81 FR 96413 - Reconsideration of Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 251 (December 30, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 251 (December 30, 2016)
| Page Range | 96413-96415 | |
| FR Document | 2016-31644 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 96413-96415] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-31644] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828; FRL-9957-73-OAR] Reconsideration of Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action provides notice that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied a petition for reconsideration of the final Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare, published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2016. DATES: The EPA took final action to deny the petition for reconsideration on December 21, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lesley Jantarasami, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mail Code 6207-A, Washington DC 20460; Telephone number: (202) 343-9990; Email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? This Federal Register document, the petition for reconsideration and the EPA's response addressing the petition for reconsideration are available in the docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is [[Page 96414]] (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. This action, the petition for reconsideration and the EPA's response addressing the petition can also be found on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-finding-greenhouse-gas-emissions-aircraft. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically from the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal Register'' listings at FDSys (http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR). II. Judicial Review Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) indicates which Federal Court of Appeals have venue over petitions for review of final EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator;'' or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' The EPA has determined that its action denying the petition for reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) because it affects the final Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare, and that finding triggers the EPA's statutory duty to promulgate aircraft engine emission standards under CAA section 231, which are nationally applicable regulations and for which judicial review will be available only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Moreover, EPA already determined that the subject finding was nationally applicable, see 81 FR 54422 (Aug. 15, 2016), and that finding has in fact been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the alternative, even if this action were considered to be only locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator has determined that it has nationwide scope and effect within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) both because EPA has determined that the final finding has nationwide scope and effect within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1), see 81 FR 54422 (Aug. 15, 2016), and because it concerns risks from GHG pollution and contributions to such pollution that occur across the nation. Thus, any petition for judicial review of the EPA's decision to deny the petition for reconsideration described in this document must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 28, 2017. III. Description of Action On July 25, 2016, EPA Administrator McCarthy signed the action entitled ``Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare.'' That action included two findings under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. These findings were that: (1) Concentrations of six well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations (the endangerment finding), and (2) GHGs emitted from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft \1\ are contributing to the air pollution--the mix of those six GHGs in the atmosphere--that endangers public health and welfare (the cause or contribute finding, or contribution finding). The Administrator made these findings using the same definitions of ``air pollution'' and ``air pollutant'' as were used in earlier findings under CAA section 202(a)(1) regarding motor vehicle GHG emissions (the 2009 Findings), namely the combined mix of six key well-mixed GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6 ). While the 2009 Findings under CAA section 202(a)(1) relate to GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines, these findings under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A) relate to GHG emissions from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft. These findings were published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2016 (81 FR 54422), and became effective on September 14, 2016 (2016 Findings). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The contribution finding concludes that GHG emissions from certain classes of engines used in ``U.S. covered aircraft'' contribute to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. The finding defines ``U.S. covered aircraft'' to be subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic propeller driven aircraft (e.g., turboprops) with a MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms. This contribution finding for engines used in U.S. covered aircraft results in the vast majority (89 percent) of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions being included in this determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Biogenic CO2 Coalition (Petitioner) submitted a petition dated October 14, 2016 asking the EPA to reconsider the 2016 Findings with respect to the Agency's treatment of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from short-cycle annual herbaceous crops. CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) states that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.'' The EPA carefully reviewed the petition for reconsideration and evaluated all the information presented on the issues raised, along with information contained in the docket for the 2016 Findings, in reaching a decision on the petition. The EPA has concluded that the petition does not meet the criteria for reconsideration in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In a letter to the petitioner, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied the petition for reconsideration. The letter included an enclosure, a Reconsideration Response document entitled ``Response to the Biogenic CO2 Coalition's Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare,'' that articulates in detail the rationale for the EPA's final responses to the petition for reconsideration and the EPA Administrator's denial of that petition. These documents are all available in the docket for this action. IV. Conclusion For the reasons discussed in the letter to the petitioner and the Reconsideration Response document, the petition to reconsider the final Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare is denied. [[Page 96415]] Dated: December 21, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016-31644 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96413
the bet in the ‘‘exacta’’ pool and $3,100 with (h) Effective/applicability date. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
respect to the bet in the ‘‘trifecta’’ pool. AGENCY
Under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, * * * * *
the bets are not identical bets. Under ■ Par. 4. Section 31.3406(g)–2 is 40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2)
are not aggregated for purposes of and (3) and adding paragraph (h) to read [EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828; FRL–9957–73–
determining the amount of the wager for OAR]
either payment because they are not wagers as follows:
in the same parimutuel pool. No section Reconsideration of Finding That
§ 31.3406(g)–2 Exception for reportable
3402(q) withholding is required on either Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
payment because neither payment separately payment for which withholding is otherwise
required. Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
exceeds the $5,000 withholding threshold.
