve the

public interest by enabling it to auction

the remaining broadband PCS licenses

as expeditiously as possible. Because

many minority- and women-owned

entities are small businesses and will

therefore qualify for the same special

provisions that would have applied to

them under the previous rules, the

Commission also believes that the

amended rules will continue to fulfill

the mandate under Section 309(j) of the

Communications Act, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 309(j)(3), to provide

opportunities for minority- and womenowned businesses to become providers

of spectrum-based services.

1. Control Group Equity Structures

3. The F block auction is limited to

applicants that, together with their

affiliates and persons or entities that

hold interests in them, have gross

revenues of less than $125 million in

each of the last two years and total

assets of less than $500 million. As part

of its decision to make the F block rules

race- and gender-neutral, the

Commission concludes that the 50.1/

49.9 percent equity option, previously

available to minority- and womenowned applicants only, should be

available to all small businesses and

entrepreneurs. Applicants may use this

control group equity structure to

establish eligibility to participate in the

F block auction. It requires the control

group to own at least 50.1 percent of the

applicant’s total equity; of that 50.1

percent equity, at least 30 percent must

be held by qualifying investors. If these

and certain other requirements are met,

the remaining 49.9 percent of the

applicant’s equity may be held by noncontrolling investors, and the gross

revenues and total assets of any such

investor will not be attributed.

4. The Commission adopts this rule

modification because it reduces the

likelihood of legal challenges to the F

block rules and enhances the

opportunities for a wide variety of

applicants to obtain licenses and rapidly

deploy broadband PCS; and because it

believes that making the same equity

structures available to both C and F

block applicants is necessary so that C