| Page Range | 55105-55349 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 55240 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Amended Notice | |
| 81 FR 55109 - Delegation of Authority Under Section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 | |
| 81 FR 55107 - Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Colombia | |
| 81 FR 55202 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55105 - Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act | |
| 81 FR 55231 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 81 FR 55153 - Hunting and Fishing | |
| 81 FR 55190 - Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System Supervision Programs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Rhode Island and the State of Vermont | |
| 81 FR 55194 - Lambda-Cyhalothrin; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment | |
| 81 FR 55156 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, R307-300 Series; Area Source Rules for Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter Standards | |
| 81 FR 55258 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “A Feast for the Senses: Art and Experience in Medieval Europe” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 55258 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Monumental Lhasa: Fortress, Palace, Temple” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 55191 - Pesticide Product Registrations; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
| 81 FR 55256 - California Disaster #CA-00250 | |
| 81 FR 55256 - Maryland Disaster #MD-00033 | |
| 81 FR 55195 - Pesticide Product Registrations; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
| 81 FR 55192 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses and New Active Ingredients | |
| 81 FR 55256 - Wisconsin Disaster #WI-00052 | |
| 81 FR 55188 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 55187 - Benton Falls Associates, New York LP, Everett E. Whitman; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 81 FR 55187 - Innovative Solar 31, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 55186 - Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 55185 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 81 FR 55189 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Supply Header Project | |
| 81 FR 55189 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 81 FR 55181 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement | |
| 81 FR 55258 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Francis Picabia: Our Heads Are Round so Our Thoughts Can Change Direction” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 55259 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 81 FR 55200 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Emergency Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 81 FR 55166 - Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 81 FR 55152 - Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus | |
| 81 FR 55199 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 81 FR 55257 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Spreading Canvas: Eighteenth-Century British Marine Painting” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 55166 - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 81 FR 55184 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Flood Risk Management Project for the Souris River Basin, North Dakota | |
| 81 FR 55171 - Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health; Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55202 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 55203 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 81 FR 55235 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Earth Science Subcommittee; Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55171 - Notice of Request for a Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Tuberculosis | |
| 81 FR 55206 - Meeting Announcement for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee Required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 | |
| 81 FR 55204 - Meeting Announcement for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports | |
| 81 FR 55237 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 | |
| 81 FR 55231 - Large Residential Washers From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation | |
| 81 FR 55226 - Notice of Federal Competitive Coal Lease Sale, Greens Hollow Tract, Utah (Coal Lease Application UTU-84102) | |
| 81 FR 55182 - The Incentives, Benefits, Costs, and Challenges to IPv6 Implementation | |
| 81 FR 55260 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 55170 - Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics; Notice of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55185 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
| 81 FR 55258 - Kokomo Rail Co., Inc.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Indian Creek Railroad Company | |
| 81 FR 55223 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 81 FR 55172 - Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) | |
| 81 FR 55180 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55181 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 81 FR 55175 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar | |
| 81 FR 55241 - Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Matching Program-United States Postal Service and the Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense | |
| 81 FR 55225 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Nebraska and Wyoming | |
| 81 FR 55241 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 81 FR 55233 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Allseen Alliance, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 55233 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Automotive Security Review Board, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 55240 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 81 FR 55233 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 55166 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9 | |
| 81 FR 55227 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 81 FR 55173 - White River National Forest; Eagle County, CO; Berlaimont Estates Access Route EIS | |
| 81 FR 55146 - Safety Zone; Tall Ships Duluth 2016-Giant Duck, Lake Superior, Duluth, MN | |
| 81 FR 55241 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 81 FR 55241 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 81 FR 55240 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 81 FR 55174 - Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee: Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 55234 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Telemanagement Forum | |
| 81 FR 55199 - Order Declares JuBe Communications, LLC's International Section 214 Authorization Terminated | |
| 81 FR 55245 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7018 | |
| 81 FR 55254 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures | |
| 81 FR 55251 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt a New Fee in Section V (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule | |
| 81 FR 55247 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Change to the Underlying Index for the PowerShares Build America Bond Portfolio | |
| 81 FR 55202 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council | |
| 81 FR 55208 - Fogarty International Center; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55180 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 55209 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 55207 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55224 - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 55177 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar | |
| 81 FR 55210 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55209 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55149 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 81 FR 55150 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 81 FR 55214 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55212 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55213 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55216 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55222 - Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 81 FR 55206 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS | |
| 81 FR 55218 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55220 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 55205 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria | |
| 81 FR 55203 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 55183 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 55235 - Revisions to Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Guidance for NRC Staff | |
| 81 FR 55257 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy | |
| 81 FR 55155 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers | |
| 81 FR 55161 - Harmonizing and Streamlining Rules Concerning Requirements for Licensees to Overcome a CMRS Presumption | |
| 81 FR 55194 - Notice of Availability of Draft NPDES General Permits for Remediation Activity Discharges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire: The Remediation General Permit | |
| 81 FR 55185 - Electricity Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 55207 - Proposed Collection, 60-Day Comment Request: Certificate of Confidentiality Electronic Application System (OD) | |
| 81 FR 55235 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 55133 - Tax on Certain Foreign Procurement | |
| 81 FR 55148 - Federal Management Regulation; Nondiscrimination Clarification in the Federal Workplace | |
| 81 FR 55228 - Potential Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore California-Request for Interest | |
| 81 FR 55111 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Correction | |
| 81 FR 55265 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Acuña Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus | |
| 81 FR 55196 - Notice of Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for the Eastern Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (GEG460000); Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment | |
| 81 FR 55115 - Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Licensed or Permitted Launch and Reentry Activities | |
| 81 FR 55315 - Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; technical correction.
On June 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
On June 8, 2016, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published a test procedure final rule in the
As part of that final rule, DOE amended 10 CFR 429.16, which addresses certification of central air conditioners and heat pumps, and 10 CFR 429.70, which addresses alternate efficiency determination methods. This correction addresses editorial errors in § 429.16(a)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2), and (e)(4). Specifically, at § 429.16(a)(1), DOE included a cross reference to paragraph (c)(2) that should have referred to paragraph (b)(2)(i). In § 429.16(d)(1) and (2), DOE mistakenly transposed the words “less” and “greater.” At § 429.16(e)(4), DOE erroneously referred to cubic feet per minute (cfm) instead of cubic feet per minute of standard air (scfm). At § 429.16(e)(4)(viii), DOE failed to remove regulatory text associated with changes to the test procedure for variable speed heat pumps not adopted in the June 2016 final rule that had been proposed on November 9, 2015 in a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (“November 2015 SNOPR”). 80 FR 69278. In order to remedy these errors, DOE is issuing this final rule correction to revise the text in these sections.
In addition, the June 2016 final rule revised appendix M to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix M”), which specifies the “Uniform Test Method for the Measurement the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.” This correction also addresses several editorial errors in appendix M.
In section 3.11.1 of appendix M, “If using the outdoor air enthalpy method as the secondary test method,” DOE erroneously numbered two subsections with the number “3.11.1.1.” The second of these two is renumbered to “3.11.1.2.”
In section 4.1 of appendix M, “Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) Calculations,” DOE erroneously numbered subsection 4.1.3 as “4.1.2.3,” which propagated errors in numbering from that point through the end of section 4.1 and created erroneous cross-references to these sections. Section 4.1.2.3 is renumbered as section “4.1.3,” and the following section numbers through the end of section 4.1 are renumbered accordingly. Additionally, cross-references to the renumbered sections are revised.
Sections 2.11 and 3.19 of appendix M contain errors in the tolerance allowed between temperature measurements. The preamble to the June 2016 final rule states that the maximum allowable temperature difference is 2.0 °F and that it applies to the average measurements for the test period. 81 FR 36991, 37028 (June 8, 2016). In section 2.11, DOE erroneously referred to “maximum difference between readings” rather than adding the clarification discussed in the preamble that “readings” referred to the average temperatures measured during the test period. In section 3.1.9, DOE similarly failed to include the clarifying information on the tolerance and erroneously provided a tolerance of 1.5 °F rather than 2.0 °F. DOE is correcting section 2.11 accordingly and correcting 3.1.9 to refer directly to section 2.11 rather than correcting the provided tolerance.
Tables 8, 9, 15, 16, and 17 of appendix M contained various errors in testing tolerances for external resistance to airflow, airflow nozzle pressure difference, and electric voltage. In the preamble of the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE explained its intention to maintain the external resistance to airflow tolerance at 0.05 inches of water, to maintain the airflow nozzle pressure difference tolerance at 2.0%, and to maintain the electric voltage tolerance at 2.0%. 81 FR 36991, 37036 (June 8, 2016). However, this was not reflected in tables 8, 9, 15, 16 and 17 of appendix M, and the tables are revised to reflect these corrections.
In section 3.13.1.d of appendix M,
Finally, many of the instructions in the final rule that indicate that a default cyclic degradation coefficient is to be used if the tests to determine this value are not conducted, but erroneously did
As published, the adopted test procedure text may potentially result in confusion regarding how to correctly conduct DOE's central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure.
Because this final rule would simply correct errors in the regulatory text without making substantive changes to the test procedures, the changes addressed in this document are technical in nature. Accordingly, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the June 8, 2016 test procedure final rule remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the June 8, 2016 final rule. 81 FR 36992.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Energy conservation test procedures, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The revisions and additions read as follows.
Monitor the temperatures of the air entering the outdoor coil using air sampling devices and/or temperature sensor grids, maintaining the required tolerances, if applicable, as described in section 2.11 of this appendix.
This set of tests is for single-speed-compressor units that do not have a cooling minimum air volume rate or a cooling intermediate air volume rate that is different than the cooling full load air volume rate. Conduct two steady-state wet coil tests, the A and B Tests. Use the two optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state C Test and the cyclic D Test, to determine the cooling mode cyclic degradation coefficient, C
d. * * * If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a tested C
d. * * *
h. * * *
* * * If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a tested C
b. Conduct the optional high temperature cyclic test (H1C
a. * * *
* * * If the optional cyclic test is conducted but yields a tested C
f. * * *
b. * * * Evaluate the cooling mode cyclic degradation factor C
c. * * * Evaluate the cooling mode cyclic degradation factor C
Obtain the fractional bin hours for the cooling season, n
* * * Evaluate the cooling mode cyclic degradation factor C
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is amending its commercial space regulations governing reciprocal waivers of claims to require that customers waive claims against all the customers involved in a launch or reentry, including those signing a different set of reciprocal waivers. Also, customers of a customer contracting directly with a licensee or permittee will not have to sign a waiver directly with the licensee or permittee, other customers, or the FAA. The FAA is also adding an appendix to provide permittees with an example of a Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Permitted Activities with No Customer.
Effective October 17, 2016.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How To Obtain Additional Information” in the
For questions concerning this rule, contact Shirley McBride, Regulations Program Lead, AST-300, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7470; email
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (Chapter 509), authorizes the Department of Transportation and thus the FAA, through delegations, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50904, 50905. The Act directs the FAA to exercise this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50905. Section 50901(a)(7) directs the FAA to regulate only to the extent necessary, in relevant part, to protect the public health and safety and safety of property. The FAA is also responsible for encouraging, facilitating, and promoting commercial space launches by the private sector. 51 U.S.C. 50903.
Chapter 509 requires that, for each commercial space launch or reentry, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and, through delegation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement with “the licensee or transferee, contractors, subcontractors, crew, space flight participants, and customers of the licensee or transferee, and contractors and subcontractors of the customers. . . .” 51 U.S.C. 50914(b)(2). This requirement also applies to permittees under 51 U.S.C. 50906(i).
This rule revises part 440 in the following ways: (1) Amends § 440.17 to describe fully the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements applicable to the relevant appendices; (2) amends § 440.17 and updates appendices B and C so that customers of any customer contracting directly with a licensee or permittee do not have to sign a waiver directly with the licensee or permittee, other customers, or the FAA; (3) amends § 440.17 and updates appendices B and C of part 440 so that customers waive claims, as required by statute, against all the customers involved in the launch or reentry, including those signing a different set of reciprocal waivers; (4) amends § 440.3 to add a definition of “first-tier customer” and “part 440 customer”; and (5) adds an appendix to provide licensees with an example of a Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Permitted Activities with No Customer.
These changes will result in cost savings to the licensee, government and customers, and minimal cost to any customer in a direct contractual relationship with the licensee or permittee if it has customers to the launch. This rule does not address changes to the reciprocal waiver of claims created by the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, P.L. 114-90 (2015). Those changes will be addressed by a future rulemaking.
On January 13, 2015, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Licensed or Permitted Launch and Reentry Activities,” 80 FR 1590, proposing to amend the FAA's regulations regarding reciprocal waivers of claims agreements. The NPRM also discussed the potential burden the reciprocal waivers of claims requirements may impose on licensees and permittees launching hosted payloads. The comment period closed on March 16, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the FAA reopened the comment period for 30 days because the regulatory evaluation was not posted to the docket prior to the close of the NPRM's comment period. This second comment period was limited to comments on the regulatory evaluation only, and closed on July 15, 2015. The FAA received five comments on the NPRM and no comments on the regulatory evaluation.
The FAA received comments from five entities, including launch operators, service providers, and one individual. Launch operators who provided comments are Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin), Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed), and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). Harris Corporation (Harris) and an individual also commented.
In general, the commenters supported the proposed requirements. A few commenters suggested changes to the proposed regulatory text in order to achieve the FAA's proposed outcome. After careful consideration of the comments, the FAA generally adopts the provisions as proposed, but makes the following changes. The FAA amends § 440.17(b) and (c) and part 440, appendices B and C, to include part 440 customers and their contractors and subcontractors in the reciprocal waiver of claims scheme. The FAA adds § 440.17(c)(1)(iii)(D) to preserve the statutory and regulatory requirements that all customers waive claims against all the other parties involved in the licensed permitted activity. Lastly, the FAA removes permittees from the indemnification scheme reserved by statute for licensees only, thereby maintaining the scope of the indemnification scheme as set out in 51 U.S.C. 50915.
As originally proposed, § 440.17(c) is amended to require the FAA, the licensee or permittee, and each first-tier customer to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement for each licensed or permitted activity in which the U.S. Government, any agency, or its contractors and subcontractors are involved, or where property insurance is required under § 440.9(d). Additionally, as proposed, § 440.3 is amended to define the terms “first-tier customer” and “part 440 customer.” A first-tier customer is one who satisfies the definition of a customer and has a contractual relationship with a license or permit holder to obtain launch or reentry services. A part 440 customer means one who satisfies the regulatory definition of a customer and who is not a first-tier customer. Blue Origin requested that the FAA clarify how a licensee or permittee should identify its customers under the proposed rule. The FAA adopts these provisions as proposed, and provides further clarification below.
Blue Origin requested clarification on how the requirement to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement with each first-tier customer would apply to a situation in which a first-tier customer was a single entity representing a group of persons. Blue Origin stated that it “interprets the proposal to require that only the single entity representing the group will be required to sign a reciprocal waiver with the licensee/permittee and FAA.”
An entity's status as the representative of a group is not the determining factor as to whether or not that entity is required to sign a reciprocal waiver with the licensee or permittee and the FAA. Rather, a licensee or permittee is only required to enter into a reciprocal waiver with customers with whom it is in a contractual relationship.
To determine the entities with which it must execute a reciprocal waiver, the licensee or permittee should determine what entities it has contracted with for the licensed or permitted activity who also qualify as customers under 14 CFR 440.3. Accordingly, if a licensee entered into a contract with a number of entities for launch or reentry services, it would enter into reciprocal waivers with each of them.
Blue Origin provided a hypothetical scenario in which a school, university research lab, or other educational institution represented a group of students that contributed to the development of a payload. In this hypothetical situation, the single entity representing the group
Blue Origin also expressed concern regarding how a licensee or permittee will determine who its customers are. Specifically, Blue Origin pointed out that determining whether each party has an interest in the payload is complicated by the fact that “people have varying levels of involvement (
The FAA is not changing the definition of “customer” under § 440.3 in this rulemaking. However, the burden of identifying part 440 customers does shift with this rule, not to the licensee or permittee as Blue Origin suggests, but to the appropriate first-tier customer. This is because under this rule a licensee or permittee is responsible for implementing a reciprocal waiver of claims only with those customers with whom it is in a direct contractual relationship. A first-tier customer, as a result of this rule, will be responsible for implementing a reciprocal waiver of claims with each of its customers.
Although it is not changing the definition of customer under § 440.3, the FAA reiterates what it has said about the definition of customer in previous rulemakings. In its 1996 rulemaking, the FAA pointed out that it construes the term customer in proposed § 440.3 more broadly than just “the party that actually contracts with the commercial launch services provider and prospective licensee.”
The FAA's definition of customer, therefore, as applied to Blue Origin's hypothetical, would be based on ownership rights in the payload rather than the level of involvement in developing the payload. For example, a person may build a payload and sell it to a company. The company may then place that payload on board a rocket. The builder has no ownership rights in the payload, and therefore would not be a customer under § 440.3. The company who purchased, and therefore owns the payload, would be a customer under § 440.3. The person facing financial exposure for failing to properly identify these other non-signing customers would be the first-tier customer.
A Government customer need not sign a reciprocal waiver of claims because the FAA signs the reciprocal waiver of claims on behalf of the Government. Although, the proposed rule did not mention Government customers, Harris Corporation requested clarification on the treatment of Government-hosted payload customers on commercial payloads launched pursuant to Chapter 509. The FAA makes no change based on this comment.
Specifically, Harris asked whether the FAA would sign the waiver form on behalf of a Government customer, whether a Government customer could be considered a part 440 customer, and whether a Government customer's contractor would be considered a contractor of the United States for purposes of § 440.14(c). As the agency has stated in previous rulemakings, “[w]hen the licensee's customer is a U.S. Government agency, the agency is treated the same as any nongovernmental customer for purposes of determining the appropriate amount of property insurance required of the licensee and in terms of the U.S. Government's waiver of claims or property damage or less above the required amount of property insurance under [51 U.S.C. 50914(b)(2)]. That is, a Government payload is not covered by the required Government property insurance and the United States Government agency-customer accepts responsibility for property damage to the payload.”
Because the FAA signs on behalf of the U.S. Government, any Government customer would not separately sign any reciprocal waiver of claims. The designation as a part 440 customer does not change a customer's responsibilities under the reciprocal waivers of claims, it only affects with whom the customer must sign a reciprocal waiver of claims. A Government customer's status as a first-tier or part 440 customer does not
As to Harris' last question concerning whether a contractor of a Government customer would be considered a contractor of the United States for purposes of § 440.14(c), it is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. Additionally, the FAA notes that § 440.14(c) is not currently a regulatory provision.
The FAA intended to amend only the method by which the obligations under the reciprocal waiver of claims were extended. Rather than requiring the licensee or permittee to implement the reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors, subcontractors, customers, and customers' contractors and subcontractors, this rule requires that each customer extend the reciprocal waiver of claims to its contractors and subcontractors. Although it did not receive comment on the issue, the FAA adds the extension of the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to § 440.17(b) to require the licensee or permittee, each first-tier customer, and each part 440 customer to extend the requirements to their respective contractors and subcontractors. Therefore, and as discussed below, a part 440 customer must waive and release claims, assume responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnify other parties identified in the waiver as a result of both the explicit requirement in § 440.17(c)(1)(iii)(D) and the extension of the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements in § 440.17(c)(2) and (c)(1)(iii).
Additionally, the FAA adds language to § 440.17(c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii), and the associated part 440 appendices specifying that a party to a reciprocal waiver of claims must agree in that waiver to indemnify another party to the agreement from claims by the indemnifying party's contractors, subcontractors, and in the case of the customer, customers, arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to correctly extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirement. This change was contemplated by the proposed rule, and preserves the requirements of this section prior to the amendments included in this final rule.
SpaceX commented that the proposed rule did not effectively extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to a part 440 customer's contractors and subcontractors such that those contractors and subcontractors waived claims against all other parties otherwise protected by the reciprocal waiver of claims. SpaceX also commented that the appendices should be adjusted to state that a first-tier customer indemnifies the appropriate parties from and against liability, loss, or damage arising out of any claim brought by its customer's contractors and subcontractors. Harris commented that § 440.17(b) should be revised to include part 440 customers and their contractors and subcontractors in the waiver scheme to ensure that the parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims waive claims against them. In this rule the FAA changes § 440.17 to apply to part 440 customers' contractors and subcontractors, but does not adopt SpaceX's proposed language for the appendices. This marks a change from the regulatory text that the FAA originally proposed, based on comments discussed below.
SpaceX recommended additions to proposed § 440.17 and the associated appendices “to ensure that the regulations maintain the current obligations of all customers' contractors and subcontractors with respect to the licensee/permittee.”
After considering the comments, the FAA has decided to make changes to the regulatory text to preserve the intent of this rulemaking and Chapter 509. Accordingly, § 440.17(b) and (c) require that each customer extends the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to the customer's contractors and subcontractors. The reciprocal waiver of claims requires that the contractors and subcontractors of each customer waive and release claims, assume responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnify other parties identified in the waiver, including the licensee or permittee. This rule explicitly requires the licensee or permittee, each first-tier customer, and each part 440 customer to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to their contractors, subcontractors and customers.
The FAA notes, however, that SpaceX recommended changing the text in each of the appendices to part 440 at section 4(b) to read: “Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver . . . respectively, to its Contractors, Subcontractors, customers, and such customers' contractors and subcontractors . . . .” The FAA is not adopting this suggested change for two reasons. First, this suggested language misappropriates the responsibility to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements. Under SpaceX's proposed language, each first-tier customer would be required to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to its customers' contractors and subcontractors. Instead, this rule requires each customer to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to its contractors and subcontractors, but not to its customers' contractors and subcontractors. This is consistent with the previous version of the part 440 appendices. Second, this language is unnecessary because the extension of responsibilities in § 440.17(b)(2) and (3) and (c)(1)(iii) created by this rulemaking ensure that a part 440 customer extends to the customer's contractors and subcontractors the requirements of the reciprocal waiver of claims, which include waiving and releasing claims, assuming responsibility, and holding harmless and indemnifying other parties identified in the waiver,
(1) Under § 440.17 and the part 440 appendices, a first-tier customer must waive and release claims, assume responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnify other parties identified in the waiver, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a) of the appendices. Additionally, a first-tier customer must extend each of these requirements to its
(2) Because a first-tier customer must extend the requirements of the waiver, including the requirement to extend the waiver, to its customers, it follows that its customers will have the same obligation as a first-tier customer under the waiver.
(3) Therefore, because of the extension of responsibilities, a first-tier customer's customers will be required, in turn, to extend the waiver requirements to their contractors, subcontractors and customers. Additionally, § 440.17(b)(3) and (c)(1)(iii) explicitly require that each part 440 customer extends the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to its contractors and subcontractors.
Lastly, Harris pointed out that the absence of part 440 customers and their contractors and subcontractors in proposed § 440.17(b) exposes these parties to liability that represents a departure from Chapter 509. The FAA agrees, and this rule requires parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims described in § 440.17(b) to waive claims against part 440 customers and their contractors and subcontractors.
In its comment, Harris also noted that the FAA overlooked explicitly requiring each part 440 customer to comply with the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements. Therefore, the FAA now adds an explicit requirement in addition to the extension of requirements provisions in order to clarify that each part 440 customer must enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. This marks a change from the regulatory text that the FAA originally proposed.
Harris commented that proposed § 440.17(b) and (c) would not have ensured that part 440 customers waive claims against the other parties included in the waiver scheme. Harris further asserted that the purpose behind the waiver scheme is “(1) [t]o limit the total universe of claims that might arise as a result of a launch; and (2) to eliminate the necessity for all of these parties to obtain property and casualty insurance to protect against these claims.”
The FAA agrees. Under Chapter 509 and the FAA's current rules, the licensee or permittee is required to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims with all customers and their respective contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services. In other words, each customer must waive and release claims, assume responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnify other parties identified in the waiver. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require only first-tier customers to sign a reciprocal waiver of claims with the FAA and the licensee or permittee. By separating first-tier customers from part 440 customers, the proposed rule did not explicitly require part 440 customers to waive and release claims, assume responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnify other parties identified in the waiver. Instead, these requirements were implied by the extension of requirements in which a first-tier customer is required to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to its customers, contractors, and subcontractors. Because commenters expressed some confusion about the requirements, the FAA amends § 440.17(b) and adds § 440.17(c)(1)(iii)(D) to explicitly require that part 440 customers waive claims against all the other parties involved in the licensed activity.
As stated previously, these requirements levied on part 440 customers also exist as a result of the extension of the reciprocal waiver of claims that is required by § 440.17(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(1)(iii). By shifting the responsibility to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims from the licensee or permittee to the appropriate customer, the burden to indemnify also shifts. Therefore, should a customer fail to extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to its customer, and its customer bring a claim against a party involved in the launch, the customer who failed to extend would be required to indemnify that party against its customer's claim. This represents a shift from the old scheme in which all customers signed the reciprocal waiver of claims, and therefore no one would be required to indemnify against a customer's claim unless the licensee failed to identify a customer and ensure that that customer signed the reciprocal waiver of claims.
This rule does not change the indemnification scheme created by 51 U.S.C. 50915. Chapter 509 provides that the United States Government shall pay for a successful third party claim to the extent the claim exceeds the insurance coverage required by statute but does not exceed the statutory limit for such coverage, provided Congress appropriates the funds.
Although it received no comments on the issue, the FAA has identified an error in the proposed rule that it corrects with the final rule. In the proposed rule, the FAA would have included permittees in the indemnification scheme reserved by statute for licensees only. Because this error would create a conflict with the FAA's statutory authority, which the FAA did not intend, the FAA has amended the regulatory text in this final rule to comply with Chapter 509 by removing permittees from the section 50915 indemnification scheme.
This rule includes a new § 440.17(f) to include all provisions related to willful misconduct. The NPRM did not propose changing the willful misconduct provisions, and this rule also does not change those provisions but located them in § 440.17(f) for clarity.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below. As we received no comments on the benefit cost methodology, we used the same methodology here.
These changes will result in cost savings to the licensee or permittee, Government and customers and minimal cost to the first-tier customer if it has customers to the launch.
Cost savings are presented in the table below, which is discussed in more detail in the paragraphs that follow.
The final rule might result in minimal costs to first-tier customers who will be responsible for implementing reciprocal waivers of claims with their customers.
The following assumptions apply to the analysis:
The final rule will result in cost savings because licensees and permittees will no longer have to obtain signatures of part 440 customers on the reciprocal waiver of claims. Cost savings may result because licensees and permittees will not have to incur expenses to obtain part 440 signatures or licensees and permittees will not seek waivers from the FAA to the requirement that part 440 customers sign the reciprocal waiver of claims. The estimated cost savings to the licensee, permittee, and the Federal Government that will result were indicated in the table above.
Also, the FAA estimated a small cost savings due to the final rule allowing a customer added at the last minute to sign a new and separate waiver of claims agreement.
Finally, the FAA expects minimal cost savings with the addition of a template for permitted activities with no customer.
The responsibility to obtain signatures of customers who are not in a direct contractual relationship (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA believes that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of entities because the rule will result in cost savings and some minimal costs as described below. The FAA solicited comments in the NPRM regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis minimal cost determination, and received none. As we made the same determination for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, we accept this determination for the final regulatory flexibility analysis. The reasons for the minimal cost determination are provided below.
Cost savings are expected because the licensee or permittee will no longer have to request waivers or obtain part 440 customers' signatures, nor have to reopen the original waivers to obtain signatures if a party is added to the launch at the last minute. However, there might be minimal costs to first-tier customers. The responsibility to obtain signatures of customers who are not in a direct contractual relationship (
Under the final rule, the first-tier customers will be responsible, as described above, for implementing a reciprocal waiver of claims with their customers. These costs will be minimal because the first-tier customer could modify the templates provided in appendices B and C to part 440 and add it to the contract that it has with its customers. The FAA thinks that this will be a one-time cost that could be accomplished in a short period of time by the company's in-house lawyers at an estimated cost of $185.
It is not clear whether this minimal cost will impact a substantial number of small entities. To date, the FAA is unaware of any small entities who would be affected. The agency does not know whether in the future there might be small entities, that will have to implement a reciprocal waiver of claims with their customers, but even if there were a substantial number of small entities, the final rule will not have a significant impact on these entities.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Comments received may be viewed by going to
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Indemnity payments, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
(b) The licensee or permittee and each of its contractors and subcontractors, each customer, and each customer's contractors and subcontractors, must enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement under which each party waives and releases claims against all the other parties to the waiver and against any other customer, and agrees to assume financial responsibility for property damage it sustains and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, and to hold harmless and indemnify each other from bodily injury or property damage sustained by its employees, resulting from a licensed or permitted activity, regardless of fault.
(1) The licensee or permittee must extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to each of its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services, and each of its first-tier customers.
(2) Any first-tier customer must extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to each of its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services, and each of its customers.
(3) Any part 440 customer must extend the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements to each of its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services, and each of its customers.
(c) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States, or its contractors and subcontractors, is involved or where property insurance is required under § 440.9(d), the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, the licensee or permittee, and each first-tier customer must enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The reciprocal waiver of claims must be in the form set forth in appendix B of this part for a licensed activity, in appendix C of this part for a permitted activity, or in a form that otherwise provides all the same obligations and benefits. The reciprocal waiver of claims must provide that:
(1) Each party to the reciprocal waiver of claims, including the United States but only to the extent provided in legislation:
(i) Waives and releases claims it may have against each other party to the reciprocal waiver of claims, any customer, and against their respective contractors and subcontractors, for property damage it sustains and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(ii) Assumes responsibility for property damage it sustains and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault. A licensee or permittee and each first-tier customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the contractors and subcontractors of each for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault; and
(iii) Extends the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, to its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch and reentry services, and, for each customer, to its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch and reentry services, and customers, by
(A) For each contractor and subcontractor of the licensee or permittee, all claims against any customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible for property damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify any customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault;
(B) For each contractor and subcontractor of any customer, all claims against the licensee or permittee, any other customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible for property damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify the licensee or permittee, any other customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault;
(C) For each contractor and subcontractor of the United States, all claims against the licensee or permittee, any customer, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible for property damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify the licensee or permittee, any other customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e);
(D) For each part 440 customer, all claims against the licensee or permittee, any other customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors; and to agree to be responsible for property damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify the licensee or permittee, any other customer, the United States, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault; and
(2) For the following parties—
(i) The licensee or permittee must hold harmless and indemnify each first-tier customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any part 440 customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that any of licensee's or permittee's contractors and subcontractors may have for property damage sustained by them and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement. The requirement of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section to hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, does not apply when:
(A) Claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents;
(B) Claims for property damage sustained by the United States or its contractors and subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e);
(C) For licensed activity, claims by a third party for bodily injury or property damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c), and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19; or
(D) The licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c).
(ii) Each first-tier customer must hold harmless and indemnify the licensee or permittee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any part 440 customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that any of each first-tier customer's customers, contractors, or subcontractors, may have for property damage sustained by them and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(iii) The Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation on behalf of the United States, but only to the extent provided in legislation, must hold harmless and indemnify the licensee or permittee, each first-tier customer, any part 440 customer, and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that contractors and subcontractors of the United States may have for property damage sustained by them and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by their employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e).
(d) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States or its contractors and subcontractors are involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each space flight participant must enter into or have in place a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The reciprocal waiver of claims must be in the form set forth in appendix E of this part, or in a form that otherwise provides all the same obligations and benefits.
(1) The reciprocal waiver of claims must provide that each space flight participant:
(i) Waive and release claims he or she may have against the United States, and against each of its contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by the space flight participant, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(ii) Assume responsibility for bodily injury or property damage, sustained by the space flight participant, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(iii) Hold harmless the United States, and its contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage, sustained by the space flight participant,
(iv) Hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss, or damage arising out of claims brought by anyone for property damage or bodily injury sustained by the space flight participant, resulting from licensed or permitted activities.
(2) The reciprocal waiver of claims must provide that the United States:
(i) Waive and release claims it may have against the space flight participant for property damage it sustains, and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(ii) Assume responsibility for property damage it sustains, and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively;
(iii) Assume responsibility for property damage it sustains, resulting from permitted activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e);
(iv) Extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility to its contractors and subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against the space flight participant, and to agree to be responsible, for any property damage they sustain and for any bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault; and
(v) Extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility to its contractors and subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against the space flight participant, and to agree to be responsible, for any property damage they sustain, resulting from permitted activities, regardless of fault.
(e) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the United States or its contractors and subcontractors is involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each crew member must enter into or have in place a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The reciprocal waiver of claims must be in the form set forth in appendix D of this part, or in a form that otherwise provides all the same obligations and benefits.
(1) The reciprocal waiver of claims must provide that each crew member:
(i) Waive and release claims he or she may have against the United States, and against each of its contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage sustained by the crew member, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(ii) Assume responsibility for bodily injury or property damage, sustained by the crew member, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(iii) Hold harmless the United States, and its contractors and subcontractors, for bodily injury or property damage, sustained by the crew member, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault; and
(iv) Hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss, or damage arising out of claims brought by anyone for property damage or bodily injury sustained by the crew member, resulting from licensed or permitted activities.
(2) The reciprocal waiver of claims must provide that the United States:
(i) Waive and release claims it may have against the crew member for property damage it sustains, and for bodily injury, including death, or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed or permitted activities, regardless of fault;
(ii) Assume responsibility for property damage it sustains, and for bodily injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively;
(iii) Assume responsibility for property damage it sustains, resulting from permitted activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e);
(iv) Extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility to its contractors and subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against the crew member and to agree to be responsible, for any property damage they sustain and for any bodily injury or property damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from licensed activities, regardless of fault; and
(v) Extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility to its contractors and subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against the crew member and to agree to be responsible, for any property damage they sustain, resulting from permitted activities, regardless of fault.
(f) Any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify pursuant to this section does not apply to claims for bodily injury or property damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims, the contractors and subcontractors of any of the parties to the reciprocal waiver of claims, and in the case of licensee or permittee and customers and the contractors and subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
This agreement is entered into this__day of____, by and among [Licensee] (the “Licensee”), [Customer] (the “Customer”) and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the “Parties”), to implement the provisions of § 440.17(c) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the “Regulations”). This agreement applies to the launch of [Payload] payload on a [Launch Vehicle] vehicle at [Location of Launch Site]. In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
(a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee and Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault. Licensee and Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440 Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Licensee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, or customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(c) To the extent provided in advance in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may have for Property Damage sustained by them, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Licensee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customer, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
(a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Each Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee and each Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault. Licensee and each Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Each Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify each Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any part 440 customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against
(b) Each Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that each Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, or customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(c) To the extent provided in advance in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may have for Property Damage sustained by them, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, any Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Licensee, any Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customer, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) References herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
This Agreement is entered into this __ day of ____, by and among [Licensee] (the “Licensee”), [Customer] (the “Customer”), and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the “Parties”), to implement the provisions of § 440.17(c) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the “Regulations”). This agreement applies to the reentry of the [Payload] payload on a [Reentry Vehicle] vehicle.
In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
(a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee and Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440 Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Licensee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, or customers may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(c) To the extent provided in advance in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may have for Property Damage sustained by them, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Licensee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customer, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Licensee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
In Witness Whereof, the Parties to this Agreement have caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.
In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
(a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Each Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee and each Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault. Licensee and each Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Each Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, the United States, and any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify each Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440 Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Licensee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(b) Each Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and the United States and any other customer as defined by § 440.3 its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that each Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, and customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(c) To the extent provided in advance in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may have for Property Damage sustained by them, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, any Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Licensee, any Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customers, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Licensee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) References herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
(a) Permittee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against the United States, and against its Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Permittee and against its Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against the United States, and against the Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States, and to agree to be responsible for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless, and indemnify the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Permittee, and against the Contractors and Subcontractors of Permittee, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations.
Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss, or damage arising out of claims that Permittee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(a) Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440
(b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Permittee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, and customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Permittee or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Permittee or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility, or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, and in the case of Permittee and its Contractors and Subcontractors, the directors, officers, agents, and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, ch. 509—Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall have the same meaning as contained in 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, ch. 509, or the Regulations, respectively.
(a) Permittee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Permittee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee and Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. Permittee and Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Permittee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440 Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Permittee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
(b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Permittee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, and customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Permittee, Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Permittee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customer, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Permittee, Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
(a) Permittee hereby waives and releases claims it may have against each Customer, the United States, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) Each Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may have against Permittee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee and each Customer shall each be responsible for Property Damage it sustains and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. Permittee and each Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, any other customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(b) The United States shall be responsible for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the
(b) Each Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its customers, Contractors, and Subcontractors, by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Permittee, the United States, any other customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.
(c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release all claims they may have against Permittee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and each of their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise have for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.
(a) Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify each Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any Part 440 Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Permittee's Contractors and Subcontractors may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury
(b) Each Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Permittee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them; and any other customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that each Customer's Contractors, Subcontractors, and customers, may have for Property Damage sustained by them and for Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities and arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations.
(a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Permittee, any Customer or the United States of any claim by an employee of the Permittee, any Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for Bodily Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, any Part 440 Customer, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any Part 440 Customer, and in the case of Permittee, each Customer, any Part 440 Customer, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.
(c) References herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.
[Signature lines for each additional customer]
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations under section 5000C of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the 2 percent tax on payments made by the U.S. government to foreign persons pursuant to certain contracts. The regulations affect U.S. government acquiring agencies and foreign persons providing certain goods or services to the U.S. government pursuant to a contract. This document also contains final regulations under section 6114, with respect to foreign persons claiming an exemption from the 2 percent tax under an income tax treaty.
Kate Hwa at (202) 317-6934, and for questions related to tax treaties and the regulations under section 6114, Rosy Lor at (202) 317-6933, (not toll-free numbers).
On January 2, 2011, section 301 of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347 (the Act), 124 Stat. 3623, added section 5000C to the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 5000C(a) imposes on any foreign person that receives a specified Federal procurement payment a tax equal to 2 percent of the amount such payment. Section 5000C(b) defines the term
On April 22, 2015, the Department of Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published in the
A commenter asked for clarification that the proposed regulations apply only to payments made by the U.S. government to direct (prime) contractors with the U.S. government, and not to payments made by prime contractors pursuant to subcontracts. Consistent with the proposed regulations, the final regulations provide section 5000C imposes the tax on any foreign contracting party, which means a foreign person that is a party to a contract with the U.S. government that was entered into on or after January 2, 2011. Therefore, the final regulations do not generally impose the tax on a subcontractor that is not party to a contract with the U.S. government. For example, if an acquiring agency contracts with a domestic corporation (prime contractor) for goods or services, and the prime contractor separately contracts with a foreign subcontractor for goods and services to be provided under the contract, section 5000C will not ordinarily apply to payments by the prime contractor to its foreign subcontractor that relate to those goods or services.
However, the activities of a subcontractor are taken into account when determining the country in which goods are manufactured or produced or in which services are provided under § 1.5000C-1(e). Furthermore, the final regulations retain the rules in the proposed regulations that payments received by a nominee or agent on behalf of a contracting party are considered to be received by that contracting party. For the definition of a contracting party, see § 1.5000C-1(c)(4). The final regulations also retain the anti-abuse rule in § 1.5000C-5 that in certain circumstances may treat a subcontractor that is a foreign person as being liable for tax under section 5000C.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) regularly enters into contracts with foreign persons for goods and services for purposes of implementing USAID's development projects and programs in a host country. The proposed regulations do not provide relief from the tax under section 5000C for payments made pursuant to some of these contracts. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that it is appropriate to exempt from the tax payments made to foreign contracting parties that USAID engages to execute its development projects and programs in a host country. In this context, the U.S. government is not procuring goods and services for its own benefit, but rather to provide humanitarian assistance for the benefit of the host countries. As a result, the final regulations add an exemption under which section 5000C does not apply to a contract for the purpose of obtaining goods or services described in or authorized under certain specified statutes that are for the purpose of providing foreign humanitarian assistance when the acquiring agency determines that the payment is for the purpose of providing foreign humanitarian assistance. This exemption generally applies to a contract entered into by an acquiring agency with a foreign contracting party to obtain goods or services for purposes of implementing an agreement between the United States and a foreign country or a group of countries to provide foreign humanitarian assistance as authorized under the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691,
Similarly, this exemption also generally applies to contacts providing foreign humanitarian assistance under the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601
A commenter noted that it was unclear whether payments by acquiring agencies under contracts that are not entered into pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are subject to tax under section 5000C. The FAR is the body of rules that generally governs acquisitions and contracting procedures for federal agencies.
The General Explanation of Tax Legislation prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation accompanying section 5000C explains that parties engaged in cross-border transactions are required to comply with relevant trade agreements of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
One commenter noted that the FAR provides that eligible products from WTO GPA and free trade agreement countries are entitled to certain nondiscriminatory treatment, and that 48 CFR 25.404 expands this nondiscriminatory treatment to include least developed countries described in 48 CFR 25.400(a)(3). The commenter requested that the final regulations also expand the definition of international procurement agreement to include goods manufactured or produced or services provided in a least developed country.
The final regulations do not adopt this comment for two reasons. First, the proposed regulations referred to 48 CFR 25.400(a)(1) in order to utilize a term that was widely understood in the context of government procurement but was not intended to incorporate any related provisions of the FAR. Second, the Joint Committee Explanation indicates that Congress intended the exemption under section 5000C(b) related to international procurement agreements to be limited to signatories of free trade agreements with government procurement obligations or procurement agreements.
Section 301(c) of the Act requires that section 5000C be applied in a manner consistent with the United States' obligations under international agreements. A commenter indicated that the proposed regulations limit international agreements that may affect the application of section 5000C to income tax treaties and requested that final regulations include other international agreements that may impact taxation. In particular, the commenter indicated that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and bilateral framework agreements negotiated and administered by USAID contain tax provisions.
The final regulations do not adopt this request. The specific international agreements to which the commenter referred prohibit host country taxation of expenditures of a U.S. consulate or amounts provided through USAID programs but do not limit the United States' taxing rights. Consequently, these international agreements do not provide relief from the tax imposed under section 5000C. Furthermore, in identifying the income tax treaties that provide relief from the tax under section 5000C, the regulations do not preclude a foreign contracting party from claiming relief from the tax under any other applicable international agreement.
The proposed regulations provide that that the tax imposed under section 5000C will not apply to payments for purchases under the simplified acquisition procedures described in the FAR that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold in 48 CFR 2.101. One commenter recommended that the determination of the $150,000 simplified acquisition threshold should be computed on an annual basis rather than on a contract-by-contract basis. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is generally more administrable to make a determination of the threshold amount when entering into a particular contract. However, as described in
A commenter requested a new exemption from the tax for service contracts entered into with individuals (personal service contracts). The commenter further stated that some acquiring agencies do not use the FAR to procure personal services from individuals. As such, the commenter stated that these personal service contracts do not fall within the simplified acquisition procedures of the FAR but typically are for an amount less than $150,000 per contract. The commenter also suggested that the threshold amount of personal service contracts with individuals would be more appropriately determined on an annual (rather than a per contract) basis.
Section 5000C applies to contracts for the provision of services, so the final regulations do not provide an exemption for all personal service contracts. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided that it is appropriate to extend the simplified acquisition exemption to personal service contracts, whether or not they are not executed pursuant to the FAR. Further, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the comment that when applying this exemption, the amount paid for personal services under the contracts should be determined on an annual basis. Accordingly, the final regulations provide an exemption in § 1.5000C-1(d)(3) for payments for services provided by, and under contracts with, a single individual in which the payments do not exceed on an annual basis the simplified acquisition threshold as described in 48 CFR 2.101 for all years of the contract. A corresponding change is made to the withholding rules to take into account this exemption.
Proposed § 1.5000C-1(d)(2) exempts payments pursuant to contracts awarded for certain emergency acquisitions. One commenter suggested that this exemption be broadened to include contracts that involve other agency acquisitions of importance to the government, such as contracts for acquisitions determined to be in the national interest by the acquiring agency. The final regulations do not adopt this comment for two reasons. First, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the more limited exemption in the proposed regulations appropriately balances
One commenter requested a new exemption from the section 5000C tax for payments made with a credit card. The commenter indicated that applying the section 5000C tax to payments made with a credit card would be difficult to administer because of the volume of these transactions.
The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion for several reasons. First, in most cases, payments made with a credit card will be in an amount that will fall within the exemption for payments for simplified acquisitions, which applies to purchases under the simplified acquisition procedures described in the FAR that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold as described in 48 CFR 2.101.
A commenter indicated that, in some circumstances, a contract may be for goods or services but also include payments that are not for goods or services, giving as an example payments to reimburse taxes incurred by the contracting party. In response to the comment, the withholding steps in the final regulations clarify that acquiring agencies should not withhold to the extent that a payment is for something other than goods or services.
The proposed regulations provided that a foreign contracting party must submit a “Section 5000C Certificate” that provides all of the information required by the proposed regulations to claim an exemption from section 5000C. The proposed regulations also contained a model Section 5000C Certificate. Simultaneous with the publication of the final regulations, the IRS is publishing Form W-14, “Certificate of Foreign Contracting Party Receiving Federal Procurement Payments,” which may be used as the Section 5000C Certificate. Accordingly, the final regulations do not contain a model Section 5000C Certificate but rather provide that a foreign person may use Form W-14 as its Section 5000C Certificate provided that it includes all the necessary information.
Notice 2015-35 listed the countries that had entered into qualified income tax treaties with the United States as of the date of its publication. The instructions to Form W-14, issued contemporaneously with the publication of these final regulations, identify income tax treaties in force, as of the date of the issuance of the form, that are qualified income tax treaties. When new income tax treaties come into force, foreign persons and acquiring agencies should review IRS Forms, Instructions, Publications or other media (including
Section 1.5000C-2(d)(6) provides that a foreign contracting party must submit a revised Section 5000C Certificate within 30 days of a change in circumstances that causes the information in a Section 5000C Certificate held by the acquiring agency to be incorrect with respect to the acquiring agency's determination of whether to withhold or the amount of withholding under Section 5000C. One commenter suggested that an example would be helpful to illustrate this rule. In response to this comment, an example was added to illustrate the withholding obligation of an acquiring agency when it receives a revised Section 5000C Certificate due to a change in circumstances.
Comments recommended that the final regulations delay the applicability of the tax imposed by section 5000C to contracts entered into on or after the date of the publication of the final regulations. Alternatively, one commenter recommended that the final regulations delay the applicability of the tax until the issuance of final amendments to the FAR as promulgated by the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), if any, that may take into account these final regulations. This commenter reasoned that a delay in the application of the final regulations would allow the necessary time needed to amend the FAR in order to take into account the rules provided in the final regulations. While the DoD, GSA, and NASA have amended some sections of the FAR to reflect the enactment of section 5000C (see 48 CFR 31.205-41(b), 52.229-3(b)(2), 52.229-4(b)(2), 52.229-6(c)(2), and 52.229-7(b)(2)), commenters stated that other sections of the FAR (such as CFR 52.229-3) will also need to be amended.