Example 15. C makes two $100 bets for the
Pollution That May Reasonably Be
* * * * *
same dog to win a particular race. C places Anticipated To Endanger Public Health
one bet at the racetrack and one bet at an off- (d) * * * and Welfare
track betting establishment, but the two pools (2) Definition of a reportable gambling
constitute a single pool. C receives separate AGENCY: Environmental Protection
winning and determination of amount Agency (EPA).
tickets for each bet. C wins both bets and is
subject to backup withholding. For
paid $4,000 from the racetrack and $4,000 ACTION: Notice of final action denying
from the off-track betting establishment. purposes of withholding under section petition for reconsideration.
Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the 3406, a reportable gambling winning is
bets are not aggregated for purposes of any gambling winning subject to SUMMARY: This action provides notice
determining the amount of the wager because information reporting under section that the U.S. Environmental Protection
the wager placed at the racetrack and the 6041. A gambling winning (other than a Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina
wager placed at the off-track betting McCarthy, denied a petition for
establishment are reflected on separate winning from bingo, keno, or slot
tickets, despite being placed in the same machines) is a reportable gambling reconsideration of the final Finding that
parimutuel pool. No section 3402(q) winning only if the amount paid with Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft
withholding is required because neither respect to the wager is $600 or more and Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that
payment separately exceeds the $5,000 if the proceeds are at least 300 times as May Reasonably Be Anticipated to
withholding threshold. large as the amount wagered. See Endanger Public Health and Welfare,
Example 16. C places a $200 Pick 6 bet published in the Federal Register on
for a series of races at the racetrack on a § 1.6041–10 of this chapter to determine
whether a winning from bingo, keno, or August 15, 2016.
particular day and receives a single ticket for
the bet. No wager correctly picks all six races slot machines is a reportable gambling DATES: The EPA took final action to
that day, so that portion of the pool carries winning and thus subject to deny the petition for reconsideration on
over to the following day. On the following withholding under section 3406. The December 21, 2016.
day, C places an additional $200 Pick 6 bet FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
amount of a reportable gambling
for that day’s series of races and receives a Lesley Jantarasami, Office of
new ticket for that bet. C wins $100,000 on winning is—
Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change
the second day. Pursuant to the rule in (i) The amount paid with respect to
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets
Division, Environmental Protection
the amount of the wager reduced, at the Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
are on two separate tickets, so C’s two Pick option of the payer; by
6 bets are not aggregated for purposes of Mail Code 6207–A, Washington DC
determining the amount of the wager. (ii) The amount of the wager. 20460; Telephone number: (202) 343–
Assuming that the applicable rate is 25%, the (3) Special rules. For special rules for 9990; Email address:
racetrack must deduct and withhold $24,950 ghgendangerment@epa.gov.
(($100,000 ¥ $200) × 25%) because the determining the amount of the wager in
a wagering transaction with respect to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
amount of the proceeds of $99,800 ($100,000
¥ $200) is greater than $5,000, and is at least horse racing, dog racing, and jai alai, or I. General Information
300 times as great as the amount wagered amounts paid with respect to identical
($200 × 300 = $60,000). The racetrack also wagers, see § 31.3402(q)–1(c). A. How can I get copies of this
must report C’s winnings on Form W–2G document and other related
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and * * * * * information?
furnish a copy of the Form W–2G to C. (h) Applicability date. The rules apply This Federal Register document, the
(g) Applicability date. These rules to reportable gambling winnings paid petition for reconsideration and the
apply to payments made after [the date after [the date of publication of the EPA’s response addressing the petition
of publication of the Treasury decision Treasury decision adopting these rules for reconsideration are available in the
adopting these rules as final regulations as final regulations in the Federal docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
in the Federal Register]. For rules that Register]. For reportable gambling OAR–2014–0828.
apply to payments made before that winnings paid on or before [the date of Docket. The EPA has established a
date, see 26 CFR 31.3402(q)–1 (revised publication of the Treasury decision docket for this action under Docket ID
April 2015). adopting these rules as final regulations No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828.
■ Par. 3. Section 31.3406–0 is amended in the Federal Register], § 31.3406(g)– Publicly available docket materials are
by adding an entry for paragraph (h) to 2 (as contained in 26 CFR part 31, available either electronically through
§ 31.3406(g)–2 to read as follows: revised April 2015) applies. http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 31.3406–0 Outline of the backup copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
John Dalrymple, DC), EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
withholding regulations.
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
* * * * * Enforcement. DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
§ 31.3406(g)–2 Exception for reportable [FR Doc. 2016–31579 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am] Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
payments for which backup withholding is BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
otherwise required. excluding legal holidays. The telephone
* * * * * number for the Public Reading Room is
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Dec 29, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_96664/page/1.svg)
![96414 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone from GHG pollution and contributions October 14, 2016 asking the EPA to
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– to such pollution that occur across the reconsider the 2016 Findings with
1742. This action, the petition for nation. respect to the Agency’s treatment of
reconsideration and the EPA’s response Thus, any petition for judicial review biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
addressing the petition can also be of the EPA’s decision to deny the from short-cycle annual herbaceous
found on the EPA’s Web site at https:// petition for reconsideration described in crops. CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) states
www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- this document must be filed in the U.S. that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or
vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-finding- Court of Appeals for the District of procedure which was raised with
greenhouse-gas-emissions-aircraft. Columbia Circuit by February 28, 2017. reasonable specificity during the period
Electronic access. You may access this for public comment (including any
Federal Register document III. Description of Action
On July 25, 2016, EPA Administrator public hearing) may be raised during
electronically from the Government
McCarthy signed the action entitled judicial review. If the person raising an
Printing Office under the ‘‘Federal
Register’’ listings at FDSys (http:// ‘‘Finding that Greenhouse Gas objection can demonstrate to the
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Administrator that it was impracticable
collection.action?collectionCode=FR). Contribute to Air Pollution that May to raise such objection within such time
Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger or if the grounds for such objection
II. Judicial Review arose after the period for public
Public Health and Welfare.’’ That action
Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act included two findings under section comment (but within the time specified
(CAA) indicates which Federal Court of 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. These findings for judicial review) and if such objection
Appeals have venue over petitions for were that: (1) Concentrations of six well- is of central relevance to the outcome of
review of final EPA actions. This section mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the the rule, the Administrator shall
provides, in part, that the petitions for atmosphere endanger the public health convene a proceeding for
review must be filed in the Court of and welfare of current and future reconsideration of the rule and provide
Appeals for the District of Columbia generations (the endangerment finding), the same procedural rights as would
Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists and (2) GHGs emitted from certain have been afforded had the information
of ‘‘nationally applicable regulations classes of engines used in certain been available at the time the rule was
promulgated, or final action taken, by aircraft 1 are contributing to the air proposed.’’