Section 301(a)(3) of the Act specifically provides that the tax imposed by section 5000C applies to payments received pursuant to contracts entered into on and after January 2, 2011, indicating a clear Congressional intent as to the effective date. Further, the Act does not require Treasury regulations or FAR amendments to be applicable before the requirements of the statute take effect. Thus, the final regulations do not adopt this comment and confirm the statutory effective date.
Consistent with the proposed regulations, the final regulations apply on and after the date that is 90 days after the date they are published as final regulations in the
Under the Act, while acquiring agencies have an obligation to withhold, the foreign contracting parties remain liable for the tax if withholding does not fully satisfy the foreign person's tax liability. The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that some foreign persons subject to statutory obligations under section 5000C may have deferred compliance actions pending the applicability of the final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that 90 days is sufficient for these foreign persons to satisfy their tax and filing obligations with respect to section 5000C for prior periods. Accordingly, § 1.5000C-7 provides that if a foreign contracting party fully satisfies its tax and filing obligations under section 5000C with respect to any payments received in tax years ending before the applicability date of the regulations on or before the later of the applicability date of the final regulations or the due date for the foreign person's income tax return for the year in which the payment was
Additionally, for purposes of section 6114 and the regulations thereunder, if a foreign contracting party has received a payment exempt from tax under a qualified income tax treaty before the effective date of the final regulations under section 5000C, reporting is waived if the foreign contracting party has properly relied on Notice 2015-35.
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. It has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation. It is hereby certified that the collection of information contained in this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The collection of information requirement in the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because a limited number of foreign contracting parties that are small entities will be subject to the tax, in part because the final regulations provide exemptions for simplified acquisitions and for certain personal service contracts. Because section 5000C(a) applies to foreign persons regardless of the size of the entity, a limited number of small foreign entities that received specified Federal procurement payments are affected by the regulation. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the NPRM preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal authors of these regulations are Kate Hwa and Rosy Lor, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 301, and 602 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.5000C-1 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
Section 1.5000C-2 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
Section 1.5000C-3 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
Section 1.5000C-4 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
Section 1.5000C-5 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
Section 1.5000C-6 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 5000C
This section lists the captions contained in §§ 1.5000C-1 through 1.5000C-7.
(a) Overview.
(b) Imposition of tax.
(c) Definitions.
(d) Exemptions.
(1) Simplified acquisitions.
(2) Emergency acquisitions.
(3) Certain personal service contracts.
(4) Certain foreign humanitarian assistance contracts.
(5) Certain international agreements.
(6) Goods manufactured or produced or services provided in the United States.
(7) Goods manufactured or produced or services provided in a country that is a party to an international procurement agreement.
(e) Country in which goods are manufactured or produced or services provided.
(1) Goods manufactured or produced.
(2) Provision of services.
(3) Allocation of total contract price to determine the nonexempt amount.
(4) Reduction or elimination of withholding by an acquiring agency.
(a) In general.
(b) Steps in determining the obligation to withhold under section 5000C.
(1) Determine whether the payment is pursuant to a contract for goods or services.
(2) Determine whether the payment is made pursuant to a contract with a U.S. person.
(3) Determine whether the payment is for purchases under the simplified acquisition procedures.
(4) Determine whether the payment is for emergency acquisitions.
(5) Determine whether the payment is for personal services under the simplified acquisition threshold.
(6) Determine whether the payment is pursuant to a foreign humanitarian assistance contract.
(7) Determine whether the foreign contracting party is entitled to relief pursuant to an international agreement.
(8) Determine whether the contract is for goods manufactured or produced or services provided in the United States or in a foreign country that is a party to an international procurement agreement.
(9) Compute amounts to withhold.
(10) Deposit and report amounts withheld.
(c) Determining whether the contracting party is a U.S. person.
(1) In general.
(2) Determination based on Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
(3) Determination based on the Form W-9.
(4) Contracting party treated as a foreign contracting party.
(d) Withholding when a foreign contracting party submits a Section 5000C Certificate.
(1) In general.
(2) Exemption for a foreign contracting party entitled to the benefit of relief pursuant to certain international agreements.
(3) Exemption when goods are manufactured or produced or services provided in the United States, or in a foreign country that is a party to an international procurement agreement.
(4) Information required for Section 5000C Certificate.
(5) Validity period of Section 5000C Certificate.
(6) Change in circumstances.
(7) Form W-14.
(8) Time for submitting Section 5000C Certificate.
(e) Offset for underwithholding or overwithholding.
(1) In general.
(2) Underwithholding.
(3) Overwithholding.
(a) In general.
(b) Deposit rules.
(1) Acquiring agency with a chapter 3 deposit requirement treats amounts withheld as under chapter 3.
(2) Acquiring agency with no chapter 3 filing obligation deposits withheld amounts monthly.
(c) Return requirements.
(1) In general.
(2) Classified or confidential contracts.
(d) Special arrangement for certain contracts.
(a) In general.
(b) Tax obligation of foreign contracting party independent of withholding.
(c) Return of tax by the foreign contracting party.
(d) Time and manner of paying tax.
(e) Refund requests when amount withheld exceeds tax liability.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The term
(2) The term
(3) The term
(4) The term
(5) The term
(6) The term
(7) The term
(8) The term
(9) The term
(10) The term
(11) The term
(12) The term
(13) The term
(14) The term
(15) The term
(16) The term
(17) The term
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) Awarded under the “unusual and compelling urgency” authority of 48 CFR 6.302-2, or
(ii) Entered into under the emergency acquisition flexibilities as defined in 48 CFR part 18.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(e)
(1)
(i) Where property has been substantially transformed into the goods that are procured pursuant to a contract; or
(ii) Where there has been assembly or conversion of component parts (involving activities that are substantial in nature and generally considered to constitute the manufacture or production of property) into the final product that constitutes the goods procured pursuant to a contract.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) The name of the foreign contracting party, country of organization (if applicable), and permanent residence address of the foreign contracting party;
(B) The mailing address of the foreign contracting party (if different than the permanent residence address);
(C) The TIN assigned to the foreign contracting party (if any);
(D) The identifying or reference number on the contract (if known);
(E) The name and address of the acquiring agency;
(F) A statement that the person signing the Section 5000C Certificate is the foreign contracting party listed in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section (or is authorized to sign on behalf of the foreign contracting party);
(G) A statement that the foreign contracting party is not acting as an agent or nominee for another foreign person with respect to the goods manufactured or produced or services provided under the contract;
(H) A statement that the foreign contracting party agrees to pay an amount equal to any tax (including any applicable penalties and interest) due under section 5000C that the acquiring agency does not withhold under section 5000C;
(I) A statement that the foreign contracting party acknowledges and understands the rules in § 1.5000C-4 relating to procedural obligations related to section 5000C; and
(J) A statement that the foreign contracting party has not engaged in a transaction (or series of transactions) with a principal purpose of avoiding the tax imposed under section 5000C as defined in § 1.5000C-5.
(ii)
(A) The name of the international agreement under which the foreign contracting party is claiming benefits;
(B) The specific provision of the international agreement relied upon (for example, the nondiscrimination article of a qualified income tax treaty); and
(C) The basis on which it is entitled to the benefits of that provision (for example, because the foreign contracting party is a corporation organized in a foreign country that has in force a qualified income tax treaty with the United States that covers all nationals, regardless of their residence).
(iii)
(B)
(
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
If a foreign person engages in a transaction (or series of transactions) with a principal purpose of avoiding the tax imposed under section 5000C, the transaction (or series of transactions) may be disregarded or the arrangement may be recharacterized (including disregarding an intermediate entity), in accordance with its substance. If this section applies, the foreign person remains liable for any tax (including any tax obligation unsatisfied as a result of underwithholding) and the Internal Revenue Service retains all other rights and remedies under any applicable law available to collect any tax imposed on the foreign contracting party by section 5000C.
The rules of §§ 1.5000C-1 through 1.5000C-4 are illustrated by the following examples. For purposes of the examples: All contracts are executed with acquiring agencies on or after January 2, 2011, and are for the provision of either goods or services; none of the exemptions described in § 1.5000C-1(d) apply, unless otherwise explicitly stated; the acquiring agencies have no other withholding obligations under chapter 3 of the Code and have no other contracts subject to section 5000C; the foreign contracting parties do not have any U.S. source income or a U.S. tax return filing obligation other than a tax return filing obligation that arises based on the facts described in the particular example; and none of the contracts are classified or confidential contracts as described in section 6050M(e)(3).
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
Section 5000C applies to specified Federal procurement payments received pursuant to contracts entered into on and after January 2, 2011. Sections 1.5000C-1 through 1.5000C-7 apply on and after November 16, 2016. Contracting parties and acquiring agencies may rely upon the rules in the regulations before such date. If a foreign contracting party fully satisfies its tax and filing obligations under section 5000C with respect to any payments received in tax years ending before November 16, 2016 on or before the later of November 16, 2016 or the due date for the foreign person's income tax return for the year in which the payment was received in a manner consistent with the final regulations, penalties will not be asserted on the foreign contracting parties with respect to those payments or returns.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, that a nondiscrimination provision of a qualified income tax treaty, as defined in Treas. Reg. § 1.5000C-1(c)(13), exempts a payment from tax under section 5000C, but only if the foreign person claiming such relief has provided a Section 5000C Certificate (such as Form W-14, “Certificate of Foreign Contracting Party Receiving Federal Procurement Payments”) to the acquiring agency in accordance with section 5000C and the regulations thereunder.
(e)
(i) A taxpayer has filed a return for such a taxable year, without complying with the reporting requirement of this section, before November 13, 1989, or
(ii) A taxpayer is not otherwise than by paragraph (a) of this section required to file a return for a taxable year before November 13, 1989, such taxpayer must file (apart from any earlier filed return) the statement required by paragraph (d) of this section before June 12, 1990, by mailing the required statement to the Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 21086, Philadelphia, PA 19114. Any such statement filed apart from a return must be dated, signed and sworn to by the taxpayer under the penalties of perjury. In addition, with respect to any return due (without extensions) on or before March 10, 1990, the reporting required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made no later than June 12, 1990. If a taxpayer files or has filed a return on or before November 13, 1989, that provides substantially the same information required by paragraph (d) of this section, no additional submission will be required. Foreign insurers and reinsurers subject to reporting described in paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section must so report for calendar years 1988 and 1989 no later than August 15, 1990.
(2)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the Giant Duck barge and its corresponding tug during the Tall Ships Duluth 2016 parade of sail in Lake Superior near Duluth, MN. This safety zone will provide for the regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity of the tow in the navigable waters of the United States. This safety zone is necessary to safeguard participants and spectators from the hazards associated with the limited maneuverability of a barge and tow. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. August 18, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade John Mack, Waterways management, MSU Duluth, Coast Guard; telephone 218-725-3818, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Because the event is scheduled for August 18, 2016, there is insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with the event.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Giant Duck tow operating in crowded harbors in close proximity to spectator craft necessitate a safety zone. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of all vessels during the Tall Ship event in Duluth, MN.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. August 18, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of the Giant Duck and its corresponding tug during the Tall Ships event in Duluth, MN. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake Superior near Duluth, MN. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting no more than 12 hours that will prohibit entry within a 100 yard radius from the Giant Duck's towing arrangement. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Duluth or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his on-scene representative.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Issuance of bulletin.
In recent years, a number of Federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Education (ED), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have all interpreted prohibitions against sex discrimination under various Federal civil rights laws and regulations. GSA has reviewed these interpretations and agency determinations, and is issuing a Federal Management Regulation (FMR) bulletin to clarify that the nondiscrimination requirement includes gender identity as a prohibited basis of discrimination under the existing prohibition of sex discrimination for any facility under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA.
Mr. Dennis Oden, Director, Civil Rights Programs Division (AKB), Office of Civil Rights, 202-417-5711, or by email at
The EEOC, ED, and DOJ have all interpreted prohibitions against sex discrimination under various Federal civil rights laws and regulations, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1973 (as amended), to encompass discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.
As required in the FMR 41 CFR part 74, section 102-74.445, all Federal agencies occupying property operated under, or subject to, the authorities of GSA must not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person or persons because of race, creed, religion, age, sex, color, disability, or national origin in furnishing, or by refusing to furnish to such person or persons the use of any facility of a public nature, including all services, privileges, accommodations, and activities provided on the property.
Several Federal agencies with enforcement authority over Federal civil rights laws, including the EEOC, ED, and DOJ, have interpreted prohibitions against sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity, including transgender status. The attached bulletin clarifies that the prohibition against sex discrimination contained within the FMR includes discrimination due to gender identity, and is consistent with the legal interpretations issued by other Federal agencies, including the EEOC, ED, and DOJ, as well as guidance issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
TO: Heads of Federal Agencies
SUBJECT: Clarification of Nondiscrimination in the Federal Workplace.
1.
2.
3.
a. Under the FMR 41 CFR part 74 section 102-74.445, Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person or persons because of race, creed, religion, age, sex, color, disability, or national origin in furnishing or by refusing to furnish to such person or persons the use of any facility of a public nature, including all services, privileges, accommodations, and activities provided on the property. The prohibition against unlawful discrimination derives from Federal laws passed by the United States Congress and enforced by specific Federal agencies.
b. Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e,
c. Likewise, DOJ, which is responsible for the overall enforcement authority for Federal civil rights laws, issued a memorandum “Treatment of Transgender Employment Discrimination Claims,” December 15, 2015 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 asserting the Department's position that Title VII's prohibitions against sex discrimination included discrimination based on gender identity. This memorandum is available at
d. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-318), as amended, (20 U.S.C 1681,
e. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has also provided guidance to Federal agencies about the treatment of transgender individuals. In a document entitled “Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Federal Workplace,” OPM notes that “transgender” refers to people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from the sex assigned to them at birth (
4.
a. Consistent with the interpretations issued by the EEOC, ED, DOJ, and OPM, the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Federal Management Regulation 41 CFR part 74 section 102-74.445 also prohibits discrimination due to gender identity, which includes discrimination based on an individual's transgender status.
b. Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity. As consistent with guidance by DOJ and ED, the self-identification of gender identity by any individual is sufficient to establish which restroom or other single-sex facilities should be used. As noted by ED, EEOC, DOJ and OPM, transgender individuals do not have to be undergoing or have completed any medical procedure, nor can they be required to show proof of surgery to be treated in accordance with their gender identity and obtain access to the restroom corresponding with their gender identity. Further, Federal agencies may not restrict only transgender individuals to only use single-occupancy restrooms, such as family or accessible facilities open to all genders. However, Federal agencies may make individual-user options available to all individuals who voluntarily seek additional privacy.
5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
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 effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures 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 the sale of NFIP flood insurance 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. We recognize that 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 to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 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 be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified
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.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
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 effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures 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 the sale of NFIP flood insurance 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. We recognize that 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 to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 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 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 FIRM for 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 procedures 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.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
47 CFR 79.107(a)(5), (d), and (e), 79.108(d)(2), and (f), published at 81 FR 5921, February 4, 2016 are effective on August 18, 2016.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on August 9, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on August 9, 2016, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 79.107(a)(5), (d), and (e), 79.108(d)(2), and (f).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1203.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 18 to 199, revised as of October 1, 2015, on page 545, §§ 32.70, 32.71, and 32.72 are reinstated to read as follows:
The following refuge units have been opened for hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. We prohibit hunting of migratory game birds in areas of the refuge indicated on the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Brochure and marked by signs as closed to all hunting or closed to migratory bird hunting.
2. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot while in the field (see § 32.2(k)).
3. We prohibit pits and permanent blinds.
4. You may use portable blinds or blinds constructed of natural dead vegetation (see § 27.51 of this chapter).
5. You must remove all decoys, shell casings, portable and temporary blinds, and other personal equipment (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter) from the refuge at the end of each day.
6. We prohibit possession or consumption of any alcoholic beverage while hunting (see § 32.2(j)).
7. Hunters may not enter closed areas to retrieve animals legally shot in an open area unless authorization has been given by a refuge employee or State Conservation Officer. Permission must be obtained from private landowners before attempting to retrieve game on private land.
8. Dogs must be leashed and/or under the direct control of a handler (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter). The use of dogs to find and retrieve legally harvested migratory game birds is allowed.
9. Hunters must park in a Designated Hunter Parking Area, as identified by signs.
10. Hunters are required to access and exit the hunting areas from a Designated Hunter Parking Area only. Drop off or pick up of hunters is prohibited except at Hunter Designated Parking Areas.
11. Hunters may only access the refuge 1 hour before legal sunrise until 1 hour after legal sunset.
1. Conditions A2 through A7 and A9 through A11 apply.
2. We prohibit hunting of upland game species in areas of the refuge indicated on the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Brochure and marked by signs as closed to all hunting.
3. Dogs must be leashed and/or under the direct control of a handler. The use of dogs to find and retrieve legally harvested upland game birds, cottontail rabbits, and squirrels is allowed and encouraged. Dogs may not be used to chase red fox, raccoon, striped skunk, or any other species not specifically allowed in A8 or this paragraph.
4. Red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk may be taken on the refuge by licensed migratory
5. We prohibit hunting of sage grouse.
1. Conditions A3 through A7 and A9 through A11 apply.
2. We prohibit hunting of big game in areas of the refuge indicated on the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Brochure and marked by signs as closed to all hunting.
3. You may hunt with the aid of a temporary tree stand that does not require drilling or nailing into the tree. All personal property, including temporary tree stands, must be removed at the end of each day (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).
1. We require refuge permits (issued by State of Wyoming).
2. Hunters may not be let out of vehicles on refuge roads.
3. Shooting from or across refuge roads and parking areas is not permitted.
1. We prohibit hunting of migratory birds on the west side of the Green River between the south end of the Dunkle Unit and Highway 28. We post the boundary for this area with refuge signs stating “Area Closed to Migratory Bird Hunting”.
2. We prohibit all hunting between Highway 28 and 0.8 miles (1.28 km) north of the refuge headquarters on the west side of the Green River. We post the boundary for this area with refuge signs stating “No Hunting Zone”.
3. We open the refuge to the general public from
4. Hunters must confine or leash dogs except when participating in a legal hunt (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
5. You must only use portable blinds or blinds constructed from dead and downed wood. We prohibit digging pit blinds.
6. You must remove portable blinds, tree stands, decoys, and other personal equipment (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the refuge each day.
7. You must completely dismantle blinds constructed of dead and downed wood at the end of the waterfowl hunting season.
8. We only allow hunters to retrieve downed game from closed areas with consent from a refuge employee or State game warden.
9. You must unload and either case or dismantle all firearms (see § 27.42(b) of this chapter) when transporting them in a vehicle or boat under power.
1. Conditions A2, A8, and A9 apply.
2. We open the refuge to the general public from
3. Hunters must confine or leash dogs (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter) except when participating in a legal hunt for sage grouse, cottontail rabbit, or jackrabbit.
4. When using shotguns or muzzleloaders, you may only possess approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) while in the field.
1. Conditions A2, A8, A9, and B2 apply.
1. Condition B2 applies.
2. You must only launch or pick up trailered boats at the following boat ramps: Dodge Bottom, Hayfarm, Lombard, and Six-Mile.
3. We prohibit taking of mollusk, crustacean, reptile, and amphibian from the refuge.
The following refuge units have been opened to hunting and/or fishing, and are listed in alphabetical order with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
We have opened the following refuge unit to hunting and/or fishing with applicable refuge-specific regulations.
1. Anglers may be on the refuge from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. daily, except Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day.
2. We prohibit overnight camping on the refuge.
3. You may not possess surround or gill nets on the refuge.
4. We prohibit the collection of corals, giant clams (
5. We prohibit use of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) to take fish or invertebrates.
6. We prohibit anchoring boats on the refuge.
7. We prohibit sailboards or motorized personal watercraft on the refuge.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Publication of determination.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) make a determination on the impact, if any, on the lessening of competition likely to result from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed rule for energy conservation standards and that DOE publish the determination in the
Date of DOJ determination—August 5, 2015.
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
On June 13, 2016, DOE published a final rule amending energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers (81 FR 38338). Those amended standards were determined by DOE to be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. The Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291,
DOE received the determination in response to the June 3, 2015 NOPR (80 FR 31645) from the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 5, 2015. DOE is publishing the text of DOJ's August 5, 2015 determination.
Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy:
I am responding to your June 3, 2015, letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (80 FR 31,646, June 3, 2015) and the related Technical Support Documents. We have also reviewed information presented at the public meeting held on the proposed standards on July 7, 2015. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of portions of the fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0311 at
Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
a.
b.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level of the 24-hour PM
Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM
On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (“PM
The PM
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including RACT) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. Section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires moderate area attainment plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than four years after designation.
The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 6, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its “historic definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 57 FR 13541. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist of control measures that are reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may approve a SIP revision based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year after the date of approval of the plan revision. If we finalize our proposed conditional approval, Utah must adopt and submit the specific revisions it has committed to within one year of our finalization. If Utah does not submit these revisions within one year, or if we find Utah's revisions to be incomplete, or we disapprove Utah's revisions, this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of these occur and our conditional approval converts to a disapproval, that will constitute a disapproval of a required plan element under part D of title I of the Act, which starts an 18-month clock for sanctions, see section 179(a)(2), and the two-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP), see section 110(c)(1)(B).
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah developed a PM
In addition, Utah provided a commitment letter dated August 4, 2015, committing to revise R307-101, General Requirements; R307-312, Aggregate Processing Operations for PM
Furthermore, Utah submitted revisions to R307-302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties on May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. With this action, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve R307-302 based
SIP revisions for R307-101 were submitted on May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and March 8, 2016. For R307-312, revisions were submitted on May 9, 2013, and March 8, 2016. Revisions for R307-328 were submitted on February 2, 2012, and March 8, 2016. In an August 4, 2015 commitment letter, UDAQ committed to revise R307-101, R307-312 and R307-328 and EPA conditionally approved these rules on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). Additionally, SIP revisions were submitted for R307-302 on May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. However, the EPA identified an issue with R307-302 relating to startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions, and Utah provided a commitment letter dated May 19, 2016, that contains a commitment to revise R307-302 to address this issue. The EPA is proposing conditional approval of the three submittals based on Utah's May 19, 2016 commitment letter. These final rule submissions, except for revisions to R307-101 and R307-328, are submitted as RACM components of the PM
The following is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the rule revisions. In general, we reviewed the rules for: enforceability; RACM requirements (for those rules submitted as RACM); and other applicable requirements of the Act.
Rule R307-101 provides general requirements that pertain to all UDAQ R307 rules, which constitute the basis for control of air pollution sources in the State of Utah. The primary section is R307-101-2 Definitions, which provide definitions that are applicable to all R307 rules, except for those definitions as specified in individual rules. UDAQ committed in its letter dated August 4, 2015, to remove the definition of “PM
Additionally, UDAQ submitted to the EPA other revisions to R307-101-2 on March 8, 2016. These revisions included revisions to the “Clean Air Act” definition and “Maintenance Area” definition, specific to coarse particulate matter (PM
The Board proposed for public comment the removal of the definition “PM
With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, section R307-101 was revised to represent what was in the commitment letter, which satisfies the EPA's conditional approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the other definition revisions to R307-101 as stated earlier.
Rule R307-302 is an existing rule that was approved by the EPA on February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). This rule establishes emission standards for fireplaces and solid fuel burning devices used in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial facilities and associated outbuilding used to provide comfort heating.
The Board proposed revisions to R307-302 for public comment on October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was requested. The Board adopted the latest revision to R307-302 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2015.
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-302-5 which states “R307-302-5. Opacity for Heating Appliances. Except during no-burn periods as required by R307-302-2 and 4, visible emissions from solid fuel burning devices and fireplaces shall be limited to a shade or density no darker than 20% opacity as measured by EPA Method 9, except for the following: (1) An initial fifteen minute start-up period, and (2) A period of fifteen minutes in any three-hour period in which emissions may exceed the 20% opacity limitation for refueling.” The requested change is to provide continuous controls to cover startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements. UDAQ committed in its May 19, 2016 letter to add continuous controls that extend to startup, shutdown, and malfunction, by establishing a prohibition on fuel types that can't be burned in a solid fuel burning device at any time.
Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on regulations.gov. For direct PM
The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has committed to and is proposing a conditional approval of the
R307-312 establishes emission standards for sources in the aggregate processing industry, including aggregate processing equipment, hot mix asphalt plants, and concrete batch plants. The rule applies to all crushers, screens, conveyors, hot mix asphalt plants, and concrete batch plants located within a PM
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-312-5(2)(a) which states “Production shall be determined by scale house records or equivalent method on a daily basis.” The EPA requested that UDAQ identify what could be used as an “equivalent method” in its rule. UDAQ committed in their August 4, 2015 letter to remove “equivalent method” and state “Production shall be determined by scale house records, scale house or belt scale records, or manifest statements on a daily basis.” The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional approval on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, section R307-312-5(2)(a) was revised to represent what was in the commitment letter, which satisfies the condition specified in the conditional approval and completes the EPA's action on the May 9, 2013 submittal for R307-312 from UDAQ.
The Board proposed revisions to R307-312 for public comment on October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was requested. The Board adopted the revision to R307-312 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2016.
Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on
The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has made to R307-312 and is proposing approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to find that R307-312, as revised, constitutes RACM for the Nonattainment Areas for Aggregate Processing Operations for the Utah PM
R307-328 establishes controls of gasoline vapors during the filling of gasoline cargo tank and storage tanks in Utah. The rule is based on federal control technique guidance documents. This requirement is commonly referred to as stage I vapor recovery.
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-328-4(6) which stated “A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (“bulk plant”) need not comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling or alternate equivalent methods. The emission limitation is based on operating procedures and equipment specifications using RACT as defined in EPA documents EPA 450/2-77-026 October 1977, “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,” and EPA-450/2-77-035 December 1977, “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants.” The design effectiveness of such equipment and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.” The requested change was to remove the “alternative equivalent method” from this section. UDAQ committed in their August 4, 2015 letter to remove “alternative equivalent method” and state: “A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (“bulk plant”) need not comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling. The emission limitation is based on operating procedures and equipment specifications using RACT as defined in EPA documents EPA 450/2-77-026 October 1977, “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,” and EPA-450/2-77-035 December 1977, “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants.” The design effectiveness of such equipment and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.”
The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional approval on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). The Board proposed revisions to R307-328 for public comment on October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was requested. The Board adopted the revision to R307-328 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2016. With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, the section, R307-328-4(6), was revised to represent what was in the commitment letter, which satisfies the EPA's conditional approval and completes the EPA's action on the February 2, 2012 submittal for R307-328 from UDAQ. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of the rule, R307-328.
The EPA is proposing approval of the revisions to Administrative Rules R307-101-2, along with the revisions in R307-300 Series; Requirements for Specific Locations (Within Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas), R307-302 (conditional approval, described later), R307-312, and R307-328 for incorporation to the Utah SIP as submitted by the State of Utah on May
The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to R307-302 and conditionally approve Utah's determination that R307-302 constitutes RACM for the Utah PM
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section R307-300 Series submitted by the UDAQ on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016, are intended to strengthen the SIP and to serve as RACM for certain area sources for the Utah PM
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organization compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) proposes and seeks comment on revising the Commission's rules governing commercial mobile radio services. We propose to end the presumption contained in the Commission's rules that all applicants and licensees in the services identified in that section intend to license their facilities as commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) operations by eliminating that section and making related rule changes.
Submit comments on or before October 17, 2016 and reply comments on or before November 16, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 16-240, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Wilbert E. Nixon Jr.,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
1. In this document, the Commission proposes amendments to the Part 20 rules to update, streamline, and modernize them, including harmonizing the regulatory treatment of the various mobile radio services with regard to how applicants must report the regulatory classification of their facilities and easing spectrum acquisition in the secondary market consistent with suggestions received as part of the Commission's process reform efforts. Specifically, we tentatively conclude that eliminating the CMRS presumption for those operators of services currently identified in section 20.9 would streamline application preparation and processing, and promote comparable treatment of wireless applicants and licensees. Under the proposed elimination of section 20.9 contained in this
2. This proposed approach would shorten the period for processing of a number of applications, as well as eliminate the obligation of certain licensees and applicants in the services specified in section 20.9 to make a showing, even if brief, regarding their intent to operate on a non-common carrier or private basis. We tentatively conclude that shortening the period for application processing as well as lightening the regulatory burden currently imposed on licensees and
3. In addition, we believe that the proposed elimination of section 20.9 would help to eliminate uneven and disparate regulation of wireless applicants and licensees. As we discussed above, the regulatory filing requirements and potential lengthening of the application processing period imposed by section 20.9 on licensees and applicants desiring to use spectrum identified in this rule section on a non-CMRS basis are not imposed uniformly on all spectrum and services, particularly when compared with those services for which service rules have been adopted in recent years by the Commission. We tentatively conclude that the public interest would be served by treating similarly situated entities on a more equitable, comparable basis.
4. The Commission, in adopting section 20.9, conducted an extensive review of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, Title VI, section 6002(b) (“1993 OBRA”), amending the Communications Act of 1934 and codified at 47 U.S.C. 332(c), its legislative history, and developments in regulation of wireless services. The Commission noted that Congress “replaced the common carrier and private radio definitions that evolved under the prior version of Section 332 of the Act with two newly defined categories of mobile services: Commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and private mobile radio service (PMRS),” and “replaced traditional regulation of mobile services with an approach that brings all mobile service providers under a comprehensive, consistent regulatory framework and gives the Commission flexibility to establish appropriate levels of regulation for mobile radio services providers.” Two Congressional objectives appeared to drive these statutory changes: (1) “To ensure that similar [mobile] services would be subject to consistent regulatory classification[;]” and (2) to “establish[ ] and administer[ ] for CMRS providers” “an appropriate level of regulation.”
5. The Commission also noted that Congress was concerned with the “disparate regulatory treatment” that had evolved across services, observing that Congress's intent that the Commission establish consistent regulations was reflected in the statutory requirement that any service that amounted to a “functional equivalent” of CMRS be treated as CMRS even if the service did not fit the strict definition of that service. At the same time, the Commission “anticipat[ed] that very few mobile services that do not meet the definition of CMRS will be a close substitute for a [CMRS].” The Commission therefore decided to “presume that a mobile service that does not meet the definition of CMRS is a [PMRS].” To rebut the presumption, a challenger to a PMRS claim was required to follow the method and meet the criteria that the Commission prescribed for demonstrating that the carrier claiming PMRS status was actually providing the functional equivalent of CMRS. Section 20.9(a)(14) memorializes this presumption and the criteria for the showing that someone challenging the presumption would need to make to overcome it (
6. As discussed above, the substantial changes that have occurred in the wireless industry since the rule's adoption suggest that it is now an appropriate time to reexamine the need for the presumption, and this
7. We also observe that section 20.3 of the rules defines “commercial mobile radio service” to include a mobile service that is “[t]he functional equivalent of a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this section, including a mobile broadband Internet access service as defined in section 8.2 of this chapter.” We therefore believe that section 20.3 of the rules, either in its current form or as we propose below to modify it, and in combination with other Commission rules and processes, helps ensure that the Commission will continue to treat as CMRS any service that amounts to a “functional equivalent” of CMRS. We anticipate that the combined effect of our proposals to eliminate section 20.9 of the rules and rely on the CMRS definition in section 20.3 will continue to treat services operating as functionally equivalent to CMRS in the same way as we treat CMRS, while eliminating minor processing differences across types of wireless applications.
8. We seek comment on these proposals, including other ways to overcome the processing inefficiencies discussed above. For example, would amending section 20.9 help to address these concerns more effectively than eliminating the rule in its entirety? We seek comments on such alternatives, if any, as well as their costs and benefits.
9. We note that the elimination of one subsection of section 20.9 was recently endorsed by commenters responding to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Public Notice regarding the applicability of paging and radiotelephone rules and soliciting comment on the need for technical flexibility. For example, the Land Mobile Communications Council stressed that eliminating section 20.9(a)(6) would be consistent with the eligibility standard now reflected in section 22.7 and “would eliminate an unnecessary burden on applicants and the FCC staff.” Both the BloostonLaw Licensees and Nebraska Public Power District agreed that section 20.9(a)(6) should be eliminated. We believe that the reasons used to support arguments in favor of the elimination of section 20.9(a)(6) apply to removal of section 20.9 in its entirety and seek comment on this view.
10. Regardless of what action we take regarding our proposal to eliminate section 20.9, we tentatively conclude
11. We also find that a corrective edit to section 4.3(f) of our rules is appropriate, whether or not we adopt the proposal to eliminate section 20.9. Section 4.3(f), which defines “wireless service providers” subject to outage reporting requirements, includes a cross-reference to section 20.9 for a definition of “commercial mobile radio service.” As discussed above with respect to section 9.3, we propose instead that the definition in this section refer to the definition of “commercial mobile radio service” in section 20.3.
12. We also propose to eliminate section 20.7, which includes a list of services defined as falling within the definition of “mobile services” as used in sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act. As with section 20.9, in light of the mobile services created since the Commission adopted this rule, section 20.7 is under-inclusive insofar as it does not include all the services that in fact are “mobile services” under the statutory language. Eliminating section 20.7 would not change the definition of “mobile service” contained in section 20.3, the Definitions section of Part 20. We tentatively conclude that section 20.7 no longer appears to serve a useful purpose, and we seek comment on that tentative conclusion and our proposal to eliminate this section.
13. As we noted above, section 20.3 defines the term “commercial mobile radio service,” and includes as part of that definition a mobile service that is “[t]he functional equivalent of a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this section.” Section 20.9(a)(14), which would be deleted if we were to eliminate section 20.9 in its entirety, enumerates some of the factors that the Commission may consider in determining whether a mobile service is the functional equivalent of a commercial mobile radio service in cases where the service otherwise does not meet the definition of CMRS and the resulting presumptive classification of the service as PMRS has been challenged. In this regard, section 20.9(a)(14) lays out the process for making such a challenge—
14. We tentatively conclude that nothing in the proposed elimination of sections 20.7 or 20.9 would affect the definition of “commercial mobile radio service” contained in section 20.3 of our rules or the obligations imposed on providers of commercial mobile radio services. Indeed, we wish to reiterate that we do not intend to change either any substantive CMRS regulatory policies with our proposal or other substantive policies pursuant to existing Commission rules affecting the licensees in the services that an amended section 20.3 would address. Rather, our proposal in this rulemaking regarding section 20.9 is narrow and we intend for it to eliminate an unnecessary burden upon certain licensees and applicants in services named in that section. There would be no change in the obligations imposed upon entities providing commercial or private mobile radio service. In this regard, we observe that we have the necessary authority, independent of the requirements of section 20.9, to take enforcement action against a licensee that intentionally tries to avoid CMRS regulation by misrepresenting that its service is or will be operated on a “non-common carrier” or “private” basis (
15. Section 20.9(a)(10) includes certain mobile satellite services and section 20.9(a)(13) includes certain FM subcarrier communications within the definition of “commercial mobile radio service.” At this time, we see no reason not to treat these services the same as the other services identified in section 20.9, but we seek comment on any potential impact.
16. We request comment on the necessary changes we need to make to our forms. For example, at present, Form 603 does not include the option for a proposed assignee/transferee to indicate a different regulatory status for a license that is the subject of a proposed transaction. We believe that, if we adopt revised rules as proposed above, we also will need to revise Form 603 to permit a proposed assignee or transferee to indicate a change in regulatory status.
17. In connection with revising our forms consistent with whatever action we take in this proceeding, at present, many of our forms provide the option of selecting one of the following statuses: “common carrier;” “non-common carrier;” or “private, internal communications.” The existing terms derive from past usage about categories of mobile wireless operations. We seek comment on whether we should replace these existing regulatory status terms in the forms to reflect the CMRS/PMRS terminology. We note that both CMRS and PMRS are defined terms in section 20.3, and are terms consistent with section 332 of the Communications Act. We tentatively conclude that using the existing terms of “common carrier,” “non-common carrier,” and “private, internal communications” tend to be confusing and that usage of the terms “CMRS” and “PMRS” with accompanying definitions in the form instructions would reflect more accurately the rules and statutory provisions on which the forms are based and thus be easier to understand. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-
19. In this NPRM, we seek comment on proposals to streamline and harmonize our requirements for wireless licensees and applicants. We address a proposal to revise the Commission's Part 20 rules governing commercial mobile radio services. We propose to end the presumption contained in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules that all applicants and licensees in the services identified in that section intend to license their facilities as commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) operations by eliminating that section and making related rule changes. In addition, we propose to simplify the process by which an applicant or license in the affected services indicates its regulatory status in the relevant application forms.
20. We initiate this proceeding as a part of the Commission's process reform initiative and to update and modernize our Part 20 and related wireless service rules. These proposed revisions to part 20 are intended to eliminate the burden on applicants and licensees—including small entities—that desire to operate on a non-CMRS basis of having to overcome the presumption that their service offerings are CMRS.
21. The closest estimate of the number of small businesses that may potentially be affected by our proposed rule changes is the SBA's “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” category. This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using spectrum, such as wireless phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services—which are the types of services provided by the different types of licensees listed in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules. For this category, a business is considered small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had 999 or fewer employees and 15 had 1,000 or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action. We note that using this category to estimate the number of small entities potentially affected by our proposed action likely overstates the number of entities (small or otherwise) that in fact might be affected by our proposed rule changes since there are some entities falling in the wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) carrier that have no operations potentially affected by any of the changes we propose to make to part 20.
22. We have determined that the impact on the entities affect by the proposed rule changes will not be significant. The most significant effect of the proposed rule change is to allow the affected entities, including small entities, greater flexibility in choosing their regulatory status as common carrier/CMRS or non-common carrier/private/PMRS and to reduce regulatory delays in the processing of applications that would implement such choices. We expect the impact of the proposed amendments to be a reduction in processing time regarding applications related to the entity's preferred regulatory status. We believe that this reduction in processing time and also perhaps in paperwork will be minimal but beneficial to all affected entities, including small businesses.
23. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in the NPRM require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy of this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of the NPRM and this initial certification will be published in the
24.
25. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification (“IRFC”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this
27. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
28. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
Disruptions to communications, Reporting requirements.
Interconnected voice over internet protocol services, Definitions.
Commercial mobile services, Mobile services and Commercial mobile radio services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission propose to amend 47 CFR parts 4, 9, and 20 as follows:
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 201, 251, 307, 316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b) unless otherwise noted.
(f) Wireless service providers include Commercial Mobile Radio Service communications providers that use cellular architecture and CMRS paging providers. See § 20.3 of this chapter for the definition of Commercial Mobile Radio Service. Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the provider in offering such communications.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r), and 615a-1 unless otherwise noted.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615, 615a, 615b, and 615c unless otherwise noted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration and clarification.
Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Joseph DuFresne, on behalf of Broad Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc.; Stephen L. Goodman, on behalf of ADTRAN, Inc.; Matthew Crocker, on behalf of Crocker Telecommunications, LLC; Tamara L. Preiss, on behalf of Verizon; Wayne Hawley, on behalf of Southern Tier Wireless, Inc.; Martha A. Duggan and Brett A. Kilbourne, on behalf of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Utilities Technology Council; and John P. Janka, on behalf of ViaSat, Inc.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before September 2, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 12, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Heidi Lankau, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3050, released August 12, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration and clarification.
A Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Paul Stark on behalf of Baraga Telephone Company.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before September 2, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 12, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-0626, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3049, released August 10, 2016. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This action proposes modifications to the Southern Scup Gear Restricted Area, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The proposed changes would modify the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern Scup Gear Restricted Area, which is in effect from January 1 through March 15 of each year. This rule is intended to increase access to traditional squid fishing areas, while maintaining protection for juvenile scup.
Comments must be received by September 19, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0102, by either of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon and complete the required fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
Copies of the Scup Gear Restricted Area Modification Framework, including the draft Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at:
Moira Kelly, Fishery Program Specialist, phone: 978-281-9218; email:
Scup (
When scup was overfished prior to 2009, the Council and NMFS determined that juvenile scup mortality in small-mesh fisheries (
Like the prior modifications, the Council began considering modifying the GRAs in early 2014 in response to requests from the squid fishery to increase access to historic fishing grounds during the seasons in which the GRAs are in effect. Because of the spatial overlap of several of the alternatives in the Council's Deep-Sea Coral Amendment (
The Council initially considered modifications to the boundaries and seasons of both GRAs, but ultimately determined that the only changes warranted at this time were to the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern GRA. The Council considered several variations of the Southern GRA boundary and determined that the proposed measure best balanced the needs of the squid fishery and the protective value of the Southern GRA for juvenile scup from January 1-March 15.
The proposed change to the Southern GRA would shift the eastern boundary west roughly following the outermost points of the proposed Deep-Sea Coral Protection Areas. The proposal would also remove the southern portions of the GRA that overlap statistical areas 631 and 632. The current (thick outline) and proposed (hatched) Southern GRA are shown in the figure below. The proposed Southern GRA coordinates are provided in the proposed regulatory text.
The Council designed the recommended modifications to minimize overlap between the GRA and the recommended discrete deep-sea coral areas. The eastern boundary is intended to restore access to the squid fishery in areas approximately 55 to 60 fathoms (100 to 110 m) and deeper. The shift to the southern boundary north is based on analysis suggesting there are very few scup in statistical areas 631 and 632 from January through March. The Council's proposal would marginally reduce the amount of protection for the scup stock, in return for a modest increase in squid availability. The proposed Southern GRA is smaller than the current one; slightly reducing coverage of the scup estimated to the covered by the GRA. However, analysis shows that this change would result in a modest increase in access for the squid and whiting fisheries and a slight increase in the availability of black sea bass in the GRA from January 1-March 15. It is important to note, however, that the amount of each stock (by weight) currently estimated to be within the GRA during the winter is only a small fraction of the total stock abundance during that same timeframe. As a result, we do not expect the proposed boundary changes to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with an Environmental Assessment. There were 64 federally permitted squid, whiting, and black sea bass vessels fishing with small-mesh from January 1-March 15 in the statistical areas covered by the GRA for the past three years. These are the vessels likely to be affected by this action. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Of those 64 vessels, 61 are considered “small” by the NMFS size standards, and three are considered “large.” The proposed measure would modify the boundaries of the Southern Scup GRA and is intended to increase access to the squid, whiting, and black sea bass fisheries. The boundary changes were designed to maintain a high level of discard mortality protection for the scup fishery, while increasing opportunity, and therefore revenue, for the small-mesh fishery targeting squid, whiting, and black sea bass. The changes are not expected to result in excessive increases in mortality for any species. As a result, economic impact of this action is
Because this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). The committee is being convened to complete all substantive work on a report to USDA related to the promotion of coexistence efforts among farmers at the local level.
The meeting will be held on Thursday-Friday, September 8-9, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day. This meeting is open to the public. On September 8, 2016, if time permits, reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration, starting at 3:30 p.m. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements should also inform Dr. Schechtman in writing or via Email at the indicated addresses below at least three business days before the meeting.
U.S. Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
General information about the committee can also be found at
The AC21 has been established to provide information and advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the broad array of issues related to the expanding dimensions and importance of agricultural biotechnology. The committee is charged with examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the U.S. food and agriculture system and USDA, and providing guidance to USDA on pressing individual issues, identified by the Office of the Secretary, related to the application of biotechnology in agriculture. In recent years, the work of the AC21 has centered on the issue of coexistence among different types of agricultural production systems. The AC21 consists of members representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, state government, consumer and community development groups, as well as academic researchers and a medical doctor. In addition, representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative serve as “ex officio” members.
In its last report, issued on November 17, 2012, entitled “Enhancing Coexistence: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture,” and available on the Web site listed below, the AC21 offered a diverse package of recommendations, among which was a recommendation that “. . . USDA should facilitate development of joint coexistence plans by neighboring farmers,” and that in a pilot program, USDA should, among other things, offer incentives for the development of such plans.
At its meeting on December 14-15, 2015, USDA offered a specific new charge to the AC21 building on its previous work. Recognizing that USDA currently lacks the legal authority to offer any such incentives, the committee has been charged with considering the following two questions: Is there an approach by which farmers could be encouraged to work with their neighbors to develop joint coexistence plans at the State or local level? If so, how might the Federal government assist in that process?
At the AC21's two most recent meetings, on March 14-15, 2016 and June 13-14, 2016, AC21 members reached a general agreement on the main elements of the upcoming report and made substantial progress in defining the content of its next report. The report is to include, among other things, a model for convening coexistence discussions at the local level as well as guidance for farmers around the production of identity-preserved crops. The objective for this meeting is to complete all substantive work on the report to USDA.
Background information regarding the work and membership of the AC21 is available on the USDA Web site at
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
This is a notice to inform the public of an upcoming meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health. The meeting is being organized by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to discuss matters of animal health.
The meeting will be held on September 7 and 8, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
The meeting will be held in the Williamsburg, Room 104-A of the USDA Headquarters, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20050.
Dr. Diane Sutton, Designated Federal Officer, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737; phone (301) 851-3509, email
The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters of animal health, including means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies.
Tentative topics for discussion at the meeting include:
• Human infections with Salmonella associated with contact with live poultry;
• Emerging diseases implementation guide;
• Emerging disease response;
• Comprehensive integrated animal health surveillance;
• VS stakeholder engagement;
• Foot and mouth disease vaccine availability;
• National bio and agro-defense facility update and request for input on process for identifying stakeholder priorities;
• How to maximize effectiveness of the committee; and
• Potential agenda items for the 2016-2018 committee term.
A final agenda will be posted on the Committee Web site.
Those wishing to attend the meeting in person must complete a brief registration form by clicking on the “SACAH Meeting Sign-Up” button on the Committee's Web site (
Questions and written statements for the Committee's consideration may be submitted up to 5 working days before the meeting. They may be sent to
This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the tuberculosis regulations.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 17, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the domestic tuberculosis program, contact Dr. C. William Hench, Cattle Health Center Staff Veterinarian, Surveillance, Preparedness and Response Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117; (970) 494-7378. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
The tuberculosis regulations contained in 9 CFR part 77 provide several levels of tuberculosis risk classifications to be applied to States and zones within States, and classify States and zones according to their tuberculosis risk. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids from the various classes of States or zones to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.
These regulations include, but are not limited to, information collection activities, such as memoranda of understanding; agreements; reports; testing records and status reports; plans, permits, and certificates; specimen submissions; risk surveys; proceeds from animals, animal products, and materials sold for salvage; appraisal and indemnity claims; labeling; and recordkeeping.
The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0579-0146, Tuberculosis, and OMB Control Number 0579-0412, Approved Tests for Bovine Tuberculosis in Cervids. After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0146), APHIS will retire OMB Control Number 0579-0412.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Tongass National Forest, USDA Forest Service
Notice of new fee site.
The Tongass National Forest is proposing to charge a $75 fee for the overnight rental of the Deep Bay Cabin. This facility is available for recreation use through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at
Public comment on the proposal for Deep Bay Cabin to begin charging a rental fee will be received through December 2016. Starting in January 2017 comments will be compiled, analyzed and shared with the Alaska Region Fee Board. Should the fee proposal move forward, the rental rate of $75 per night will likely begin in February 2017.
Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, AK 99901.
Lisa Fluharty, Recreation Fee Coordinator, (907) 228-6331.
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
The Tongass National Forest provides multiple cabins located in a variety of forest environments ranging from ocean shore, lakeshore, to mountain and alpine settings. These cabins serve as a base camp for forest visitors for hiking, hunting, fishing, OHV riding and nature touring activities. These cabins are important for access and maintaining traditional recreation activities, including subsistence hunting and fishing.
The Deep Bay Cabin is fully accessible and includes a wheelchair ramp from the parking lot to the cabin. It is a large group cabin and can accommodate up to 12 people. It consists of two buildings connected by a large deck which is partially covered. Each building has sleeping rooms and a common room. There are oil stoves for heat (not cooking). There is a small storage shed, an outside fire grill, and outhouse. It is a simple facility, with no electricity, trash service or running water. The cabin is located near Deep Bay on Zarembo Island. It is accessible year-around by float plane or boat.
A cabin rental analysis performed in 2015 for the cabins in the Alaska Region has shown that people desire having this type of recreation experience on the Tongass National Forest. The proposed $75 per night cabin rental fee for Deep Bay Cabin is consistent with the fee charged at the only other large group cabin on the Tongass National Forest and is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience. People interested in renting the facility will need to go through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Berlaimont Estates LLC (Berlaimont) owns a 680-acre private inholding (subject property) within the White River National Forest to the north of Interstate 70 in the vicinity of Edwards, Colorado. Berlaimont intends on the developing the property as 19 individual residential lots, with each at least 35 acres in size. Currently, the subject property may be accessed by National Forest System Roads (NFSR) 774 and 780, which connects to the southeastern corner of this horseshoe-shaped subject property. Berlaimont has applied for an easement to construct, improve, utilize, and maintain an access road for reliable, year-round vehicular access to reach the developable areas (northern portion) of the subject property. Specifically, Berlaimont is proposing to improve segments of the existing NFSR 774 (1.04 miles) and NFSR 780 (3.09 miles), as well as construct a new road segment (1.16 miles) across additional National Forest System (NFS) lands in order to access the northern portion of the subject property. Improvements would consist of constructing a 20′-wide asphalt road with a 3′ gravel shoulder, vehicle turnouts, retaining walls, traffic signs, guardrails, erosion control facilities, and drainage facilities.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by October 3, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review in the March of 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in the June of 2017.
Send written comments to Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645. Comments may also be sent via email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Holy Cross Ranger Station, 24747 U.S. Highway 24, Minturn, CO 81645. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (970) 827-5715 to facilitate entry into the building.
Additional information related to the project can be obtained from the project Web page:
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected March of 2017, and the final Environmental Impact Statement is expected June of 2017.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide reliable, year-round vehicular access to the developable portions of Berlaimont's private inholding property.
The need for the proposed project is that the existing NSFRs may not provide adequate access to secure reasonable use and enjoyment of the Berlaimont's property, to which they assert they are entitled under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
The Proposed Action is to grant an easement to Berlaimont to improve (pave), utilize, and maintain segments of the existing NFSR 774 (1.04 miles) and NFSR 780 (3.09 miles), which grants access to the southeastern corner of the property only.
An alternative will also be analyzed that includes the proposed action with the addition of constructing, utilizing, and maintaining a new road segment (1.16 miles) across NFS lands in order to access the northern portion of the subject property.
The Responsible Official is Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645.
Based on the analysis that will be documented in the forthcoming EIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether or not to implement, in whole or in part, the Proposed Action or another alternative that may be developed by the Forest Service as a result of scoping.
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed project. Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Input provided by interested and/or affected individuals, organizations and governmental agencies will be used to identify alternative actions and resource issues that will be analyzed in the EIS. The Forest Service will identify significant issues raised during the scoping process, and use them to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures and project design features, or analyze environmental effects.
A public open house meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Edwards facility for Eagle County EMS/
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
There will be an additional opportunity to comment when the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS is published in the
Section 1323(a) of the ANILCA statute (incorporated into 36 CFR Subpart D) compels the agency to authorize access to non-Federal land within the boundaries of NFS lands [
In addition to providing reasonable use and enjoyment, 36 CFR Subpart D requires that any authorized access route be located and constructed so as to minimize damage or disturbance to NFS lands and resources.
Consequently, a key issue for this project is to determine what route location(s) and level of construction are necessary in order to achieve “adequate access” for “reasonable use and enjoyment” of the applicant's inholding property.
This Proposed Action considers the issuance of a road easement from the Forest Service to Berlaimont under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early state, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft Environmental Impact Statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's positions and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 2, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held via conference call.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of four Letters of Authorization.
In accordance with regulations issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended, we hereby give notification that we, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), have issued four one-year Letters of Authorization (Authorizations) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to their military readiness activities associated with the routine training, testing, and military operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar within the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean.
These Authorizations are effective from August 15, 2016, through August 14, 2017.
Electronic copies of the Navy's April 5, 2016 application letter and the Authorizations are available by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning the contact listed here (See
Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”
Authorization may be granted for periods of five years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012,
On April 5, 2016 we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): one for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). NMFS considered the Navy's application as adequate and complete on May 2, 2016.
NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18,
The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2015 through May 2016 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:
• The Navy conducted a total of eight missions from August 15, 2015, through May 14, 2016, in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, which totaled 20.56 mission days and resulted in 37.1 hours of LFA sonar transmissions (2.9% of the permitted sonar transmission time).
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.
The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the final rule and authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.
The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2015 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2015 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at:
For the 2016 to 2017 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific and Indian Oceans as they have in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean requested under the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the final rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 final rule.
Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the final rule and previous Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.
The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy reports that they are continuing to work on information transfer, declassification and archiving of ambient noise data from the Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System to the public.
Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2013-2014; 2014-2015; and 2015-2016 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2016-2017 Authorizations.
The final rule and the previous Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.
Section 218.241 of the final rule describes examples of the types of information that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time with the exception of consideration of new information regarding potential OBIAs.
On April 7, 2016, we and the Navy convened a meeting to review and discuss consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) and modification of existing OBIA boundaries. International and U.S. waters were evaluated to consider newly available peer-reviewed scientific data, information, or survey data on marine areas that may be eligible for consideration as OBIAs. This evaluation also included review of information from the following sources:
• Cetacean and Sound Mapping Working Group Biologically Important Areas (CetMap BIAs);
• Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force (MMPATF)-identified Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs);
• World Database on Protected Areas (joint program of the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] and the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]);
• 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas;
• Convention on Biological Diversity;
• Marine Protected Areas Global (Wood, 2007);
• Marine Conservation Institute MPAtlas; and
• Cetaceanhabitat.org.
Several areas were identified for consideration. Three of the proposed new OBIAs are in areas authorized under the 2016-2017 Authorizations. However, the Navy agrees to treat these areas as OBIAs and will not transmit SURTASS LFA sonar at received levels above 180 dB SPL (rms) within 0.54 nmi (1 km) of the boundary of these potential OBIAs during the periods of biologically important activities for the purpose of the 2016-2017 Authorizations pending a final decision on their designation. NMFS and Navy will be including a description of the evaluation of these new areas in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and rulemaking process for the new (2017) SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
On July 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the
We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.
These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2017, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of four Letters of Authorization.
In accordance with regulations issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended, we hereby give notification that we, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), have issued four one-year Letters of Authorization (Authorizations) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to their military readiness activities associated with the routine training, testing, and military operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar within the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean.
These Authorizations are effective from August 15, 2016, through August 14, 2017.
Electronic copies of the Navy's April 5, 2016 application letter and the Authorizations are available by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning the contact listed here (See
Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”
Authorization may be granted for periods of five years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012,
On April 5, 2016 we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): One for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). NMFS considered the Navy's application as adequate and complete on May 2, 2016.
NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18, 2013); 2014 (79 FR 49501, August 21, 2014); and again in 2015 (80 FR 48296). The Navy's 2016 application for renewal requests that these four Authorizations become effective on August 15, 2016, for a period not to exceed one year.
The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2015 through May 2016 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:
• The Navy conducted a total of eight missions from August 15, 2015, through May 14, 2016, in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, which totaled 20.56 mission days and resulted in 37.1 hours of LFA sonar transmissions (2.9% of the permitted sonar transmission time).
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.
The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the final rule and authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.
The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2015 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2015 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at:
For the 2016 to 2017 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific and Indian Oceans as they have in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean requested under the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the final rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 final rule.
Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the final rule and previous Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.
The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy
Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2013-2014; 2014-2015; and 2015-2016 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2016-2017 Authorizations.
The final rule and the previous Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.
Section 218.241 of the final rule describes examples of the types of information that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time with the exception of consideration of new information regarding potential OBIAs.
On April 7, 2016, we and the Navy convened a meeting to review and discuss consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) and modification of existing OBIA boundaries. International and U.S. waters were evaluated to consider newly available peer-reviewed scientific data, information, or survey data on marine areas that may be eligible for consideration as OBIAs. This evaluation also included review of information from the following sources:
• Cetacean and Sound Mapping Working Group Biologically Important Areas (CetMap BIAs);
• Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force (MMPATF)—identified Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs);
• World Database on Protected Areas (joint program of the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] and the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]);
• 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas;
• Convention on Biological Diversity;
• Marine Protected Areas Global (Wood, 2007);
• Marine Conservation Institute MPAtlas; and
•
Several areas were identified for consideration. Three of the proposed new OBIAs are in areas authorized under the 2016-2017 Authorizations. However, the Navy agrees to treat these areas as OBIAs and will not transmit SURTASS LFA sonar at received levels above 180 dB SPL (rms) within 0.54 nmi (1 km) of the boundary of these potential OBIAs during the periods of biologically important activities for the purpose of the 2016-2017 Authorizations pending a final decision on their designation. NMFS and Navy will be including a description of the evaluation of these new areas in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and rulemaking process for the new (2017) SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
On July 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the
We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.
These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2017, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361
This information collection applies to certain protected species for which NMFS is responsible, including cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sawfish (largetooth and smalltooth), sea turtles (in water), and sturgeon (Atlantic and shortnose). The information collection may be used for future listed species.
The currently approved application and reporting requirements will be revised to (1) create separate sections for marine mammals versus non-mammal species where doing so will result in less burden to the applicant (
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT) and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public, to discuss and make recommendations on issues on the Council's September 2016 agenda.
The webinar will be held on Friday, September 2, from 1:30 p.m. until business for the day is complete.
To attend the webinar, visit:
You may send an email to
Mr. Mike Burner, Pacific Council; phone: (503) 820-2414.
The STT and MEW will discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2016 meeting agenda. Major topics include, but are not limited to, Salmon Methodology Review and the Sacramento River Winter Chinook Harvest Control Rule Update. The STT and MEW may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled Administrative Matters. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT and MEW Chairs.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) on October 6-October 7, 2016. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting of the PAC will be held on October 6, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded) and October 7, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded).
The meeting will be held at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814—in the Garden Lanai Meeting Room.
Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5036; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The PAC meeting topics may include the following: (1) Outcomes of the 2015 Annual Meeting and 2016 sessions of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Northern Committee, and Technical and Compliance Committee; (2) conservation and management measures for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and other species for 2017 and beyond; (3) potential U.S. proposals to WCPFC13; (4) input and advice from the PAC on issues that may arise at WCPFC13; (5) potential proposals from other WCPFC members; and (6) other issues.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at (808) 725-5036 by September 15, 2016.
16 U.S.C. 6902.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to review recent fishery performance and develop a Fishery Performance Report and/or other recommendations in preparation for the Council's review of specifications at the October 2016 Council meeting.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 6, 2016, from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar, but anyone can also attend at the Council office address (see below). The webinar link is:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
The purpose of the meeting is to create a Fishery Performance Report by the Council's Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel. The intent of the report is to facilitate structured input from the Advisory Panel members into the specifications process. Spiny dogfish specifications were recently announced for the 2016-18 fishing years, but the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review the performance of multi-year specifications each year.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice, request for public comment.
Recognizing the exhaustion of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space and the imperative for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) implementation and use, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is seeking input to guide NTIA in future IPv6 promotional activities. Through this Notice, NTIA invites adopters and implementers of IPv6 as well as any other interested stakeholders to share information on the benefits, costs, and challenges they have experienced, as well as any insight into additional incentives that could aid future adoption, implementation, and support of IPv6. After analyzing the comments, the Department intends to aggregate input received into a report that will be used to inform domestic and global efforts focused on IPv6 promotion, including any potential NTIA initiatives.
Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2016.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Ashley Heineman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0298; email
The transition to IPv6, which was designed to expand the number of IP addresses, is critical for the continued, sustainable growth of the Internet. While IPv4 provides nearly 4.3 billion IP addresses, IPv6 offers 2
Even during the relatively early days of the Internet, its exponential growth soon exposed the limitations of IPv4. Once the Internet technical community realized in the early 1990s that there would be a shortage of IP addresses, the Internet Engineering Task Force began developing a new protocol to expand the Internet address space. The first specification of the IPv6 standard was published in 1995 and an updated draft followed closely thereafter in 1998.
Moving forward, NTIA intends to engage more directly in promoting IPv6 deployment and use, with a particular focus on implementation. To assist in this purpose, NTIA is asking those who have implemented IPv6 to share their experiences and to highlight in particular the factors and circumstances that supported their decision to move ahead and adopt the protocol. NTIA hopes to utilize input received through this request for comments to guide and inform future promotion efforts, including the IPv6 Best Practice Forum being organized for the 2016 Internet Governance Forum, which will be held in December 2016, in Guadalajara, Mexico.
NTIA invites comment on the following questions, in whole or in part:
1. What are the benefits of implementing IPv6? For example, what are the direct performance benefits of implementing IPv6 for end users, or for enhanced network security, as compared to IPv4?
2. What are the expected or unexpected benefits of implementing IPv6?
1. What are the biggest obstacles related to IPv6 implementation? For example, is it difficult to access adequate vendor support for IPv6 hardware and/or software? Does successful implementation depend directly on another service provider?
2. How does an organization overcome those obstacles?
1. What factors contribute to an organization's decision to implement IPv6?
2. What additional incentives would be helpful in a decision to implement IPv6?
3. If one factor made the crucial difference in deciding to implement IPv6, as opposed to not implementing IPv6, what is that factor?
1. What is typically the driving motivation behind an organization's decision to implement IPv6?
2. What are the job titles and/or roles of the people within an organization typically involved in a decision to implement IPv6? What are those individuals' primary motivations when it comes to implementing IPv6?
1. What is the anticipated return on an IPv6-related investment? How quickly is a return on investment expected?
2. Is return on investment a reason to implement IPv6, or is implementation considered a cost of doing business?
1. How long does the planning process for IPv6 implementation take?
2. How long does actual implementation of IPv6 typically take? Is implementation a single event or evolutionary?
1. What are the different types of costs involved in implementing IPv6? What are the typical magnitudes of each type of cost?
2. How does an organization cover those costs?
3. How does an organization justify those costs?
4. What considerations are there for cost-saving?
5. What implication does the size of an organization implementing IPv6 have on cost?
1. What promotional efforts, if any, should NTIA take? What would have the most impact?
2. What promotional efforts, if any, are being led by the private sector? Have they been effective?
3. Which additional stakeholders should NTIA target? What is the most effective forum?
4. Should NTIA partner with any particular stakeholder group?
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps NCCC's (National Civilian Community Corps) Member Experience Survey for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Terry Grant, at 202 606 6899 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within September 19, 2016.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The St. Paul District, Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the Souris River Joint Water Resources Board (SRJB), is conducting a flood risk management feasibility study for the Souris River Basin within the continental United States. The feasibility study will include an Environmental Impact Statement and consider opportunities to reduce flood risk within Bonnineau, McHenry, Ward, and Renville counties, North Dakota. The study will evaluate several alternative measures, including, but not limited to: Levees and floodwalls, diversion channels, non-structural flood proofing, relocation of flood-prone structures, and flood storage.
Questions about the proposed action and Environmental Impact Statement may be directed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, ATTN: Mr. Terry J. Birkenstock, Deputy Chief, Regional Planning & Environment Division North, 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN 55101-1678; telephone: (651) 290-5264; email
The Souris River (alternatively known as the Mouse River) is approximately 435 miles long. The river begins in the southeastern portion of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, flows south and east through Renville, Ward, McHenry, and Bottineau counties, North Dakota, and then turns north before returning to Canada in southwest Manitoba. The river flows through the cities of Burlington, Minot, Sawyer, and Velva, North Dakota. Key features associated with the river include the Lake Darling Dam, the Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge, and the J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge. The Des Lacs River is a major tributary that joins the Souris River at Burlington, North Dakota.
The purpose of this study is to collect and evaluate pertinent engineering, economic, social, and environmental information in order to assess the potential for a federal flood risk management project within the basin. The study objective is to define a feasible and implementable project to reduce flood risk which is relatively high within the basin. In June 2011, heavy rains in the upstream portions of the watershed exceeded the storage capacity of upstream reservoirs already full from the April snowmelt. Flows in excess of 26,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) overwhelmed the existing Federal flood risk management projects (designed to pass 5,000 cfs from Burlington to Minot) and emergency flood fighting efforts, causing over $690 million in damages to more than 4,700 structures.
Following the 2011 flood, a non-Federal local flood risk management study was initiated by the North Dakota State Water Commission in response to a request for assistance from the SRJB. The scope of the non-Federal study, identified as the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan (MREFPP), differs from the Federal study and is primarily focused on flood protection specifically for the city of Minot. Because of its influence on an existing federal flood project, this non-federal effort has requested permission from the Corps of Engineers to pursue actions under 33 U.S.C. 408 (frequently referred to as Section 408). A separate Notice of Intent was published (FR Doc. 2015-17670 Filed 7-16-15) for an EIS associated with the Corps of Engineers' decision on the Section 408 request. However, this Notice of Intent involves an EIS with broader consideration of flood risk across the basin. Additional details on the local, non-federal flood MREFPP can be found at
This Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study and its associated NEPA documentation will be prepared by the Corps. The Corps will act as the lead agency and coordinate with other agencies to discuss their participation in the NEPA process. The study will broadly evaluate several alternative measures including, but not limited to: levees and floodwalls along the river through towns, diversion channels, non-structural flood-proofing, relocation of flood-prone structures, and flood storage.
Significant resources and issues to be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be determined through coordination with Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, the general public, interested private organizations, and industry. Anyone who has an interest in participating in the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is invited to contact the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers.
1. Flood damage reduction.
2. Effects to Fish and wildlife.
3. Land-use Effects (effects on agricultural land).
4. Effects to Archaeological, cultural, and historic resources.
5. Social Effects.
6. Effects to Groundwater.
Additional areas of interest may be identified through the scoping process, which will include pubic and agency meetings. A notice of those meetings will be provided to interested parties and to local news media.
The Corps anticipates holding a series of scoping meetings sometime in October, 2016 in the City of Minot and surrounding communities. In general, the meetings will begin with an open house and be followed by a presentation and question and answer session.
An environmental review will be conducted under the NEPA of 1969 and other applicable laws and regulations. It is anticipated that the DEIS will be available for public review in the fall of 2017.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Electricity Advisory Committee's (EAC) charter has been renewed for a two-year period beginning on August 8, 2014.
The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability on programs to modernize the Nation's electric power system.
Additionally, the renewal of the EAC has been determined to be essential to conduct Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, adhering to the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Matt Rosenbaum, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 586-1060.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 6:00 p.m.
Olive Garden Meeting Room, 7206 Kingston Pike, Knoxville, Tennessee 37919.
Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 241-6932; E-Mail:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Take notice that on August 1, 2016, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515, filed an application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Natural proposes to provide long-term firm transportation service to two shippers that have subscribed to the capacity created by the Project. The Project capacity is developed through the integration of existing capacity and expansion capacity of 240,000 Dth/day which will enable Natural to transport 460,000 Dth per day of natural gas supplies to an existing delivery point and a new delivery point in the South Texas Gulf Coast area. The project shippers have elected negotiated rates. Natural proposes to construct a new 15,900 horsepower compressor station on its Gulf Coast Line, and a new 4,000-foot, 30-inch lateral to connect the proposed compressor to Natural's existing A/G Line. Natural also proposes to abandon 5,600 hp of existing compression on its system. Total cost of the project is $69,399,000.
The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515, or by calling (630) 725-3070 (telephone) or email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on August 5, 2016, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI Energy), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, filed in Docket No. CP16-489-000 a prior notice request pursuant to § 157.205, 157.210, and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to construct, operate, and abandon certain natural gas facilities in McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. WBI Energy states that the proposed activities will allow it to deliver 62,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas transportation service. WBI Energy estimates the cost of the proposed facilities to be approximately $18.4 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Specifically, WBI Energy proposes to: (1) Install two new compressor units, totaling 5,325 horsepower (HP), at its
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lori Myerchin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, by telephone at (701) 530-1563 or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to § 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to § 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Innovative Solar 31, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 1, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On August 2, 2016, Benton Falls Associates, New York LP, co-licensee (transferor) filed an application for after-the-fact transfer of license of the Benton Falls Project No. 5073. The project is
The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Benton Falls Project from Benton Falls Associates, New York LP and Everett E. Whitman (deceased) as co-licensees to Benton Falls Associates, New York LP as the sole licensee.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On September 18, 2015, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) and Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) filed applications in Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-555-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities. Atlantic's proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina would transport about 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from production areas in the Appalachian Basin to markets in Virginia and North Carolina. Dominion's proposed Supply Header Project in Pennsylvania and West Virginia would allow additional gas transportation on its existing system and would transport gas to various customers, including Atlantic. Because these are interrelated projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) deemed it was appropriate to analyze them in a single environmental impact statement (EIS).
On October 2, 2015, the FERC issued its Notice of Application for the projects. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the projects, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in December 2016.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the projects' progress.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline consists of 333.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina; 186.0 miles of 36-inch-diameter mainline pipeline in North Carolina; 83.0 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral pipeline in North Carolina and Virginia; and two short 16-inch-diameter lateral pipelines in Brunswick and Greenville Counties, Virginia. In addition, Atlantic proposes to construct and operate three new compressor stations totaling 130,345 horsepower in Lewis County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina, along with other aboveground facilities along the mainline and lateral pipelines.
The Supply Header Project consists of 3.9 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; 33.6 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline loop in West Virginia; and modifications to four existing compressor stations in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; Greene County, Pennsylvania; and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia.
On November 13, 2014, the Commission staff granted Atlantic's and Dominion's request to use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the Atlantic Coast Pipeline temporary Docket No. PF15-6-000 and the Supply Header Project temporary Docket No. PF15-5-000. On February 27, 2015, the Commission issued a
The NOIs were sent to our environmental mailing list that include federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; regional environmental groups and nongovernmental organizations; Native Americans and Indian tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties. Major environmental issues raised during scoping included karst terrain and caves; impacts on groundwater and springs, drinking water supplies, and surface waterbodies; impacts on forest; impacts on property values and the use of eminent domain; impacts on tourism; impacts on public recreational areas such as the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Blue Ridge Parkway; impacts on historic properties and districts; and pipeline safety.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National Forest; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge; West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Rhode Island and the State of Vermont are in the process of revising their respective approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted drinking water regulations for the Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on November 8, 2006, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (71 FR 654) promulgated on January 5, 2006, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4, 2006. After review of the submitted documentation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Ground Water Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Massachusetts' PWSS program revision for these rules.
The State of Rhode Island has adopted drinking water regulations for the Lead and Copper Rule (56 FR 26460-26564) promulgated on June 7, 1991, the Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule (65 FR 1950) promulgated on January 12, 2000, the Lead and Copper Short-Term Revisions Rule (72 FR 57782) promulgated on October 10, 2007, the Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on November 8, 2006, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4, 2006. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined that the State of Rhode Island's Lead and Copper Rule, Lead and Copper Short-Term Revisions Rule, Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule, Ground Water Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations, with the understanding that the state regulations include a small number of typographical errors or other very minor, non-substantive differences that the state has agreed to correct. These issues are discussed in further detail in EPA's administrative record. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Rhode Island's PWSS program revision for these rules.
The State of Vermont has adopted drinking water regulations for the Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on November 6, 2008, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (71 FR 654) promulgated on January 5, 2006, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4, 2006. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined that the State of Vermont's Ground Water Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Vermont's PWSS program revision for these rules.
All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be submitted within thirty (30) days of this
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following office(s):
Jeri Weiss, U.S. EPA—New England, Office of Ecosystem Protection (telephone 617-918-1568).
Section 1401 (42 U.S.C. 300f) and Section 1413 (42 U.S.C. 300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and (40 CFR 142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Availability of DRAFT NPDES General Permits MAG910000 and NHG910000.
The Director of the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 (EPA), is providing a notice of availability of draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for discharges from sites engaged in certain remediation activities to certain waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire. The draft NPDES general permits establish Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Change (NOC), and Notice of Termination (NOT) requirements, effluent limitations and requirements, standard and special conditions and best management practice (BMP) requirements for sites that discharge 1.0 million gallons per day or less in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. These general permits replace the Remediation General Permit (RGP) that expired on September 9, 2015.
Comment on the draft general permits must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Comments on the draft RGP shall be submitted by one of the following methods: (1) Email:
The draft RGP is based on an administrative record available for public review at EPA-Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying requests. The fact sheet for the draft RGP sets forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in the development of the draft general permit and is available upon request. A brief summary is provided as supplementary information below.
Additional information concerning the draft general permits may be obtained between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, from Shauna Little, U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP06-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912.; telephone: 617-918-1989; email:
General Information: EPA is proposing to reissue two general permits for discharges from sites engaged in remediation activities from eight general categories: (1) Petroleum-related site remediation; (2) Non-petroleum-related site remediation; (3) Contaminated/formerly contaminated site dewatering; (4) Pipeline and tank dewatering; (5) Aquifer pump testing; (6) Well development/rehabilitation; (7) Dewatering/remediation of collection structures; and (8) Dredge-related dewatering. While the draft general permits are two distinct permits, for convenience, EPA has grouped them together in a single document and has provided a single fact sheet. This document refers to the draft general “permit” in the singular. The draft general permit, appendices and fact sheet are available at:
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In accordance with NHPA, EPA has established provisions and documentation requirements for sites seeking coverage under the RGP to ensure that discharges or actions taken under this general permit will not adversely affect historic properties and places.
This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Washington State Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide lambda-cyhalothrin (CAS
Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0422, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Washington State Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on asparagus to control the European asparagus aphid. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
The applicant's submission which provides an explanation of the need for the exemption as well as the proposed use pattern can be found at
This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which is supported by the IR-4 program and has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency.
The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol or Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Proposed Reissuance of NPDES General Permit, Notice to States of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida for Consistency Review with approved Coastal Management Programs.
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 4 (the “Region”) is today proposing to reissue the National
As proposed, this Draft NPDES general permit includes, best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and best available technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations for existing sources and new source performance standards (NSPS) limitations for new sources as promulgated in the effluent guidelines for the offshore subcategory. The draft permit also includes the following changes to the expired permit: (1) New electronic reporting requirements; (2) new whole effluent toxicity testing sampling and reporting requirements for well treatment, completion, and workover fluids not discharged with produced wastewaters; (3) requirements to submit additional information pertaining to the chemicals and additives used in well treatment, completion and workover operations; and (4) clarification regarding types of operators. Region 4 is also making available a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for review during the 30 day public comment period for this general permit. The Draft EA addresses potential impacts from proposed changes to the general permit, and it considers recent technical studies.
Comments must be received by September 17, 2016.
The Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents are on file and may be inspected any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday at the address shown below. Copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents may be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA-Region 4, Water Protection Division (WPD), NPDES Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples, or by calling (404) 562-9783. Alternatively, copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA, Essential Fish Habitat Determination and preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation may be downloaded at:
Ms. Bridget Staples, EPA Region 4, WPD, NPDES Section, by mail at the Atlanta address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9783 or by email at
Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.13, any person who believes any condition of the permit is inappropriate must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments in full, supporting their position, by the close of the comment period. All comments on the Draft NPDES general permit and the Draft EA received within the 30-day comment period will be considered in the formulation of final determination regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and the permit reissuance. After consideration of all written comments and the requirements and policies in the CWA and appropriate regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding the Final EA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and permit reissuance. If the determination results in a permit that is substantially unchanged from the draft permit announced by this notice, the Regional Administrator will so notify all persons submitting written comments. If the determination results in a permit that is substantially changed, the Regional Administrator will issue a public notice indicating the revised determination.
A formal hearing is available to challenge any NPDES permit issued according to the regulations at 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, except for a general permit, as provided at 40 CFR 124.19(o). Persons affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as authorized at 40 CFR 122.28, in accordance with the application requirements set forth at 40 CFR 122.21, and then request a formal hearing on the issuance or denial of an individual permit. Additional information regarding these procedures is available by contacting Mr. Paul Schwartz, Associate Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, at (404) 562-9576.
Notice of Intent requirements for obtaining coverage for operating facilities are stated in Part I Section A.4 of the general permit. Coverage under the reissued general permit is effective upon receipt of notification of coverage with an assignment of an NPDES general permit number from the EPA-Region 4, Director of the Water Protection Division. EPA will act on the Notice of Intent (NOI) within a reasonable period of time.
This permit does not apply to non-operational leases,
Because state waters are not included in the area covered by the OCS general permit, its effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are not subject to state water quality certification under CWA Section 401. However, the states of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi have been provided a copy of this draft
This Notice will also serve as Region 4's requirement under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to provide all necessary information for the States of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to review this action for consistency with their approved Coastal Zone Management Programs. A copy of the consistency determination on the proposed activities is being sent to each affected State, along with a letter including this FR notice, which provides the EPA Web site where electronic copies can be obtained of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and Draft EA. Other relevant information for their review is available upon request from each State. Comments regarding State Consistency are invited in writing within 30 days of this notice to the WPD, U.S. EPA-Region 4, NPDES Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples.
The public comment period for the Draft NPDES permit, Draft EA will begin on the date of publication of this notice in the
The Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents are on file and may be inspected any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday at the address shown below. Copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents may be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA-Region 4, WPD, NPDES Permitting Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples, or by calling (404) 562-9783. Alternatively, copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA, Essential Fish Habitat Determination and preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation may be downloaded at:
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. OMB has exempted review of NPDES general permits under the terms of Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Issuance of an NPDES general permit is not subject to rule making requirements, including the requirement for a general notice of proposed rule making, under APA Section 533 or any other law, and is thus not subject to the RFA requirements.
The APA defines two broad, mutually exclusive categories of agency action—“rules” and “orders.” APA Section 551(4) defines rule as “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice or requirements of an agency . . . ” APA Section 551(6) defines orders as “a final disposition . . . of an agency in a matter other than rule making but including licensing.” APA Section 551(8) defines “license” to “include . . . an agency permit . . . ” The APA thus categorizes a permit as an order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the APA establishes “rule making” requirements. APA Section 551(5) defines “rule making” as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” By its terms, Section 553 applies only to rules and not to orders, exempting by definition permits.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” to refer to regulations. (See,
As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general permits are not “rules” by definition under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rule making. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA Section 402(a) requirement to provide an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, NPDES general permits are not “rules” for RFA or UMRA purposes.
The information collection required by this permit has been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Because this permit is very similar in reporting and application requirements and in discharges which are required to be monitored as the previous Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS general permit (GEG460000), the paperwork burdens are expected to be nearly identical. When it issued the previous OCS general permit, EPA estimated it would take an affected facility three hours to prepare the request for coverage and 38 hours per year to prepare DMRs. It is estimated that the time required to prepare the request for coverage and DMRs for the reissued permit will be approximately the same.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 19, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The information collection requirements that are approved under this information collection are contained in 47 CFR 95.1225(b) and (c), 95.1217(a)(3) and (c), 95.1223 and 95.1225 which relate to the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio).
The information is necessary to allow the coordinator and parties using the database to contact other users to verify information and resolve potential conflicts. Each user is responsible for determining in advance whether new devices are likely to cause or be susceptible to interference from devices already registered in the coordination database.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the International Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) declares the international Section 214 authorization granted to JuBe Communications, LLC (JuBe) terminated given JuBe's inability to comply with the express condition for holding the authorization. It also concludes that JuBe failed to comply with those requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's rules that ensure that the Commission can contact and communicate with the authorization holder and verify JuBe is still providing service, which failures have prevented any way of addressing JuBe's inability to comply with the condition of its authorization.
Cara Grayer, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau at (202) 418-2960 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 16-720, adopted and released July 1, 2016.
Section 214(a) of the Act prohibits any carrier from constructing, extending, acquiring, or operating any line, and from engaging in transmission through any such line, without first obtaining a certificate of authorization from the Commission. Under Section 214(c) of the Act, the Commission “may attach to the issuance of the certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.” On July 27, 2007, the International Bureau granted JuBe an international Section 214 authorization to provide global or limited global facility-based service and global or limited global resale service in
On December 23, 2015, the Executive Branch Agencies notified the Commission of JuBe's non-compliance with the conditions of its authorization and requested that the Commission terminate, and declare null and void and no longer in effect, the international Section 214 authorization issued to JuBe. The Executive Branch Agencies believe that JuBe is no longer in existence. Specifically, according to the Texas state corporate Web site, JuBe voluntarily dissolved as a corporate entity and became inactive on October 14, 2010. Further, on October 19, 2015, Mr. Thomas Lynch, JuBe's designated point of contact during the application process, advised the Executive Branch Agencies that he had been unable to reach JuBe after multiple attempts through all his contacts except U.S. postal service. He noted that he presumed JuBe to be out of business. Based on this, the Executive Branch Agencies state that “JuBe is neither providing services pursuant to authorization file number ITC-214-20070607-00218 nor still in existence.”
The Commission has made significant efforts to communicate with JuBe, but has also been unable to do so. On January 19, 2016, the International Bureau sent JuBe a letter to the last addresses of record requesting that JuBe respond to the December 23, 2015 Executive Branch letter within 30 days of the letter, by February 18, 2016. JuBe did not respond. Since that time, the International Bureau has provided JuBe with additional opportunities to respond to these allegations. The International Bureau stated that failure to respond would result in termination of JuBe's international Section 214 authorization for failure to comply with conditions of its authorization. In JuBe's 2007 application, JuBe stated it was incorporated in Texas, and according to the Texas Secretary of State Web site, no records exist for JuBe Communications, LLC. To date, JuBe has not responded to any of the International Bureau or the Executive Branch Agencies' multiple requests to resolve this matter.
We determine that JuBe's international Section 214 authorization to provide international services issued under File No. ITC-214-20070607-00218 has terminated for inability to comply with an express condition for holding the international Section 214 authorization. The International Bureau has provided JuBe with notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations in the December 23, 2015 Executive Branch letter concerning JuBe's non-compliance with the condition of the grant. JuBe has not responded to any of our multiple requests or requests from the Executive Branch Agencies. We find that JuBe's failure to respond to our multiple requests demonstrates that it is unable to satisfy the LOA conditions, upon which the Executive Branch Agencies gave their non-objection to the grant of the authorization to JuBe, and which are a condition of the grant of its international Section 214 authorization.
Furthermore, after having received an international Section 214 authorization, a carrier “is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications made in its application” and must promptly correct information no longer accurate, “and in any event, within thirty (30) days.” JuBe has failed to inform the Commission of any changes in its business status of providing international telecommunications services, as required by the rules. In addition, there is no indication that JuBe is currently providing service pursuant to its international Section 214 authorization. If JuBe has discontinued service, it is also in violation of the Commission's rules requiring prior notification for such a discontinuance. Nor is there any record of JuBe having complied with Section 413 of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring it to designate an agent for service after receiving its authorization on July 27, 2007. Finally, as part of its authorization, JuBe “must file annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue as required by § 43.62.” Section 43.62(b) of the Commission's rule states that “[n]ot later than July 31 of each year, each person or entity that holds an authorization pursuant to section 214 to provide international telecommunications service shall report whether it provided international telecommunications services during the preceding calendar year.” Commission records indicate that JuBe failed to file an annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue report indicating whether or not JuBe provided services in 2015, as required by Section 43.62(b). In these circumstances, and in light of JuBe's failure to respond to the Commission's rules designed to ensure its ability to communicate with the holder of the authorization, termination also is warranted wholly apart from demonstrating JuBe's inability to satisfy the LOA conditions of its authorization.
Accordingly,
This Order is issued on delegated authority under 47 CFR 0.51, 0.261, and is effective upon release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.106, or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of the release of this Order.
Federal Communication Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before September 19, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via email at
Nicole Ongele, Office of the Managing Director, FCC at (202) 418-2991.
The Commission is requesting that OMB approve this revised information collection under the emergency processing provisions of the PRA, 5 CFR 1320.13.
In March 2016, the Commission adopted the
Here, we propose to revise this information collection, specifically FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, and FCC Form 509, to include additional line count, forecasted cost and revenue, and actual cost and revenue data associated with consumer broadband-only loops necessary for the calculation of CAF-BLS. This revision is a narrow expansion of similar information related to common line loops, costs, and
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) V will hold its sixth meeting.
September 14, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1096 (voice) or
The meeting will be held on September 14, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to help ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2015, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2017. The meeting on September 14, 2016, will be the sixth meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency) and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 13, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 6, 2016.
A Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by October 17, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
The goal of the Initial Request for State Medicaid Implemented Moratorium form is to provide a uniform application process that all of the states may follow so that CMS is able to administer the Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program moratorium process in a standardized and repeatable manner. This form creates a standardized process so that moratoria decisions are being made with the same criteria each time.
2.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the meeting dates for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 and Wednesday August 31, 2016 in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday August 31, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and it is open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the Herbert Humphrey Building 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, 20201 Room 738G.3.
Dr. Donald Oellerich, Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Human Services Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-8410.
Name.
Company name.
Postal address.
Email address.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Dr. Oellerich, no later than August 24, 2016 by sending an email message to
Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held for the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (Advisory Council). The meeting will be open to the public; a public comment session will be held during the meeting. Pre-registration is required for members of the public who wish to attend the meeting and who wish to participate in the public comment session. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or send in their public comment via email should send an email to
The meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held on September 19, 2016, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET. The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the Web site for the Advisory Council at
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
The meeting also can be accessed through a live webcast on the day of the meeting. For more information, visit
Bruce Gellin, Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 260-6638; email:
Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.
In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.
The September public meeting will be dedicated to the topics of Prevention and Stewardship. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Advisory Council Web site at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Advisory Council at the address/telephone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the Advisory Council meeting by emailing
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the meeting date for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) on Friday, September 16, 2016 in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held on Friday, September 16, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and it is open to the public.
The meeting will be held in the Senate Meeting Room at the Residence Inn, 333 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ann Page, Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Health Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-6870.
I.
II.
III.
The public may attend the meeting in-person or listen by phone via audio teleconference. Space is limited and registration is
Name.
Company name.
Postal address.
Email address.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Angela Tejeda, no later than September 8, 2016 by sending an email message to
Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
IV.
V.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA or the Council) will be holding a meeting to continue discussions and possibly develop recommendations regarding People Living with HIV/AIDS. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on September 26, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (ET) and September 27, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:00 p.m. (ET).
200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201 in the Penthouse (eighth floor), Room 800.
Ms. Caroline Talev, Public Health Analyst, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, 330 C Street SW., Room L106B, Washington, DC 20024; (202) 795-7622 or
PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. In a memorandum, dated July 13, 2010, and under Executive Order 13703, dated July 30, 2015, the
PACHA provides advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs, policies, and research to promote effective treatment, prevention, and cure of HIV disease and AIDS, including considering common co-morbidities of those infected with HIV as needed, to promote effective HIV prevention and treatment and quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS.
Substantial progress has been made in addressing the domestic HIV epidemic since the Strategy was released in July 2010. Under Executive Order 13703, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020 (Updated Strategy) was released. PACHA shall contribute to the federal effort to improve HIV prevention and care.
The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House Office on National AIDS Policy. The agenda for the upcoming meeting will be posted on the
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Caroline Talev at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personnel privacy.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Office of Extramural Research (OER), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will continue the use of the electronic application form for the submission of requests to the NIH for Certificates of Confidentiality (CoCs), which was launched in 2015.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Ann M. Hardy, NIH Extramural Human Research Protections Officer and Coordinator, Certificates of Confidentiality, Office of Extramural Programs, OER, NIH, 3701 Rockledge Dr., Room 3002, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-2690, or Email your request, including your address to:
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the
Certificate of Confidentiality Electronic Application System 0925-0689, expiration date 01/30/2017, Office of Extramural Research (OER), National Institutes of Health (NIH).
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total annualized burden hours estimate is 1,951.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: September 12, 2016, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.106, Minority International Research Training Grant in the Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences; 93.154, Special International Postdoctoral Research Program in Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; 93.168, International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program; 93.934, Fogarty International Research Collaboration Award; 93.989, Senior International Fellowship Awards Program, National Institutes of Health HHS)
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of November 4, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice 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 new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of December 8, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice 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
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of November 18, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice 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 new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of October 20, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice 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 new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of December 22, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice 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 new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with title 44, part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Mission Services Support Division (MSSD)/Information Sharing and Services Organization (IS2O)/Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC) calls a full body, in-person meeting of its membership to receive all relevant information and facilitate development of recommendations to the HSIN Program Management Office (PMO) in the major issue area of developing Focused Mission Growth outcome measures.
The HSINAC will meet Wednesday, September 14, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.—5:00 p.m. EST and Thursday, September 15, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.—1:00 p.m. PM EST in Washington, DC, and via conference call and HSIN Connect, an online web-conferencing tool, both of which will be made available to members of the general public. Please note that the meeting may end early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held in Washington, DC at 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 4th floor Conference Room and virtually via HSIN Connect, an online web-conferencing tool at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Allison Buchinski,
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than September 18, must be identified by the docket number—DHS-2016-0058, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the meeting on Wednesday, September 14, from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. EST and again on Thursday, September 15, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. EST. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
Designated Federal Officer, Michael Brody, Email:
The Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee is an advisory body to the HSIN Program Office. This committee provides advice and recommendations to the DHS on matters relating to HSIN. These matters include system requirements, operating policies, community organization, knowledge management, interoperability and federation with other systems, and any other aspect of HSIN that supports the operations of DHS and its Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal, international, and private sector mission partners. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix. The HSINAC provides advice and recommendations to DHS on matters relating to HSIN.
The Agenda will consist of the following major components.
1. There will be a discussion between the HSIN Program and members of the committee in the following key areas:
a. Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee Members receive HSIN PMO updates on key issues, and offer critical feedback, guidance, and formulation of recommendations for future program enhancements. This update will include an Introduction to the alignment of HSIN under the Information Sharing Services Organization (IS2O), as well as, strategic update on HSIN's progresses, challenges, and future plans in FY17.
b. Members will partake in a session about the Program's goals to enhance the quality of the HSIN user experience while adding mission value, and discuss operational gaps that exist between State and local and the department through a feedback session with the group and members of the HSIN Executive Steering Committee (ESC).
c. HSIN Annual Assessment—Members partake in a short focus group session to assist in the development of a communications and outreach coordination schedule that includes partner-focused success stories illustrating HSIN's role in fulfilling its mission to be the central provider of information sharing capabilities that allow for collaboration, situational awareness, and information exchange to fulfill partner's homeland security mission areas.
2. The HSIN PMO will formally task the HSINAC to offer recommendation on the following key topics:
a. How HSIN can continue to achieve growth in its user base, across Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, private sector, and international sectors through the advancement and/or addition of mission critical applications.
b. What steps the Program can take to ensure ease of access to the system through a seamless registration process.
c. How the Program can continue to support growth of the user population and advancement of field operations by defining mission advocate support staffing models.
3. Public comment period on both days.
4. Committee Deliberation.
5. Closing Remarks.
6. Adjournment of the meeting.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 19, 2016.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild olive ridley sea turtle (
The applicant requests a permit to import four live captive-born Chinese giant salamanders (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the
September 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.
EVOSTC Office Conference Room, Suite 220, Grace Hall, 4230 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska.
Dr. Philip Johnson, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271-5011.
The EVOSTC Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of
The EVOSTC Public Advisory Committee Meeting agenda will include review of the FY17 Work Plan of EVOSTC Restoration, Research, and Monitoring Projects; FY17 EVOSTC Annual Budget; and Habitat matters, as applicable. An opportunity for public comments will be provided. The final agenda and materials for the meeting will be posted on the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The surveys were executed at the request of the U. S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management and are necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west and north boundaries and portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 30 North, Range 52 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 183, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 24, Township 30 North, Range 53 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 183, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the corrective dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section 32, the dependent resurvey of portions of the east, south and west boundaries, the subdivisional lines and subdivision of section lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 26 North, Range 6 East, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 184, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of Lot No. 43, a portion of the Fourteenth Guide Meridian West, through Township 24 North, between Ranges 112 and 113 West, portions of the subdivisional lines, and the 1899 meanders of the banks of the Green River, the survey of the subdivision of section 5, the survey of the 2013 meanders of the westerly shore of Fontenelle Reservoir in section 5, and the metes and bounds survey of the west right-of-way of Wyoming State Highway No. 189 through section 5, Township 24 North, Range 112 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 894, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Sixth Standard Parallel North, through Range 112 West, portions of the subdivisional lines, and the 1901 meanders of the banks of the Green River, the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, the survey of the 2013-2014 meanders of the westerly shore of Fontenelle Reservoir in certain sections, and the metes-and-bounds survey of the west right-of-way of Wyoming State Highway No. 189 through certain sections, Township 25 North, Range 112 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 895, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 24, Township 13 North, Range 82 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 929, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 27, Township 54 North, Range 85 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 930, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sec. 2, Township 13 North, Range 77 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 931, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines, subdivision of section 24 and lots 10, 11 and 12, section 24, Township 14 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 932, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and the survey of the subdivision of section 12, Township 29 North, Range 100 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 933, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and a portion of the subdivision of section 15, Township 18 North, Range 80 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 935, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 19, Township 50 North, Range 63 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 936, was accepted August 11, 2016.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Thirteenth Auxiliary Guide Meridian West, through Township 31 North, between Ranges 108 and 109 West, the subdivisional lines and the 1892 meanders of the banks of New Fork River in section 12, and the survey of the subdivision of section 12, Township 31 North, Range 109 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 939, was accepted August 11, 2016.
WY957, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of the above surveys must file a written notice within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director, Bureau of Land Management, at the above address, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for the protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Wyoming State Director within thirty (30) calendar days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah State Office, will offer the Federal coal resources described below as the Greens Hollow Tract (UTU-84102) for competitive sale by sealed bid, in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the applicable implementing regulations. The sale tract is located in Sanpete and Sevier Counties, Utah.
The lease sale will be held at 1:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, on September 22, 2016.
Sealed bids must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Collections Officer, BLM, Utah State Office, or be hand-delivered to the BLM public room Contact Representatives, BLM Utah State Office, at the address indicated below, and must be received on or before 10:00 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time, on September 22, 2016.
Any bid received after the time specified will not be considered and will be returned. The BLM Contact Representatives will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered, sealed bid. The outside of the sealed envelope containing the bid must clearly state the envelope contains a bid for Coal Lease Sale UTU-84102, and is not to be opened before the date and hour of the sale.
Sealed bids must be mailed to the Collection Officer or hand-delivered to the BLM public room Contact Representative at BLM, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345. The opening of the sealed bids will take place at the Salt Lake City Public Library, 210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah at 1:00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time.
Contact Jeff McKenzie, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345 or telephone 801-539-4038. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Replies are provided during scheduled business hours.
This Coal Lease Sale is being held in response to a lease by application submitted by Ark Land Company (Ark). That application was assigned by Ark to Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Bowie Resource Partners, LLC. The assignment was effective September 1, 2013 and was approved by the BLM on July 1, 2014. The coal resources to be offered consist of all recoverable reserves available in the lands identified below. These lands are located in Sanpete and Sevier Counties, Utah, approximately 10.5 miles west of Emery, Utah, under surface lands managed by the Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests. Those lands are described as follows:
Sec. 36, lot 4, E
The area described contains 6,175.39 acres.
The coal in the Greens Hollow Tract has one minable coal bed, which is designated as either the Upper Hiawatha or the Lower Hiawatha seam. These seams are approximately 11 feet in thickness. The coal beds contain approximately 55.7 million tons of recoverable high-volatile C bituminous coal. The “as received basis” coal quality in the Upper Hiawatha coal bed is: 11,565 Btu/lb., 7.46 percent moisture, 9.81 percent ash, 36.55 percent volatile matter, 46.1 percent fixed carbon, and 0.55 percent sulfur. The “as received basis” coal quality in the Lower Hiawatha coal bed is: 11,538 Btu/lb., 7.21 percent moisture, 9.69 percent ash, 38.88 percent volatile matter, 43.85 percent fixed carbon, and 1.26 percent sulfur.
Pursuant to the applicable regulations, the Greens Hollow Tract may be leased to the qualified bidder (as established at 43 CFR subpart 3472) that submits the highest cash bonus bid that is equal to or exceeds the Fair Market Value (FMV) for the tract as determined by the authorized officer after the sale. The BLM has prepared its fair market value estimate for the tract, which estimate has been reviewed by the Department of Interior's Office of Valuation Services.
The Department of the Interior has established a general minimum bid of $100 per acre or fraction thereof for the tract. The minimum bid is not intended to represent the FMV, and a tract will not be sold unless the bid received meets or exceeds BLM's FMV estimate. The lease that may be issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre or fraction thereof, and a royalty of 8 percent of the value of the coal produced by underground mining methods. The value of the coal for royalty purposes will be determined in accordance with 30 CFR part 1206, subpart F. This coal lease application (UTU-84102) is not subject to case-by-case processing fees pursuant to 43 CFR 3473.2(f). However, the successful bidder must pay to the BLM the cost BLM incurs regarding the publishing of this sale notice. If there is no successful bidder, the applicant will be responsible for all publishing costs.
The required detailed statement under 43 CFR 3422.2 for the offered tract, including bidding instructions and sale procedures under 43 CFR 3422.3-2, and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease, is available from BLM, Public Room (Suite 500), Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, 5th Floor, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345. All case file documents and written comments submitted by the public on FMV, except those portions identified as proprietary by the author and meeting exemptions stated in the Freedom of Information Act, are available for public inspection during normal business hours in the BLM Public Room (Suite 500).
The actions announced by this notice are consistent with the Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3338, which allows for a lease sale to be held and lease to be issued for a pending application where the environmental impact statement under the National
The United States Forest Service prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and signed a Record of Decision and a consent to lease on October 5, 2015, prior to the issuance of Order 3338. The BLM signed a Record of Decision to hold the lease sale on August 12, 2016.
43 CFR 3420.1
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before July 30, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 2, 2016.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before July 30, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A request for removal has been received for the following resources:
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Public notice of an unsolicited request for a commercial OCS wind lease, request for interest (RFI), and request for public comment.
The purpose of this public notice is to: (1) Describe the unsolicited proposal submitted to BOEM by Trident Winds, LLC (Trident Winds) to acquire an OCS commercial wind lease; (2) solicit submissions of indications of interest in acquiring a commercial lease for wind energy development on the OCS offshore California in the area described in this notice; and (3) solicit public input regarding the area described in this notice, the potential environmental consequences associated with wind energy development in the area, and existing and planned multiple uses of the area.
On January 14, 2016, BOEM received an unsolicited request from Trident Winds for a commercial wind lease on the OCS. Trident Winds' proposed project would consist of a utility-scale floating wind energy facility offshore Morro Bay, California that would interconnect with the California electrical grid at the existing Morro Bay Power Plant. The project would be located, at its closest point, approximately 15 nautical miles (nmi) offshore Point Piedras Blancas in water depths of approximately 2,900 feet. Additional information on Trident Winds' unsolicited lease request can be viewed at
This RFI is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), and BOEM's implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585. Subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act requires that OCS renewable energy leases, easements, and rights-of-way be issued “on a competitive basis unless the Secretary [of the Interior] determines after public notice of a proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way that there is no competitive interest.” This RFI provides public notice for the area requested by Trident Winds (the Proposed Lease Area) that is described below in the section “Description of the Proposed Lease Area,” and invites the submission of indications of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease within the Proposed Lease Area. Parties wishing to indicate competitive interest in the Proposed Lease Area should submit detailed and specific information as described in the section entitled “Required Indication of Interest Information.” BOEM will consider the responses to this public notice to determine whether competitive interest exists in the Proposed Lease Area.
This announcement also requests that interested and affected parties comment and provide information about site conditions and any existing or planned multiple uses within the Proposed Lease Area that may be relevant to the proposed project or its potential impacts.
If you are submitting an indication of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease for or within the Proposed Lease Area, your submission must be sent by mail, postmarked no later than September 19, 2016 for your submission to be considered. BOEM requests comments or other submissions of information by this same date.
If you are submitting an indication of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease, please submit it by mail to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific Region Office of Strategic Resources, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102 (CM 102), Camarillo, California 93010. Submissions must be postmarked by September 19, 2016 to be considered by BOEM for the purposes of determining competitive interest. Your complete submission must be provided to BOEM in both paper and electronic formats. BOEM considers an Adobe PDF file stored on a compact disc (CD) to be an acceptable format for submitting an electronic copy. BOEM will list the parties that submit indications of interest and the OCS blocks proposed for development on the BOEM Web site after the 30-day comment period has closed.
If you are submitting comments or other information concerning the Proposed Lease Area, you may use either of the following two methods:
1.
2. U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service. Send your comments and information to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific Region Office of Strategic Resources, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102 (CM 102), Camarillo, California 93010.
All responses will be reported on
Ms. Jean Thurston, Renewable Energy Specialist, BOEM, Pacific Region Office of Strategic Resources, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102 (CM 102), Camarillo, California 93010, Phone: (805) 384-6303.
Responses to this public notice will allow BOEM to determine, pursuant to 30 CFR 585.231, whether or not there is competitive interest in acquiring an OCS commercial wind lease in the Proposed Lease Area. In addition, this notice provides an opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposed Lease Area, the proposed project, and any potential impacts wind energy development in the Proposed Lease Area may have. BOEM may use comments received to further identify and refine the area being considered for wind energy development, and inform future environmental analyses related to the project.
Trident Winds' proposed Morro Bay Offshore Project would consist of a utility-scale floating wind energy facility offshore Morro Bay, California. The proposed project would generate an anticipated 765 megawatts (MW) of electricity from approximately 100 floating units, each equipped with up to an 8-MW wind turbine generator and connected by inter-unit electrical cabling, with a single transmission cable exporting electricity to the mainland. Trident Winds proposes to interconnect the project with the California electrical
In October 2015, the State of California passed the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB-350), requiring the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. New and modified electrical transmission facilities may be necessary to achieve the SB-350 goals. The proposed Trident Winds project may provide additional renewable energy capacity for use by the State of California to achieve its SB-350 goals.
After the publication of this notice, BOEM will evaluate indications of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease in the Proposed Lease Area. At the conclusion of the comment period for this public notice, BOEM will review the submissions received and undertake a completeness review for each of those submissions and a qualifications review for each of the nominating entities. BOEM will then make a determination as to whether competitive interest exists.
If, in response to this notice, BOEM receives one or more indications of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease from qualified entities that wish to compete for the Proposed Lease Area, BOEM may decide to move forward with the lease issuance process using competitive procedures pursuant to 30 CFR 585.211-225. If BOEM receives no competing indications of interest from qualified companies, BOEM may decide to move forward with the lease issuance process using the noncompetitive procedures contained in 30 CFR 585.231-232.
Should BOEM decide to proceed with issuing a lease in the Proposed Lease Area, whether competitively or noncompetitively, it will comply with all applicable requirements and provide the public with additional opportunities to provide input pursuant to 30 CFR part 585 and other applicable laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BOEM will also coordinate and consult, as appropriate, with relevant Federal agencies, affected tribes, affected state agencies, and affected local governments during the lease development and issuance process.
The Proposed Lease Area is located off the central coast of California, beginning approximately 15 nmi west of Point Piedras Blancas. The area extends approximately 21 nmi northwest to southeast, with a maximum width of approximately 6 nmi. The entire area is approximately 106 square miles (67,963 acres) and consists of 5 OCS blocks and 17 partial OCS blocks (191 sub blocks) (Table 1).
The boundary of the Proposed Lease Area follows the points listed in Table 2 in clockwise order. Coordinates are provided in UTM meters (UTM Zone 10N, NAD 83) and latitude/longitude decimal degrees (NAD83).
A map of the Proposed Lease Area can be found at:
The Department of Defense (DOD) conducts offshore testing, training, and operations on the OCS and may request that BOEM condition any activities that might take place in the Proposed Lease Area. BOEM will consult with DOD regarding potential issues concerning offshore testing, training, and operational activities in an effort to try to minimize any potential impacts, and may develop stipulations, as appropriate, to mitigate the effects of renewable energy activities on any DOD activities in and around the Proposed Lease Area.
If you intend to submit an indication of interest in acquiring a commercial wind lease within the Proposed Lease Area, you must provide the following:
(1) The BOEM Protraction name, number, and specific whole or partial OCS blocks within the Proposed Lease Area that are of interest for commercial wind leasing, including any required buffer area(s). If your area(s) includes partial blocks, include the sub-block letter (A-P). Additionally, you should submit a shapefile or geodatabase of the project area compatible with ArcGIS 10.3 and in either NAD 83 unprojected, or NAD 83 UTM Zone 10 N. Any request for a commercial wind lease located outside of the Proposed Lease Area should be submitted separately pursuant to 30 CFR 585.230;
(2) A general description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives;
(3) A general schedule of proposed activities, including those leading to the development of a commercial wind energy project within the Proposed Lease Area;
(4) Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the area that you wish to lease, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the area of interest. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted
(5) Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a lease as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106-107. Legal qualification documents will be placed in an official file that may be made available for public review. If you wish that any part of your legal qualification documentation be kept confidential, clearly identify what should be kept confidential, and submit it under separate cover (see “Protection of Privileged or Confidential Information Section,” below); and
(6) Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining, and decommissioning the facilities described in paragraph (2) above. Guidance regarding the documentation that could be used to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
It is critical that you provide a complete submission of interest so that BOEM may consider your submission in a timely manner. If BOEM reviews your submission and determines that it is incomplete, BOEM will inform you of this determination in writing and describe the information that BOEM needs from you in order for BOEM to deem your submission complete. You will be given 15 business days from the date of the letter to provide any information that BOEM has deemed missing from your original submission. If you do not meet this deadline, or if BOEM determines that your second submission is also insufficient, BOEM may deem your submission invalid. In such a case, BOEM will not consider your submission.
BOEM is also requesting specific and detailed comments from the public and interested or affected parties regarding the following:
(1) Geological and geophysical conditions (including seabed conditions and shallow hazards) in the Proposed Lease Area;
(2) Historic properties and archaeological resources potentially affected by the installation of wind facilities in the Proposed Lease Area;
(3) Other uses of the Proposed Lease Area, including, but not limited to, navigation (including commercial and recreational vessel usage); commercial and recreational fishing; recreational activities (
(4) Other relevant environmental information relating to the Proposed Lease Area, including but not limited to: national marine sanctuary resources, protected species and habitats, marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, fish, zooplankton, and cultural resources; and
(5) Socioeconomic information relating to the Proposed Lease Area, such as demographics and employment or information relevant to environmental justice considerations.
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information you submit when required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, please identify and clearly label it with “Contains Confidential Information” and request BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Information not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of privileged or confidential information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential (1) the legal title of any entity submitting an indication of interest (for example, the name of your company), or (2) the list of whole or partial blocks that you are indicating an interest in leasing.
BOEM is required to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines disclosure may, among other things, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Those providing information eligible for protection under section 304 of NHPA should designate such information as confidential.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 24, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164-1165 (Review) (Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on September 9, 2016.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1306 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of large residential washers from China, provided for in subheading 8450.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value.
Also covered are certain parts used in large residential washers, namely: (1) All cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in large residential washers; (2) all assembled tubs designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) A tub; and (b) a seal; (3) all assembled baskets designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) A side wrapper; (b) a base; and (c) a drive hub; and (4) any combination of the foregoing parts or subassemblies.
Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” segment meeting either of the following two definitions:
(1) (a) It contains payment system electronics; (b) it is configured with an externally mounted steel frame at least six inches high that is designed to house a coin/token operated payment system (whether or not the actual coin/token operated payment system is installed at the time of importation); (c) it contains a push button user interface with a maximum of six manually selectable wash cycle settings, with no ability of the end user to otherwise modify water temperature, water level, or spin speed for a selected wash cycle setting; and (d) the console containing the user interface is made of steel and is assembled with security fasteners; or
(2) (a) it contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) such that, in normal operation, the unit cannot begin a wash cycle without first receiving a signal from a bona fide payment acceptance device such as an electronic credit card reader; (c) it contains a push button user interface with a maximum of six manually selectable wash cycle settings, with no ability of the end user to otherwise modify water temperature, water level, or spin speed for a selected wash cycle setting; and (d) the console containing the user interface is made of steel and is assembled with security fasteners.
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a vertical rotational axis; (2) are top loading; (3) have a drive train consisting, inter alia, of (a) a permanent split capacitor (PSC) motor, (b) a belt drive, and (c) a flat wrap spring clutch.
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading; and (3) have a drive train consisting, inter alia, of (a) a controlled induction motor (CIM), and (b) a belt drive.
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading; and (3) have cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of more than 28.5 inches (72.39 cm).”
Christopher Cassise ((202) 708-5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on July 19, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 11, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 27, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Aeris Communications, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; and Uber Technologies Inc., San Francisco, CA. The general area of ASRB's planned activity is research focused on mitigation of future automotive cybersecurity risks.
Notice is hereby given that, on July 26, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, AT&T Services, Inc. (on behalf of itself and its affiliates), Atlanta, GA; CA Engineering, Draper, UT; Cisco Systems, Inc., Lawrenceville, GA; Guangdong Pisen Electronics Co. Ltd., Longgang District, Shenzhen City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Imagination Technologies, Sunnyvale, CA; Le Shi Zhi Xin Electronic Technology (Tianjin) Limited, Chaoyang District, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; LiteOn Technology Corporation, New Taipei City, TAIWAN; Sproutling, San Francisco, CA; Vestel Elektronik, Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Manisa, TURKEY; Weaved, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Things.Expert LLC, Doral, FL; Hubble Connected Limited, Victoria, British Columbia, CANADA; DAWON DNS Co., Ltd., Gwangmyeoung-si, Gyeonggi-do, KOREA; Playtabase, Minneapolis, MN; Connectuity, Louisville, KY; CenturyLink, Denver, CO; People Power Company, Palo Alto, CA; Seed Labs, San Francisco, CA; Carvoyant, Inc., Odessa, FL; iGloo Software Pty Ltd., West Melbourne, AUSTRALIA; Waygum, Inc., Dublin, CA; Unizyx Holding Corporation, Hsinchu, TAIWAN; Infobright Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA; Hisilicon Technologies Co., Ltd., Longgang District, Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; ZTE Corporation, Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and CastleOS Software, LLC, Johnston, RI, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AllSeen Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 29, 2014, AllSeen Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 9, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 18, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, the following members have changed their names: Mint Systems Limited to BridgeWorx Ltd., Brighton, UNITED KINGDOM; Ascom Deutschland GmbH, Systems & Solutions to Axino Solutions Group, Aachen, GERMANY; TeliaSonera AB to Telia Company, Stockholm, SWEDEN; Mobistar to Orange Belgium NV/SA, Brussels, BELGIUM; Ace Group Holdings, Inc., to CHUBB, New York, NY; FIWARE to OgilvyOne Worldwide S.A. c/o FIWARE, Madrid, SPAIN; Robots to RoboFold Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; and Bring Global to Bring Labs, Lisbon, PORTUGAL.
In addition, the following parties have withdrawn as parties to this venture: Alcatel-Lucent, Velizy, FRANCE; Banan IT FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE; bit2win, Rome, ITALY; Broadpeak, Rennes, FRANCE; Cardinality, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Croatian Telecom-HT, Zagreb, CROATIA; cVidya Networks Ltd., Herzliya, ISRAEL; DayBlink Consulting, LLC, Vienna, VA; drop D, Quito, ECUADOR; Eir, Dublin, IRELAND; Etisalat UAE, Abu Dhabi, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Fiberblaze, New York, NY; Fornax ICT Kft., Budapest, HUNGARY; Intersec Group, Paris, FRANCE; Magyar Telekom, Budapest, HUNGARY; MEASAT Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd (MBNS-Astro), Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; MTN Ghana, Accra, GHANA; OJSC “VimpelCom,” Moscow, RUSSIA; Samsung Electronics Co., Suwon, SOUTH KOREA; Scarlet S.A, Evere, BELGIUM; Servicios Axtel, SAB, San Pedro Garza Garcia, MEXICO; SML Technologies, Jakarta, INDONESIA; SourceConnect, Chicago, IL; Thomson Video Networks, Cesson-Sévigné, FRANCE; T-Mobile Austria GmbH, Vienna, AUSTRIA; T-Mobile Nederland BV, The Hague, NETHERLANDS; T-Slovak Telekom, a.s., Bratislava, SLOVAKIA; TTNet A.S., Istanbul, TURKEY; Turkcell Iletisim Hiz A.S., Istanbul, TURKEY; UNITEL S.A., Luanda, ANGOLA; Virtual Clarity Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; Wisdom
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 2016. A notice was published in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Thursday, September 15, 2016, 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-790-3253, passcode 4030394, to participate in this meeting by telephone.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
—Earth Science Program Annual Performance Review According to the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act.
It is imperative that this meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before September 19, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on August 11, 2016.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan—final section revision; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final revision to two sections in Chapter 3, “Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” The revisions to these Standard Review Plan (SRP) sections reflect no changes in staff position; rather they clarify the original intent of these SRP sections using plain language throughout in accordance with the NRC's Plain Writing Action Plan. Additionally, these
The effective date of this Standard Review Plan (SRP) update is September 19, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0198 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mark Notich, telephone: 301-415-3053; email:
The staff received no comments on the proposed revisions. The staff is issuing the sections in final form for use. There have been no significant changes made to the sections since being issued in proposed form for public comment. An incorrect statement which stated that the SRP provisions only apply to reviews of applications docketed 6 months or more after the date of issuance was removed. Details of specific changes between current SRP sections and the revised sections issued here are included at the end of each of the revised sections themselves, under the “Description of Changes,” subsections.
The Office of New Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are revising these sections from their current revisions. Details of specific changes in the proposed revisions are included at the end of each of the proposed sections.
The changes to these SRP sections reflect current NRC staff review methods and practices based on lessons learned from the NRC's reviews of design certification and combined license applications completed since the last revision of this chapter.
Issuance of these revised SRP sections does not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109 of title 10 of the
The SRP provides guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for the NRC's regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal NRC staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.
The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the SRP to existing (already issued) licenses and regulatory approvals. Therefore, the issuance of a final SRP—even if considered guidance that is within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—need not be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of already issued licenses in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the NRC staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed in the next paragraph—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
The ADAMS accession numbers for the revised sections are available in ADAMS under the following accession numbers:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) are the holders of Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94, which authorize the construction and operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 (VCSNS 2 & 3), respectively.
This exemption is effective as of August 18, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
The simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 comprises two AP1000 full scope simulators, which are designated “2A” and “2B”. Both simulators are referenced to VCSNS Unit 2 and are intended to be maintained functionally identical. The simulators are licensed to conform to the requirements of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and License Examination,” as endorsed by Revision 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.149, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and License Examinations.”
On August 3, 2016, the Commission-approved the simulation facility under § 55.46(b) of title 10 of the
Section 55.31(a)(5) states that to apply for an operator's or senior operator's license the applicant shall provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has successfully manipulated the controls of either the facility for which a license is sought or a PRS that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(c). However, the VCSNS 2 & 3 simulators have not yet been found to meet the NRC's requirements for PRSs at 10 CFR 55.46(c) because the design activities required by the AP1000 design certification to establish the human factors engineering design for the main control room are incomplete.
The SCE&G requested an exemption from 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) on June 8, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16161A030), requesting that the Commission-approved simulation facility be approved in lieu of a PRS for the performance of significant control manipulations. The Commission has determined that an exemption is warranted from the requirement in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) that the applicant for a VCSNS 2 & 3 operator's license use a PRS or the facility to provide evidence of having successfully manipulated the controls of the facility. In lieu of that requirement, the Commission will accept evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has successfully manipulated the controls of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(b).
The staff's evaluation of this action follows.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own
1.
Exemptions are authorized by law where they are not expressly prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly “authorized by law” if all of the conditions listed therein are met (
The regulations in 10 CFR part 55 implement Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), which sets requirements upon the Commission concerning operators' licenses and states, in part, that the Commission shall (1) “prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals as operators of any of the various classes of . . . utilization facilities licensed” by the NRC and (2) “determine the qualifications of such individuals.”
These requirements in the AEA do not expressly prohibit exemptions to the portion of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) that requires the use of a PRS or the facility for control manipulations. Further, as explained below, the exemption has little impact on the uniformity of licensing conditions, and little impact on the determinations of qualifications.
In a letter from Ronald A. Jones, Vice President, New Nuclear Operations, SCE&G to the NRC dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16112A256), the facility licensee requested Commission approval of the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 to support the administration of operator licensing examinations.
The staff's evaluation of the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 concluded that the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 provides the necessary reactor physics, thermal hydraulic, and integrated system modeling of the reference plant (
The staff's evaluation of the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 concluded that the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 is capable of providing a wide range of scenarios that address the 13 items in 10 CFR 55.45(a) without procedural exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved examination scenario sequence. Control manipulations are a subset of actions included in these scenarios and have a defined scope that is significantly less than an examination scenario. Because of the reduced scope, the presence of existing simulator discrepancies in any training scenarios that provide applicants with the opportunity to provide the required control manipulations is even less likely as compared to operating tests. Therefore, there exists a large variety of control manipulations that can be completed without procedural exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved training scenario sequence.
Further, the conditions under which the applicants are licensed will be essentially unchanged, and the usage of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility in place of a PRS will not significantly change how the Commission determines the qualifications of applicants. Under the exemption, 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) will continue to require the applicant to perform, at a minimum, five significant control manipulations that affect reactivity or power level.
For purposes of control manipulations, the staff has already determined in its safety evaluation documenting Commission-approval of the simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16203A116) that the facility sufficiently models the systems of the reference plant, including the operating consoles, and permits use of the reference plant's procedures. Facility licensees that propose to use a PRS to meet the control manipulation requirements in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) must ensure that:
(i) The plant-referenced simulator utilizes models relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a license is being sought; and
(ii) Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that significant control manipulations are completed without procedural exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved training scenario sequence.
Accordingly, because a PRS and the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility are essentially the same with respect to control manipulations, an exemption from 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) allowing the use of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility in lieu of a PRS or the facility for control manipulations will still satisfy the applicable statutory requirements of the AEA that the Commission prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals as operators and determine the qualifications of operators.
The acceptability of the VCSNS 2 & 3 simulation facility with respect to the significant control manipulations required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) is additionally assured by the fact that SCE&G performs scenario-based testing (SBT) for scenarios used to satisfy the control manipulation requirement. To ensure that simulator discrepancies and/or procedure issues do not affect control manipulations, SCE&G, as a standard practice in accordance with its licensing basis, implements SBT in accordance with Revision 1 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 09-09, “Nuclear Power Plant-Referenced Simulator Scenario Based Testing Methodology.”
Key to the SBT Methodology is parallel testing and evaluation of simulator performance while instructors validate simulator training and evaluation scenarios. As instructors validate satisfactory completion of training or evaluation objectives, procedure steps and scenario content, they are also ensuring satisfactory simulator performance in parallel, not series, making the process an “online” method of evaluating simulator performance. Also critical is the assembly of the SBT package—the collection of a marked-up scenario,
Therefore, since the Commission-approved simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 conforms to the same control manipulation requirements as a PRS, the NRC staff will continue to comply with its requirements governing uniformity and operator qualifications.
Accordingly, for the reasons above, and in light of the reasons discussed in Sections 2 and 3 below, the Commission concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.
2.
As discussed above, as part of its review and approval of SCE&G's request for a VCSNS 2 & 3, Commission-approved simulation facility the staff found that the simulator demonstrates expected plant response to operator input and to normal, transient, and accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond. Further, the staff found that the simulator is designed and implemented so that (i) it is sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of the evolutions listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1) through (13), and 10 CFR 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as applicable to the design of the reference plant and (ii) it allows for the completion of control manipulations for operator license applicants. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the Commission-approved simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 will replicate reference plant performance for the significant control manipulations required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5).
Because the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility satisfactorily replicates reference plant performance with respect to control manipulations, the staff concludes that there is no basis to find endangerment of life or property as a consequence of the exemption.
3.
The Commission's values guide the NRC in maintaining certain principles as it carries out regulatory activities in furtherance of its safety and security mission. These principles focus the NRC on ensuring safety and security while appropriately considering the interests of the NRC's stakeholders, including the public and licensees. These principles include Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability. Whether granting an exemption to the requirement to use a PRS or the facility and allowing use of a Commission-approved simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 would be in the public interest depends on the consideration and balancing of the foregoing factors.
Concerning Efficiency, the public has an interest in the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve. Where several effective alternatives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted. Regulatory decisions should be made without undue delay. As applied to using a Commission-approved simulation facility rather than a PRS or the facility, in light of the Commission's findings that the capabilities of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility are equivalent to those of a PRS for control manipulations, the use of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility provides both an effective and an efficient alternative for the VCSNS 2 & 3 operator license applicant to gain the required experience.
Concerning Reliability, once established, regulations should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of transition. Regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with written regulations and should be promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning processes. Here, where the staff has already found that the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility is equivalent to a PRS with respect to control manipulations, the substantive requirements upon the operator license applicant are unchanged with the granting of the exemption. Further, the public has an interest in reliability in terms of the stability of the nuclear planning process. This exemption aids planning by allowing operator license applicants to complete their applications sooner, with the underlying requirements essentially unchanged, and could result in licensing decisions being made earlier than would be possible if the applicants had to wait for a PRS to be available.
Concerning Clarity, there should be a clear nexus between regulations and agency goals and objectives whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Agency positions should be readily understood and easily applied. For the reasons explained in the NRC's evaluation of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility, the Commission-approved simulation facility is sufficient for administering operating tests, and is able to meet the requirements of a PRS with respect to control manipulations. The exemption accordingly recognizes that the capabilities of the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility are suitable to accomplish the regulatory purpose underlying the requirements of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5).
The exemption is also consistent with the principles of Independence and Openness; the Commission has independently and objectively considered the regulatory interests involved and has explicitly documented its reasons for issuing the exemption.
Accordingly, on balance the Commission concludes that the exemption is in the public interest.
The Commission concludes that the exemption is (1) authorized by law, and (2) will not endanger life or property, and (3) is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, in lieu of the requirements of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5), the Commission will accept evidence that the applicant for a VCSNS 2 & 3 operator license has completed the required manipulations on the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(b), rather than on a PRS or the facility.
This exemption will expire when a VCSNS 2 & 3 PRS that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 55.46(c) is available. Furthermore, this exemption is subject to the condition that the Commission-approved simulation facility for VCSNS 2 & 3 continues to model the reference plant with sufficient scope and fidelity, in accordance with 10 CFR 55.46(c) and (d).
This exemption allows the five significant control manipulations required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) to be performed on the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility that has been approved for the administration of operating tests instead of on the VCSNS 2 & 3 facility or a PRS.
For the following reasons, this exemption meets the eligibility criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) for a categorical exclusion. There is no significant hazards consideration related to this
4. This exemption is effective as of August 18, 2016.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, issuing this exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest. The Commission will accept evidence of control manipulations performed on the VCSNS 2 & 3 Commission-approved simulation facility instead of on the VCSNS 2 & 3 facility or a PRS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This is an amendment to the Sunshine Act meeting notice of the Postal Regulatory Commission published in the
September 1, 2016, at 11 a.m.
1. Report from the Office of Public Affairs and Government Relations.
2. Report from the Office of the General Counsel.
3. Report from the Office of Accountability and Compliance.
4. Presentation to the Commission on the United States Postal Service Stamp Program by Mary Anne Penner, Director of Stamp Services, United States Postal Service. (September 1, 2016 Meeting only)
5. Commissioners Vote to designate new Vice-Chairman of the Commission pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 502(e). (December 1, 2016 Meeting only)
6. Discussion of pending litigation.
By direction of the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service.
Notice of Computer Matching Program—United States Postal Service and the Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense.
The United States Postal Service® (USPS®) plans to continue to participate as a recipient agency in a computer matching program with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Department of Defense (DoD) as the source agency. The purpose of this program, and associated computer matching agreement (Agreement), is to enable the DMDC to determine whether members of the Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, or the Retired Reserve of the Armed Forces of the United States are eligible for the TRICARE Reserve Select Program (TRS) or TRICARE Retired Reserve Program (TRR). Specifically, this program is intended to identify TRS and TRR recipients who are eligible for, or who are receiving, health coverage under Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB), and on the basis of these findings and subsequent investigation, to terminate TRS and TRR benefits if appropriate.
The matching program will begin on the effective date of the Agreement. The effective date is the expiration of a 40-day review period by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress or 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, whichever is later. The matching program will be valid for a period of 18 months after this date.
Written comments on this proposal should be mailed or delivered to the Privacy and Records Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 9431, Washington, DC 20260. Copies of all written comments will be available at the above address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy Officer, (202) 268-3069 or
The Postal Service and DMDC have agreed to conduct a computer matching program under subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The Postal Service is undertaking this initiative to assist the DMDC in fulfilling a mandate issued under section 706 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (NDAA of 2007) (Pub. L. 109-364), and section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84). These Acts exclude from program coverage those Selected Reserve and Retired Reserve members who are also eligible for Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) under chapter 89 of title 5, U.S. Code.
The Parties to this Agreement have determined that a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining the information needed by the DMDC to identify individuals ineligible to continue enrollment in the TRS and the TRR programs. If this semiannual identification is not accomplished by computer matching, but instead done manually, the burdensome process would be cost prohibitive and it is possible that not all individuals would be identified.
The Postal Service has agreed to assist the DMDC in its efforts to identify individuals who are not entitled to receive health coverage under TRS or TRR. Currently, upon initial enrollment into TRS or TRR, service members must certify that they are not eligible for FEHB in order to purchase TRS or TRR
The DMDC will provide the Postal Service an electronic file containing personally identifiable information from system of records DMDC 02, “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)” as amended by 80 FR 68304 (November 4, 2015).The Postal Service will compare the DMDC electronic file with its payroll files from system of records USPS 100.400, Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records, as amended by 80 FR11241 (March 2, 2015), routine use 7. Postal Service employee matches will be provided to the DMDC with the FEHB program eligibility and federal employment information necessary to either verify the eligibility to enroll or verify the continuing eligibility of enrolled service members.
The DMDC will update System of Record DMDC 02 with the USPS FEHB eligibility information and will provide the matching results to the responsible Reserve Component. The Reserve Component is responsible for verifying the information and making final determinations as to positive identification and eligibility for TRS or TRR benefits.
This computer match may have an adverse effect on individuals that are identified from the match. After verifying the accuracy of the matching information and determining ineligibility for coverage under TRS or TRR, the DoD will immediately notify individuals of their ineligibility for TRS or TRR and inform them at the same time about procedures for enrolling in FEHB. This process will help to alleviate or minimize any break in medical coverage.
The privacy of employees will be safeguarded and protected. The Postal Service will manage all data in strict accordance with the Privacy Act and the terms of the matching agreement. Any verified data that is maintained will be managed within the parameters of Privacy Act System of Record USPS 100.400, Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records.
The Postal Service will provide 40 days of advance notice to Congress and postal employee unions for each subsequent matching agreement. Set forth below are the terms of the matching agreement (exclusive of attachments), which provide information required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a); OMB Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989), and OMB Circular No. A-130, Appendix I, 65 FR 77677 (December 12, 2000)).
This computer matching agreement supersedes all existing data exchange agreements or memorandums of understanding between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the United States Postal Service (USPS) applicable for determining the eligibility for the enrollment in premium based TRICARE health plans for Reserve Component (RC) Service members based on their eligibility for Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.
The purpose of this agreement is to establish the conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which the USPS, an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, section 201 of Title 39, United States Code (U.S.C.), as the recipient agency, will receive from the DoD, the source agency, personally identifiable information pertaining to members of the Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and Retired Reserve of the Armed Forces of the United States. Such information will be used in a matching program for the purpose of providing the DoD with the FEHB program eligibility and Federal employment information necessary to either verify the eligibility to enroll or verify the continuing eligibility of enrolled Service members for premium based TRICARE health plans such as the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) Program and the TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) Program.
This CMA is executed to comply with section 552a of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended (the Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law (PL) 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (CMPPA) of 1988, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, titled “Management of Federal Information Resources” at 61
Section 706 of PL 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, amended section 1076d of Title 10 U.S.C. to establish the enhanced TRS Program as of October 1, 2007. Section 705 of PL 111-84, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, amended section 1076e of Title 10 U.S.C. to establish the TRR Program as of October 29, 2009. RC Service members who have continuing eligibility for the FEHB Program pursuant to chapter 89 of Title 5 U.S.C. are not eligible to enroll, or continue an enrollment, in the TRS or the TRR Program. This agreement implements the additional validation processes needed by DoD to insure RC Service members eligible for the FEHB Program may not enroll, or may not continue a current enrollment, in the TRS or the TRR Program.
Under the terms of this matching agreement, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will provide to USPS Payroll a file of records consisting of Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth (DOB), and the name of Service members of the Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and Retired Reserve of the Armed Forces of the United States. DMDC will update the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) record of those RC Service members with FEHB Program eligibility information from the USPS response file. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (OASD(RA)) will be responsible for providing the verified information to the RCs to aid in processing of TRS and TRR eligibility determinations.
USPS agrees to conduct two computer matches within a calendar year of the records of RC Service members provided by DMDC
1. Justification. Service members of the Selected Reserve who are eligible for the FEHB Program are ineligible to enroll in the TRS Program. Once a Selected Reserve Service member enrolls in the TRS Program, he or she maintains continued coverage until enrolling in a non-premium based TRICARE Program, makes a decision to terminate TRS coverage, or leaves the Selected Reserve voluntarily. Service members of the Retired Reserve who are eligible for the FEHB Program are ineligible to enroll in the TRR Program. Once a Retired Reserve member enrolls in the TRR Program, he or she maintains continued coverage until they reach age 60, voluntarily makes a decision to terminate the coverage, or enrolls in a non-premium based TRICARE Program. In order to effectively administer the program, DoD has a requirement for a verified source of FEHB Program eligibility to administer the TRS and the TRR Programs.
As a condition of enrollment into the TRS or the TRR Program, Service members certify they are not eligible for the FEHB Program. Since there is no mandatory termination date for TRS, and the mandatory termination date for TRR is age 60, DoD will validate the eligibility status of the member on a semiannual basis using data from the USPS Payroll. Absent the matching agreement, the enrolled RC population would be required to recertify their eligibility for the FEHB Program every year. This would be an onerous process for Service members as well as significant expense for DoD. The use of computer technology to transfer data between DMDC and USPS Payroll is faster and more efficient than the use of any other manual process to verify eligibility information for the FEHB Program.
2. Expected Results. The data from USPS Payroll will identify Service members who are eligible for the FEHB Program and will be used to prevent an enrollment in the TRS or the TRR Program if warranted, and also to identify the FEHB Program eligibility of currently enrolled Service members in the TRS and the TRR Program. The computer match between the USPS Payroll system and the DEERS could have an adverse impact on those individuals who lose their entitlement for TRS or TRR Program; however, it will have a positive impact as well. Service members are notified of the pending termination of their enrollment for TRS or TRR Program and provided information for enrollment in the FEHB Program. This matching process will help to insure the member has no break in medical coverage.
The derived benefits from this matching operation are primarily not quantifiable. DoD is responding to statute to exclude from the TRS and the TRR Programs Service members eligible for the FEHB Program. No savings will accrue to DoD as a result of this match. Eligible beneficiaries will receive care they are entitled to under the law.
1. Systems of Records (SOR). DoD will use the SOR identified as DMDC 02 DoD, entitled “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS) November 04, 2015, 80 FR 68304.” The SSNs of RC Service members released to USPS pursuant to the routine use “6” set forth in the system notice DMDC 02 DoD. (A copy of the system notice is at Attachment 1).
2. Systems of Records (SOR). USPS Payroll provides identification of the FEHB Program status of RC Service members to validate the eligibility for the statutory requirement of the TRS and the TRR Program. Therefore, eligibility information is maintained in the SOR identified as USPS 100.400 “Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records,” at 80 FR 11241, March 2, 2015, pursuant to routine use 6. (A copy of the system notice is at Attachment 2).
3. Number of Records. DMDC will submit a finder file of approximately 1.4 million records containing the SSN, name, and DOB of RC Service members for matching against the USPS Payroll, and will submit subsequent finder files on a semiannual basis thereafter. USPS Payroll will provide a reply file containing all appropriate matched responses.
4. Specified Data Elements. See Attachment 3 for a sample record format for the finder file and the reply file.
5. Operational Time Factors. DMDC will forward the initial finder file of RC Service members to USPS Payroll after the Congressional and OMB review and public comment requirements, mandated by the Privacy Act, are satisfied. USPS Payroll will provide a reply file no later than 30 business days after receipt of the initial finder file. Subsequent finder files, submitted on a semiannual basis, will receive a response within approximately 30 business days of receipt. USPS Payroll requires the reporting of the health plan semiannually: March and September, and the USPS Payroll system is usually available for use from 60 to 90 days after the end of the month. DMDC will send the finder file when the USPS Payroll system is ready to match, approximately 60 to 90 days after March and September.
The Defense Health Agency, (DHA)TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) will inform all TRS and TRR sponsors of computer matching activities at the time of enrollment by means of the encounter statement on the DD Form 2896-1, “RC Health Coverage Request Form.” The DD Form 2896-1 is used to coordinate enrollment into the TRS Program or the TRR Program. RC Service members certify at the time of enrollment that they are not eligible for the FEHB Program. In order to provide direct notice to those Service members enrolled in TRS or TRR, DMDC will first need the information from USPS Payroll to identify TRS and TRR participants who are eligible for the FEHB Program. Once DMDC receives that information, Service members enrolled in TRS and TRR identified by the USPS Payroll matching result as FEHB eligible will be notified by their RC in writing of this status. The Service members enrolled in TRS or TRR are requested to terminate TRS or TRR coverage if the USPS Payroll information is correct or to seek RC assistance to determine their proper eligibility for the FEHB Program if the USPS Payroll data is incorrect. The RCs and DHA will also provide qualifying information for TRS and TRR to RC Service members through beneficiary handbooks, pamphlets, educational materials, press releases, briefings, and via the DHA Web site.
Any deficiencies as to direct notice to the individual for the matching program are resolved by the indirect or constructive notice that is afforded the individual by agency publication in the FR of both the:
1. Applicable routine use notice, as required by section 552(e)(11) of Title 10 U.S.C. permitting the disclosure of the FEHB Program eligibility information for DoD TRS and TRR Program eligibility purposes.
2. The proposed match notice, as required by section 552(a)(e)(12) of Title 10 U.S.C., announcing an agency's intent to conduct computer matching for verification of FEHB Program eligibility for determining eligibility for TRS and TRR Program.
1. Verification. The RCs, in support of OASD(RA), are responsible for resolving FEHB Program eligibility based on the data provided by DMDC from the USPS Payroll reply file where inconsistencies exist. Any discrepancies as furnished by USPS Payroll, or developed as a result of the match, will be independently investigated and verified by the RCs, in support of OASD(RA), prior to any adverse action being taken against the individual.
2. Opportunity to Contest Findings. Based on the DoD policy the RCs agree to provide written notice to each individual whom DoD believes is no longer eligible for the TRS or the TRR Program based on the USPS Payroll file match. If the individual fails to terminate coverage or notify the RC that the information is not accurate within 30 days from the date of the notice, DoD will forward the information to the RC Program Manager for final resolution of the TRS or the TRR enrollment.
The electronic data sent from DMDC to the USPS (“finder file”) in accordance with this matching program will remain the property of the DMDC. The USPS will destroy this finder file after the third consecutive day that it has not been accessed, when the next finder file is received, which ever date is earlier, or upon cancellation of the agreement. The electronic data that the USPS provides to DMDC resulting from the match will remain the property of the USPS. The
1. DoD will comply with all Federal requirements relating to information security, information systems security, and privacy, including the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), the E-Government Act of 2002, OMB memoranda related to privacy, and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) directives in the Special Publications (SP) 800 series (
a. Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 268;
b. USPS Handbook AS-353—Guide to Privacy, the Freedom of Information Act, and Records Management (available at
c. USPS Response Plan for Information Breaches Involving Personal Information;
d. USPS Handbook AS-805, Information Technology and AS-805-H Cloud Security; and
e. the official USPS Privacy Policy (available at
2. Each agency shall establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to assure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazard to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained.
3. Data must be protected at the Moderate system certification criticality level according to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems.
4. DoD and USPS have completed the security authorization process and the certification and accreditation process respectively within the last 3 years, using the required NIST guidance, and have an Authorization to Operate (ATO) and accreditation letter with the appropriate signatures.
5. FISMA requirements apply to all Federal contractors, organizations, or entities that possess or use Federal information, or that operate, use, or have access to Federal information systems on behalf of an agency. DoD and USPS agree that they are responsible for oversight and compliance of their own contractors and agents. DoD and USPS each reserve the right to conduct onsite inspections of any contractor or agent who has access to matched data in order to monitor compliance with FISMA regulations during the lifetime of this CMA.
6. Access to the records matched and to any records created by the match will be restricted only to those authorized employees and officials who need it to perform their official duties in connection with the uses of the information authorized in this agreement. Further, all personnel who will have access to the data matched and to any data created by the match will be advised of the confidential nature of the data, the safeguards required to protect the data, and the civil and criminal sanctions for noncompliance contained in the applicable Federal laws.
7. The records matched, and any records created by the match, will be processed under the immediate supervision and control of authorized personnel, to protect the confidentiality of the records in such a way that unauthorized persons cannot retrieve any such records by means of computer, remote terminal or other means.
8. All personnel who will have access to the records exchanged and to any records created by this exchange are advised of the confidential nature of the information, the safeguards required to protect the information and the civil and criminal sanctions for noncompliance contained in applicable Federal Laws.
9. USPS Payroll and DMDC may make onsite inspections, and may make other provisions to ensure that each agency is maintaining adequate safeguards.
10. The Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of USPS and DoD reserve the right to monitor compliance of systems security requirements, including, if warranted, the right to make onsite inspections for purposes of auditing compliance, during the life of this Agreement, or its 12 month extension period.
1. DoD will follow PII breach notification policies and related procedures as required by OMB M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” (May 22, 2007). Using established criteria, if in the event of a breach of PII within its control, DoD determines that the risk of harm to affected individuals or to the agency requires notification to affected individuals and/or other remedies, the DoD will carry out these remedies without cost to the Postal Service. USPS and DoD will also comply with the personally identifiable information (PII) breach reporting and security requirements as required by OMB M-06-19, “Reporting Incidents Involving Personally Identifiable Information and Incorporating the Cost for Security in Agency Information Technology Investments”, and OMB M-15-01, “Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Guidance on Improving Federal Information Security and Privacy Management Practices”.
2. USPS will follow USPS breach notification policies and related procedures referenced in section K(1)(c): USPS Response Plan for Information Breaches Involving Personal Information.
3. USPS and DoD also agree to notify each other as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours, after the discovery of a suspected or actual breach involving PII. All incidents involving confirmed or suspected breaches of PII must be reported by DoD to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) within one hour of discovering the incident.
4. In addition, the agency experiencing the loss of PII will notify the other agency's Systems Security Contact named in Section S of this Agreement. If USPS is unable to speak with the DoD Systems Security Contact within 24 hours or if for some other reason notifying the DoD Systems Security Contact is not practicable (
1. The matching files exchanged under this agreement remain the property of the providing agency and as described in Section J.
2. The data exchanged under this agreement will be used and accessed only for the purpose of determining eligibility for premium based TRICARE health plan such as the TRS and TRR Programs.
3. Neither DoD nor USPS will extract information from the electronic data files concerning the individuals that are described therein for any purpose not stated in this agreement.
4. Except as provided in this agreement, neither DoD nor USPS will duplicate or disseminate the data produced without the disclosing agency's permission. Neither agency shall give such permission unless the re-disclosure is required by law or essential to the conduct of the matching program. In such cases, DoD and USPS will specify in writing what records are being disclosed and the reasons that justify such disclosure.
DMDC estimates that at least 99% of the information in the finder file is accurate based on their operational experience. USPS Payroll is a highly reliable source of statistical data on the Postal Service workforce. However, accuracy and completeness of each data element within the individual records that comprise this aggregate are not conclusive. Findings emanating from individual records warrant further examination and verification as to its accuracy, timeliness, and completeness with the data subject.
Expenses incurred by this data exchange will not involve any payments or reimbursements between USPS and DoD.
1. This matching agreement, as signed by representatives of both agencies and approved by the respective agency's Data Integrity Boards (DIB), shall be valid for a period of 18 months from the effective date of the agreement.
2. When this agreement is approved and signed by the Chairpersons of the respective DIBs, the USPS, as the recipient agency, will submit the agreement and the proposed public notice of the match as attachments in duplicate via a transmittal letter to OMB and Congress for review. The time period for review begins as of the date of the transmittal letter.
3. USPS will forward the public notice of the proposed matching program for publication in the
4. The effective date of the matching agreement and date when matching may actually begin shall be at the expiration of the 40 day review period for OMB and Congress, or 30 days after publication of the matching notice in the
5. This agreement may be renewed for 12 months after the initial agreement period as long as the statutory requirement for the data match exists, subject to the Privacy Act, including certification by the participating agencies to the responsible DIBs that:
a. The matching program will be conducted without change, and
b. The matching program has been conducted in compliance with the original agreement.
6. This agreement may be modified at any time by a written modification to this agreement. Any modification shall satisfy both parties and shall be approved by the DIB of each agency. In addition, any modification shall comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as well as guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget.
7. This agreement may be terminated at any time with the consent of both parties. If either party does not want to continue this program, it should notify the other party of its intention not to continue at least 90 days before the end of the then current period of the agreement. Either party may unilaterally terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other party requesting termination, in which case the termination shall be effective 90 days after the date of the notice or at a later date specified in the notice provided the expiration date does not exceed the original or the extended completion date of the match.
The purpose of this matching agreement is to verify eligibility of Service members enrolling or enrolled in the TRS or the TRR Programs. By statute, such coverage may be provided if the person is not eligible for the FEHB Program. FEHB Program eligibility can only be obtained from USPS, and without this information, a determination of continued eligibility cannot be made. Matching must occur regardless of the associated cost or anticipated benefits. Accordingly, the cost benefit is waived.
The Comptroller General may have access to all records of the USPS that the Comptroller General deems necessary in order to monitor or verify compliance with the agreement.
The contacts on behalf of DoD are: Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, ODCMO, Directorate For Oversight And Compliance 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: DPCLTD, Mailbox# 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700, (703) 571-0070; Mr. Matthew Dubois, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Integration), 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-1150, (703) 693-2232; Ms. Dena Colburn, DEERS Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Rd., Seaside, CA. 93955-6771, (831) 583-2400 x4332; DMDC Security and Incident Response: Donna Naulivou, IA Branch Chief, Defense Manpower Data Center, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771, 831-583-4159,
The authorized program officials, whose signatures appear below, accept and expressly agree to the terms and conditions expressed herein, confirm that no verbal agreements of any kind shall be binding or recognized, and hereby commit their respective organizations to the terms of this agreement.
Matthew Dubois, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, (Reserve Affairs); Mary Snavely-Dixon, Director, Defense Manpower Data Center
The respective DIBs having reviewed this agreement and finding that it complies with applicable statutory and regulatory guidelines signify their respective approval thereof by the signature of the officials appearing below.
Mr. Joo Y. Chung, Chair, Defense Data Integrity Board, Department of Defense
Janine Castornina, (A) Chief Privacy Officer, Secretary, Data Integrity Board, United States Postal Service.
The respective DIBs having reviewed this agreement and finding that it complies with applicable statutory and regulatory guidelines signify their respective approval thereof by the signature of the officials appearing below.
Thomas J. Marshall, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Chairperson, Data Integrity Board, United States Postal Service.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq is proposing to amend Nasdaq Rule 7018(a) to add a new credit tier for a combination of accessing and providing liquidity in securities of all three Tapes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add a new credit tier for the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members for all securities priced at $1 or more that it trades. The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2), and (3) to add a new credit tier for a combination of accessing and providing liquidity in securities of all three Tapes. Specifically, this new credit tier will be added to the Nasdaq rule book under each of Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2), and (3) in the part entitled “Credit to member for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity”.
The new credit tier will be for $0.0027 per share executed and will be available for a member (i) with shares of liquidity accessed in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”) that represent more than 0.65% of consolidated volume (“Consolidated Volume”) during the month, and (ii) with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
As a general principle, the Exchange chooses to offer credits to members in return for market improving behavior. Under Rule 7018(a), the various credits the Exchange provides for members require them to significantly contribute to market quality by accessing and providing liquidity at certain levels of Consolidated Volume through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The credits Nasdaq provides are designed to improve market quality for all market participants, and Nasdaq allocates its credits in a manner that it believes are the most likely to achieve that result. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to add a new credit tier of $0.0027 per share executed is reasonable because it is consistent with other credits that the Exchange provides to members that access and/or provide liquidity. As discussed previously, as a general principle the Exchange chooses to offer credits to members in return for market improving behavior. Under Rule 7018(a), the various credits the Exchange provides for members require them to significantly contribute to market quality by accessing and/or providing certain levels of Consolidated Volume through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and volume.
The proposed credit will be provided to members that not only access liquidity in all securities through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs of more than 0.65% of Consolidated Volume during the month, but also that contribute to the Exchange by providing liquidity in all securities through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs of more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0027 per share executed credit is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because a member achieving this credit tier will be both accessing and providing liquidity, which should be beneficial to other members as this both encourages more liquidity on the Exchange, as well as increasing the likelihood that members [sic] resting limit orders may be accessed by members seeking to attain this credit tier. The Exchange seeks to encourage such behavior.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed new credit tier is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the new credit tier is uniformly available to all members and affects all members equally and in the same way. Additionally, the proposed new credit tier will further encourage market participant activity and will also support price discovery and liquidity provision.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the changes to the credits provided for the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members for all securities priced at $1 or more that it trades are reflective of the intense competition among trading venues in capturing order flow. Moreover, the proposed rule change does not impose a burden on competition because Exchange membership is optional and is also the subject of competition from other trading venues. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Moreover, because there are numerous competitive alternatives to the use of the Exchange, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange currently lists and trades Shares of the Fund
The Exchange submitted its proposed rule change to: (1) Permit the continued listing and trading of Shares of the Fund following a change to the index underlying the Fund; and (2) propose changes to the index underlying the Fund and the name of the Fund.
The Fund seeks investment results that generally correspond to the price and yield (before fees and expenses) of The Bank of America (“BofA”) Merrill Lynch Build America Bond Index (“Build America Bond Index”). The Fund generally invests at least 80% of its total assets in taxable municipal
The Trust has proposed to change the index underlying the Fund to the BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. Taxable Municipal Securities Plus Index (“New Index”) and to change the name of the Fund to PowerShares Taxable Municipal Bond Portfolio. The Exchange represents that the New Index does not meet the generic listing criteria of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange submitted this proposed rule change to permit the continued listing of the Fund. The New Index meets all of the requirements of the generic listing criteria of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), except for that set forth in Commentary .02(a)(2).
According to the Exchange, the Fund currently has a non-fundamental policy to invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in Build America Bonds. Moreover, as stated in the Registration Statement, the Fund complies with that non-fundamental policy because it also is required generally to invest at least 80% of the value of its total assets in the Build America Bonds that comprise the Build America Bond Index, in accordance with the terms of the relief set forth in the Trust's Exemptive Order.
However, in response to a changing market environment that includes a reduction in the number of Build America Bonds, the Adviser has proposed that the Fund's underlying index be changed from one that is focused on Build America Bonds to one that is more broadly focused on taxable municipal debt in general, and which may include Build America Bonds. Changing the Fund's underlying index would require changing the non-fundamental policy set forth above; accordingly, before the Fund can change its underlying index, the Registration Statement states that the Fund's board of trustees (“Board”) must approve the underlying index change, and the Fund must provide shareholders with sixty days written notice of the change.
Thus, after this proposed rule change is approved, the Trust represents that it intends to seek to obtain Board approval and provide the requisite shareholder notice. Subject to that Board approval and shareholder notice, the Fund intends to change its underlying index to one that is composed of taxable municipal securities, including both Build America Bonds and non-Build America Bonds. Following such change, the proposed underlying index for the Fund will be the New Index.
According to the Exchange, the change in Fund's underlying index is designed to enable the Fund to expand its range of investments in light of a diminishing supply of Build America Bonds; otherwise, there is no other change to the Fund's investment strategies or objective. After such change, the Fund's investment objective will be to seek investment results that generally correspond (before fees and expenses) to the price and yield of the New Index.
In addition, the Fund will adopt a new non-fundamental investment policy to invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes) in taxable municipal securities. In addition, the Fund generally will invest at least 80% of its total assets in the securities that will compose the New Index, in accordance with the terms of the Trust's Exemptive Order. However, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its total assets in securities not included in the New Index, in money market instruments, including repurchase agreements or other funds that invest exclusively in money market instruments (subject to applicable limitations under the 1940 Act or exemptions therefrom), convertible securities and structured notes (notes on which the amount of principal repayment and interest payments is based on the movement of one or more specified factors, such as the movement of a particular security or securities index), all to the extent that the Adviser believes investment in such instruments will facilitate the Fund's ability to achieve its new investment objective. In addition, the Fund intends to change its name to PowerShares Taxable Municipal Bond Portfolio.
The New Index tracks the performance of U.S. dollar denominated taxable municipal debt publicly issued by U.S. states and territories, and their political subdivisions, in the U.S. domestic market. Qualifying securities must be subject to U.S. federal taxes and must have at least 18 months to maturity at point of issuance, at least one year remaining term to final maturity, a fixed coupon schedule (including zero coupon bonds), and an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody's, S&P and Fitch). The call date on which a pre-refunded bond will be redeemed is used for purposes of determining qualification with respect to final maturity requirements. For Build America Bonds, the minimum amount outstanding is $1 million, and only “direct pay” (
As of February 4, 2016, approximately 84.39% of the weight of the New Index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, as of February 4, 2016, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the New Index was approximately $281,589,346,769, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the New Index was approximately $27,808,547. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 2.27% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 6.33% of the weight of the New Index.
All components of the New Index have at least an investment grade composite rating of BBB3 or higher (based on an average of S&P, Moody's and Fitch).
The Exchange represents that: (1) With respect to the New Index, except for Commentary .02(a)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares of the New Index currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to Units shall apply to the Shares of the Fund; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act
The current value of the New Index is widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (b)(ii). The IIV for Shares of the Fund is disseminated by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (c). The components and percentage weightings of the New Index are also available from major market data vendors. In addition, the portfolio of securities held by the Fund is disclosed daily on the Fund's Web site at
According to the Exchange, all statements and representations made in this proposal regarding (a) the description of the Fund's portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The Adviser has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by September 8, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 22, 2016. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt a new fee in Section V (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section V (Technology Fees) in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish Section V.B. (High Speed Vendor Feed (“HSVF”) in the BOX Fee Schedule and adopt a fee of $750.00 per month for all market participants for receiving the HSVF. This fee will be payable by any market participant that receives the HSVF through a direct connection to BOX and will be assessed once per market participant.
In February 2013, the Exchange made its proprietary direct market data product, the HSVF, available to all market participants at no cost.
The Exchange notes that data connection fees are charged by other options markets such as International Securities Exchange (“ISE”), Bats BZX Exchange (“BATS”), Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”), The NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”), NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX”), and NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public.
The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well. The HSVF is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
The Court in NetCoalition I, while upholding the Commission's conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the competitive nature of the market for NYSE Arca's data product at issue in that case. As explained below in BOX's Statement on Burden on Competition, however, BOX believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the record in the NetCoalition I case, and that the Commission is entitled to rely upon such evidence in concluding fees are the product of competition, and therefore in accordance with the relevant statutory standards.
BOX believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing conventions and distinctions that exist in BOX's current fee schedule. These distinctions are each based on principles of fairness and equity that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
As described in greater detail below, if BOX has calculated improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair, inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and BOX is not required to make data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for potential purchases. BOX can discontinue offering a pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. BOX continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness and equitable allocation of fees among subscribers.
The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all market participants at no cost; however, the Exchange now proposes to adopt a new fee of $750.00 per month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. The Exchange believes that adopting such a fee is reasonable and appropriate as it is within the range that is charged by other options exchanges.
In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants are charged the same fee for access to the HSVF. Further, the Exchange notes that all market participants who wish to receive the feed may, as the feed is available to anyone willing to pay the proposed $750 monthly fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to the Fee Schedule will simply allow the Exchange to charge all market participants equally for the costs incurred by connecting to the BOX Network. The HSVF is similar to proprietary data products currently offered by other exchanges, and these other exchanges charge comparable monthly fees.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. BOX believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they provide information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's Participant's view the
Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.” NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. Some exchanges pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including BOX, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, a SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.” NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 15, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC will revise its Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures to provide for the use of a committed FX facility. ICC has established a committed FX facility which provides for same day settled spot FX transactions. ICC represents that the facility allows ICC to use available United States Dollars (“USD”) to convert into Euro to meet a Euro liquidity need, for example in the
Additionally, ICC will revise its Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures to make changes to the ICC Treasury Department investment guidelines for operating capital, guaranty fund, and margin cash. ICC will update the list of permitted investments to add short term US Treasury securities (with a final maturity of no greater than 98 days) and remove Money Market Mutual Funds. ICC will also update its investment policy for operating capital to include Treasury/agency reverse repurchase (“repo”) agreements. ICC will update the governance section of the operating capital investment policy to note that the Risk Committee will review any proposed changes to the policy and make recommendations to the Board. Further, ICC will remove reference to an obsolete financial report.
ICC will make additional clean-up changes throughout the Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures. Specifically, ICC will remove outdated language stating that ICC treasury services are provided by The Clearing Corporation. Further, throughout the document, ICC will change references to the “Director of Operations” to the “Chief Operating Officer,” to correctly reflect the officer title. ICC will remove reference to specific reverse repo counterparties to reflect the addition of multiple reverse repo counterparties. Further, ICC has noted that it has arrangements in place to settle tri-party and bilateral reverse repo transactions, both of which settle delivery vs. payment (“DVP”). As a result, ICC will clarify references throughout the policy from “DVP reverse repo” to more specifically refer to “bilateral reverse repo.” ICC will remove reference to the titles of specific agreements that it may enter into to effect reverse repo transactions and add general language to encompass all agreements that may be required. ICC will remove information regarding the monitoring of available liquidity resources and add reference to the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework. ICC has clarified that its committed repo facility may be used to convert sovereign debt into cash and that the facility will be tested twice per calendar year. ICC will remove outdated information under the “ICE Clear Credit Banking Relationships” section of the policy and add language stating that ICC endeavors to maintain banking relationships with highly creditworthy and reliable bank institutions that provide operational and strategic support with respect to holding margin and guaranty fund cash and collateral. ICC also will remove references to specific banking counterparties, as ICC's banking relationships have expanded to include multiple counterparties. ICC will replace the specific names with a generic reference, to capture all counterparties utilized by ICC. ICC also will update certain SWIFT banking information throughout the policy. Further, ICC will update the list of applications used by the Treasury Department to perform daily operations.
Finally, ICC will revise its Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures to provide additional clarification regarding the calculation of collateral haircuts when yield rates are less than or equal to one basis point. This change will document current ICC practices as related to collateral haircut calculation; there will be no change to the collateral haircut methodology.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed revisions to the ICC Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures are consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 08/10/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14797 5 and for economic injury is 14798 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is California.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of WISCONSIN (FEMA-4276-DR), dated 08/09/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/09/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14801B and for economic injury is 14802B
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Maryland dated 08/10/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14799 6 and for economic injury is 14800 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Maryland.
Dated: August 10, 2016.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 20, 2016 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106 (on Constitution Ave. NE. between 1st and 2nd Streets, NE) in Washington, DC 20515.
The meeting will be on the “2016 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting ” and will feature findings from the Commission's Congressionally-mandated report. Representatives from the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors will be in attendance to discuss it, which focuses on both Washington and field-directed activities.
This meeting is open to the public, members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Chairman; Ambassador Lyndon Olson of Texas, Vice Chairman; Mr. Sim Farar of California, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois; and Ms. Georgette Mosbacher of New York. One seat on the Commission is currently vacant.
The following individual has been nominated to the Commission but awaits Senate confirmation as of this writing: Douglas Wilson of Delaware.
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Senior Advisor, Chris Hensman, at
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Kokomo Rail Co., Inc. (KRC), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to
KRC certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier, that its projected annual revenue will not exceed $5 million, and that the transaction does not involve any interchange commitments.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is September 1, 2016, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed).
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than August 25, 2016 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36054, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1666, Chicago, IL 60604.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated June 27, 2016, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 238.135(b). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0076.
SEPTA is requesting special approval to operate its passenger train exterior side doors and trap doors differently than required by 49 CFR 238.135(b), which requires all such doors must be closed when a train is in motion between stations during specific times of day and type of operating schedule. SEPTA performed a hazard analysis regarding the operation of its trains in this manner and specific mitigations it will undertake to reduce risks.
SEPTA specifically requests special approval for the following:
• Operation of the Silverliner IV or push-pull passenger cars with the exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, in the open position when operating a weekday schedule with trains arriving or departing Suburban Station between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
• Operation of the Silverliner IV or push-pull passenger cars with the exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, in the open position during two designated 3-hour peak periods on holidays. SEPTA will formally declare these peak periods prior to the event and provide train crews with written notification of the same no less than 2 calendar days prior.
• Operation of the Silverliner IV or push-pull passenger cars with the exterior side doors or trap doors, or both, in the open position as “EXTRA” trains when necessitated during emergency exigent circumstances.
• Operation of the Silverliner V cars with the interior trap doors open at all times.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by October 3, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of information collections to be submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On April 18, 2016, the agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), published a notice in the
Separately, the proposed collection of SLR data in SLR Tables 1 and 2 of FFIEC 101 Schedule A would apply to any U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) formed or designated for purposes of compliance with the Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153) that are advanced approaches banking organizations, effective with the March 31, 2018, reporting date (advanced approaches IHC). Any subsidiary BHC controlled by a foreign banking organization (FBO) that was subject to the SLR requirements prior to the formation of an IHC would complete FFIEC 101 Schedule A, SLR Tables 1 and 2, through the December 31, 2017, reporting date.
In addition, the agencies proposed that an advanced approaches banking organization should provide its Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) on the cover page of the report beginning September 30, 2016, only if the organization already has an LEI.
The comment period for this proposal expired on June 27, 2016. The agencies did not receive any comments addressing the proposed changes and are now submitting requests to OMB for review and approval of the extension, with revision, of the FFIEC 101. As had been proposed, these reporting changes would take effect as of the September 30, 2016, or the March 31, 2018, report date, as applicable.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 19, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control numbers, will be shared among the agencies.
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 101 discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the FFIEC 101 form and instructions can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site (
The agencies are proposing to extend for three years, with revision, the FFIEC 101, which is currently an approved collection of information for each agency.
Each advanced approaches banking organization is required to file quarterly regulatory capital data on the FFIEC's Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101). The FFIEC 101 information collection is mandatory for institutions subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rule: 12 U.S.C. 161 (national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (state member banks), 12 U.S.C. 1844(c) (bank holding companies), 12 U.S.C. 1467a(b) (savings and loan holding companies), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), 12 U.S.C. 1464 (savings associations), and 12 U.S.C. 1844(c), 3106, and 3108 (intermediate holding companies).
The agencies use the FFIEC 101 data submitted by advanced approaches banking organizations to assess and monitor the levels and components of each reporting entity's capital requirements and the adequacy of the entity's capital under the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework; to evaluate the impact and competitive implications of the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework on individual reporting entities and on an industry-wide basis; and to supplement on-site examination processes. The reporting schedules also assist advanced approaches banking organizations in understanding expectations around the system development necessary for implementation and validation of the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework. Submitted data that are released publicly will also provide other interested parties with information about advanced approaches banking organizations' regulatory capital.
On April 18, 2016, the agencies requested comment on proposed revisions to the FFIEC 101 reporting requirements (April 2016 proposal).
The comment period for the proposal ended on June 27, 2016. The agencies did not receive any comments addressing the proposed changes and are now submitting requests to OMB for review and approval of the extension, with revision, of the FFIEC 101. The proposed reporting of SLR Tables 1 and 2 of Schedule A would take effect as of the September 30, 2016, report date for top-tier advanced approaches BHCs, SLHCs, and insured depository institutions, or the March 31, 2018, report date for advanced approaches IHCs. Any subsidiary BHC controlled by an FBO that was subject to the SLR requirements prior to the formation of an IHC would complete report SLR Tables 1 and 2 of Schedule A, through the December 31, 2017, report date. Additionally, the proposed reporting of the LEI would take effect as of the September 30, 2016, report date.
In the April 2016 proposal, the agencies proposed to add two new tables to FFIEC 101 Schedule A to collect information related to the SLR disclosures required in Table 13 of section 173 of the advanced approaches rule.
The proposed revisions to the FFIEC 101 would apply only to an advanced approaches banking organization as described in section 173(a)(2) of the advanced approaches rule effective with the September 30, 2016, report date.
Separately, each advanced approaches banking organization, regardless of its parallel run status, is required to disclose its SLR, and the numerator and denominator of its SLR, under section 172(d) of the advanced approaches rule.
An IHC formed or designated for purposes of compliance with the Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153) is required to meet all applicable capital adequacy standards set forth in the Board's Regulation Q, except for subpart E.
Depository institutions that are exempt from filing the FFIEC 101, but remain subject to the SLR, would not need to begin filing the FFIEC 101. Instead, these institutions would report their SLR, and the numerator and denominator of their SLR, under the proposed Call Report revisions discussed above.
The agencies proposed to collect the SLR information in SLR Tables 1 and 2 of FFIEC 101 Schedule A quarterly. Each reporting entity would continue to submit the applicable quarterly reports on the same due dates as are currently in effect for the reporting entity for as long as it remains subject to the requirements of section 173(a)(2) of the advanced approaches rule.
To ensure transparency of regulatory capital data reported by internationally active banking organizations, the agencies proposed to make public the SLR information collected in proposed SLR Tables 1 and 2 of FFIEC 101 Schedule A, regardless of an advanced approaches banking organization's parallel run status.
For the September 30, 2016, and March 31, 2018, initial report dates, as
The proposed SLR items in FFIEC 101 Schedule A are divided into two tables: (1) Summary comparison of accounting assets and total leverage exposure (SLR Table 1) and (2) Supplementary leverage ratio (SLR Table 2). Proposed SLR Table 1, items 1.1 through 1.8, would collect summary information on an institution's accounting assets for purposes of reconciling balance sheet assets reported in published financial statements and total leverage exposure.
Proposed SLR Table 2, items 2.1 through 2.23, would collect detailed information for the calculation of an institution's total leverage exposure and the SLR, consistent with the international leverage ratio common disclosure template. Items 2.1 through 2.3 would collect information about an institution's on-balance sheet exposures. Items 2.4 through 2.11 would collect information about an institution's derivative exposures. Items 2.12 through 2.16 would collect information about an institution's repo-style transactions. Items 2.17 through 2.19 would collect information about an institution's off-balance sheet exposures. Items 2.20 through 2.22 would collect information about an institution's capital, total leverage exposure, and the SLR. Item 2.23, the enhanced SLR buffer, is an additional line item that is not included on the international leverage ratio common disclosure template. This item would apply only to an advanced approaches BHC that is subject to the enhanced SLR standard and would help determine whether the BHC is subject to limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments.
In the revised draft instructions for proposed SLR Tables 1 and 2 of FFIEC 101 Schedule A, the agencies are clarifying the reporting treatment of variation margin disputes in relation to derivative transactions. In particular, if a dispute over the correct amount of variation margin arises between a banking organization and a counterparty, the banking organization may recognize the amount of variation margin that has been transferred as long as the parties are acting in accordance with agreed-upon practices to settle a disputed trade and all other conditions for qualifying cash variation margin are met.
The LEI is a 20-digit alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies entities that engage in financial transactions. The LEI system is designed to facilitate several financial stability objectives, including the provision of higher quality and more accurate financial data.
The agencies proposed to have an advanced approaches banking organization provide its LEI on the cover page of the FFIEC 101 beginning September 30, 2016, only if the organization already has an LEI. The LEI must be a currently issued, maintained, and valid LEI, not an LEI that has lapsed. An advanced approaches banking organization that does not have an LEI would not be required to obtain one for purposes of reporting it on the FFIEC 101.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the
This rule becomes effective September 19, 2016.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are available at
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 9828 North 31st Ave., Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051; by telephone (602) 242-0210; or by facsimile (602) 242-2513. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
This document consists of a final rule to designate critical habitat for
On October 3, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published in the
The critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. We included unoccupied areas with suitable acuña cactus habitat in the proposed critical habitat designation; however, we have since changed our determination and concluded that unoccupied habitat is not essential for the conservation of the acuña cactus and, therefore, removed these areas from the final designation. All areas included in this final critical habitat designation for both the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus are occupied. We are designating:
• In total, approximately 7,501 ha (18,535 ac) in six units as critical habitat for the acuña cactus.
• In total, approximately 7,062 ha (17,456 ac) in six units as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
On October 1, 2013, we published in the
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus during three comment periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of the proposed rule (77 FR 60509) opened on October 3, 2012, and closed on December 3, 2012. We requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated DEA during a comment period that opened March 28, 2013, and closed on April 29, 2013 (78 FR 18938). We also requested comments on revisions to the proposed critical habitat designation during a comment period that opened July 8, 2013, and closed July 23, 2013 (78 FR 40673). We did not receive a request for a public hearing during any of the three open comment periods. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and DEA during these comment periods.
During the public comment periods, we received 13 comment letters, including 1 from a peer reviewer, directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or addressed below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals on the acuña cactus and six on the Fickeisen plains cactus having scientific expertise that included familiarity with the respected taxon and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received only one response that incorporated a comment on the critical habitat designation portion of the draft rule.
We reviewed the comment received from the peer reviewer for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rules to list and designate critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus. The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rules. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into this final critical habitat rule as appropriate.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
In addition, we cannot exclude an occupied area from a critical habitat designation based on small population size. Rather, we are required under the Act to apply the critical habitat designation to all areas that meet the definition in section 3(5)(A) outlined above, provided we have not determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the area in the critical habitat designation. As mentioned in the response to comment number 4, above, we have made such a determination under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Navajo Nation lands and are excluding from the final critical habitat designation all Navajo Nation lands, some of which contain small populations of the Fickeisen plains cacti. The exclusion of lands on the Navajo Nation as critical habitat will aid the Service in maintaining a cooperative working relationship with the Nation. In addition, we expect that the Navajo Nation will continue conservation efforts throughout the entire area occupied by the cactus, even where population size is limited.
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Since all of the designated critical habitat units for the acuña cactus are occupied, a Federal action requiring section 7 consultation would need to analyze impacts to both the species and critical habitat. If the action jeopardizes the species, the development of RPAs to conserve the species would be the same as those for critical habitat. Therefore, there would be no additional cost to conserve critical habitat beyond what it costs to prevent jeopardizing the species. RPAs are developed in cooperation with the Federal agency and applicant (if any) because often they are the only ones who can determine if an alternative is within their legal authority and jurisdiction, and if it is economically and technologically feasible.
As stated in the FEA (ES-6, Appendix C, p. 11), in most cases the types of conservation efforts requested by the Service during section 7 consultation
(14)
The model is periodically updated with new information received in the course of data collection efforts supporting economic analyses and public comment on more recent critical habitat rules. In addition, the general schedule rates are updated annually. The cost of preparing a biological assessment is included as part of the consultation cost model, with estimated incremental costs ranging from $500 to $5,600 per consultation. These costs are based on interviews with representatives from private consulting firms on the typical costs charged to clients in support of section 7 consultation efforts (
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Section 7 consultation may be triggered for future projects funded under the Pima County CDBG program that involve new construction or ground-disturbing activities. The Pima County CDBG Program Coordinator indicated, however, that it is difficult to forecast projects that may occur in the future. Selection for funding under the Pima County CDBG program follows an annual cycle and is based on a range of factors, including the level of funding provided by HUD, an assessment of feasibility, need, and benefits, and local priorities as determined by the Pima County Board of Supervisors. At this time, the Pima County CDBG program is not aware of any new projects that involve ground-disturbing activities within the area proposed as critical habitat in the town of Ajo. As a result, this analysis does not estimate any future section 7 consultations related to Pima County's CDBG program. To the extent that new projects funded by the Pima County CDBG program include ground-disturbing activities over the next 20 years, this analysis may underestimate costs in Ajo Unit 2 associated with section 7 consultations. However, this assumption only affects the estimated administrative costs of section 7 consultation. As a result, any future incremental impacts are likely to be minor. The FEA has been revised to include this new information about potentially affected activities related to the CDBG program in the town of Ajo.
(19)
(20)
(21)
Since the publication of the October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60509), proposed rule to list and designate critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus, we have made the following changes in the final critical habitat rules:
(1) Based on information received from public comments, we reevaluated the designation of the Dripping Spring acuña cactus critical habitat subunit in OPCNM, Arizona. The proposed rule outlined criteria for designation of critical habitat, which included that unoccupied areas with suitable acuña cactus habitat and that receive higher mean winter precipitation were necessary for the conservation of the species. The additional information provided during the public comment period indicated that the Dripping Spring subunit was unoccupied yet does not receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) of winter rainfall. As a result, we determined that it was not essential for acuña cactus conservation and did not include it in this final critical habitat designation, thus removing 1,591 ha (3,931 ac) of proposed critical habitat from Unit 1.
(2) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded lands owned and managed by the Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona, from the designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus. Natural resources management already in place on the Tribe aids in the conservation of the species. As a result, 156 ha (385 ac) of critical habitat were removed from acuña cactus Unit 3.
(3) Based on information received from public comments, including a revised section of an existing INRMP, we exempted lands owned and managed by the U.S. Air Force on the BMGR, Arizona, from the designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus. Natural resources management for this species, as outlined in the revised INRMP, aids in the conservation of the acuña cactus. As a result, 378 ha (935 ac) of proposed critical habitat were removed from Unit 3.
(4) Based on information received from public comments, we reevaluated acuña cactus critical habitat in areas receiving total annual precipitation exceeding 29.7 cm (11.66 in). We reassessed this habitat based on areas receiving 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or more of winter precipitation only. As a result, we determined that no areas in southern Arizona that contain the geology, elevation, and vegetation communities required by acuña cactus support this level of precipitation concentrated within the winter months. Therefore, in this final critical habitat designation, there are no critical habitat areas for the acuña cactus that receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or more of winter precipitation. As a result, 12,113 ha (29,933 ac) of proposed critical habitat were removed from multiple units. This issue is discussed in further detail in the revised proposed critical habitat designation (78 FR 40673, July 8, 2013).
(5) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Tribal land from the final Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat. Navajo Nation lands excluded include the entire Tiger Wash Unit (Unit 6), the entire Little Colorado River Overlook Unit (Unit 7), and portions of the Gray Mountain subunit (Subunit 8b) of the proposed Gray Mountain Unit (Unit 8). Natural resources management already in place on and documented in a new management plan for the Navajo Nation aids in the conservation of the species.
(6) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded from the Fickeisen plains cactus final critical habitat designation 8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of land that is either: (1) Owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC; or (2) managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, but owned by the State and subject to land closure. The excluded area includes the entire proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and private land in the Mays Wash subunit. Exclusion of these lands as critical habitat will allow us to maintain a cooperative working
(7) Based on new information received during the public comment periods, we removed the Snake Gulch Unit (945 ha (2,335 ac)) from the final designation of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat, because the unit is no longer considered occupied, and we determined that it is not essential to the conservation of the species. We added the South Canyon Unit (110 ha (272 ac)) on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land where occupancy was verified in 2013.
The rule revising 50 CFR 424.12 was published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7413), and became effective on March 14, 2016. As stated in that rule, the revised version of § 424.12 applies only to rulemakings for which the proposed rule is published after that date. Thus, the prior version of § 424.12 will continue to apply to any rulemakings for which a proposed rule was published before that date. Since the proposed rule for acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat was published on October 3, 2012, this final rule follows the version of § 424.12 that was in effect at that time.
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus. For a complete description of the life history and habitat needs of the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus, see the
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the specific elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes, and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for the acuña cactus from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Successful pollination depends on the pollinator species and the distance the pollinator can travel between flowers (McDonald 2005, p. 15). Acuña cacti are pollinated by a suite of bees from the Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae families; however, the most abundant, robust, and consistent visitors in a 2-year study at OPCNM were the leafcutter bee (
No studies of pollinator dispersal distance have been conducted for the acuña cactus; however, in a study of a similar rare cactus in Arizona's Sonoran Desert, the
Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, we identify a pollination area with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each individual acuña cactus plant as a physical or biological feature of acuña cactus habitat.
As evidenced by their commonly clumped habit, the majority of the acuña cactus seeds are dispersed by gravity; that is, they fall very close to the mother plant, which serves as a nurse plant for germination (Johnson
Ants have been reported to both transport and consume the seeds of the acuña cactus (Butterwick 1982 to 1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1). Transported seeds may be dropped, discarded, or buried at either an appropriate or inappropriate depth for germination and emergence (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 15). Transported seed has the benefit of reduced competition from other seeds and reduced rodent predation that more commonly occurs near the mother plant (O'Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 536; Vander Wall
The maximum distance seeds are dispersed by wind depends on many factors including the height of the plant, characteristics of the surrounding vegetation, seed mass and size, and wind conditions (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186). Secondary dispersal by wind can be farther in deserts, where vegetation is widely spaced and interspaces between trees and shrubs support wind velocities as much as four times higher than under trees and shrubs (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187). Wind-blown soil, litter, and small seeds accumulate under shrubs and trees, or in soil surface depressions (Shreve 1942, p. 205; van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187).
Dispersal of seed from rain wash or sheet flow (downslope movement of water in a thin, continuous flow) over the ground is considered to occur across a relatively short distance; in hot deserts, many plants disperse seed by rain (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, pp. 69, 76). The distance that the acuña cactus seeds travel by either wind or water is not known; however, spacing of associated nurse trees and shrubs where soil, litter, and seed could accumulate is roughly 8 m (26 ft). This number was determined by using the average height of the largest tree associate,
Therefore, based on our review of the best available information regarding the maximum distance that seeds may disperse, and within which the acuña cactus seed banks, seedling establishment, and seedling growth can occur, we identify bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of existing reproductive acuña cactus plants as a physical or biological feature of acuña cactus habitat.
We applied this knowledge of the acuña cactus geologic habitat preference by analyzing geology features and known plant locations attained for populations occurring within the United States using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). We determined 11 geologic feature classes that occur within the known locations of the acuña cactus in the United States (Arizona State Land Department 2012, GIS data layer). These feature classes can be summarized as volcanic rocks from the middle Miocene to Oligocene and from the Jurassic; granitoid rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous and from the Jurassic; granitic rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous; metamorphic rocks from the early Proterozoic; and surficial deposits from the Holocene to the latest Pliocene. Therefore, based on our review of the best available information regarding bedrock geology and associated soils required by the acuña cacti, we identify the presence of any one of these 11 feature classes as a physical or biological feature of acuña cactus habitat. These feature classes can be further summarized to include the following rock types as identified in the literature for this species: rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 2).
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of acuña cactus in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the
(i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation must contain predominantly native plant species that:
a. Provide protection to the acuña cactus. Examples of such plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde.
b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each individual, reproducing acuña cactus.
c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual acuña cactus.
(ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on slopes of less than 30 percent.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. All areas designated as critical habitat as described below may require some level of management to address the current and future threats to the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. In all of the described units, special management may be required to ensure that the primary constituent elements for the cactus are conserved and the habitat provides for the biological needs of the cactus. Some of the management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to, those discussed below.
(1) Practice livestock grazing in a manner that maintains, improves, and expands the quantity and quality of Sonoran desertscrub habitat. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: manage livestock grazing sustainably with the natural landscape by determining appropriate areas, seasons, and use consistent within the carrying capacity of rangeland in response to current and future drought and warming trends; improve monitoring and documentation of grazing practices; manage cattle and feral hoofed mammals (ungulates) (
(2) Minimize construction of new border control facilities, roads, towers, or fences. Special management considerations or protections may include the following: protect lands that support suitable habitat such that destruction of individual plants and their habitat is minimized and habitat is preserved.
(3) Manage or protect native Sonoran desertscrub vegetation communities from recreational impacts. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: manage trails, campsites, and off-road vehicles (ORVs); reduce the likelihood of wildfires affecting the acuña cactus populations and nearby plant communities.
(4) Protect suitable habitat from mineral development and associated infrastructure (new access roads). These activities could result in direct plant and habitat loss, or alteration by removing or degrading soils to such an extent that the soils would no longer support the growth of the acuña cactus. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: protect lands that support suitable habitat such that destruction is minimized and habitat is preserved.
(5) Manage for nonnative, invasive species, such as buffelgrass, by minimizing conditions that may promote or encourage encroachment or establishment of nonnative, invasive species and restore or reestablish conditions that allow native plants to thrive. Within the range of the acuña cactus, the establishment and success of nonnative, invasive species has been a result of historic land use and management practices such as grazing, wildfire suppression actions, mining, and ORV use. Actions have been taken by some land management agencies to reduce the spread of invasive species and reduce the risk of wildfire they pose from creating fine fuel loads. Nonnative, invasive species occur near acuña cactus populations and may pose a threat through competition for resources or increase the risk of fire. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: Prevent or restrict establishment of nonnative, invasive species; minimize ground-disturbing activities that may facilitate their spread; conduct post-disturbance restoration activities such as native plant propagation; practice active removal of nonnative, invasive plant species and targeted herbicide application (provided herbicides can be shown not to negatively impact the acuña cactus or the native pollinators); and improve monitoring and documentation on a site-by-site basis where nonnative, invasive species are present in occupied habitat to assess any effect (beneficial or negative) they pose of the cactus.
These management activities will protect the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus by reducing the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; preserving the geology and soils that form the basis of its habitat; and maintaining the native vegetation communities and pollinators.
In summary, the primary constituent elements of the acuña cactus habitat may be impacted by livestock grazing; U.S.-Mexico border activities; recreational impacts; mineral development and associated transportation infrastructure; and nonnative, invasive species. Currently some of these threats are not identified to occur at a level that threatens populations with extirpation; however, without management of these threats, they could rise to this level. The units designated as critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. Special management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to a negligible level, the threats affecting each unit or subunit and to preserve and maintain the essential features that the critical habitat units and subunits provide to the cactus.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we considered whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing—are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing as described in the final rule to list the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus (see the “Distribution and Range” section of the final listing rule (78 FR 60608, October 1, 2013)) and that contain one or more of the identified primary constituent elements. We are
We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertain to the habitat requirements of the acuña cactus. This information included research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports, as well as data collected from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are not limited to: Brown 1994, Buchmann 2007, Butterwick 1982-1992, Felger 2000, Holm 2006, Johnson 1992, Johnson
In identifying proposed critical habitat units for acuña cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained all records for acuña cactus distribution from AGFD, as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our files. There is no information on the historical range of this species; survey results confirm that plant distribution in the United States comprises disjunct occupied habitat in two general areas of south-central Arizona.
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in the following manner:
(1) We overlaid acuña cactus locations into a GIS database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope, aspect, elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the previously recorded elevation ranges for acuña cactus.
(2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 900-m (2,953-ft) pollination area around known populations to ensure that all potential pollinators would have a sufficient land base to establish nesting sites and to provide pollinating services for acuña cactus, as described in
(3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
We defined six critical habitat units and subunits within the current distribution of the species in two general areas of south-central Arizona. The units and subunits contain approximately 2,580 individuals. Within these units and subunits, several geologic, topographic, elevation, slope, and vegetation community features have been defined, which in combination create acuña cactus habitat that is essential to the conservation of the species, though not all lands containing this combination support the acuña cacti. Although we no longer regard additional unoccupied areas as essential for the conservation of the species (refer to the revised proposed critical habitat designation for the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus (78 FR 40673, July 8, 2013), we recognize that areas containing the physical or biological features necessary for the acuña cactus and which receive higher precipitation levels may be useful for
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for the acuña cactus. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are designating six units as critical habitat for the acuña cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the acuña cactus. The six units we are designating as critical habitat are: (1) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, (2) Ajo, (3) Sauceda Mountains, (4) Sand Tank Mountains, (5) Mineral Mountain, and (6) Box O Wash. All six units were occupied by the acuña cactus at the time of listing. The approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 1.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the acuña cactus, below.
The unit consists of 2,416 ha (5,971 ac) within OPCNM in southwestern Pima County, Arizona. The unit is on federally owned land administered by the National Park Service. Land within this unit was occupied at the time of listing with the largest known population of the acuña cactus, approximately 2,000 individuals. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
Grazing and mining are not permitted within OPCNM; however, nonnative, invasive species issues and off-road border-related activities do occur in OPCNM. Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address off-road border-related human disturbances or to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within the acuña cactus habitat.
Unit 2 is located in and near the town of Ajo in southwestern Pima County, Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 666 ha (1,645 ac). This unit contains 195 ha (483 ac) of federally owned land and 470 ha (1,162 ac) of private land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within both subunits are threatened by mining; urban development; off-road U.S.-Mexican border activities; and nonnative, invasive species issues. Special management considerations or protection may be required within the subunits to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to acuña cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within the acuña cactus habitat.
Unit 3 is located in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and southwestern Maricopa Counties, Arizona. We are excluding approximately 156 ha (385 ac) of Tohono O'odham land and exempting 378 ha (935 ac) of BMGR land from this unit, leaving 1,102 ha (2,724 ac) of federally owned land administered by the BLM (refer to the Exclusions and Exemptions sections of the preamble to this rule). This unit comprises four separate populations that are close enough in proximity as to be combined within the 900-m (2,953-ft) radius defined for pollinators. Lands within this unit were occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this unit is 212. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within the unit are threatened by mining; grazing; nonnative, invasive species issues; and off-road U.S.-Mexican border activities. Special management considerations or protection may be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to individual acuña cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within acuña cactus habitat.
Unit 4 consists of 549 ha (1,355 ac) within the Sonoran Desert National Monument of southwestern Maricopa County, Arizona. The unit is on federally owned land administered by the BLM. Land within this unit was occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this unit is 200 individuals in 3 separate populations. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
Grazing and mining are not permitted within the Sonoran Desert National Monument; however, off-road border-related activities; nonnative, invasive species issues; and trespass livestock grazing may occur in this unit. Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to minimize disturbance to acuña cactus individuals, the soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within acuña cactus habitat.
Unit 5 consists of 787 ha (1,945 ac) on Mineral Mountain of north-central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 570 ha (1,408 ac) of federally owned land and 217 ha (537 ac) of State-owned
This unit contains 5 separate known populations totaling 33 individuals on lands administered by the BLM and the State of Arizona. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur in this unit, and mining occurs nearby. Nonnative, invasive species issues may occur in or nearby this unit. Special management considerations or protection may be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to acuña cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within acuña cactus habitat.
Unit 6 is located near Box O Wash of north-central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit consists of two subunits totaling 1,981 ha (4,895 ac). This unit contains 4 ha (9 ac) of federally owned land, 1,506 ha (3,722 ac) of State-owned land, and 471 ha (1,164 ac) of privately owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur within both subunits, and mining occurs nearby. Nonnative, invasive species issues may occur in or nearby this unit. Special management considerations or protection may be required within the subunits to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to acuña cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within acuña cactus habitat.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for the Fickeisen plains cactus from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the following physical or biological features:
The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic with a wide distribution on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona. Populations are found at elevations from 1,280 to 1,814 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) with approximately 1,132 plants in 33 populations documented within an 8,668-square-kilometer (sq km) (3,347-square-mile (sq mi)) range. About 90 percent of individuals occur in Coconino County.
The Colorado Plateau consists of a series of subplateaus that are dissected by major structural features (Foos 1999, pp. 2-4). The Fickeisen plains cactus is found on several subplateaus and tablelands including the Coconino, Kaibab, Kanab, Shivwits, and Uinkaret Plateaus, and House Rock Valley. These landforms are characterized by normal faults (Hurricane, Toroweap, and Sevier Faults), monoclines (Grandview and Black Point Monoclines), synclines (Cataract Syncline), deep-seated canyons (Marble Canyon, Cataract Canyon of the Grand Canyon), and deep washes (Mays Wash) (Billingsley and Dyer 2003, p. 3; Billingsley
The Fickeisen plains cactus is found exclusively on limestone soils derived predominantly from the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation. The Harrisburg Member consists of reddish-gray and brownish-gray, slope-forming gypsum, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone; and includes an upper, middle, and lower part. The upper bed consists of gray, cherty limestone that forms the bedrock surface while the middle unit comprises thick, cliff-forming limestone beds and the lower bed consists of slope-forming gypsiferous siltstone, sandstone, limestone, and gypsum (Billingsley 2000, pp. 3-4).
Folding and uplifting of bedrock, basalt flows, and erosional processes across the Colorado Plateau exposes other sedimentary rock formations found in occupied habitat.
The Hurricane Cliffs exposes the Kaibab Formation on the upper part and much of the bedrock surface of the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, while siltstone, sandstone, and limestone of the Toroweap Formation is well exposed on the lower steep slopes and ledges (Billingsley and Dyer 2003, pp. 3-4). East of the Hurricane Cliffs and in the habitat of the Clayhole Wash population, ledge-forming limestone beds that are separated by slopes of gypsiferous siltsone of the Moenkopi Formation are exposed under Quarterary basalt flows (Billingsley 1994, p. 2). Erosional unconformities separate the Kaibab and Moenkopi Formations in this area (Billingsley
Exposed limestone surfaces include mesas, plateaus, fan terraces, flat to gentle sloping hills, along canyon rims, and washes, which provide habitat to support the cactus. Individuals are found on the western, southwestern, and southern-facing exposures with slopes less than 20 percent (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001; AGFD 2011a, p. 2), although most plants are
Based on the above information, we identify mesas, plateaus, terraces, flat to gently sloping hills less than 20 percent slope; margins of canyon rims and desert washes that are overlain with alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits, or eolian sand over alluvium; alluvium derived predominantly from limestone of the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation; and limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the Toroweap and Moenkopi Formations as a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The presence of unique soil structure and chemistry may determine where a rare plant species exits. The Fickeisen plains cactus is found on gravelly limestone soils underlain by alluvium. There are several soil series associations that support the Fickeisen plains cactus (Table 2). These share common properties or characteristics of soil that is well-drained, nonsaline to slightly saline with a soil pH from 7.9 to 8.4 (NatureServe 2011; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012), and shallow (15 to 51 cm (6 to 20 in) to bedrock), although some are moderately deep to very deep (more than 203 cm (80 in) to bedrock). Most Fickeisen plains cacti are found in shallow soils. Fewer plants are found on deeper soils, but these plants may not persist long-term from being water logged after rainstorms or subjected to debris flows. The texture of the surface layer includes gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, cobbly loam, and stony loam (NRCS 2012). The fine-textured and very loose soil texture may enable the plant to be completely buried once retracted (Navajo National Heritage Program (NNHP) 1994, p. 3), thereby protecting the apex from exposure to low temperatures during the winter season. The habitat is also stable with little soil movement following runoff events.
The Fickeisen plains cactus is primarily found in sparsely vegetated areas in full sun. However, habitat in Mohave County, Arizona, supports dense patches of grasses and desert shrubs. Adult Fickeisen plains cacti that are growing underneath a shrub canopy or in partially shaded clumps of grama grass have been observed to be larger and fuller than those growing in fully open areas (Robertson 2011, p. 1). Similar observations have been reported on the Navajo Nation (NNHP 1994, p. 4). Some amount of canopy cover may create suitable microhabitat conditions that enhance Fickeisen plains cactus' survival by providing protection from the sun and wind, and by decreasing the rate of evapotranspiration (Milne 1987, p. 34).
Microbiologic soil crusts are present across areas of the Colorado Plateau and occur near the Fickeisen plains cactus (United States Forest Service (USFS) 1999, entire; BLM 2007a, pp. 3-15). Biological soil crusts are formed by a community of living organisms that can include cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and lichens (Belnap 2006, pp. 361-362). These crusts provide many positive benefits to the larger vegetation community by providing fixed carbon and nitrogen on sparsely vegetated soils, soil stabilization and erosion control, water infiltration, improved plant growth, and seedling germination (Rychert
The specific physiological and soil nutritional needs of the Fickeisen plains cactus are not known at this time. Locations containing apparently suitable habitat on the Arizona Strip have been searched between the years of 1986 and 2010, and no additional individuals or populations have been found to date. The factors limiting the taxon's distribution are unknown, but could be related to microsite differences (such as nutrient availability, soil microflora, soil texture, or moisture). Although we do not have information to fully explain what components the plant prefers, a preliminary soil study on the Kaibab National Forest suggested that sites having higher density of plants occur in gravelly soils and these have higher levels of micro and macro nutrients compared to sandier soils where fewer plants are found. The higher amounts of potassium, nitrate,
Based on the above information, we identify soils from the appropriate soil series that are well-drained, shallow to moderately deep, stable, and consist of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam with limestone and chert gravel as a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Fickeisen plains cactus habitat is found within the Great Basin Desert and is associated with the Plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin desertscrub (Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe 2011). Dominant native plant species that are commonly associated with these biotic communities include:
These grasslands also support native annuals and perennial flowering plants that support a diversity of native bees and insect pollinators, which are essential for Fickeisen plains cactus reproduction. Reproduction for plant species within the genera of
Since pollination is essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus, we evaluated alternatives for determining the effective pollinator distance for the taxon. Foraging distances vary by species and body size (Greenleaf
The Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production of seed for reproduction (Pimienta-Barrios and del Castillo 2002, p. 79). Optimal seed set occurs through visitation and pollination by native bees and other insect pollinators. Seed production in the Fickeisen plains cactus is considered to be low (Hughes 2011, pers. comm.), and most species of
Maintaining genetic diversity is essential for persistence of the Fickeisen plains cactus because of its endemism, small population size, and disjunct populations (Tepedino
Therefore, based on the best available information above, we identify a pollination area with a radius of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each Fickeisen plains cactus that includes native vegetation of the Great Basin desertscrub and Plains and Great Basin grasslands, and habitat for pollinators as a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Fickeisen plains cactus has a restricted geographical distribution. Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from random and non-random, catastrophic, natural or human-caused events. Therefore, the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to: (1) Maintenance of areas of sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and processes (such as sun exposure, native shrubs or grasses that provide microhabitats for seedlings, natural fire and hydrologic regimes, preservation of biological soil crusts that support the surrounding vegetation community, and adequate biotic balance to prevent excessive herbivory); (2) protection of the existing substrate continuity and structure; (3) connectivity among clusters of plants within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among these sites through pollination activity and seed dispersal; and (4) sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for reproduction and population expansion.
A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that is free of inappropriate disturbance associated with land use activities (such as trampling and soil compaction from livestock grazing) and associated physical processes such as the hydrologic regime are necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for the Fickeisen plains cactus. A natural intact surface and subsurface includes the preservation of soil qualities (texture, slope, rooting depth) to enable the seasonal ability of plants to retract below the subsurface to enter dormancy, but emerge when conditions are favorable. A natural hydrologic regime includes the seasonal retention of soil moisture followed by the drying out of the substrate to promote growth of plants for the following season. These processes enable populations to develop and maintain seed banks, and to provide for successful seedling survival, adult growth, and expansion of populations. The Fickeisen plains cactus must sustain and expand in number if ecological representation of this species is to be ensured. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that preserves the physical processes, such as soil quality and the natural hydrology of a natural vegetation community, to be physical or biological features for this species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus are:
1. Soils derived from limestone that are found on mesas, plateaus, terraces, the toe of gently sloping hills with up to 20 percent slope, margins of canyon rims, and desert washes. These soils have the following features:
a. They occur on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave Counties of northern Arizona and are within the appropriate series found in occupied areas;
b. They are derived from alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits of limestone from the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation and limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the Toroweap and Moenkopi Formations;
c. They are nonsaline to slightly saline, gravelly, shallow to moderately deep, and well-drained with little signs of soil movement. Soil texture consists of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam.
2. Native vegetation within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin desertscrub vegetation communities from 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) in elevation that has a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that preserves the bedrock substrate and are supportive of microbiotic soil crusts where they are naturally found.
3. Native vegetation that provides for habitat of identified pollinators within the effective pollinator distance of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each individual Fickeisen plains cactus.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. All areas designated as critical habitat as described below may require some level of management to address the current and future threats to the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all of the described units, special management may be required to ensure that the primary constituent elements for the cactus are conserved and the habitat provides for the biological needs of the cactus. Some of the management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to, those discussed below.
(1) Practice livestock grazing in a manner that maintains, improves, and expands the quantity and quality of desertscrub and grassland habitat. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: Manage livestock grazing sustainably with the natural landscape by determining appropriate areas, seasons, and use consistent within the carrying capacity of rangeland in response to current and future drought and warming trends; improve monitoring and documentation of grazing practices; manage cattle and feral hoofed mammals (ungulates) (
(2) Manage for nonnative, invasive species, such as
(3) Protect bedrock surfaces and associated limestone soils that provide suitable habitat from mineral development and associated infrastructure (new roads). Numerous breccia pipes (vertical, pipe-shaped bodies of highly fractured rock that collapsed into voids created by dissolution of underlying rock) are located across the Colorado Plateau and are expressed as circular collapse structures, minor folds, and other surface irregularities associated with the Kaibab and Toroweap Formations. Exploration and development of uranium has peaked and waned in accordance with market values. Areas of interest and oil and gas leasing/exploration overlap Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. These activities could result in direct habitat loss or alteration by removing or degrading limestone soils to such an extent that the soils would no longer support the growth of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Special management considerations or protection may include the following: Protect lands that support suitable habitat and site future development
(4) Manage or protect native desertscrub and plains grassland vegetation communities from recreational impacts. Special management considerations or protections may include the following: Managing trails, campsites, and ORVs; and reduce the likelihood of wildfires affecting the population and nearby plant community.
These management activities will protect the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus by reducing the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; preserving the bedrock surfaces and associated limestone soils that form the basis of its habitat; and maintaining the native vegetation communities and its pollinators.
In summary, the primary constituent elements of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat may be impacted by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; mineral development and associated transportation infrastructure; and recreation. We find that these activities may not be direct threats to the species as a whole, but may negatively impact the primary constituent elements. The areas designated as critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of listing contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Special management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to a negligible level, the threats affecting each unit or subunit and to preserve and maintain the essential features that the critical habitat units and subunits provide to the cactus.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing—are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We have determined that all areas we are designating as critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (see the “Abundance and Trends” section in the final listing rule (78 FR 60608, October 1, 2013) for more information).
Based on the best available information, we conclude that the six critical habitat units are occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. We acknowledge that several of the populations have not been visited for more than 18 years, but we have determined they should be considered occupied at the time of listing. We are making this conclusion because the unvisited populations are within close proximity to other occupied areas within suitable habitat that includes monitored sites; they occur in areas with the same geology, elevation, and vegetation community as nearby known occupied sites; the environmental conditions at these sites have not been severe enough to result in loss of habitat, thereby causing possible extirpation of cactus from these areas or impeded establishment; information is insufficient to suggest that populations no longer are viable (lack of observations does not mean those populations have been extirpated); and the cactus has a lifespan of 10 to 15 years. The best available science indicates that there were once small populations of the cactus at these sites, and there is no evidence known to indicate otherwise. Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 60509, October 3, 2012) for more information on our rationale for including them within the final designation of critical habitat.
We considered areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing, but we are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. In our review, the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs across a broad range with different topography, large elevational gradients, and vegetation communities (AGFD 2011b, entire). Due to the vastness and diversity of the range, there are areas within its geographical range that provides for in-situ (on-site) conservation if needed in the future. Therefore, we determined that a subset of occupied lands within the species' current range is adequate to ensure the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains to the habitat requirements of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This information included research published in peer-reviewed articles, soil surveys, agency reports, special land assessments, and data collected from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are not limited to: AGFD 2011b, AZGS 2011, Billingsley
In identifying critical habitat units for the Fickeisen plains cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained all records for the distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus from AGFD, as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our files. Recent survey results confirm that current plant distribution is similar to documented distribution records with the exception that additional populations have been found following survey efforts.
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in the following manner:
(1) We overlaid locations of the Fickeisen plains cactus into a GIS database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope, elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the previously recorded elevation ranges for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
(2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 1,000-m (3,280-ft) pollination area around known individual Fickeisen plains cacti to encompass native vegetation surrounding individual Fickeisen plains cacti, as described in
(3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
Areas where plants are or have been documented within the species' described range were considered to be occupied at the time of listing. The known range of the Fickeisen plains cactus is in Arizona from Mainstreet Valley and Hurricane Valley in Mohave County to House Rock Valley in Coconino County on the Arizona Strip; along the canyon rims of the Colorado
Occupied occurrences or clusters of the Fickeisen plains cactus that were located in proximity to one another, but distributed within a large area, were grouped into one unit (
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are designating six units as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The six units we are designating as critical habitat are: (1) Hurricane Cliffs; (2) Sunshine Ridge; (3) Clayhole Valley; (4) South Canyon; (5) House Rock Valley; and (6) Gray Mountain. All of the six critical habitat units were occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing. The approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 3.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus, below.
The Hurricane Cliffs Unit is located on the Arizona Strip in the north-central area of Mohave County, Arizona. The unit lies predominantly on the Shivwits Plateau and is bounded to the west by Mainstreet Valley and to the east by the Hurricane Cliffs. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 3,044 ha (7,524 ac) and includes small areas of private land, lands owned by the State of Arizona, and federally owned land managed by the BLM. The entire unit occurs within the area referred as the Arizona Strip that is managed by the BLM for multiple land use purposes such as livestock grazing, fuels management, energy, and recreation. The BLM manages grazing leases for large allotments comprised of a mix of their lands as well as State lands. Occupancy of the Hurricane Cliffs Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 1). The taxon was considered generally rare, but in abundant numbers at Dutchman Draw with a few scattered individuals located in small clusters adjacent to Dutchman Draw populations. These smaller clusters include the Navajo, Ward, Salaratus Draw I, Salaratus Draw II, Temple Trail, and Toquer Tank populations. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Occupied habitat areas in this subunit occur predominantly within the Plains and Great Basin
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within its habitat.
The Sunshine Ridge Unit is located on the Arizona Strip and lies on the Kanab Plateau in Mohave County, Arizona. The unit totals 754 ha (1,863 ac). This unit contains land that is federally and State owned. The entire unit is managed primarily by the BLM for multiple land use purposes such as livestock grazing, fuels management, energy, and recreation. Plants are located east of the Uinkaret Plateau and east of the range of the
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within its habitat.
The Clayhole Valley Unit is located in Upper Clayhole Valley on the Arizona Strip and lies within the Uinkaret Plateau in Mohave County, Arizona. The unit consists of 414 ha (1,024 ac) of land that is federally and State owned. The entire unit is managed primarily by the BLM for multiple land use purposes including livestock grazing. Occupancy of the Clayhole Valley Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1980 (AGFD 2011b, entire). The population has been monitored annually since 1986. As of 2011, the population contains 42 plants. Land within this unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within its habitat.
The South Canyon is located on the eastern boundary of the North Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest in Coconino County, Arizona. It is bounded by the Colorado River near Marble Canyon at House Rock Valley. It includes land originally designated as the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve that is now referred to as the Buffalo Ranch Management Area. It contains 110 ha (272 ac) of federally owned land that is administered by the Kaibab National Forest. This unit contains at least 62 individual Fickeisen plains cactus scattered among 6 areas along the rim of South Canyon Point. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
The primary land uses within this unit include big game hunting and recreational activities throughout the year. The area is very remote and may receive limited numbers of hikers, hunters, or campers. Under a memorandum of understanding, the Kaibab National Forest and the AGFD commit to managing the natural resources of this area, mainly big game species, to ensure that sensitive resources are not impacted and desired conditions are achieved (USFS 2012, p. 92). Livestock grazing by cattle and mining activities are not authorized within the Buffalo Ranch Management Area. Special management considerations or protection may be required within the unit to minimize habitat disturbance to the soil and
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by nonnative, invasive species issues and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize conditions that may promote or encourage encroachment and establishment of nonnative, invasive species; and reduce the likelihood of wildfires affecting the population and nearby plant community.
The House Rock Valley is located on the eastern edge of the Arizona Strip near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park in Coconino County, Arizona. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 1,893 ha (4,678 ac) of land. The unit consists of land that is federally and State owned. The entire unit is managed primarily by the BLM, mainly for livestock grazing. Lands within this unit were occupied at the time of listing and contain all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
Occupancy of the Fickeisen plains cactus in the House Rock Valley Unit was first documented in 1979 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b, entire), at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South Canyon. These sites have not been visited for more than 21 years. However, we have no reason to believe these sites were not occupied at the time of listing for reasons provided in the “Distribution and Range” section of the final listing rule (78 FR 60608). Occupancy at the North Canyon Wash site was documented in 1986, and it has been regularly monitored since. The House Rock Valley Unit is bounded by the Colorado River to the east, U.S. Highway 89A to the north, and the Kaibab National Forest to the west.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within its habitat.
The Gray Mountain Unit is located in the vicinity of the town of Gray Mountain, Arizona, on Highway 89 in Coconino County. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 847 ha (2,095 ac). The unit includes a checkerboard mix of private land, lands owned by the State, and federally owned land managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at the Gray Mountain unit was first documented in 1962, and consists of two very small populations on both sides of Highway 89. Occupied sites were visited in 2013, and a few plants in flower were observed. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the species.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within this unit are threatened by livestock grazing by horses and sheep; nonnative, invasive species issues; mineral development and associated infrastructure; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection may be required to minimize disturbance or destruction to the bedrock substrate and associated limestone soils; to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within its
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a new definition of destruction or adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214) which becomes effective on March 14, 2016. Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the the acuña cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of these species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the acuña cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus. These activities include, but are not limited to, actions that would adversely affect the composition and structure of soil within the designated critical habitat for the acuña cactus or Fickeisen plains cactus through land disturbances that result in soil compaction or erosion, removal or degradation of native vegetation, or fragmentation of the acuña cactus or Fickeisen plains cactus populations or their pollinators.
Such activities within the designated critical habitat for the acuña cactus could include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that would result in the loss, disturbance, or compaction of soils. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: livestock grazing; U.S.-Mexican border activities; recreational or other ORV use; mining operations; fire management, including clearing of vegetation for fuel management; and road construction.
(2) Activities that would result in changes in the vegetation composition, such as a reduction in nurse plants or an introduction or proliferation of invasive, nonnative plant cover that may lead to unnatural fires or competition for nutrients, water, or space, resulting in decreased density or vigor of individual acuña cactus.
(3) Actions within or near designated critical habitat that would significantly
(4) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that would result in the significant alteration of intact, native, Sonoran desertscrub vegetation communities within the range of the acuña cactus. Such activities could include: ORV activities and dispersed recreation; U.S.-Mexico border activities; new road construction or widening or existing road maintenance; new energy transmission lines or expansion of existing energy transmission lines; new border infrastructure; maintenance of any existing energy transmission line corridors or border infrastructure; fuels management projects such as prescribed burning; and rehabilitation or restoration activities using plant species that may compete with the acuña cactus.
These activities could result in the replacement or fragmentation of Sonoran desertscrub vegetation communities through the degradation or loss of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs in a manner that promotes increased wildfire frequency and intensity, and an increase in the cover of invasive, nonnative plant species that would compete for soil matrix components and moisture necessary to support the growth and reproduction of the acuña cactus.
For the Fickeisen plains cactus these activities could include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that would result in the loss, degradation, or compaction of soils along canyon rims, mesa tops or ridge tops, terraces, or other areas of suitable habitat (
(2) Actions that would result in the loss of limestone substrate or limestone-derived soils. Such activities could include, but are not limited to mineral development; development for infrastructure (roads); or changes in land-use practices such as conversion of native grasslands or desertscrub communities to residential or commercial development.
(3) Activities that would result in changes in soil composition leading to changes in the vegetation composition, such as an introduction or proliferation of invasive, nonnative plant cover that may lead to competition for nutrients, water, or space, resulting in decreased density or vigor of individual Fickeisen plains cactus.
(4) Actions within or near designated critical habitat that would significantly reduce pollination or seed set (reproduction). Such activities could include, but are not limited to: use of pesticides; herbicides; mowing; fuels management projects such as prescribed burning; and post-wildfire rehabilitation activities using plant species that may compete with the Fickeisen plains cactus.
(5) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that would result in the significant alteration of intact, native, desertscrub and grassland habitat within the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Such activities could include: ORV activities and dispersed recreation; new road construction or widening or existing road maintenance; new energy transmission lines or expansion of existing energy transmission lines; maintenance of any existing energy transmission line corridors; fuels management projects such as prescribed burning; and rehabilitation or restoration activities using plant species that may compete with the Fickeisen plains cactus.
These activities could result in the replacement or fragmentation of desertscrub and grassland habitat through the degradation or loss of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs in a manner that promotes increased wildfire frequency and intensity, and an increase in the cover of invasive, nonnative plant species that would compete for soil matrix components and moisture necessary to support the growth and reproduction of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”
We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of the critical habitat designation for the acuña cactus to determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the proposed revised critical habitat designation.
The BMGR has an approved INRMP and is committed to working closely with the Service to continually refine the existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based on our review of the INRMP for this military installation, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the portion of the acuña cactus habitat within this installation, identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat, is subject to the INRMP, and that conservation efforts identified in this INRMP will
The BMGR completed a revision to the INRMP in relation to ongoing and planned conservation efforts for the acuña cactus and provided this revision to us during the public comment period. The benefits for acuña cactus from this revised INRMP include: avoiding disturbance of vegetation and pollinators within 900 m (2,953 ft) of known acuña cactus plants; developing and implementing procedures to control trespass livestock; monitoring illegal immigration, contraband trafficking, and border-related enforcement; and continuing to monitor and control invasive plant species to maintain quality habitat and prevent unnatural fire. Further, BMGR's environmental staff reviews projects and enforces existing regulations and orders that, through their implementation, projects avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources, including acuña cacti and their habitat. In addition, BMGR's INRMP provides protection to acuña cactus habitat by prohibiting both mining and agriculture on their lands. The BMGR INRMP specifies periodic monitoring of the distribution and abundance of acuña cacti populations on the range.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts for the acuña cactus identified in the BMGR's INRMP provide a benefit to the acuña cactus and its habitat. Therefore, lands subject to the INRMP for BMGR, which includes the lands leased from the Department of Defense by other parties, are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and we are not including approximately 378 ha (935 ac) of habitat in this critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the protection from destruction of adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would provide.
In the case of both cactus species, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the two cactus species' presence and the importance of habitat protection. Where a Federal nexus exists, the designations of critical habitat may also increase habitat protection for the two cactus species due to the protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
In practice, a Federal nexus exists primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies or permits issued by Federal agencies. Because the Service finalized the listing rules for these species on October 1, 2013, we have not been regularly consulting with Federal agencies on their effects to the cacti for projects on Federal lands, or for projects on privately owned lands that had a Federal nexus to trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act. We found one project that considered effects to the acuña cactus and eight projects that considered effects to the Fickeisen plains cactus over the past 20 years. In these cases, the Federal action agency requested our technical assistance in developing conservation recommendations aimed at minimizing or reducing effects to the species in order to preclude the need for listing and in furtherance of their authorities under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments received, we considered whether certain lands in the proposed acuña cactus critical habitat Unit 3 and proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In particular, we considered whether the following were appropriate for exclusion: 156 ha (385 ac) of Tohono O'odham Nation land in Unit 3 of acuña cactus proposed critical habitat; 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Navajo Nation land in proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6, 7, and 8 (Subunit 8b); and 8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of Babbitt Ranch, LLC, lands in proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 8 (Subunit 8a) and Unit 9, respectively, of the Fickeisen plains cactus proposed critical habitat. Table 4 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but are being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. In the sections that follow, we present our discretionary exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for those areas listed in Table 4.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation (which included areas we were considering for exclusion) and related factors (Industrial Economics 2012, entire). The draft analysis, dated February 22, 2013, was made available for public review from March 28, 2013, through April 29, 2013 (78 FR 18938). Following the close of the comment period, a final economic analysis (FEA, dated August 23, 2013) of the potential economic effects of the designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments and any new information (IEc 2013, entire).
The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the acuña cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. The economic analysis provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the critical habitat designation for the two cacti over the next 20 years (2013 to 2032), which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis. This is because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The FEA quantifies economic impacts of the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) U.S.-Mexican border activities; (2) livestock grazing; (3) uranium mining; (4) commercial development; (5) recreational activities; (6) road construction and maintenance; and (7) species and habitat management. The total potential incremental economic impacts for all of the categories in areas proposed as acuña cactus critical habitat over the next 20 years is $34,000, an annualized impact of $2,200 (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The total potential incremental economic impacts for the Fickeisen plains cactus are forecast to be $39,000, an annualized impact of $2,500, in areas proposed for critical habitat designation and $22,000, an annualized impact of $1,400, in areas considered for exclusion.
The Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus based on economic impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands where a national security impact might exist. Department of Defense lands that are exempted from critical habitat designation for the acuña cactus in this final rule include the BMGR, as discussed above in
We also anticipate no impact on national security from the final designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, we did not propose an exclusion on this basis.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with the Service.
We evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of any exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships when we undertake a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. A non-exhaustive list of factors that we will consider for non-permitted plans or agreements is shown below. These factors are not required elements of plans or agreements, and all items may not apply to every plan or agreement.
(i) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the conservation of the species or the essential physical or biological features (if present) for the species;
(ii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan or agreement will be implemented;
(iii) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen conservation measures;
(iv) The degree to which the record of the plan supports a conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair the realization of benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or partnership;
(v) The extent of public participation in the development of the conservation plan;
(vi) The degree to which there has been agency review and required determinations (
(vii) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
(viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring program and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be modified in the future in response to new information.
We have determined that the private lands owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and State land with a land closure in place that is managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, warrant exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We made this determination because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including those lands in critical habitat based on our conservation partnership with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and their efforts to preserve the integrity of the cactus' habitat as evidenced by their management plan. The following represents our rationale for excluding certain lands owned or managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, that are within the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain Unit from the final designated critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, is a family-owned business that has been in operation for over 120 years. It has dedicated itself to managing large landholdings in northern Arizona while raising cattle and American Quarter Horses in a sustainable manner. They own and operate three cattle ranches in northern Arizona—the Cataract, CO Bar, and Espee Ranches. The Cataract and CO Bar Ranch include areas occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus and areas proposed as critical habitat (as described above). Besides cattle ranching, the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, support public recreational opportunities, wildlife conservation, and scientific research on the lands they own or manage.
We proposed to designate Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain Unit, both of which are located on a mix of State trust land, Federal land, and private land owned by the Babbitt Ranches. The proposed Cataract Canyon Unit is located on the Cataract Ranch. It contains 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) of State trust and private land that is managed collectively as an active cattle ranch. The Gray Mountain Unit (Unit 6) contains two subunits that straddle both sides of Highway 89 and total 1,656 ha (4,095 ac), and the unit are within the CO Bar Ranch. These subunits are located by the town of Gray Mountain and are adjacent to the boundary of the Navajo Nation. The proposed Mays Wash Subunit 6a contains 697 ha (1,724 ac) and is a checkerboard of Federal, State trust, and private parcels within the CO Bar
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, has a strong record of land stewardship, and they have developed a strong partnership with the Service as a result. Their commitment to conserving species is supported by their cooperative efforts with other private organizations, State, and other Federal agencies to better understand and preserve natural resources. For example, the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, participated with AGFD in the release of federally endangered black-footed ferrets (
The Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented on all three of the cattle ranches where critical habitat was proposed. The second largest population of Fickeisen plains cactus in existence occurs on the Cataract Ranch, which supports 66 percent of the 466 individual Fickeisen plains cacti in the rangewide population. Individual cacti were first documented on Cataract Ranch in 2006. The population appeared to be healthy and viable by the different age classes observed, and the surrounding habitat showed little disturbance with the natural vegetative community intact. Thus, the status of this population further confirms that the holistic management of Cataract Ranch has been beneficial to the Fickeisen plains cactus.
On the State lands that are part of the Cataract Ranch, a land closure order was put in place in 1986. The order states: “The State land commissioner has determined that the best interests of the State trust would be served by closing the State land described in the caption of this Order to mineral claim location, new mineral prospecting permit applications, and new mineral lease applications.” In 2011, a second closure order was enacted in which the State land commissioner determined that the best interests of the Trust would be served by closing “the State subsurface land to mineral claim location, new mineral exploration permits applications and new mineral lease applications.”
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, also submitted to the Service a Draft Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan for Cataract Ranch and the Draft Espee Ranch Regional Conservation and Land Use Plan. Although the latter incorporates the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan into a broader, regional vision and focuses on conservation actions across all of the Babbitt Ranches, we focused our review on the commitments described for the Fickeisen plains cactus on Cataract Ranch because the majority of the proposed critical habitat occurs there. The Draft Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan for Cataract Ranch commits to continuing to sustain healthy ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and biological diversity. As an active ranching operation, they have practiced this philosophy in the past, and will continue to adhere to their land ethics, which have preserved native grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats that incidentally benefit the Fickeisen plains cactus and its pollinators. They have a commitment to managing the ranches in an ecologically responsible fashion, which is evident in The Nature Conservancy's assessment of the land for a conservation easement, and by NRCS' rangeland inventory. Additional conservation measures for the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat within lands owned or managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, include:
• A commitment to continuing surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the three ranches and to working with the Service and others to develop Fickeisen plains cactus survey and monitoring protocols that can be employed rangewide.
• Utilizing the best grazing management practices to sustain rangeland health and Fickeisen plains cactus habitat over time through a rest rotation grazing system and by moving livestock among pastures based upon forage utilization and seasonal moisture. By this method, the timing, intensity, and frequency of grazing is controlled to allow forage and rangeland habitats to recover between grazing periods. Depending upon range conditions and the terms of grazing leases, maximum utilization of the forage production can range from roughly 35 to 50 percent. Babbitt Ranches, LLC, generally keeps their stocking rates below standard Animal Unit Months and grazing lease maximums. Although a written prescription is not followed for determining the number of cattle to keep on a pasture and length of time, livestock will continue to be managed to sustain productive forage and an intact ecosystem that integrates their commitment to conservation and healthy landscapes.
• Willingness to participate in any study or program related to collection, propagation, banking, and translocation of the Fickeisen plains cactus if such measures are considered feasible or desirable for survival and recovery of the taxon in response to climate change and extended droughts.
• Collecting information on small mammal predation during monitoring, and if it becomes an issue on lands owned or managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, measures designed to exclude predators from Fickeisen plains cactus populations will be investigated.
As discussed above under
For some species (including Fickeisen plains cactus), and in some locations (in particular, those occupied by the taxon), the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species, and it is often difficult or impossible to differentiate between actions that avoid jeopardy to the species and actions needed solely to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Although all of the land excluded in this critical habitat designation is occupied by the taxon, the taxon occurs in low densities with individuals
Critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for the Fickeisen plains cactus when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus generally exists where land is federally owned, or where actions proposed on non-Federal lands require a Federal permit or Federal funding. In the absence of a Federal nexus, the regulatory benefit provided through section 7 consultation under the Act does not exist. Any activities over which a Federal agency has discretionary involvement or control affecting designated critical habitat on Federal land would trigger a requirement to consult under section 7 of the Act. The Mays Wash subunit contains Federal land; the remainder of the proposed critical habitat in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain Unit comprise State trust land and private land.
On the CO Bar Ranch, there are 87 ha (215 ac) of State trust land and 246 ha (609 ac) of BLM land that are split estate with BLM having subsurface mineral rights. These lands were included in the Gray Mountain Unit in the proposed critical habitat designation. On these lands, there is the potential for subsurface mineral operations, which would be outside of the management control of the Babbitt Ranches, LLC. Inclusion of these lands in a critical habitat designation would require the BLM to consult with the Service in order to ensure that the primary constituent elements are not adversely modified or destroyed. These regulatory benefits of inclusion are limited to areas with the potential to have a Federal nexus, and, thus, generally limited to these 87 ha (215 ac) of split estate State trust land and 246 ha (609 ac) of BLM land.
Although no Federal land exists within the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit, there is potential for a Federal nexus for activities proposed on the Cataract Ranch due to Federal funding. The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, have partnered with the NRCS in the past and may again in the future. Most Federal actions would be beneficial such as rangeland improvements, invasive plant eradication, and wildlife habitat enhancements. However, as a result of the establishment and implementation of protections associated with a 13,953-ha (34,480-ac) conservation easement referred to as the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands, it is unlikely that future Federal actions would impact the overall goal of the easement. The land was placed under the easement for the goal of protecting and preserving the historical and cultural aspects of the property as an active agricultural and livestock operation; and to preserve the conservation and open space values of the property by continuing to establish, define, and promote private land stewardship and a historical sense of obligation and responsibility for the land and its ecology. Because of protection of these lands, it is unlikely that future Federal actions would cause adverse modification of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat. If actions that could affect Fickeisen plains cacti and their habitat do occur, it is likely that the protections provided the taxon and its habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be largely redundant with the protections offered by the conservation easement.
Additionally, lands in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit may have additional conservation value because the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, practice sustainable cattle ranching to maintain native vegetation communities and to improve and protect overall rangeland health. These efforts promote the conservation of suitable Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. The established purpose of the conservation easement is intended to protect the existing functional values of the native biotic communities, which sustain the cactus. Therefore, it is unlikely that Federal actions or actions conducted by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, would result in depreciable diminishment or a long-term reduction of the capability of Fickeisen plains cactus habitat to recover. As a result, any rare Federal action that may result in formal consultation will likely result in only discretionary conservation recommendations (
The designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus on Babbitt Ranches, LLC, would bring awareness of the cactus' presence to the State of Arizona during their review of mining leases, exploratory permits, or other land use activities under State control. Prior to any land-disturbing activity on State trust land by a project proponent, the Arizona State Land Department requires a pre-construction native plant survey. The required native plan survey would determine the compensation that must be paid to the Arizona State Land Department for the removal of specific cacti, including the Fickeisen plains cactus, which is currently considered a “highly safeguarded protected” plant. However, any action taken between the State and an application to protect or conserve the Fickeisen plains cactus or designated critical habitat from mineral activities would be at their discretion. Because it is unlikely that there would be a Federal nexus on State trust land unless a permit is required from a Federal agency or funding is appropriated, the educational benefits of including these lands in the final designation of critical habitat is minimized.
Another important benefit of including Babbitt Ranches, LLC, lands in a critical habitat designation is that the designation can serve to educate other landowners, agencies, neighboring tribes, and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value for certain species. Any information about the Fickeisen plains cactus, its endemism, and its rarity, that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. However, the educational benefits of designating critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, are small compared to those derived through conservation efforts currently being implemented.
The benefits of excluding land owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, from the designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus are substantial and include: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationship with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, NRCS, and the Arizona State Land Department to promote voluntary, proactive conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat as opposed to reactive regulation; (2) allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward species recovery, including conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of developing additional conservation easements and
Additionally, many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and unnecessary regulatory burden. According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will support and carry out conservation actions (Main
We believe it is essential for the recovery of the Fickeisen plains cactus to build on continued conservation activities such as these with proven partners like the Babbitt Ranches, LLC. Exclusion of the entire Cataract Ranch (on the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit) will help preserve the partnership that we have established with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and with State agencies and local governments to foster future partnerships and encourage the establishment of future conservation and management of habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus and other sensitive taxa. Furthermore, exclusion of the portions of the proposed Mays Wash subunit that are privately owned and managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, will help preserve our partnership.
The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, have maintained an effective working relationship with many public and government entities including the Service for many years for the purpose of achieving their own values as agricultural landowners, which are described in the Constitution of Babbitt Ranches and evidenced by their management actions. The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, management plan and the conservation easement establishing the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands provides substantial protection and management for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Specifically, both the management plan and easement provide protection and management of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon, and address conservation issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective. Therefore, the management plan and easement are expected to result in coordinated landscape-scale conservation that can contribute to genetic diversity by preserving the population, habitat, and native pollinators and their habitat that support recovery of the cactus and other endemic wildlife species.
In summary, we believe excluding State trust land (subject to land closure) managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and lands owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, from the critical habitat designation will provide the significant benefit of maintaining our existing partnership and fostering new ones.
We evaluated the exclusion of approximately 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) of private and State land within the boundaries of the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit from our proposed designation of critical habitat, and we determined the benefits of excluding all of these lands outweigh the benefits of including them as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. We also evaluated the exclusion of approximately 1,656 ha (4,095 ac) of private, State, and Federal land managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, within the boundaries of the proposed Gray Mountain Unit from our proposed designation of critical habitat. We have determined the benefits of excluding 371 ha (917 ac) of private land within the Mays Wash Subunit of the Gray Mountain Unit outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Babbitt Ranches have been and will continue to be managed to support sustainable cattle operations in response to variable annual climatic conditions and long-term shifts in global temperatures and precipitation, and in a manner that is consistent with the philosophy and land ethic of Babbitt Ranches, LLC, that is formalized in their constitution. Their holistic approach to managing their land use activities with the economic and social communities has contributed to the existence of a large, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus population, which we recognized in the October 1, 2013, final listing rule (78 FR 60608).
The Service believes the additional regulatory and educational benefits of including these lands as critical habitat are relatively small, because of the unlikelihood of a Federal nexus on the private and State trust lands within the proposed critical habitat designation. These benefits are further reduced by the existence of a 13,953-ha (34,480-ac) conservation easement on the Cataract Ranch that contains 2,848 ha (7,037 ac) of proposed critical habitat. We anticipate that there will be little additional Federal regulatory benefit to the taxon on State trust land because there is a low likelihood that those parcels will be negatively affected to any significant degree by Federal activities requiring section 7 consultation, and ongoing management activities indicate there would be no additional requirements pursuant to a consultation that addresses critical habitat.
All areas that were proposed for critical habitat on the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, are occupied by the taxon. The educational benefits of including these lands are small. The designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public as well as conservation organizations regarding the potential conservation value of an area, but this goal is already being accomplished. Through the identification of deeded land as the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands and the Babbitt Ranches Land Steward Institute, an educational and research platform is already established for partners wishing to collaborate with the Babbitt Ranches on ecological research needs. Given the history of collaborating and partnering with Federal and State agencies, local governments, research institutions, and other partners to sustain native grasslands and wildlife conservation, the Service anticipates that the conservation strategies described in the Babbitt Ranches draft Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan will be implemented in the future.
In summary, we find that excluding areas from critical habitat that are receiving both long-term conservation and management for the purpose of protecting the native grassland ecosystem, and thus the habitat that supports the Fickeisen plains cactus, will preserve our partnership with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and encourage future collaboration towards conservation and recovery of listed species. The partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the small potential regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits of including the land in the final critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, the conservation easement and the overall management of Babbitt Ranches, LLC,
We determined that the exclusion of 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) of land within the boundaries of the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and 371 ha (917 ac) of private land within Mays Wash Subunit of the Gray Mountain Unit for the Fickeisen plains cactus will not result in extinction of the taxon. Protections afforded the taxon and its habitat by the conservation easement and the history of land stewardship of Babbitt Ranches, LLC, as described in the Babbitt Ranches Draft Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan, provide assurances that the taxon will not go extinct as a result of excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act will also provide protection in these occupied areas when there is a Federal nexus. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Secretary is exercising her discretion to exclude 8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of land from the designation of critical habitat for Fickeisen plains cactus.
There are several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies that relate to working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and directs the Service to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both FWS and NMFS, Secretarial Order 3206,
However, S.O. 3206 does not preclude us from designating Tribal lands or waters as critical habitat, nor does it state that Tribal lands or waters cannot meet the Act's definition of “critical habitat.” We are directed by the Act to identify areas that meet the definition of “critical habitat” (
We have worked with the Tohono O'odham Nation to consolidate information on their past, present, and future voluntary measures and management to conserve the acuña cactus and its habitat on their lands. We have determined, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that we will exclude approximately 156 ha (385 ac) of Tohono O'odham Nation land in Unit 3 from the final designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus. As described in our discretionary exclusion analysis below, we have reached this determination because the benefits of excluding their lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including their lands in the designation due to our ongoing and effective working partnership with the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The Tohono O'odham Nation is located in southern Arizona on lands in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties. The Tohono O'odham Nation encompasses 1,133,120 ha (2,800,000 ac) of land and is divided into 11 districts. The Tohono O'odham Nation's eastern boundary is located approximately 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) west of the city of Tucson, and the administrative center is in the town of Sells, approximately 89 km (55 mi) southwest of Tucson. We continue to work with the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on wildlife and plant-related projects including recovery efforts for Sonoran pronghorn (
As a sovereign entity, the Tohono O'odham Nation seeks to continue to protect and manage their resources according to their traditional and cultural practices. The Tohono O'odham Nation requested that their land be excluded from the designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus due to their sovereign status and their right to manage their own resources. They are concerned that critical habitat designation on their land would limit the Nation's right to self-determination and self-governance. The Tohono O'odham Nation recognizes that their land contains acuña cactus individuals and habitat, and they consider acuña cactus, like all cacti, to be culturally significant. Tohono O'odham Nation conservation measures to protect the acuña cactus include project review prior to ground-disturbing activity and surveys.
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
Few regulatory benefits to the acuña cactus would be gained from a designation of critical habitat on the Tohono O'odham Nation lands, because the Nation already requires project review prior to any ground-disturbing activity due to the recognition of the cactus as a culturally significant plant and because the species is already listed. Because these conservation measures are already in place, it would be highly unlikely that any consultation would result in a determination of adverse modification. In addition, during coordination with the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tribe indicated that they are not considering any project actions in the area where acuña cactus occur. Therefore, we also do not anticipate that Tribal actions would be likely to result in adverse impacts to acuña cactus requiring formal section 7 consultations. For these reasons, the regulatory benefit of a critical habitat designation on these lands is minimized.
There is the possible benefit that additional funding could be generated for habitat improvement in an area being designated as critical habitat. Tribes often seek additional sources of funding in order to conduct wildlife-related conservation activities. Therefore, having an area designated as critical habitat could improve the chances of receiving funding for acuña cactus habitat-related projects.
Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat designation is that the designation can serve to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value for certain species. However, the Tohono O'odham Nation lands were included in the proposed designation of critical habitat; the proposal itself has reached a wide audience and has, thus, provided information to the broader public, as well as the BIA and the Tribe, about the conservation value of this area. Since publication of the proposed critical habitat designation, the Tribe has conducted a survey to locate acuña cactus within areas proposed as critical habitat. Therefore, additional educational benefits of an acuña cactus critical habitat designation on Tohono O'odham Nation lands are minimized.
The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 156 ha (385 ac) of Sonoran desert-scrub habitat with the Tohono O'odham Nation boundaries. Benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from designated critical habitat include the continuance and strengthening of our ongoing and effective working relationship with Tohono O'odham Nation to promote the conservation of listed species, including the acuña cactus and its habitat. We recognize and endorse the resource management activities of the Nation with regard to listed species and have been informed of the development of a draft land management plan for the Tohono O'odham Nation, which will include conservation measures for the acuña cactus. We have established a working relationship with Tohono O'odham Nation through informal and formal meetings that offered information sharing, technical advice, assistance, and recommended conservation measures for acuña cactus and its habitat. We find that conservation benefits (
We assign great weight to the benefits of excluding Tribal lands, which would honor our cooperative partnership with the Tribe. During our discussions with the Tohono O'odham Nation and through a letter received during our first public comment period, we were informed that the designation of critical habitat on Tribal land would be viewed as an intrusion on their sovereign ability to manage natural resources in accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. To this end, we found that the Tohono O'odham Nation would prefer to work with us on a government-to-government basis. For these reasons, we believe that our working relationship with the Tohono O'odham Nation would be better maintained and more effective if they are excluded from the designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus. The benefits of excluding this area from critical habitat will encourage the continued cooperation and development of data-sharing and management plans for this and other listed species. If this area is designated as critical habitat, we believe it is unlikely that sharing of information related to the acuña cactus would occur.
The benefits of including the Tohono O'odham Nation in critical habitat are small and are limited to educational and regulatory benefits. However, as discussed above, these educational benefits are minimized because they have been provided for already through including lands on the Nation in the proposed critical habitat designation. Similarly, the regulatory benefits are minimized because all areas proposed as critical habitat within the Tohono O'odham Nation are occupied and, thus, already subject to section 7 of the Act regardless of a critical habitat designation. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any consultation would result in a determination of adverse modification. Alternatively, the benefits of excluding these areas from critical habitat for the acuña cactus are more significant and include encouraging the continued partnership with the Tribe as well as development and implementation of special management measures such as project review prior to ground-disturbing activity and surveys. These activities will allow the Tohono O'odham Nation to manage their natural resources to benefit the acuña cactus without the perception of Federal government intrusion that would occur if we designated critical habitat on their land. This philosophy is also consistent with our published policies on Native American natural resource management. The exclusion of this area will likely also provide additional benefits to the species that would not otherwise be available to encourage and maintain cooperative working relationships. Therefore, we find that the benefits of excluding Tohono O'odham Nation lands from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including this area.
As noted above, the Secretary, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless it is determined, “based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” We have determined that exclusion of the Tohono O'odham Nation from the
We have determined, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that we will exclude approximately 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Navajo Nation land in proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6 (Tiger Wash Unit), 7 (Little Colorado River Overlook Unit), and Subunit 8b (Gray Mountain Subunit) from the final designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. We are excluding the entire Unit 6 and 7, along with all portions of Subunit 8b on Navajo Nation lands. As described in our discretionary exclusion analysis below, we have reached this determination because the benefits of excluding their lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including their lands in the designation due to our ongoing and effective working relationship with the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation recognizes the Fickeisen plains cactus as a species in need of protection and special management on lands they administer (RCF-014-91) (Navajo Nation 2013, p. 5). Their management plan would serve as a tool for conserving the cactus and its habitat on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW) will review their management plan for effectiveness and make revisions according to the current status of the cactus under Navajo and Federal law. Reviews will be conducted every 5 years or when new, significant information about threats or management becomes available for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The Navajo Nation Code, at 17 NNC section 507, recognizes the importance of endangered species, establishes a penalty for the disturbance of these species, and charges the Director, NNDFW, with the responsibility to recommend to the Resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council updates to the Navajo Endangered Species List (NESL). The first record of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation is from 1956 (Navajo Nation 2013, p.10). The Navajo Nation listed the Fickeisen plains cactus as a Group 3 endangered species on the NESL in 1991 (RCF-014-91). A Group 3 species is a species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. The cactus was included on the NESL due to its limited geographic range, specificity of habitat requirements, low recruitment rate and decline in numbers, and threats from livestock grazing, ORV use, potential for recreational development within its habit, and illegal collection. There are 15 known occurrences of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation with an estimated total population of 506 individuals.
The NNDFW has management authority for fish, wildlife, and native plants with regard to endangered and threatened species protection; and all temporary and permanent developments must receive clearance from the NNDFW. The NNDFW reviews a project's potential impact on protected wildlife or their habitat by using their Natural Heritage Database and various Tribal and Federal wildlife protection regulations, and recommends approval, disapproval, or conditional approval to the Resources and Development Committee. As a species included on the NESL, the Fickeisen plains cactus is protected from disturbance, and conservation of the cactus and its habitat will be facilitated primarily through the Navajo Nation's existing policies for managing and conserving natural resources.
In 2003, the Resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council, by Resolution No. RCMA-34-03, approved the Biological Resources Land Use Clearance Policies and Procedures, also known as the Navajo Nation Resource Conservation Plan (RCP). The RCP is a tool used by the Navajo Nation, local chapters, and developers to guide environmentally responsible development and to protect resources of high conservation value, including habitats of listed species. The RCP is based on comprehensive rare and threatened species data held in a NNDFW NNHP database and identifies and defines habitats and landscapes on the Navajo Nation based on their conservation value. The RCP divides the Navajo Nation into six land status categories based on their biological sensitivity and uses these categories to manage actions in a way that minimizes impacts to sensitive species and habitats. The Fickeisen plains cactus is located in areas designated as Area 5 (biological preserves), Area 2 (medium sensitivity) and Area 3 (low sensitivity). Documentation of impacts that a proposed project may have on biological resources is required for each of these areas. The NNDFW provides technical assistance to the Nation, chapters, and developers in following the RCP, and assesses adherence to the RCP during project review for making recommendations to the Resources and Development Committee.
Area 5 lands (biological preserves) are landscapes of high wildlife value and little or no current development or disturbance, or are particularly important for one or more protected species. Permanent or temporary development within biological preserves is prohibited unless it is compatible with the management of those areas as wildlife habitat. For development in biological preserves, the standard process for planning and approval of development, as described in the RCP, must be implemented. The NNDFW is committed to ensuring that any development that occurs in biological preserves is consistent with ecotourism principles.
The proposed Tiger Wash Unit, proposed Little Colorado River Overlook Unit, and portions of the proposed Gray Mountain Subunit occur on the Navajo Nation. These 3 proposed critical habitat units, including 9 of the 15 Fickeisen plains cactus populations on the Navajo Nation, are located within 2 biological preserves. These biological preserves are the Little Colorado River and Marble Canyon Preserves (Navajo Nation 2013, p. 17). The RCP thus creates an avenue for the NNDFW to recommend conservation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to plants and its habitat. Proposed development projects must demonstrate that impacts to protected species will be minimal, and the NNDFW strongly urges relocating projects to less sensitive habitats if possible.
Although NNDFW makes a strong effort to avoid impacts to habitats of sensitive species through project evaluation, some necessary
The NNDFW recognizes the impact nonnative, invasive species have on the native vegetation community and to other listed species they manage on their land. They are uncertain whether exotic annual species negatively impact the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. The Navajo Nation will monitor the presence of exotic annual species within occupied habitat and document any effects exotics may pose, including effects from a potential fire caused by overabundance of these species. The NNHP staff will incorporate a plant community survey into their monitoring efforts to record if there is a relationship between weed abundance and the status of the cactus population. If studies establish a causal relationship between abundance of exotics and declines in the Fickeisen plains cactus, they will implement conservation measures to control weed abundance. Proposed research with the Navajo Nation and other partners would examine potential effects of invasive species on the germination and establishment of the
While livestock grazing is a traditional way of life for the Navajo people, the Navajo Nation recognizes that management is needed to address impacts that grazing has on the entire ecosystem, which supports habitat the Fickeisen plains cactus relies upon for survival. Efforts are under way by Navajo policy makers and agencies to address past grazing impacts on the Navajo Nation and to improve grazing enforcement and protection of Navajo resources and ecosystems. For example, this year the Navajo Departments of Resource Enforcement and Agriculture, in the Division of Natural Resources, partnering with local chapters (municipal subdivisions of the Navajo government), have been conducting roundups to reduce overgrazing by stray, feral, and unpermitted livestock. Additionally, the Navajo Nation and BIA have been conducting public outreach regarding grazing impacts and the necessity of immediate and proactive steps to be taken to reduce grazing pressure and restore productivity of Navajo Nation rangelands.
As discussed above under
One important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat designation is that the designation can serve to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and it may help focus management efforts on areas of high value for certain species. Any information about the Fickeisen plains cactus that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. The Navajo Nation is currently working with the Service to address Fickeisen plains cactus habitat and conservation, participate in research on the taxon to further our knowledge and recovery objectives, and exchange management information. Because the Navajo Nation has developed a Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan, has been involved with the critical habitat designation process, and is aware of the value of their lands for conservation of the plant, the educational benefits of a Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat designation on the Navajo Nation are minimized.
There is the possible benefit that additional funding could be generated for habitat improvement in an area being designated as critical habitat. Tribes often seek additional sources of funding in order to conduct wildlife-related conservation activities. Therefore, having an area designated as critical habitat could improve the chances of receiving funding for Fickeisen plains cactus habitat-related projects.
Therefore, because of the implementation of their tribal management plan, rare initiation of formal section 7 consultations for listed plants and other listed species, and overall coordination with the Navajo Nation on the Fickeisen plains cactus, it is anticipated that there may be some, but limited, benefits from including tribal land in a Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat designation. The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that activities in and affecting such habitat require consultation under section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is provided to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. However, with the Navajo Nation implementing the RCP, which acts already to conserve Fickeisen plains cactus habitat combined with the rarity of Federal actions resulting in formal section 7 consultations, the benefits of a critical habitat designation are minimized.
The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of habitat within the Navajo Nation boundaries. Benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from designated critical habitat include the continuance and strengthening of our ongoing and effective working relationship with Navajo Nation to promote the conservation of listed species, including the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. We recognize and endorse the resource management activities of the Tribe with regard to listed species and have collaborated with the Tribe in the development of a Fickeisen plains cactus management plan. We have established a working relationship with the Navajo Nation through informal and formal meetings that offered information sharing, technical advice, assistance, and recommended conservation measures for the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. We find that conservation benefits are being provided to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat through our cooperative working relationship with the Navajo Nation.
As evidence of this partnership, during the development of the Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat proposal, we met informally and communicated with staff of the NNDFW and NNHP to discuss how the Navajo Nation might be affected by the regulations associated with Fickeisen plains cactus management, recovery, and the designation of critical habitat. As such, we established a relationship specific to Fickeisen plains cactus listing. As part of our relationship, we provided technical assistance to them in their development of a Fickeisen plains cactus management plan, which documented measures they have been
As described above, the Navajo Nation has a project-by-project review process in place that allows evaluation and implementation of conservation measures to minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. The NNHP conduct surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus and maintains a database on the quality of its habitat throughout Navajo Nation lands that includes the status and occurrence of the cactus. Having this information available creates effective conservation through any project review process. The implementation of their RCP has been coordinated and approved through appropriate Tribal processes. Overall, the commitment toward management of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat likely accomplishes greater conservation than would be available through the implementation of a designation of critical habitat on a project-by-project basis.
We have an established and effective working relationship with the Navajo Nation spanning several decades. This relationship has resulted in the implementation or facilitation of actions and plans that have benefited the conservation of numerous candidate and listed species on the Navajo Nation, including preparation of a recovery plan and status reviews for the Service, section 6 funding for inventory and monitoring, conservation projects, cooperative enforcement efforts, ongoing sharing of information, permitting Service personnel to conduct recovery activates on the Navajo Nation, and cooperation in section 7 consultations.
We assign great weight to the benefits of excluding Navajo Nation lands, which would honor our cooperative partnership with this Tribe. The Navajo Nation submitted comments in the second comment period stating that in weighing critical habitat exclusions the Service should consider the working relationship we have with tribes and the potential damage to the relationship if the Service intrudes on the sovereign authority of Tribal natural resource programs and Tribal plans for managing species. Furthermore, the Navajo Nation stated that Tribal trust lands are not public lands and are not subjected to the same Federal regulations or cultural context as those on public lands. Therefore, designation of critical habitat on their land may undermine internal efforts by the Navajo Nation to address impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus through comprehensive reform (NNDFW 2012, pp. 4-5).
Evidence of this partnership is the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan, and the Navajo Nation has developed management plans to include conservation efforts for other listed species and their habitats. We believe that the Navajo Nation is willing to continue working cooperatively with us and others to benefit other listed species, but only if they view the relationship as mutually beneficial. Consequently, the development of future voluntary management actions for other listed species may be compromised if the Navajo Tribal lands are designated as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Thus, we place great weight on the benefits of excluding these lands due to this partnership in light of the future conservation efforts that would benefit Fickeisen plains cactus and other listed species.
The benefits of including the Navajo Nation in the critical habitat designation are the incremental benefits gained through the regulatory requirement to consult under section 7 and consideration of the need to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat, agency and educational awareness, potential additional grant funding, and the implementation of other laws and regulations. However, as discussed in detail above, we believe these benefits are minimized because they are provided for through other mechanisms, such as: (1) The advancement of our Federal Indian Trust obligations; (2) the conservation benefits to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat from implementation of the Navajo Nation Fickeisen plains cactus management plan; and (3) the maintenance of effective collaboration and cooperation to promote the conservation of the cactus and its habitat.
If there is a Federal nexus for a project on the Navajo Nation, the action agency would be required to consult under section 7 of the Act to ensure the actions they fund, authorize, or carry out would not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. For critical habitat, projects undergoing section 7 consultation would need to evaluate effects to the primary constituent elements within the critical habitat unit, but there is no prohibition for take for plants, only recommended conservation measures. This consultation requirement appears to be comparable to requirements the Navajo Nation already has for project review, development of biological evaluations, and mitigation or avoidance to minimize negative effects to NESL-listed species, including plants. Navajo Nation policies offer additional or stricter protection over those defined in the Act such as a penalty for take of listed plants and a general avoidance distance of 61 m (200 ft).
Not all projects occurring on the Navajo Nation would have a Federal nexus. For those projects proposed by the Tribe or a non-Federal entity, for which section 7 would not apply, Tribal policies would be in effect. Overlaying the requirements for section 7 of the Act on top of the requirements in the RCP would not provide additional benefits to conserve the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, the regulatory and conservation benefits of a critical habitat designation on these lands are minimized.
The benefits of excluding these areas from critical habitat designation are more significant and include recognition and fostering of the partnership with the Navajo Nation, which is evidenced by the continued implementation of Tribal management and conservation measures such as monitoring, survey, habitat management and protection, and development of in-situ (on-site) conservation activities that are planned for future recovery of the taxon. Through these measures the Navajo Nation will continue to manage their natural resources to benefit habitat along canyon rims of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers for the Fickeisen plains cactus, without the perception of Federal Government intrusion. This philosophy is also consistent with our published policies on Native American natural resource management. The exclusion of these areas will likely also provide additional benefits to the Fickeisen plains cactus that would not otherwise be available without the Service's maintaining a cooperative working relationship with the Tribe. In conclusion, we find that the benefits of excluding Tribal land on the Navajo Nation in Arizona from critical habitat
As noted above, the Secretary, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless it is determined, “based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” We have determined that exclusion of the Navajo Nation from the critical habitat designation will not result in the extinction of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Federal activities on these areas that may affect the Fickeisen plains cactus will still require consultation under section 7 of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
Therefore, even without critical habitat designation on the Navajo Nation lands, activities that occur on these lands cannot jeopardize the continued existence of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Even so, our record demonstrates that formal section 7 consultations rarely occur on tribal lands, which is likely a result of existing conservation planning. Second, the Navajo Nation has committed to protecting and managing its habitat according to their management plan and natural resource management objectives. We believe this commitment, in conjunction with listing of the plant on the NESL, accomplishes greater conservation than would be available through the designation of critical habitat. With the implementation of their RCP and their protection of the Fickeisen plains cactus, we have concluded that this exclusion from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the cactus. Accordingly, we have determined that the Navajo Nation should be excluded under subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act, because the benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and the exclusion of these lands from the designation will not result in the extinction of the taxon.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget indicates that this statement is required only when a rulemaking is both significant under E.O. 12866 and exceeds one or more of the nine threshold levels outlined in their guidance on implementation of E.O.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The lands being designated for critical habitat are predominantly owned by the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Military, USFS, National Park Service, State of Arizona, and Tohono O'odham and Navajo Nations. None of these government entities fit the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the acuña cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.
We included some Tohono O'odham Nation lands in Pima County, Arizona, in the proposed designation of acuña cactus critical habitat and Navajo Nation lands in Coconino County, Arizona, in the proposed designation of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat. Less than one percent of all known acuña cacti occur on Tohono O'odham Nation lands; 15 percent of all known Fickeisen plains cactus occur on Navajo Nation lands. Using the criteria found in the
A complete list of references cited in this final rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we hereby amend amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a)
Family Cactaceae:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the acuña cactus consist of:
(i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed-Scrub Series of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation must contain predominantly native plant species that:
(A) Provide protection to the acuña cactus (Examples of such plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde.);
(B) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each individual reproducing acuña cactus;
(C) Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual acuña cactus.
(ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on slopes of less than 30 percent.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 19, 2016.
(4)
(5) Index map follows:
(6) Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, AZ. Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: Ajo Unit, Pima County, AZ. Map of Unit 2 follows:
(8) Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains Unit, Maricopa and Pima Counties, AZ. Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry.
(9) Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains Unit, Maricopa County, AZ. Map of Unit 4 follows:
(10) Unit 5: Mineral Mountain Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
(11) Unit 6: Box O Wash Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10) of this entry.
Family Cactaceae:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Mohave and Coconino Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus consist of:
(i) Soils derived from limestone that are found on mesas, plateaus, terraces, the toe of gentle sloping hills with up to 20 percent slope, margins of canyon rims, and desert washes. These soils have the following features:
(A) They occur on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave Counties of northern Arizona and are within the appropriate series found in occupied areas;
(B) They are derived from alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits of limestone from the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the Toroweap and Moenkopi Formations;
(C) They are nonsaline to slightly saline, gravelly, shallow to moderately deep, and well-drained with little signs of soil movement. Soil texture consists of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam.
(ii) Native vegetation within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin desertscrub vegetation communities from 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) in elevation that has a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that preserves the bedrock substrate and is supportive of microbiotic soil crusts where they are naturally found.
(iii) Native vegetation that provides for habitat of identified pollinators within the effective pollinator distance of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each individual Fickeisen plains cactus.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 19, 2016.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Units 2 and 3 follows:
(8) Unit 3: Clayhole Valley Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry.
(9) Unit 4: South Canyon Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 4 follows:
(10) Unit 5: House Rock Valley Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry.
(11) Unit 6: Gray Mountain Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Communications Commission comprehensively streamlines its rules governing licensing and operation of satellites and earth stations to foster more rapid deployment of services, greater investment, and new innovation.
Effective September 19, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 19, 2016.
Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803, or if concerning the information collections in this document, Cathy Williams, 202-418-2918.
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, FCC 15-167, adopted and released December 17, 2015, and Erratum, FCC 16-58, released May 6, 2016. The full text of the Report and Order is available at
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 79 FR 65106, the Commission proposed comprehensive changes to its rules and policies governing space stations and earth stations. This Report and Order adopts new rules on the basis of the established record and with the purpose of updating, simplifying, and streamlining the Commission's regulation of satellite services and of reducing burdens on applicants, licensees, and the Commission, consistent with the public interest.
We adopt a modified version of the two-step application process proposed in the NPRM. Any party seeking a geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) space station license from the Commission to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS) in non-planned frequency bands may submit advance publication of information (API) materials to the Commission for forwarding to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) before submitting a corresponding license application. This initial submission must include a letter request for filing of the API and a signed cost-recovery declaration. The Commission will process and forward up to five APIs from an entity if not accompanied by a Coordination Request and will not assess mutual exclusivity issues. The filing of API materials with the Commission will not establish priority in the Commission's first-come, first-served queue and will not require a fee. Instead, queue status will be established upon filing of Coordination Request materials, as described below.
In order to establish and perfect a queue position under the new, optional, two-step application process, an applicant must submit a draft Coordination Request filing to the Commission, using simplified Form 312 (Main Form), pay the license application fee, and post a $500,000 bond. This first-step application submission will establish a place in the space station application processing queue as of the time that the International Bureau receives the Form 312 and Coordination Request materials. A party submitting an API filing request to the Commission may file associated Coordination Request materials at the same time or at any time within two years of API submission to the ITU. As with APIs, the International Bureau will forward potentially conflicting Coordination Requests to the ITU and issue a public notice announcing that submission. If an applicant later modifies the submitted Coordination Request materials to change the proposed orbital location or to add frequencies, we will reset the queue position for the new or modified operations to the date of receipt of the modified Coordination Request materials by the Commission. We include in this category any modification to the proposed satellite network for which the ITU would require an amended API and would reset the receivable date of the associated Coordination Request, thus delaying the earliest possible date of priority for international coordination. An applicant that has submitted Coordination Request materials and an initial Form 312 to the Commission will be entitled to a refund of the application fee paid if the applicant notifies the Commission that it no longer wishes to keep its application on file before the Commission has issued a public notice announcing that the Coordination Request materials have been submitted to the ITU.
As we observed in the NPRM, the information provided in a Coordination Request is not sufficiently detailed to enable the Commission to determine mutual exclusivity with other space station applications. The queue position of a Coordination Request is, therefore, provisional until the application has been completed. For bands in which we apply two-degree spacing requirements, we will presume that a full application is mutually exclusive with a Coordination Request for co-frequency space station operation within two degrees of orbital separation. Final determination on mutual exclusivity will be done after the full application associated with the Coordination Request is received by the Commission.
The final step is to submit a complete space station license application for operation using the orbital location, frequency bands, and polarization proposed in the Coordination Request, including the information required by 47 CFR 25.114 and 25.140, and the full application fee, within two years of the filing of the initial Coordination Request materials with the Commission.
If a party conveys to the Commission that it no longer wishes to use an API or Coordination Request submitted to the ITU at its request, or if an applicant fails to submit the information required by the second step of the licensing process within the two-year period, any queue status based on the Coordination Request filing will be nullified. In that case, we will issue a public notice announcing any nullification of an applicant's position in the queue and the availability of the API and/or Coordination Request filings and will allow the first party to submit a letter request and cost-recovery declaration to use them. An applicant accepting such abandoned ITU filings will be required to accept any attendant ITU cost-recovery obligations that have not yet been incurred in connection with the filings. In addition, the queue priority date for the applicant accepting the filings will be established as of the time of its request for use of the filings, if it submits an application-stage bond within the 30-day period, or as of the time it submits a complete space station
We adopt an application-stage bond requirement as a financial qualification requirement pursuant to our authority under 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 308(b). The bond is part of the initial set of materials—which also includes the simplified FCC Form 312, Main Form, the application fee, and the Coordination Request—that, when submitted, will secure the prospective licensee priority in the Commission's application processing queue. As such, the submission of these materials constitutes the first step of a two-step procedure for filing a satellite license application.
A party that defaults on its obligation to timely file an acceptable application for the operation proposed in a Coordination Request, or Appendix 30B filing as noted below, must forfeit the value of the application-stage bond. We will not allow escrow accounts or letters of credit to satisfy the application-bond requirement. We will release the application-stage bond upon finding that a timely filed application is acceptable for filing, rather than maintaining the bond until the application is ultimately granted.
We will set the application-stage bond amount at $500,000. We will require the $500,000 bond to be posted within 30 days of the release of the public notice announcing that the Coordination Request has been submitted to the ITU. If an applicant fails to timely post the application-stage bond, we will issue a public notice announcing the nullification of that applicant's position in the queue and the availability of the API and Coordination Request filings and will allow the first subsequent party to submit a letter request and cost-recovery declaration to use them. Finally, we will establish an appropriate queue position for all complete requests for submission of Coordination Request materials, and therefore require an application-stage bond for all such requests.
In light of our adoption of an application-stage bond requirement, we will not apply the “Three-Strikes” rule in 47 CFR 25.159(d) to instances in which a complete application is not timely filed after an initial Coordination Request. We also will not include Coordination Request filings in the five-item limit on pending applications and unbuilt authorizations in a particular frequency band, which we eliminate below. Nonetheless, an applicant that has triggered the presumption of the Three-Strikes rule due to repeatedly failing to meet its milestone obligations will be subject to the lowered limit on space station license applications, including first-step filings.
We will, however, limit to five the total number of API filings that a party may request to be submitted through the United States without also timely submitting associated Coordination Request materials and a bond. We will not apply this five-item limit on APIs alone on a per-frequency-band basis. To prevent manipulation of this limit by separate but affiliated entities, we will also apply the attribution criteria in 47 CFR 25.159(c) to entities requesting API filings.
We adopt our proposal to treat ITU filing requests as confidential only until the Commission submits the filings to the ITU. We generally will make available the API and Coordination Request information once it has been forwarded to the ITU. In cases where the API and Coordination Request are submitted separately, however, we will not disclose the identity of the party requesting the API until after the Coordination Request has been submitted. For Coordination Requests, we will also issue a public notice announcing the submission to the ITU and noting the queued application. Finally, if a later party files without knowledge of an earlier Coordination Request filing with queue priority, we will entertain requests by the later party to withdraw the filing, and cancel any associated bond, within 30 days of the public notice announcing the higher queue priority applicant.
We will afford queue priority to space station license applicants that initiate their applications by submitting Coordination Request materials to the Commission for filing at the ITU. Accordingly, if a non-U.S. licensed operator files a request for access to the U.S. market after the filing of a first-step application that is deemed mutually exclusive, we generally will defer action on the market access request until after we have resolved the earlier-filed application or mutual exclusivity concerns have been eliminated through coordination between the parties involved. This is true even in cases where the foreign operator makes use of an ITU filing with an earlier date of protection than the U.S. filing relied upon by the applicant. We employ this queue procedure today when considering a request for access to the U.S. market vis-à-vis an earlier space station license application. Any U.S. license granted, however, will be subject to the outcome of the international coordination process. This may mean that the U.S. licensee may not be able to operate its system if the coordination cannot be appropriately completed.
For “NGSO-like” space station operation, we will submit API and Coordination Request filings prior to receiving a corresponding space station license application. Under 47 CFR 25.157, applications for such space stations are not eligible for first-come, first-served processing, and the information contained in an API or Coordination Request would be insufficient to begin a modified processing round. Therefore, the submission of ITU filings for systems proposing “NGSO-like” operation will not establish any status in the Commission's licensing process. Similarly, we will review and forward filings in bands subject to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations in advance of a license application, and without affording any licensing status, as applications for such Direct Broadcast Satellite systems are also presently not eligible for first-come, first-served processing.
For ITU filings in the FSS bands subject to Appendix 30B, we will follow an optional procedure similar to that adopted for non-planned band operation. Thus, ITU filings to convert an allotment into an assignment, to introduce an additional system, or to modify an assignment in the Appendix 30B List will be treated in the same manner as a Coordination Request filing for GSO FSS operation in non-planned bands. Such filings, accompanied by a simplified Form 312 (Main Form), demonstration or certification described in the following paragraph, and an application-stage bond, will establish a position in the Commission's space station licensing queue. The bond will similarly be forfeited in the event the party does not submit a complete space station application within two years.
Unlike Coordination Requests in non-planned bands, however, we will review a proposed filing under Appendices 30, 30A, or 30B prior to forwarding the filing to the ITU to ensure that it is
Finally, we will apply the API and Coordination Request procedures described above, including the bond requirement and queue status, to filings and applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, for the same reasons that we are applying them to GSO FSS filings and applications in non-planned bands. The Commission has established a four-degree orbital spacing environment for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Accordingly, we will presume that a full 17/24 GHz BSS space station application is mutually exclusive with a Coordination Request for co-frequency space station operation within four degrees of orbital separation. Final determination on mutual exclusivity will be done after the full application associated with the Coordination Request is received by the Commission.
We will retain only the final milestone requirements to launch and operate the authorized space stations for both GSO and non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) system licensees. We will not allow licensees to submit milestone showings as a means to reduce the surety bond. For GSO systems, licensees will be required to launch and operate the authorized space station(s) within five years from the date the license is issued. For NGSO systems, licensees will be required to operate the complete constellation within six years of grant. Consistent with our current rules, we will impose the same simplified milestone requirements on grants of access to the U.S. market via proposed non-U.S. licensed space stations. We expect that any requests for an extension of time to meet the final milestone requirement will be filed near to the deadline and will demonstrate that, despite the licensee's or market access recipient's diligent efforts, circumstances beyond its control prevent compliance with the milestone requirement.
We will not adopt any of the proposals to specify elements of sufficient demonstrations for the contract execution, CDR, and construction commencement milestone requirements. Nor will we allow a licensee to satisfy the final milestone requirement in a new GSO space station authorization by operating any “healthy” satellite at the authorized orbital location, rather than constructing and launching the satellite it had proposed.
We adopt an escalating post-grant bond requirement. By increasing over time the potential payment liability under the bond, an escalating bond will create a financial incentive for unprepared or speculative licensees, or licensees whose business plans change, to surrender their authorizations early.
We will specify an initial bond payment liability of $1 million for both GSO system licensees and NGSO system licensees under our modified escalating bond requirement. We believe that this amount is substantial enough to deter many applicants from filing applications for strategic motives with the intention of surrendering their licenses shortly after grant. Licensees that do repeatedly surrender their authorizations before satisfying the final milestone requirements may be subject to a lower limit on additional space station applications under the “Three-Strikes” rule.
We will also retain the current bond amounts of $3 million for GSO system licenses and $5 million for NGSO system licenses as the final payment amounts potentially due under the escalating bond. We will not adopt SpaceX's suggestion to create a separate bond category for “NGSO broadband satellite systems.”
We will not adopt our proposal to require bond payment amounts due in the event of default to be indexed based on the Gross Domestic Product Chain-type Price Index, which was opposed by all commenting parties. We prefer instead to retain stable payment amounts. This structure is simpler and should provide licensees greater certainty as to their potential liability without significantly reducing the deterrence of the bond requirement.
Under the modified bond requirement, a GSO system licensee must file a surety bond requiring initial payment in the case of license surrender of at least $1 million. The payment amount due to the U.S. Treasury under the bond will increase, pro rata, in proportion to the time that has elapsed since the license was granted to the time of the launch and operate milestone. The amount of the bond itself at any given time, however, must be sufficient to cover the amount due to the Treasury if the licensee were to surrender its license, and may be set at a fixed value that is increased yearly to cover the maximum potential liability in the upcoming year. The payment due upon failing to meet the milestone to launch and operate the authorized space station after five years will be $3 million. Thus, for example, if a GSO system licensee surrenders its authorization two years after grant, the amount due would be equal to the $1 million baseline amount plus a pro rata amount of the remaining $2 million maximum, or $1,000,000 + $2,000,000 × (2 (years)/5 (years)), or $1,800,000.
NGSO system licensees will be required to post a surety bond requiring initial payment in the case of surrender of at least $1 million as well. Payment liability will increase, pro rata, in the same manner, to a final bond payment value of $5 million after six years. In addition to these changes for U.S. licensees, we also make consequential changes to the bond requirements for proposed non-U.S. licensed space stations that have been granted access to the U.S. market but are not in orbit and operating.
We believe that an escalating bond requirement in the amounts we are prescribing, combined with the simplified milestone schedules, will deter warehousing of satellite spectrum more efficiently than is done today.
We will apply the modified bond and milestone requirements to space station licenses and grants of market access granted after the new rules come into effect. In addition, we anticipate that space station licensees and market access recipients with existing grants at the time the new rules come into effect may also wish to proceed under the new bond and milestone regime. In that case, the space station grantee would submit a letter request to replace its current milestone schedule and bond obligation with the single, final milestone and escalating bond requirement. In addition, the space station operator would submit a new or modified bond and be relieved of the obligations under its previous milestone schedule. Existing licensees and market access
Pending before the International Bureau and the Commission are a number of requests for interim milestone determinations for space station licenses and market access grants that have been surrendered, in some cases years ago. See 115 LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC, 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service Space Station at the 115.0° W.L. Orbital Location; Ruling on Milestones Completion, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 2759 (Int'l Bur. 2015) (application for review pending); EchoStar Corporation, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20020328-00052, SAT-LOA-20020328-00051, SAT-LOA-20070105-00001, SAT-LOA-20070105-00003, SAT-LOA-20020328-00050; Hughes Network Systems, LLC, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20111223-00248. Processing these requests as required by 47 CFR 25.164 is extraordinarily time-consuming and resource-intensive, as we have previously noted. And, each of these licenses and grants has been surrendered and made available to others, thus minimizing “warehousing” concerns. Accordingly, we direct the International Bureau to dispose of these pending milestone determination requests by waiving the requirements of 47 CFR 25.164 as needed. These licensees and grantees, of course, will forfeit the remainder of their respective bonds, for which no interim milestone showings have been made.
To encourage further the surrender of licenses granted under the current bond and milestone regime that will not ultimately be put to use, we also direct the International Bureau to consider waiving 47 CFR 25.164 as appropriate regarding milestone demonstrations submitted prior to the adoption of this Second Report and Order for all licenses and market access grants surrendered within 30 days of release of this Second Report and Order.
We retain our longstanding policy of applying routine technical criteria for GSO FSS operation premised on two-degree orbital separation between space stations, which applies to all U.S.-licensed space station operations and to non-U.S. licensed space station operations that fall within the scope of a grant of U.S. market access.
We adopt the proposal to allow continued transmissions above routine levels upon notice to the Commission, even if such levels are not coordinated with later applicants and petitioners for market access. Space station operators may provide valuable service to users with very small earth station antennas that is not compatible with operation of co-frequency, co-coverage space stations separated by two degrees and transmitting at routine power density levels. Such non-routine operations may be performed without causing harmful interference to other users and in accordance with any coordination agreements required under ITU Radio Regulations and Commission rules or policies. If future operators are given adequate notice of such pre-existing, non-routine operation, we do not believe it serves the public interest to require the existing system to reduce transmit power density levels to protect a later-authorized, two-degree compliant operator, in a manner that may preclude continued provision of the service, in the event the two operators do not come to a successful coordination. Indeed, continuation of such existing operations would promote continuity of service and encourage capital investment. At the same time, we wish to preserve the benefits of expedited processing and reduced costs that accompany the policy of establishing routine transmission criteria for two-degree orbital spacing.
To accommodate this dual goal, we will modify the two-degree spacing policy as follows. An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or extended C-bands, conventional or extended Ku-bands, or conventional Ka-band may notify the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be relieved of the obligation to coordinate such levels with later applicants and petitioners for market access. The letter notification must include the downlink off-axis equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density levels or power flux density levels and/or uplink off-axis EIRP density levels, specified per frequency range and space station antenna beam, that exceed the relevant routine limits. Once the International Bureau receives the notification, it will issue a public notice announcing the filing. Non-routine transmissions notified pursuant to this procedure need not be coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations that filed their complete applications or petitions for market access after the date of filing of the notification with the Commission. Such later applicants and petitioners must accept any additional interference caused by the notified non-routine operations, but need not restrict their own transmissions below routine levels to afford greater protection to the incumbent. This procedure will afford existing, non-routine operations a measure of certainty regarding future provision of the service, while preserving for new space station operation the application processing and competitive benefits of providing service at default transmission levels in these bands. In addition, to support continuity of service when non-routine operations are transferred to a replacement space station, we will permit the replacement to operate up to the notified transmission levels of the space station being replaced. In the case of a space station license applicant that files its application without knowledge of a prior-filed notification of non-routine transmission, we will allow the applicant to withdraw its application and receive a refund of any fee paid, to avoid an unfairness that might otherwise arise in this regard.
We recognize that this procedure does not ensure full protection for existing, non-routine operations, notably sensitive earth station receive operations. We refrain at this time, however, from establishing greater protection rights for non-routine operations than can be negotiated through coordination. We expect that the procedure for continuation of non-routine transmissions we adopt here will encourage parties to reach coordination agreements that will preserve to the maximum extent possible the continuity of existing services. If difficulties arise that threaten to disrupt an established service, parties may always bring the matter to the Commission for assistance in finding a mutually satisfactory solution.
We adopt our proposal to remove the routine limits on the power density of downlink transmission in the conventional Ku-band and conventional Ka-band from 47 CFR 25.134, 25.138, and 25.212 and insert them in 47 CFR 25.140 as coordination triggers for space station applicants and licensees. In addition, we adopt SES's suggested increases for the proposed limits on digital transmissions in the conventional and extended C-bands and the conventional and extended Ku-bands, excluding in both cases the Appendix 30B planned bands. To the extent that space station operators have
Because of the specific Appendix 30B plan applicable to 4500-4800 MHz, 6725-7025 MHz, 10.70-10.95 GHz, 11.20-11.45 GHz, and 12.75-13.25 GHz bands, however, and to avoid harming U.S. filings under Appendix 30B, we will not apply routine downlink criteria to these bands.
We adopt our proposal to require space station applicants to certify compliance with routine limits in lieu of providing a two-degree spacing interference analysis. Thus, for operation in the covered frequency bands, other than analog video operation, at a location two degrees or more from the nearest co-frequency space station, GSO FSS space station applicants will be required to provide a certification that both downlink and uplink operations will not exceed applicable routine limits unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized space stations within six degrees of their assigned orbital location. We decline the proposal to accept an interference analysis in place of this initial certification. In case difficulties arise during the required coordination, a space station grantee that intends to operate in excess of routine limits may still submit an analysis demonstrating that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference to a non-consenting operator and request that the Commission permit the non-routine operations. Finally, we note that the requirement for space station applicants to provide a certification of two-degree spacing compatibility does not replace the sharing demonstration or certification required from earth station applicants by 47 CFR 25.203(k).
We also adopt the proposal to require applicants for operation of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations to certify compatibility with the four-degree spacing environment for that service. This certification, based on the downlink PFD limits in 47 CFR 25.208(w) and uplink EIRP density limits in 47 CFR 25.223(c), similarly will provide additional flexibility to operators and reduce administrative burdens on applicants and the Commission.
We will not limit the applicability of the two-degree spacing rules to beams that cover, alone or collectively on the same satellite, all of the entire contiguous United States (CONUS). We note that two-degree spacing rules apply only to those non-U.S. licensed space station operations that fall within the scope of a grant of U.S. market access under the Commission's DISCO II policy. Thus, transmissions between non-U.S. licensed space stations and non-U.S. earth stations are not subject to the policy, and U.S.-licensed operators and applicants need not take these operations into account for purposes of a two-degree spacing analysis or certification. For two U.S.-licensed space stations, however, the default two-degree spacing rules apply to operations anywhere in the world. We believe that the benefits of expedited processing and reduced costs for U.S. applicants that are created by the policy also apply to proposed non-U.S. licensed operations with any U.S.-licensed earth station.
We anticipate that sharing situations may sometimes arise where a space station employing wide-area beams will operate adjacent to one or more spot beam satellites with multiple co-frequency transmitting earth stations lying within the victim satellite's receiving beam, but not in the same target satellite receiving beam. In such situations, the wide-area-beam satellite system may be subject to aggregate off-axis emissions that exceed the limit permissible for a single earth station. Although we expect that these instances will be infrequent, and that the interference will be largely mitigated by factors such as the decreased G/T of the wide-area beam and the gain roll-off over the service area, we cannot predict in advance its extent or how problematic it may be. If interference due to aggregate off-axis emissions from earth stations transmitting to another satellite does occur, both operators must cooperate fully in order to coordinate their systems so that each may continue its operations. However, coordination will not be required unless the aggregate interference into the receiving beam of the victim satellite, from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite, exceeds the interference that would be generated by a single earth station located at the peak of the victim satellite's receiving antenna beam, and transmitting at the maximum off-axis EIRP density permitted under the relevant rule Section.
We expand the definition of the Permitted Space Station List to include all GSO FSS space stations licensed or granted U.S. market access in bands where we will have routine licensing criteria for earth stations,
We will not require prior approval for
In addition, we adopt the proposal to deem granted, one business day after filing, all applications for
In the event that an earth station is routinely licensed pursuant to input power density and antenna gain criteria, and the tested performance of the antenna on-site does not fully comply with those antenna gain criteria, we will allow the construction notification requirement in 47 CFR 25.133 to be satisfied if the input power density is reduced such that, when added to the tested antenna gain pattern, the calculated EIRP density levels fall within the relevant EIRP density envelope.
We modify 47 CFR 25.283(c) to delete the word “all” in “all stored energy sources,” and change “and other appropriate measures” to “or other appropriate measures.” In doing so, we permit a satellite to maintain
We will apply the rules and procedures we adopt in this Second Report and Order to pending space station and earth station applications. Applying our new rules and procedures to pending space station applications will not impair the rights any applicant had at the time it filed its application. Nor will doing so increase an applicant's liability for past conduct.
This document contains new and modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding in a separate
Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We received no comments on this issue. We have assessed the effects of the revisions adopted that might impose information collection burdens on small business concerns, and find that the impact on businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be an overall reduction in burden. The amendments adopted in this Report and Order eliminate unnecessary information filing requirements for licensees and applicants; eliminate unnecessary technical restrictions and enable applicants and licensees to conserve time, effort, and expense in preparing applications and reports. Overall, these changes may have a greater positive impact on small business entities with more limited resources.
The Commission will send copies of this Report and Order to Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), and will send a copy including the final regulatory flexibility act analysis 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,
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
This Order adopts comprehensive changes to part 25 of the Commission's rules, which governs licensing and operation of space stations and earth stations for the provision of satellite communication services. We revise the rules to, among other things, expedite international coordination of proposed satellite networks; eliminate burdens associated with our milestone requirements; more effectively deter warehousing under our post-licensing bond requirement; ensure continuity of service of satellite operations; and clarify and expand routine earth station licensing procedures.
This Order revises multiple sections of part 25 of the rules. Specifically, it revises the rules to:
(1) Allow space station applicants to file through the Commission a satellite network with the International Telecommunication Union up to two years before filing a complete and detailed space station application with the Commission.
(2) Eliminate all of the space station construction milestones, except for the requirement to bring the space station(s) into operation at the assigned location(s) within a specified period of time.
(3) Modify the space station bond requirements to increase liability over time to provide better incentives against spectrum warehousing.
(4) Modify the two-degree spacing policy to permit continued operation of a non-two-degree compliant satellite network to the extent that the transmission levels are notified to the Commission, even if a later applicant does not consent to the higher levels.
(5) Eliminate the requirement for a space station applicant that starts constructing its satellite prior to filing an application with the Commission to notify the Commission in writing that it is doing so at its own risk and expense.
(6) Clarify the requirements to limit aggregate uplink power density from multiple earth stations transmitting to the same satellite.
(7) Provide for the automatic grant of applications for repositioning of space stations with a small offset from the originally authorized orbital location, and for minor repointing of space station antennas.
(8) Allow earth station operators to communicate with a replacement satellite that is deployed with a small
(9) Extend the frequency bands in which “routine” earth station licensing is permitted.
(10) Expand routine earth station license qualification options for applicants for earth station operation in the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30.0 GHz bands.
(11) Clarify earth station off-axis antenna radiation pattern requirements, and the ranges over which the off-axis radiated power can exceed the specified limits.
(12) Require earth station applicants to file off-axis antenna radiation charts instead of tables except in off-axis angular regions where the off-axis radiation exceeds specified limits.
(13) Eliminate the requirement for portable earth station manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the radiated power limits in Section 25.204 of the Commission's rules.
(14) Lower the minimum permissible elevation angle for earth stations operating in bands not shared with terrestrial services or in which satellite networks operate bidirectionally from five degrees to three degrees above the horizontal plane.
(15) Eliminate the restrictions on the center frequencies on which analog video transmissions in the 3700-4200 MHz band can be conducted.
(16) Eliminate the restrictions on space station antenna polarization for space stations operating in the 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz bands, and the associated compliance demonstration requirements in the space station application form.
(17) Eliminate the cross-polarization requirement associated with FSS space stations.
(18) Update and improve definitions.
No party filing comments in this proceeding responded to the IRFA, and no party filing comments in this proceeding otherwise argued that the policies and rules proposed in this proceeding would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission has, nonetheless, considered any potential significant economic impact that the rule changes may have on the small entities which are impacted. On balance, the Commission believes that the economic impact on small entities will be positive rather than negative, and that the rule changes move to streamline the part 25 requirements.
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below, we describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
The rules adopted in this Order will affect some providers of satellite telecommunications services. Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized two census categories for satellite telecommunications firms: “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under the “Satellite Telecommunications” category, a business is considered small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts. Under the “Other Telecommunications” category, a business is considered small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of entities “primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. We anticipate that some of these “Other Telecommunications firms,” which are small entities, are earth station applicants/licensees that will be affected by our adopted rule changes.
We anticipate that our rule changes will have an impact on earth and space station applicants and licensees. Space station applicants and licensees, however, rarely qualify under the definition of a small entity. Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, launch and operate. Consequently, we do not anticipate that any space station operators are small entities that would be affected by our actions.
The Order adopts a number of rule changes that will affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for earth and space station operators. Most changes, as described below, will decrease the burden for all businesses operators, especially firms that hold licenses to operate earth stations.
We streamline and reorganize the rules to facilitate improved compliance. First, the Order simplifies information collections in applications for earth
Another example is that we see no reason to require earth station antenna gain to be measured in all directions. We, therefore, delete language that may ambiguously imply requirements beyond the intended rules. Additionally, we amend a provision to require gain to be measured at the bottom and top of each band assigned for uplink transmission, but eliminate the required measurement at the middle of the allocated frequency band. The Order also expands routine licensing eligibility to include “extended C-band” earth stations.
We amend the rules to allow earth station operators to slightly repoint their antennas without prior approval for communication with a GSO replacement satellite within ±0.15° of the originally authorized location. We also eliminate the need to license receive-only earth stations communicating with non-U.S. licensed space stations approved for U.S. market access. We clarify that provisions to qualify for routine licensing for earth station applicants proposing to transmit in the conventional C-band, the conventional Ku-band, or the 24.75-25.25 GHz band also apply to earth stations that use allocated FSS frequencies to provide feeder links for non-FSS space stations,
The Order also changes filing requirements. For example, we remove the requirement on applicants for earth station operation in the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30.0 GHz bands to submit antenna gain plots for the receive bands. We also delete requirements for portable earth station transceivers to demonstrate compliance with certain rule sections.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
The Commission is aware that some of the revisions may impact small entities. The NPRM sought comment from all interested parties, and small entities were encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM. No commenters raised any specific concerns about the impact of the revisions on small entities. This order adopts rule revisions to modernize the rules and advance the satellite industry. The revisions eliminate unnecessary requirements and expand routine processing to applications in additional frequency bands, among other changes. Together, the revisions in this Order lessen the burden of compliance on small entities with more limited resources than larger entities.
The adopted changes for earth station licensing clarify requirements for routine licensing and expand applicability of routine licensing standards. Each of these changes will lessen the burden in the licensing process. Specifically, this Order adopts revisions to provide alternatives for filing requirements, reduce filing requirements and clarify antenna pattern measurement requirements in such a way that applicant burden will be reduced. Thus, the revisions will ultimately lead to benefits for small earth station operators in the long-term.
This final rule incorporates by reference five elements of the ITU Radio Regulations, Edition of 2012, into part 25 for specific purposes:
(1) ITU Radio Regulations, Article 9, “Procedure for effecting coordination with or obtaining agreement of other administrations,” Section II, “Procedure for effecting coordination.”
(2) ITU Radio Regulations, Appendix 30, “Provisions for all services and associated Plans and List for the broadcasting-satellite service in the frequency bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (in Region 3), 11.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1) and 12.2-12.7 GHz (in Region 2).”
(3) ITU Radio Regulations, Appendix 30A, “Provisions and associated Plans and List for feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite service (11.7-12.5 GHz in Region 1, 12.2-12.7 GHz in Region 2 and 11.7-12.2 GHz in Region 3) in the frequency bands 14.5-14.8 GHz and 17.3-18.1 GHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 17.3-17.8 GHz in Region 2.”
(4) ITU Radio Regulations, Appendix 30B, “Provisions and associated Plan for the fixed-satellite service in the frequency bands 4 500-4 800 MHz, 6 725-7 025 MHz, 10.70-10.95 GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz and 12.75-13.25 GHz.”
(5) ITU-R Recommendation S.1503-2, “Functional description to be used in developing software tools for determining conformity of non-geostationary-satellite orbit fixed-satellite system networks with limits contained in Article 22 of the Radio Regulations,” December 2013.
Materials (1) through (4) above are available for free download at
Article 9, Section II concerns the procedures for international coordination of frequency assignments for most space stations licensed by the Commission. Articles 30, 30A, and 30B govern international use of the BSS, associated feeder-link, and FSS planned bands, respectively. ITU-R Recommendation S.1503-2 describes means to evaluate equivalent power-flux density of certain NGSO FSS systems. The relation of these materials to specific requirements in part 25 is noted above in the discussions of the specific requirements. Applicants and licensees affected by rule sections including these materials by reference should become familiar with the incorporated materials.
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 160, 161, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308(b), that this Report and Order is adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed herein are adopted, and part 25 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth below.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the International Bureau is delegated authority to issue Public Notices consistent with this Report and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the International Bureau will issue a Public Notice announcing the effective date for all of the changes adopted in this Report and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, earth stations, incorporation by reference, satellites.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 25 as follows:
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) * * *
(C) APIs submitted pursuant to § 25.111(e) of this chapter and Coordination Requests filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) of this chapter are not routinely available for public inspection before the Commission submits the Coordination Request to the ITU. Submission of Coordination Requests to the ITU will be announced by public notice pursuant to § 25.151(a)(9) of this chapter.
Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Commission must publish a document in the
(b) International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland;
(1) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 1: Articles, Article 9, “Procedure for effecting coordination with or obtaining agreement of other administrations,” Section II, “Procedure for effecting coordination,” Edition of 2012,
(2) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30, “Provisions for all services and associated Plans and List for the broadcasting-satellite service in the frequency bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (in Region 3), 11.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1) and 12.2-12.7 GHz (in Region 2),” Edition of 2012,
(3) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30A, “Provisions and associated Plans and List for feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite service (11.7-12.5 GHz in Region 1, 12.2-12.7 GHz in Region 2 and 11.7-12.2 GHz in Region 3) in the frequency bands 14.5-14.8 GHz and 17.3-18.1 GHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 17.3-17.8 GHz in Region 2,” Edition of 2012,
(4) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30B, “Provisions and associated Plan for the fixed-satellite service in the frequency bands 4 500-4 800 MHz, 6 725-7 025 MHz, 10.70-10.95 GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz and 12.75-13.25 GHz,” Edition of 2012,
(5) Recommendation ITU-R S.1503-2, “Functional description to be used in developing software tools for determining conformity of non-geostationary-satellite orbit fixed-satellite system networks with limits contained in Article 22 of the Radio Regulations,” December 2013,
(b)
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, applications for space station licenses must be filed electronically on FCC Form 312 in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter and include all information required by § 25.114.
(3) A license application for 17/24 GHz BSS space station operation or for GSO FSS space station operation not subject to the provisions in Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
(i) An application for 17/24 GHz BSS space station operation or for GSO FSS space station operation not subject to the provisions in Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
(ii) An application for GSO FSS space station operation subject to the provisions in Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
(iii) An application initiated pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of this section will be considered completed by the filing of an FCC Form 312 and the remaining information required in a complete license application, including the information required by § 25.114, within two years of the date of submission of the initial application materials.
(f) An applicant must pay the appropriate filing fee in accordance with part 1, subpart G of this chapter, at the time when it files a FCC Form 312.
(d) The Commission will submit filings to the ITU on behalf of an applicant, licensee, or other requesting party only after the party has filed a signed declaration of unconditional acceptance of all consequent ITU cost-recovery responsibility. Applicants and licensees must file the declaration electronically in the “Other Filings” tab of the application file in the IBFS database, and must also mail a paper copy to the International Bureau, Satellite Division. In addition, applicants and licensees must reference the call sign and name of the satellite network in the declaration. All cost-recovery declarations must include the name(s), address(es), email address(es), and telephone number(s) of a contact person, or persons, responsible for cost recovery inquiries and ITU correspondence and filings. Supplements must be filed as necessary to apprise the Commission of changes in the contact information until the ITU
(e) The Commission will process and forward to the ITU up to five Advance Publication filings by an entity that are not accompanied by a complete space station license application or by an application pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii). Such Advance Publication filing requests not contained in an application must be accompanied by a letter request and a signed ITU cost-recovery declaration pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. A request for filing of Advance Publication information will be attributed to an entity in the same manner as a space station license application under the criteria set forth in § 25.159(c).
After June 30, 2016, the Commission will not forward Advance Publication information for satellite networks or systems subject to Article 9, Section II of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
(b) Applications for space station authority found defective under paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section will not be considered. * * *
(c) The Commission will dismiss an application for failure to prosecute or for failure to respond substantially within a specified time period to official correspondence or requests for additional information. Dismissal will be without prejudice unless the application is mutually exclusive pursuant to § 25.155, in which case it will be dismissed with prejudice.
(d) An application will be dismissed without prejudice as a matter of right if the applicant requests its dismissal prior to final Commission action.
(f) Construction permits are not required for U.S.-licensed space stations, except for stations that the applicant proposes to operate to disseminate program content to be received by the public at large, rather than only by subscribers. Construction of a station for which a construction permit is not required may commence, at the applicant's own risk, prior to grant of a license.
(g) Except as set forth in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, approval for orbital deployment and a station license (
(1) Applications for deployment and operation of an on-ground spare NGSO-like satellite will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.157, except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(2) Applications for deployment and operation of an on-ground spare GSO-like satellite will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.158, except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(3) Neither paragraph (g)(1) nor (g)(2) of this section will apply in cases where the space station to be deployed is determined to be an emergency replacement for a previously authorized space station that has been lost as a result of a launch failure or a catastrophic in-orbit failure.
(h) An operator of NGSO space stations under a blanket license granted by the Commission need not apply for license modification to operate technically identical in-orbit spare satellites in an authorized orbit. However, the licensee must notify the Commission within 30 days of bringing an in-orbit spare into service and certify that its activation has not exceeded the number of space stations authorized to provide service and that the licensee has determined by measurement that the activated spare is operating within the terms of the license.
(i) An operator of NGSO space stations under a blanket license granted by the Commission need not apply for license modification to deploy and operate technically identical replacement satellites in an authorized orbit within the term of the system authorization. However, the licensee must notify the Commission of the intended launch at least 30 days in advance and certify that its operation of the additional space station(s) will not increase the number of space stations providing service above the maximum number specified in the license.
(a)(1) A license application filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(2) for a GSO space station or NGSO space station or space-station constellation must comprise a comprehensive proposal and must be submitted on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, with attached exhibits required by paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) An application for blanket authority for an NGSO constellation of space stations that are not all technically identical must provide the information required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for each type of station in the constellation.
(3) For an application filed pursuant to the two-step procedure in § 25.110(b)(3), the filing pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(iii) must be submitted on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, with attached exhibits as required by paragraph (d) of this section, and must constitute a comprehensive proposal.
(b) Each application for a new or modified space station authorization must contain the formal waiver required by 47 U.S.C. 304.
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) * * *
(D) For a space station with steerable beams that are not shapeable, specify the applicable contours, as defined in paragraph(c)(4)(vi)(A) or (c)(4)(vi)(B) of this section, with a description of a proposed coverage area for each steerable beam or provide the contour information described in paragraph (c)(4)(vi)(C) of this section for each steerable beam.
(13) And the polarization information necessary to determine compliance with § 25.210(i).
(d) * * *
(10) An application for space station authorization in the 1.6/2.4 GHz or 2
(15) * * *
(i) If the applicant proposes to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band, a demonstration that the proposed space station will comply with the power flux density limits in § 25.208(w) unless the applicant provides a certification under paragraph (d)(15)(ii) of this section.
(iii) If the applicant proposes to provide international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz frequency band, a certification that the proposed space station will comply with the power flux density limits in § 25.208(c).
(iv) Any information required by §§ 25.264(a)(6), 25.264(b)(4), or 25.264(d).
(a) * * *
(2) Applicants for licenses for transmitting earth stations in the FSS may file on FCC Form 312EZ if all of the following criteria are met:
(iii) The application meets all relevant criteria in §§ 25.211 or 25.212 or includes information filed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section indicating that off-axis EIRP density from the proposed earth stations will not exceed relevant levels specified in §§ 25.138(a) or 25.218;
(iv) Operation of the proposed station has been successfully coordinated with terrestrial systems, if the station would transmit in the 5925-6425 MHz band;
(v) The application includes an environmental impact statement pursuant to § 1.1311 of this chapter, if required;
(vi) The applicant does not propose to communicate via non-U.S.-licensed space stations not on the Permitted Space Station List; and
(vii) If the proposed station(s) will receive in the 18.3-18.8 GHz and/or 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, the applicant proposes to communicate only via satellites for which coordination has been completed pursuant to Footnote US334 of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations with respect to Federal Government systems authorized on a primary basis, under an agreement previously approved by the Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the applicant certifies that it will operate consistently with the agreement.
(c)(1)
(i) Applications to license networks of earth stations operating in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands under blanket operating authority that meet the requirements of §§ 25.212(c) or 25.218(e) or (f) will be routinely processed.
(ii) Applications to license networks of earth stations operating in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands under blanket operating authority that do not meet the requirements of §§ 25.212(c) or 25.218(e) or (f) must comply with the requirements in § 25.220 and must be filed on FCC Form 312 with a Schedule B for each large (5 meters or larger) hub station antenna and each representative type of small antenna (less than 5 meters) operating within the network.
(c)(2)
(i) For earth station antennas operating with power levels not consistent with the applicable provisions in §§ 25.211(d) or 25.212(d), or with EIRP density levels not consistent with those specified in § 25.218(c) or (d), the applicant must file an initial lead application providing a detailed overview of the complete network. Such lead applications must fully identify the scope and nature of the service to be provided, as well as the complete technical details of each representative type of antenna that will operate within the network. Such lead applications for a single system must identify:
(c)(3) Networks of earth stations operating in the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz bands with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-licensed satellites for domestic or international services.
(i) Applications to license networks of earth stations that will transmit digitally modulated signals to GSO space stations in the 28.35-28.6 GHz and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands under blanket operating authority must be filed on FCC Form 312, or Form 312EZ if available, with a Schedule B for each large (5 meters or larger) hub station antenna and each representative type of small antenna (less than 5 meters) operating within the network and may be routinely processed if the criteria in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section are met:
(A) The applicant certifies pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) that the off-axis gain of transmitting antennas in the network will not exceed the relevant levels specified in § 25.209(a) and (b) and the power spectral density of any digitally modulated carrier into any transmitting earth station antenna in the proposed network will not exceed 3.5 dBW/MHz as specified in § 25.212(e).
(B) The application includes information filed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section indicating that off-axis EIRP density from the proposed earth stations will not exceed relevant routine levels specified in § 25.138(a).
(ii) Applications to license networks of earth stations operating in the 28.35-28.6 GHz and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands under blanket operating authority that
(e) License applications for earth station operation in any portion of the 18.3-20.2 GHz and 28.35-30.0 GHz bands not filed on FCC Form 312EZ pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be filed on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and must include any information required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this section or by § 25.130. An applicant may request authority for operation of GSO FSS earth stations in the conventional Ka-band, or for operation of NGSO FSS earth stations in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 (Earth-to-space) bands, without specifying the location of user terminals but must specify the geographic area(s) in which they will operate and the location of hub and/or gateway stations.
(f) * * * Applications for blanket authority to operate transceiver units may be filed using FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B. * * *
(g) Applications for earth stations that will transmit to GSO space stations in any portion of the 5850-6725 MHz, 13.75-14.5 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands must include, in addition to the particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312 and associated Schedule B, the information specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section for each earth station antenna type.
(1) Specification of off-axis EIRP density calculated from measurements made consistent with the requirements in § 25.132(b)(1), in accordance with the following requirements. For purposes of this rule, the “off-axis angle” is the angle in degrees from a line between an earth station antenna and the target satellite.
(i) A plot of maximum co-polarized EIRP density in the plane tangent to the GSO arc at off-axis angles from minus 180° to plus 180°;
(ii) A plot of maximum co-polarized EIRP density in the plane tangent to the GSO arc at off-axis angles from minus 10° to plus 10°;
(iii) A plot of maximum co-polarized EIRP density in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc at off-axis angles from 0° to plus 30°;
(iv) A plot of maximum cross-polarized EIRP density in the plane tangent to the GSO arc at off-axis angles from minus 7° to plus 7°;
(v) A plot of maximum cross-polarized EIRP density in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc at off-axis angles from minus 7° to plus 7°;
(vi) For antennas for which gain measurements are made pursuant to § 25.132(b)(1)(iv), the EIRP density plots specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (v) of this section must be provided over the specified angular ranges in two orthogonal planes, one of which is tangent to the GSO arc and with the antenna operating at its maximum skew angle, which the applicant must specify.
(vii) The relevant off-axis EIRP density envelopes in §§ 25.138, 25.218, 25.221, 25.222, 25.223, 25.226, or 25.227 must be superimposed on plots submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(viii) The showing must include a supplemental table for each off-axis angular range in which the relevant EIRP density envelope will be exceeded, specifying angular coordinates in degrees off-axis and corresponding calculated off-axis EIRP density at 0.2° increments over the angular range in which the routine envelope will be exceeded and one degree on each side of that range.
(2) An applicant that certifies pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) that a proposed antenna's measured gain pattern conforms to relevant standards in § 25.209(a) and (b) and that input power density to the antenna will not exceed the relevant limit in §§ 25.211 or 25.212 need not provide a showing pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section for operation with that antenna.
(h) [Reserved]
(i) An earth station applicant filing an application for a blanket-licensed earth station network made up of FSS earth stations and planning to use a contention protocol must include in its application a certification that its contention protocol usage will be reasonable.
(k)(1) Applicants for FSS earth stations that qualify for routine processing in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the conventional Ka-band, or the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, including ESV applications filed pursuant to § 25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), VMES applications filed pursuant to § 25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), and ESAA applications filed pursuant to § 25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3), may designate the Permitted Space Station List as a point of communication. Once such an application is granted, the earth station operator may communicate with any space station on the Permitted Space Station List, provided that the operation is consistent with the technical parameters and conditions in the earth station license and any limitations placed on the space station authorization or noted in the Permitted Space Station List.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the operator of an earth station that qualifies for routine processing in the conventional Ka-band may not communicate with a space station on the Permitted Space Station List in the 18.3-18.8 GHz or 19.7-20.2 GHz band until the space station operator has completed coordination under Footnote US334 to § 2.106 of this chapter.
(h) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, an application for any of the following kinds of modification of the operation of a GSO space station will be deemed granted 35 days after the date of the public notice that the application has been accepted for filing, provided no objection is filed during the 30-day notice period and the application does not propose a change that would be inconsistent with a Commission rule or require modification of the BSS plan in Appendix 30 or the associated feeder-link Plan in Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations (both incorporated by reference,
(1) Relocation of a DBS or GSO FSS space station by no more than 0.15° from the initially authorized orbital location, provided the application includes a signed certification that:
(i) The space station operator has assessed and limited the probability of the satellite becoming a source of debris as a result of collisions with large debris or other operational satellites at the new orbital location; and
(ii) The proposed station-keeping volume of the satellite following relocation will not overlap a station-keeping volume reasonably expected to be occupied by any other satellite, including those authorized by the Commission, applied for and pending before the Commission, or otherwise the subject of an ITU filing and either in orbit or progressing towards launch.
(2) Repositioning one or more antenna beams by no more than 0.3 angular degrees from a line between the space station and the initially authorized boresight location(s).
(a)
(1) Blanket-licensed earth station operators may add remote terminals operating on a primary basis without prior authorization, provided they have complied with all applicable frequency coordination procedures in accordance with § 25.251.
(2) A licensee providing service on a private carrier basis may change its operations to common carrier status without obtaining prior Commission authorization. The licensee must notify the Commission using FCC Form 312 within 30 days after the completed change to common carrier status.
(3) An earth station operator may change a point of communication without prior authorization, provided the operator does not repoint the earth station's antenna beyond any coordinated range; and
(i) The change results from a space station relocation described in paragraph (e) of this section, or
(ii) The new point of communication is a replacement GSO space station within ±0.15° of orbital longitude of the same location, with authority to serve the U.S., and the change does not entail any increase in the earth station's EIRP or EIRP density.
(4) Licensees may make other changes to their authorized earth stations without prior authority from the Commission, provided the modification does not involve:
(i) An increase in EIRP or EIRP density (either main lobe or off-axis);
(ii) Additional operating frequencies;
(iii) A change in polarization;
(iv) An increase in antenna height;
(v) Antenna repointing beyond any coordinated range or
(vi) A change from the originally authorized coordinates of more than 1 second in latitude or longitude for stations operating in frequency bands shared with terrestrial systems or more than 10 seconds of latitude or longitude for stations operating in frequency bands not shared with terrestrial systems.
(b)
(e)
(1) The space station will be relocated to a position within ±0.15° of an orbital location assigned to the same licensee.
(2) The licensee certifies that the space station will operate after the relocation within the technical parameters authorized and coordinated for the space station previously assigned to that location.
(3) The licensee certifies that it will comply with all the conditions of its license for operation at the changed location.
(4) The licensee certifies that it will limit operations of the space station to tracking, telemetry, and command functions during the relocation and satellite drift transition period.
(5) The licensee certifies that:
(i) It has assessed and limited the probability of the satellite becoming a source of debris as a result of collisions with large debris or other operational satellites at the new orbital location; and
(ii) The proposed station-keeping volume of the satellite following relocation will not overlap a station-keeping volume reasonably expected to be occupied by any other satellite, including those authorized by the Commission, applied for and pending before the Commission, or otherwise the subject of an ITU filing and either in orbit or progressing towards launch.
(6) The licensee certifies that the relocation will not result in a lapse of service for any current customer.
(7) If the space station to be relocated is a DBS space station, the licensee certifies that there will be no increase in interference due to the operations of the relocated space station that would require the Commission to submit a proposed modification to the ITU Appendix 30 Broadcasting-Satellite Service Plan and/or the Appendix 30A feeder-link Plan (both incorporated by reference,
(8) If the space station to be relocated is a DBS space station, the licensee certifies that it will meet the geographic service requirements in § 25.148(c) after the relocation.
(a) You must file an application for Commission authorization before you can transfer, assign, dispose of (voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of control of any corporation or any other entity) your construction permit or station license, or accompanying rights, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section. The Commission will grant your application only if it finds that doing so will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
(h)
(i)
(1) Approval does not require a waiver of, or a declaratory ruling pertaining to, any applicable Commission rule; and
(2) The application includes a certification that the proposed transfer of control or assignment is
(j)
(c) In addition to the information required by §§ 1.1307(b) and 2.1033(c) of this chapter, applicants for certification required by this section must submit any additional equipment test data necessary to demonstrate compliance with pertinent standards for transmitter performance prescribed in §§ 25.138, 25.202(f), and 25.216, must submit the statements required by § 2.1093(c) of this chapter, and must demonstrate compliance with the labeling requirement in § 25.285(b).
(b) A frequency coordination analysis in accordance with § 25.203(b) must be provided for earth stations transmitting in the frequency bands shared with equal rights between terrestrial and space services, except applications for user transceiver units associated with the NVNG MSS, which must instead provide the information required by § 25.135, and applications for 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS user transceivers, which must demonstrate that the transceivers will operate in compliance with relevant requirements in § 25.213. Also, applications for transmitting earth stations must include any notification or demonstration required by any other relevant provision in § 25.203.
(g) Parties may apply, either in an initial application or an application for modification of license, for operating authority for multiple transmitting FSS earth stations that are not eligible for blanket or network licensing under another section of this part in the following circumstances:
This paragraph does not apply to applications for blanket-licensed earth station networks filed pursuant to §§ 25.115(c) or 25.218; applications for conventional Ka-band hub stations filed pursuant to § 25.115(e); applications for NGSO FSS gateway earth stations filed pursuant to § 25.115(f); applications filed pursuant to §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, or 25.227; or applications for 29 GHz NGSO MSS feeder-link stations in a complex as defined in § 25.257.
(b) Receive-only earth stations in the FSS that operate with U.S.-licensed space stations, or with non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, may be registered with the Commission in order to protect them from interference from terrestrial microwave stations in bands shared co-equally with the Fixed Service in accordance with the procedures of §§ 25.203 and 25.251, subject to the stricture in § 25.209(c).
(j) * * *
(2) Operators of receive-only earth stations need not apply for a license to receive transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, provided the space station operator and earth station operator comply with all applicable rules in this chapter and with applicable conditions in the Permitted Space Station List or market-access grant.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, applications for transmitting earth stations in the FSS, including feeder-link stations, must include a certification that the applicant has reviewed the results of a series of radiation pattern tests performed by the antenna manufacturer on representative equipment in representative configurations, and the test results demonstrate that the equipment meets relevant off-axis gain standards in § 25.209, measured in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Applicants and licensees must be prepared to submit the radiation pattern measurements to the Commission on request.
(2) Applicants that specify off-axis EIRP density pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1) are exempt from the certification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)(1) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section and § 25.115(g)(1), the following measurements on a production antenna performed on calibrated antenna range must be made at the top and bottom of each frequency band assigned for uplink transmission:
(i)(A) Co-polarized gain in the azimuth plane must be measured across a range extending to 180° on each side of the main-lobe axis, and the measurements must be represented in two plots: one across the entire angular range of ±180° from the main-lobe axis and the other across ±10° from the main-lobe axis.
(B) Co-polarized gain must be measured from 0° to 30° from beam peak in the elevation plane.
(ii) Cross-polarization gain must be measured across a range of plus and minus 7° from beam peak in the azimuth and elevation planes.
(iii) Main beam gain.
(iv) For antennas with asymmetric apertures or beams, where the minor axis of the antenna beam (major axis of the antenna aperture) will not always be aligned parallel to the plane tangent to the GSO arc, the measurements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section must be made over the angular ranges specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section in two orthogonal planes, with the antenna oriented at the maximum skew angle at which it will operate.
(2) The relevant envelope specified in § 25.209 must be superimposed on each measured pattern.
(a) * * *
(2) Operation of a network of earth stations at unspecified locations under an initial blanket license must commence within 12 months from the date of the license grant unless the Commission orders otherwise.
(b)(1) * * *
(v) A certification that the facility as authorized has been completed and that each antenna has been tested and found to perform within authorized gain patterns or off-axis EIRP density levels; and
(vi) The date when the earth station became operational.
(2) For FSS earth stations authorized under a blanket license, the licensee must notify the Commission when the earth station network commences operation. The notification should include the information described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section and a certification that each hub antenna, and a type of antenna used in remote stations in the network, has been tested and found to perform within authorized gain patterns or off-axis EIRP density levels. For any type of antenna whose performance was not certified when the network commenced operation, the licensee must submit the information and certification stated above for the antenna type when it is first deployed.
(c) [Reserved]
(a) Earth station applicants requesting authority to communicate with a non-U.S.-licensed space station and entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling to access the United States market using a non-U.S.-licensed space station must attach an exhibit with their FCC Form 312 demonstrating that U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in:
(d) Earth station applicants requesting authority to communicate with a non-U.S.-licensed space station and entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling to access the United States market must demonstrate that the non-U.S.-licensed space station has complied with all applicable Commission requirements for non-U.S.-licensed systems to operate in the United States, including but not limited to the following:
(4) The surety bond requirement in § 25.165, for non-U.S.-licensed space stations that are not in orbit and operating.
(5) Recipients of U.S. market access for NGSO-like satellite operation that have one market access request on file with the Commission in a particular frequency band, or one granted market access request for an unbuilt NGSO-like system in a particular frequency band, will not be permitted to request access to the U.S. market through another NGSO-like system in that frequency band.
(e) An entity requesting access to the United States market through a non-U.S.-licensed space station pursuant to a petition for declaratory ruling may amend its request by submitting an additional petition for declaratory ruling. Such additional petitions will be treated on the same basis as amendments filed by U.S. space station applicants for purposes of determining the order in which the petitions will be considered relative to pending applications and petitions.
(f) A non-U.S.-licensed space station operator that has been granted access to the United States market pursuant to a declaratory ruling may modify its U.S. operations under the procedures set forth in §§ 25.117(d) and (h) and 25.118(e).
(a) Applications for earth station licenses in the GSO FSS in the conventional Ka-band that indicate that the following requirements will be met and include the information required by relevant provisions in §§ 25.115 and 25.130 may be routinely processed:
(1) The EIRP density of co-polarized signals in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, will not exceed the following values under clear sky conditions:
(2) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, the EIRP density of co-polarized signals will not exceed the following values under clear sky conditions:
(3) The EIRP density levels specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section may be exceeded by up to 3 dB, for values of θ > 7°, over 10% of the range of theta (θ) angles from 7-180° on each side of the line from the earth station to the target satellite.
(4) The EIRP density of cross-polarized signals will not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc under clear sky conditions:
(5) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(b) Operation with off-axis EIRP density exceeding a relevant envelope specified in paragraph (a) of this section and applications proposing such operation are subject to coordination requirements in § 25.220.
(c)-(e) [Reserved]
(a)(1) In addition to the information required by § 25.114, an applicant for GSO FSS space station operation involving transmission of analog video signals must certify that the proposed analog video operation has been coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations within six degrees of the requested orbital location.
(2) In addition to the information required by § 25.114, an applicant for GSO FSS space station operation at an orbital location less than two degrees from the assigned location of an authorized co-frequency GSO space station must either certify that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator of the co-frequency space station or submit an interference analysis demonstrating the compatibility of the proposed system with the co-frequency space station. Such an analysis must include, for each type of radio frequency carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See Appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, FCC 83-184, and the following public notices, copies of which are available in the Commission's EDOCS database: DA 03-3863 and DA 04-1708.) The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to proposed analog video operation, which is subject to the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) In addition to the information required by § 25.114, an applicant for a GSO FSS space station must provide the following for operation other than analog video operation:
(i) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or extended C-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not exceed 3 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 8 dBW/4kHz for analog transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in §§ 25.218 or 25.221(a)(1) unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or extended Ku-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not exceed 14 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 17 dBW/4kHz for analog transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in §§ 25.218, 25.222(a)(1), 25.226(a)(1), or 25.227(a)(1) unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional Ka-band, a certification that the proposed space station will not generate power flux-density at the Earth's surface in excess of −118 dBW/m
(iv) With respect to proposed operation in the 4500-4800 MHz (space-to-Earth), 6725-7025 MHz (Earth-to-space), 10.70-10.95 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.20-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth), and/or 12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, a statement that the proposed operation will take into account the applicable requirements of Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference,
(v) With respect to proposed operation in other FSS bands, an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with any previously authorized co-frequency space station at a location two degrees away or a certification that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator(s) of the previously authorized space station(s). If there is no previously authorized space station at a location two degrees away, the applicant must submit an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with a hypothetical co-frequency space station two degrees away with the same receiving and transmitting characteristics as the proposed space station.
(b) * * *
(3) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that will be located precisely at one of the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, must certify that the downlink power flux density on the Earth's surface will not exceed the values specified in § 25.208(w), and that the associated feeder-link earth station transmissions will not exceed the EIRP density limits in § 25.223(c) unless the non-conforming uplink operation is coordinated with other affected 17/24 GHz BSS systems in accordance with § 25.223(c).
(d) An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or extended C-bands, conventional or extended Ku-bands, or conventional Ka-band may notify the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be
(1) The letter notification must include the downlink off-axis EIRP density levels or power flux density levels and/or uplink off-axis EIRP density levels, specified per frequency range and space station antenna beam, that exceed the relevant routine limits set forth in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section and §§ 25.138(a), 25.218, 25.221(a)(1), 25.222(a)(1), 25.226(a)(1), or 25.227(a)(1).
(2) The notification will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 25.151(a)(11).
(3) Non-routine transmissions notified pursuant to this paragraph (d) need not be coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations that filed their complete applications or petitions after the date of filing of the notification with the Commission. Such later applicants and petitioners must accept any additional interference caused by the notified non-routine transmissions.
(4) An operator of a replacement space station, as defined in § 25.165(e), may operate with non-routine transmission levels to the extent permitted under paragraph (d)(3) of this section for the replaced space station.
(a) Authority to launch and operate a constellation of NGSO satellites will be granted in a single blanket license for operation of a specified number of space stations in specified orbital planes. An individual license will be issued for each GSO satellite, whether it is to be operated in a GSO-only system or in a GSO/NGSO hybrid system.
(b) * * *
(2)
(e)
(a) * * *
(1)(i) * * * The PFD masks shall be generated in accordance with the specification stipulated in the most recent version of ITU-R S.1503-2 (incorporated by reference,
(2)
(a) * * *
(1) The receipt of applications for new station authorizations, except applications for space station licenses filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this part;
(7) Information that the Commission in its discretion believes to be of public significance;
(8) Special environmental considerations as required by part 1 of this chapter;
(9) Submission of Coordination Requests and Appendix 30B filings to the ITU in response to requests filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii);
(10) The receipt of space station application information filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(iii); and
(11) The receipt of notifications of non-routine transmission filed pursuant to § 25.140(d).
(b) A license application for NGSO-like satellite operation, as defined in § 25.157(a), will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more mutually exclusive applications only if the application is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing by the “cut-off” date specified in a public notice.
(c) A license application for GSO-like satellite operation, as defined in § 25.158(a)(1), will be entitled to comparative consideration with another application only if:
(1) The application is mutually exclusive with another application for GSO-like operation; and
(2) The application is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing at the same millisecond as the other application.
(b) [Reserved]
(d)(1) Applications for NGSO-like satellite operation will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.157, except as provided in § 25.157(b).
(2) Applications for GSO-like satellite operation will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.158, except as provided in § 25.158(a)(2).
(3) Applications for both NGSO-like satellite operation and GSO-like satellite operation in two or more service bands will be treated as separate applications for each service band, and each service band request will be considered pursuant to §§ 25.157 or 25.158, as appropriate.
(4) Applications for feeder-link authority or inter-satellite link authority will be treated like an application
(5) In cases where the Commission has not adopted frequency-band specific service rules, the Commission will not consider applications for NGSO-like satellite operation after it has granted an application for GSO-like operation in the same frequency band, and it will not consider applications for GSO-like operation after it has granted an application for NGSO-like operation in the same band, unless and until the Commission establishes NGSO/GSO sharing criteria for that frequency band. In the event that the Commission receives applications for NGSO-like operation and applications for GSO-like operation at the same time, and the Commission has not adopted sharing criteria in that band, the Commission will divide the spectrum between GSO-like and NGSO-like licensees based on the proportion of qualified GSO-like and NGSO-like applicants.
(a) This section specifies the procedures for considering license applications for “NGSO-like” satellite operation, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. For purposes of this section, the term “NGSO-like satellite operation” means:
(1) Operation of any NGSO satellite system, and
(2) Operation of a GSO MSS satellite to communicate with earth stations with non-directional antennas.
(b) The procedures prescribed in this section do not apply to an application for authority to launch and operate a replacement space station, or stations, that meet the relevant criteria in § 25.165(e)(1) and (e)(2) and that will be launched before the space station(s) to be replaced are, or is, retired from service or within a reasonable time after loss of a space station during launch or due to premature failure in orbit.
(c) Each application for NGSO-like satellite operation that is acceptable for filing under § 25.112, except replacement applications described in paragraph (b) of this section, will be reviewed to determine whether it is a “competing application,”
(g)(1) In the event that a license granted in a processing round pursuant to this section is cancelled for any reason, the Commission will redistribute the bandwidth allocated to that applicant equally among the remaining applicants whose licenses were granted concurrently with the cancelled license, unless the Commission determines that such a redistribution would not result in a sufficient number of licensees remaining to make reasonably efficient use of the frequency band.
(2) * * * Parties already holding licenses for NGSO-like satellite operation in that frequency band will not be permitted to participate in that processing round.
(a)(1) This section specifies the procedures for considering license applications for “GSO-like” satellite operation, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For purposes of this section, the term “GSO-like satellite operation” means operation of a GSO satellite to communicate with earth stations with directional antennas, including operation of GSO satellites to provide MSS feeder links.
(2) The procedures prescribed in this section do not apply to an application for authority to launch and operate a replacement space station that meets the relevant criteria in § 25.165(e)(1) and (e)(2) and that will be launched before the space station to be replaced is retired from service or within a reasonable time after loss of a space station during launch or due to premature failure in orbit.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, license applications for GSO-like satellite operation, including first-step filings pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or (ii), will be placed in a queue and considered in the order that they are filed, pursuant to the following procedure:
(2) If the application is acceptable for filing under § 25.112, the application will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 25.151.
(i) For applications filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii), the public notice will announce that the Coordination Request or Appendix 30B filing has been submitted to the ITU. When further information is filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(iii), it will be reviewed to determine whether it is substantially complete within the meaning of § 25.112. If so, a second public notice will be issued pursuant to § 25.151 to give interested parties an opportunity to file pleadings pursuant to § 25.154.
(ii) For any other license application for GSO-like satellite operation, the public notice will announce that the application has been found acceptable for filing and will give interested parties an opportunity to file pleadings pursuant to § 25.154.
(c) A license applicant for GSO-like satellite operation must not transfer, assign, or otherwise permit any other entity to assume its place in any queue.
(d) In the event that two or more applications for GSO-like satellite operation are mutually exclusive within the meaning of § 25.155(c), the Commission will consider those applications pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) * * *
(3) The petition sets forth with specificity the procedures that have been established to ensure timely filings in the future.
(a) The recipient of an initial license for a GSO space station, other than a DBS or SDARS space station, granted on or after August 27, 2003, must launch the space station, position it in its assigned orbital location, and operate it in accordance with the station authorization no later than five years after the grant of the license, unless a different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter I, or the Commission.
(b) The recipient of an initial license for an NGSO satellite system, other than a DBS or SDARS satellite system,
(c)-(e) [Reserved]
(f) A licensee subject to the requirements in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must either demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirement or notify the Commission in writing that the requirement was not met, within 15 days after the specified deadline. Compliance with a milestone requirement in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be demonstrated by certifying pursuant to § 25.121(d) that the space station(s) in question, has, or have, been launched and placed in the authorized orbital location or non-geostationary orbit(s) and that in-orbit operation of the space station or stations has been tested and found to be consistent with the terms of the authorization.
(g) Licensees of satellite systems that include both NGSO satellites and GSO satellites, other than DBS and SDARS satellite systems, must meet the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section with respect to the GSO satellite(s) and the requirement in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to the NGSO satellites.
(a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004, other than licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space stations, and replacement space stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, the licensee must post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its license. * * *
(1) An NGSO licensee must have on file a surety bond requiring payment in the event of default as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, in an amount, at a minimum, determined according to the following formula, with the resulting dollar amount rounded to the nearest $10,000: A = $1,000,000 + $4,000,000 * D/2192, where A is the amount to be paid and D is the lesser of 2192 or the number of days that elapsed from the date of license grant until the date when the license was surrendered.
(2) A GSO licensee must have on file a surety bond requiring payment in the event of default as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, in an amount, at a minimum, determined according to the following formula, with the resulting dollar amount rounded to the nearest $10,000: A = $1,000,000 + $2,000,000 * D/1827, where A is the amount to be paid and D is the lesser of 1827 or the number of days that elapsed from the date of license grant until the date when the license was surrendered.
(3) Licensees of satellite systems including both NGSO space stations and GSO space stations that will operate in the same frequency bands must file a surety bond requiring payment in the event of default as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, in an amount, at a minimum, to be determined according to the formula in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) A licensee will be considered to be in default with respect to a bond filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section if it surrenders the license before meeting all milestone requirements or if it fails to meet any milestone deadline set forth in § 25.164, and, at the time of milestone deadline, the licensee has not provided a sufficient basis for extending the milestone.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) A replacement space station is one that:
(1) Is authorized to operate at an orbital location within ±0.15° of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be replaced or is authorized for NGSO operation and will replace an existing NGSO space station in its authorized orbit;
(2) Is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands, and with the same coverage area as the space station to be replaced; and
(3) Is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the existing space station is retired.
(f) An applicant that has submitted a Coordination Request pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or an Appendix 30B filing pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(ii) must obtain a surety bond in the amount of $500,000 in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for licensees. The application will be returned as defective pursuant to § 25.112 if a copy of the required bond is not filed with the Commission within 30 days after release of a public notice announcing that the Commission has submitted the Coordination Request or Appendix 30B filing to the ITU.
(g) An applicant will be considered to be in default with respect to a bond filed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section if the applicant fails to submit a complete, acceptable license application pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(iii) for the operation proposed in the initial application materials filed pursuant to § 25.110(b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) within two years of the date of submission of the initial application materials.
(a)(1) * * *
(g)(1) Telemetry, tracking, and command signals may be transmitted in frequencies within the assigned bands that are not at a band edge only if the transmissions cause no greater interference and require no greater protection from harmful interference
(2) Frequencies, polarization, and coding of telemetry, tracking, and command transmissions must be selected to minimize interference into other satellite networks.
(c) * * *
(6) Multiple antennas in an NGSO FSS gateway earth station complex located within an area bounded by one second of latitude and one second of longitude may be regarded as a single earth station for purposes of coordination with terrestrial services.
(f) * * * In order to minimize possible harmful interference at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site at Green Bank, Pocahontas County, W. Va., and at the Naval Radio Research Observatory site at Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, W. Va., any applicant for operating authority under this part for a new transmit or transmit-receive earth station, other than a mobile or temporary fixed station, within the area bounded by 39°15′ N. on the north, 78°30′ W. on the east, 37°30′ N. on the south and 80°30′ W. on the west or for modification of an existing license for such station to change the station's frequency, power, antenna height or directivity, or location must, when filing the application with the Commission, simultaneously notify the Director, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box No. 2, Green Bank, W. Va. 24944, in writing, of the technical particulars of the proposed station. * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Applicants for authority to operate a new transmitting earth station in the vicinity of an FCC monitoring station or to modify the operation of a transmitting earth station in a way that would increase the field strength produced at such a monitoring station above that previously authorized should consider the possible need to protect the FCC stations from harmful interference. Geographic coordinates of the facilities that require protection are listed in § 0.121(c) of this chapter. Applications for fixed stations that will produce field strength greater than 10 mV/m or power flux density greater than −65.8 dBW/m
(j) Applicants for NGSO 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service/Radiodetermination-Satellite Service feeder links in the 17.7-20.2 GHz and 27.5-30.0 GHz bands must coordinate with licensees of FSS and terrestrial-service systems sharing the band to determine geographic protection areas around each NGSO MSS/Radiodetermination-Satellite Service feeder-link earth station.
(a) Earth station antennas must not transmit at elevation angles less than five degrees, measured from the horizontal plane to the direction of maximum radiation, in a frequency band shared with terrestrial radio services or in a frequency band with an allocation to space services operating in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions. In other bands, earth station antennas must not transmit at elevation angles less than three degrees. In some instances, it may be necessary to specify greater minimum elevation angles because of interference considerations.
(b) ESAAs in aircraft on the ground must not transmit at elevation angles less than three degrees. There is no minimum angle of antenna elevation for ESAAs while airborne.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, the co-polarization gain of any earth station antenna operating in the FSS and transmitting to a GSO satellite, including earth stations providing feeder links for satellite services other than FSS, may not exceed the following limits:
(1) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, for earth stations not operating in the conventional Ku-band, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the 28.35-30 GHz band:
(2) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc, for earth stations operating in the conventional Ku-band:
(3) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc, for earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 28.35-30 GHz bands:
(4) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, for earth stations not operating in the conventional Ku-band, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the 28.35-30 GHz band:
Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by:
(5) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, for earth stations operating in the conventional Ku-band:
Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by:
(6) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, for earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 28.35-30 GHz bands:
Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by:
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, the off-axis cross-polarization gain of any antenna used for transmission from an FSS earth station to a GSO satellite, including earth stations providing feeder links for satellite services other than FSS, may not exceed the following limits:
(1) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc, for earth stations not operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 28.35-30 GHz bands:
(2) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, for earth stations not operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 28.35-30 GHz bands:
(3) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, for earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 28.35-30 GHz bands:
(c)(1) An earth station licensed for operation with an FSS space station or registered for reception of transmissions from such a space station pursuant to
(2) A 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth station is not entitled to protection from harmful interference from authorized space station operation that would not cause harmful interference to that earth station if it were using an antenna with receive-band gain patterns conforming to the levels specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Receive-only earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS are entitled to protection from harmful interference caused by other space stations to the extent indicated in § 25.224.
(e) An earth station using asymmetrical antennas without skew angle adjustment capability must comply with the gain values specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in the plane orthogonal to the to the main plane of the antenna, or, alternatively, in the plane corresponding to the maximum skew angle experienced at any location at which the earth station may be located.
(f) A GSO FSS earth station with an antenna that does not conform to the applicable standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. This demonstration must comply with the requirements in §§ 25.138, 25.218, 25.220, 25.221, 25.222, 25.223, 25.226, or 25.227, as appropriate.
(h) The gain of any transmitting antenna in a gateway earth station communicating with NGSO FSS satellites in the 10.7-11.7 GHz, 12.75-13.15 GHz, 13.2125-13.25 GHz, 13.8-14.0 GHz, and/or 14.4-14.5 GHz bands must lie below the envelope defined as follows:
(a) [Reserved]
(i) Space station antennas in the 17/24 GHz BSS must be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band shall be at least 25 dB within its primary coverage area.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) All conventional C-band analog video transmissions must contain an energy dispersal signal at all times with a minimum peak-to-peak bandwidth set at whatever value is necessary to meet the power flux density limits specified in § 25.208(a) and successfully coordinated internationally and accepted by adjacent U.S. satellite operators based on the use of state of the art space and earth station facilities. All transmissions in frequency bands described in § 25.208(b) and (c) must also contain an energy dispersal signal at all times with a minimum peak-to-peak bandwidth set at whatever value is necessary to meet the power flux density limits specified in § 25.208(b) and (c) and successfully coordinated internationally and accepted by adjacent U.S. satellite operators based on the use of state of the art space and earth station facilities.
(d) * * *
(2) For transmission in the 5925-6425 MHz band, the input power into the antenna will not exceed 26.5 dBW; or
(3) For transmission in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, the input power into the antenna will not exceed 27 dBW.
(e) Applications for authority for analog video uplink transmission in the 5925-6425 MHz or 14.0-14.5 GHz bands that are not eligible for routine processing under paragraph (d) of this section are subject to the requirements of § 25.220.
(c)(1) An earth station that is not subject to licensing under §§ 25.222, 25.226, or 25.227 may be routinely licensed for analog transmissions in the conventional Ku-band or the extended Ku-band with bandwidths up to 200 kHz (or up to 1 MHz for command carriers at the band edge) if the input power spectral density into the antenna will not exceed −8 dBW/4 kHz, and the application includes certification pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) of conformance with the antenna gain performance requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b).
(2) An earth station that is not subject to licensing under §§ 25.222, 25.226, or 25.227 may be routinely licensed for digital transmission, including digital video transmission, in the conventional Ku-band or the extended Ku-band if input power spectral density into the antenna will not exceed −14 dBW/4 kHz and the application includes certification pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) of conformance with the antenna gain performance requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b).
(d) An individual earth station that is not subject to licensing under § 25.221 may be routinely licensed for digital transmission, or for analog transmission with carrier bandwidths up to 200 kHz (or up to 1 MHz for command carriers at the band edge) in the conventional C-band or the extended C-band, if the applicant certifies conformance with relevant antenna performance standards in § 25.209(a) and (b), and power density into the antenna will not exceed +0.5 dBW/4 kHz for analog carriers or −2.7 dBW/4 kHz for digital carriers.
(e) An earth station may be routinely licensed for digital transmission in the 28.35-28.6 GHz and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands if the input power spectral density into the antenna will not exceed 3.5 dBW/MHz and the application includes certification pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) of conformance with the antenna gain performance requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b).
(g) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth
(h) Applications for authority for fixed earth station operation in the conventional C-band, the extended C-band, the conventional Ku-band, the extended Ku-band or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine processing under relevant criteria in this section, §§ 25.211, 25.218, or 25.138, are subject to the requirements in § 25.220.
(a) This section applies to applications for FSS earth stations transmitting to GSO space stations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, or extended Ku-band, with the following exceptions:
(1) ESV, VMES, and ESAA applications and
(2) Applications proposing transmission of analog command signals at a band edge with bandwidths greater than 1 MHz or transmission of any other type of analog signal with bandwidths greater than 200 kHz.
(b) Earth station applications subject to this section may be routinely processed if they meet the applicable off-axis EIRP density envelopes set forth in this section.
(c)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(d)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(4) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(e)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(f)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(4) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through -(f)(3) of this section.
(g)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(h)
(1) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc:
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(4) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section.
(i) Applications for authority for fixed earth station operation in the 5925-6425 MHz or 14.0-14.5 GHz band that do not qualify for routine processing under relevant criteria in this section, §§ 25.211 or 25.212 are subject to the requirements in § 25.220.
(a) The requirements in this section apply to applications for, and operation of, earth stations transmitting in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine licensing under relevant criteria in §§ 25.138, 25.211, 25.212, 25.218, 25.221(a)(1) or (a)(3), 25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), 25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), or 25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3).
(b) Applications filed pursuant to this section must include the information required by § 25.115(g)(1).
(d)(1) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(2) Unless the non-routine uplink transmission levels are permitted under a coordination agreement with the space station operator, or unless coordination with the operator is not required pursuant to § 25.140(d)(3) or (d)(4), the operator of an earth station licensed pursuant to this section must reduce its transmitted EIRP density to levels at or within relevant routine limits:
(i) Toward the part of the geostationary orbit arc within one degree of a subsequently launched, two-degree-compliant space station receiving in the same uplink band at an orbital location within six degrees of the earth station's target satellite, and
(ii) Toward a two-degree-compliant space station receiving in the same uplink band at an orbital location more than six degrees away from the target satellite if co-frequency reception by the space station is adversely affected by the non-routine earth station transmission levels.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Off-axis EIRP spectral density emitted in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, shall not exceed the following values:
(B) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, EIRP spectral density of co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values:
(C) The off-axis EIRP spectral-density of cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(2) The following requirements apply to ESV systems that operate with off-axis EIRP spectral-densities in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section under licenses granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) An ESV or ESV system licensed based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must operate in accordance with the off-axis EIRP density specifications provided to the target satellite operator in order to obtain the certifications.
(ii) Any ESV transmitter operating under a license granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP-density in excess of the specifications supplied to the target satellite operator.
(iii) A system with variable power control of individual ESV transmitters must monitor the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP-density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications, and the transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) The following requirements apply to an ESV system that uses variable power control of individual earth stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequencies to the same target satellite, unless the ESV system operates pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(i) Aggregate EIRP density from co-frequency earth stations in each target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the limits defined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Each ESV transmitter must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density in excess of the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) Aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters must be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP
(b) Applications for ESV operation in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) band to GSO satellites in the FSS must include, in addition to the particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312, and associated Schedule B, applicable technical demonstrations or certifications pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section and the documentation identified in paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6) of this section.
(1) An ESV applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must provide the information required by § 25.115(g)(1). An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must also provide the certifications identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. An ESV applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section must also provide the demonstrations identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i)-(ii) [Reserved]
(2) An applicant proposing to operate with off-axis EIRP density in excess of the levels specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section must provide the following in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1):
(ii) The certifications required by § 25.220(d);
(iii) A detailed showing that each ESV transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating EIRP density exceeding specifications provided to the target satellite operator;
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes the aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command; and
(v) A certification that the ESV system will operate in compliance with the power limits in § 25.204(h).
(3) An applicant proposing to implement an ESV system subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section must provide the following information in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) A detailed showing of the measures that will be employed to maintain aggregate EIRP density at or below the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section;
(iii) A detailed showing that each ESV terminal will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density exceeding the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section;
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command; and
(v) Certification that the ESV system will operate in compliance with the power limits in § 25.204(h).
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Off-axis EIRP spectral density emitted in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, shall not exceed the following values:
(B) The off-axis EIRP density of co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(C) The off-axis EIRP density of cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(2) The following requirements apply to ESV systems that operate with off-axis EIRP spectral-densities in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section under licenses granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) An ESV or ESV system licensed based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must operate in accordance with the off-axis EIRP density specifications provided to the target satellite operator in order to obtain the certifications.
(ii) Any ESV transmitter operating under a license granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP-density in excess of the specifications supplied to the target satellite operator.
(iii) A system with variable power control of individual ESV transmitters must monitor the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP-density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications, and the transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) The following requirements apply to an ESV system that uses variable power control of individual earth stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequencies to the same target satellite, unless the ESV system operates pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(i) Aggregate EIRP density from co-frequency earth stations in each target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the limits defined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Each ESV transmitter must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density in excess of the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) Aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters must be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit, and those transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(b) Applications for ESV operation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) band to GSO satellites in the FSS must include, in addition to the particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312, and associated Schedule B, applicable technical demonstrations or certifications pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section and the documentation identified in paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section.
(1) An ESV applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must provide the information required by § 25.115(g)(1). An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must also provide the certifications identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. An ESV applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section must also provide the demonstrations identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i)-(ii) [Reserved]
(2) An applicant proposing to operate with off-axis EIRP density in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section must provide the following in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) The certifications required by § 25.220(d);
(iii) A detailed showing that each ESV transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating EIRP density exceeding specifications provided to the target satellite operator; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes the aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) An applicant proposing to implement an ESV system subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section must provide the following information in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) A detailed showing of the measures that will be employed to maintain aggregate EIRP density at or below the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section;
(iii) a detailed showing that each ESV terminal will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density exceeding the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more ESV transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(b) Applications for earth station licenses in the 24.75-25.25 GHz portion of 17/24 GHz BSS may be routinely processed if they meet the following requirements:
(1) The EIRP density of co-polarized signals will not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, under clear sky conditions:
(2) The EIRP density of co-polarized signals will not exceed the following values under clear sky conditions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(3) The EIRP density levels specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section may be exceeded by up to 3 dB for values of θ > 7°, in 10% of the range of theta (θ) angles from 7°-180° on each side of the line from the earth station to the target satellite.
(4) The EIRP density of cross-polarized signals will not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:
(c) An applicant proposing levels in excess of those specified in paragraph (b) of this section must certify that potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the applicant's higher EIRP densities.
(1) For proposed non-conforming EIRP density levels up to 3 dB in excess of the limits defined in paragraph (b) of this section, potentially affected parties are operators of co-frequency U.S.-authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space stations at angular separations of up to ±6° from the proposed satellite points of communication. For proposed EIRP density levels more than 3 dB but not more than 6 dB in excess of the limits defined in paragraph (b) of this section, potentially affected parties are operators of co-frequency U.S.-authorized space stations up to ±10° from the proposed satellite points of communication.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an applicant need not certify that the operator of a co-frequency space station consents to proposed non-conforming operation if EIRP density from the proposed earth station will not exceed the levels specified in paragraph (b) toward any position in the geostationary arc within one degree of the assigned orbital location of the co-frequency space station.
(3) Power density levels more than 6 dB in excess of the limits defined in paragraph (b) of this section will not be permitted.
(d)(1) The operator of an earth station licensed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section will bear the burden of coordinating with the operator of a co-frequency space station subsequently licensed by the Commission for operation at an orbital location 10° or less from the earth station's target satellite if the co-frequency space station's reception of conforming uplink transmissions is, or would be, adversely affected by the earth station's non-conforming operation. If no agreement is reached, the earth station operator must reduce EIRP density toward that co-frequency space station to a level in conformance with the envelopes specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The operator of an earth station licensed pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section must reduce EIRP density to levels at or within those specified in paragraph (b) toward a U.S.-licensed space station receiving in the same uplink band at an angular separation from the earth station's target satellite greater than is required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if the co-frequency space station's reception of conforming uplink transmissions is adversely affected by the non-conforming earth station operation, unless the non-conforming operation is permitted under a coordination agreement with the operator of the co-frequency space station.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Off-axis EIRP spectral density emitted in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, shall not exceed the following values:
(B) The off-axis EIRP spectral density of co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(C) The EIRP density of cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(2) The following requirements apply to VMES systems that operate with off-axis EIRP spectral-densities in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section under licenses granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) A VMES or VMES system licensed based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must operate in accordance with the off-axis EIRP density specifications provided to the target satellite operator in order to obtain the certifications.
(ii) Any VMES transmitter operating under a license granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP-density in excess of the specifications supplied to the target satellite operator.
(iii) A system with variable power control of individual VMES transmitters must monitor the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from simultaneously transmitting VMES transmitters at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more VMES transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications and the transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) The following requirements apply to a VMES system that uses variable power control of individual VMES earth stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequencies to the same target satellite, unless the system operates pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(i) Aggregate EIRP density from co-frequency earth stations in each target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the limits defined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Each VMES transmitter must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density in excess of the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) Aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting VMES transmitters must be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more transmitters in a VMES network causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit, and those transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(b) Applications for VMES operation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) band to GSO satellites in the FSS must include, in addition to the particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312, and associated Schedule B, applicable technical demonstrations pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section and the documentation identified in paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(8) of this section.
(1) A VMES applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must provide the information required by § 25.115(g)(1). An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must also provide the certifications identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section must also provide the demonstrations identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i)-(ii) [Reserved]
(2) An applicant proposing to operate with off-axis EIRP density in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section must provide the following in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) The certifications required by § 25.220(d);
(iii) A detailed showing that each VMES transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating EIRP density exceeding specifications provided to the target satellite operator; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting VMES
(3) An applicant proposing to implement a VMES system subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section must provide the following information in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) A detailed showing of the measures that will be employed to maintain aggregate EIRP density at or below the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section;
(iii) A detailed showing that each VMES terminal will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density exceeding the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESV transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more transmitters in the VMES network causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) EIRP spectral density emitted in the plane tangent to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103, must not exceed the following values:
(B) The EIRP spectral density of co-polarized signals must not exceed the following values in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc, as defined in § 25.103:
(C) The off-axis EIRP spectral-density of cross-polarized signals must not exceed the following values in the plane tangent to the GSO arc or in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(2) The following requirements apply to ESAA systems that operate with off-axis EIRP spectral-densities in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section under licenses granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) An ESAA or ESAA system licensed based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must operate in accordance with the off-axis EIRP density specifications provided to the target satellite operator in order to obtain the certifications.
(ii) Any ESAA transmitter operating under a license granted based on certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP-density in excess of the specifications supplied to the target satellite operator.
(iii) A system with variable power control of individual ESAA transmitters must monitor the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from simultaneously transmitting ESAA transmitters at the system's network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more ESAA transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications, and the transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) The following requirements apply to an ESAA system that uses variable power-density control of individual ESAA