the Administrator;’’ or (ii) such actions pollution—the mix of those six GHGs in
are locally or regionally applicable, if The EPA carefully reviewed the
the atmosphere—that endangers public petition for reconsideration and
‘‘such action is based on a health and welfare (the cause or
determination of nationwide scope or evaluated all the information presented
contribute finding, or contribution
effect and if in taking such action the on the issues raised, along with
finding). The Administrator made these
Administrator finds and publishes that information contained in the docket for
findings using the same definitions of
such action is based on such a the 2016 Findings, in reaching a
‘‘air pollution’’ and ‘‘air pollutant’’ as
determination.’’ decision on the petition. The EPA has
were used in earlier findings under CAA
The EPA has determined that its section 202(a)(1) regarding motor concluded that the petition does not
action denying the petition for vehicle GHG emissions (the 2009 meet the criteria for reconsideration in
reconsideration is nationally applicable Findings), namely the combined mix of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In a letter to
for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) six key well-mixed GHGs: carbon the petitioner, the EPA Administrator,
because it affects the final Finding that dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, Gina McCarthy, denied the petition for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft reconsideration. The letter included an
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that enclosure, a Reconsideration Response
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
May Reasonably Be Anticipated to document entitled ‘‘Response to the
hexafluoride (SF6). While the 2009
Endanger Public Health and Welfare, Biogenic CO2 Coalition’s Petition for
Findings under CAA section 202(a)(1)
and that finding triggers the EPA’s Reconsideration of the Final Finding
relate to GHG emissions from new
statutory duty to promulgate aircraft that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engine emission standards under CAA Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
engines, these findings under CAA
section 231, which are nationally Pollution that May Reasonably Be
section 231(a)(2)(A) relate to GHG
applicable regulations and for which Anticipated to Endanger Public Health
emissions from certain classes of
judicial review will be available only in and Welfare,’’ that articulates in detail
engines used in certain aircraft. These
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District the rationale for the EPA’s final
findings were published in the Federal
of Columbia Circuit. Moreover, EPA
Register on August 15, 2016 (81 FR responses to the petition for
already determined that the subject
54422), and became effective on reconsideration and the EPA
finding was nationally applicable, see
September 14, 2016 (2016 Findings). Administrator’s denial of that petition.
81 FR 54422 (Aug. 15, 2016), and that The Biogenic CO2 Coalition These documents are all available in the
finding has in fact been challenged in
(Petitioner) submitted a petition dated docket for this action.
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. In the alternative, 1 The contribution finding concludes that GHG IV. Conclusion
even if this action were considered to be emissions from certain classes of engines used in
only locally or regionally applicable, the ‘‘U.S. covered aircraft’’ contribute to the air For the reasons discussed in the letter
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Administrator has determined that it pollution that endangers public health and welfare. to the petitioner and the
The finding defines ‘‘U.S. covered aircraft’’ to be Reconsideration Response document,
has nationwide scope and effect within subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum takeoff mass
the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) (MTOM) greater than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic the petition to reconsider the final
both because EPA has determined that propeller driven aircraft (e.g., turboprops) with a Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions
the final finding has nationwide scope MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms. This from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air
contribution finding for engines used in U.S.
and effect within the meaning of CAA covered aircraft results in the vast majority (89
Pollution that May Reasonably Be
section 307(b)(1), see 81 FR 54422 (Aug. percent) of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions being Anticipated to Endanger Public Health
15, 2016), and because it concerns risks included in this determination. and Welfare is denied.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Dec 29, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_96664/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96415
Dated: December 21, 2016. December 22, 2016. The full text of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
Gina McCarthy, Petitions is available for viewing and summary of the Commission’s
Administrator. copying at the FCC Reference document, Report No. 3064, released
[FR Doc. 2016–31644 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am] Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., December 21, 2016. The full text of the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554 Petitions is available for viewing and
or may be accessed online via the copying at the FCC Reference
Commission’s Electronic Comment Information Center, 445 12th Street SW.,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554
COMMISSION ecfs/. The Commission will not send a or may be accessed online via the
copy of this document pursuant to the Commission’s Electronic Comment
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30, and 101 Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/
801(a)(1)(A), because this document ecfs/. The Commission will not send a
[GN Docket No. 14–177, IB Docket Nos. 15– does not have an impact on any rules of copy of this document pursuant to the
256 and 97–95, WT Docket No. 10–112;
Report No. 3065]
particular applicability. Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
Subject: Use of Spectrum Bands 801(a)(1)(A), because this document
Petitions for Reconsideration of Action Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio does not have an impact on any rules of
in Rulemaking Proceeding Services, FCC 16–89, published at 81 FR particular applicability.
79894, November 14, 2016, in GN Subject: 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory
AGENCY: Federal Communications Docket No. 14–177, IB Docket Nos. 15– Review—Review of the Commission’s
Commission. 256 and 97–95, RM–11664, and WT Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other
ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration. Docket No. 10–112. This document is Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202
being published pursuant to 47 CFR of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration
1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and FCC 16–107, published at 81 FR 76220,
(Petitions) have been filed in the
1.429(f), (g). November 1, 2016, in MB Docket Nos.
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding
Number of Petitions Filed: 13. 14–50, 09–182, 07–294, and 04–256.
by Chris Pearson, on behalf of 5G
Federal Communications Commission. This document is being published
Americas; Donald L. Herman, Jr., on
Katura Howard,
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47
behalf of Adams Telcom, Inc., jointly
CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
with Central Texas Communications, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
Number of Petitions Filed: 3.
Inc., E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative,
Louisiana Competitive [FR Doc. 2016–31709 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am] Federal Communications Commission.
Telecommunications, Inc., and Pine Belt BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Katura Howard,
Communications, Inc.; Audrey L. Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Allison, on behalf of The Boeing Secretary.
Company; Steven K. Berry, on behalf of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS [FR Doc. 2016–31708 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am]
Competitive Carriers Association; Brian COMMISSION BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
M. Josef, on behalf of CTIA; Giselle
Creeser, on behalf of Inmarsat, Inc., 47 CFR Part 73
jointly with Jennifer A. Manner, on DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
behalf of EchoStar Satellite Operating [MB Docket Nos. 14–50, 09–182, 07–294,
Corporation and Hughes Network and 04–256; Report No. 3064] National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Systems LLC; Rick Chessen, on behalf of Administration
NTCA—The Internet & Television Petitions for Reconsideration of Action
Association; Michele C. Farquhar, on in Rulemaking Proceeding
50 CFR Part 217
behalf of Nextlink Wireless, LLC; Petra AGENCY: Federal Communications
Vorwig, on behalf of SES Americom, Commission. [Docket No. 160929897–6897–01]
Inc., jointly with Suzanne Malloy, on ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration. RIN 0648–BG37
behalf of O3b Limited; Tom Stroup, on
behalf of Satellite Industry Association; SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration Taking and Importing Marine
James Reid, on behalf of (Petitions) have been filed in the Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Telecommunications Industry Commission’s rulemaking proceeding Incidental to Russian River Estuary
Association; Steve B. Sharkey, on behalf by David Oxenford and Kelly Donohue, Management Activities
of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and Christopher on behalf of Connoisseur Media, LLC.;
Murphy, on behalf of ViaSat, Inc. Richard J. Bodorff et al., on behalf of AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.; and Rick Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
be filed on or before January 17, 2017. Kaplan et al., on behalf of National Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Replies to an opposition must be filed Association of Broadcasters. Commerce.
on or before January 24, 2017. DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions ACTION: Proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications must be filed on or before January 17, SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request
Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 2017. Replies to an opposition must be from the Sonoma County Water Agency
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Washington, DC 20554. filed on or before January 24, 2017. (SCWA) for authorization to take marine
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John ADDRESSES: Federal Communications mammals incidental to Russian River
Schauble, Wireless Telecommunications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., estuary management activities in
Bureau, (202) 418–0797; email: Washington, DC 20554. Sonoma County, California, over the
John.Schauble@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: course of five years (2017–2022). As
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Benjamin Arden, Media Bureau, (202) required by the Marine Mammal
summary of the Commission’s 418–2605; email: Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
document, Report No. 3065, released Benjamin.Arden@fcc.gov. proposing regulations to govern that
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Dec 29, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_96664/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-30 05:16:20
Document Modified: 2016-12-30 05:16:20
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of final action denying petition for reconsideration. | |
| Dates | The EPA took final action to deny the petition for reconsideration on December 21, 2016. | |
| Contact | Lesley Jantarasami, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mail Code 6207-A, Washington DC | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 96413 | |
| CFR Citation | 40
CFR
1068 40 CFR 87 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR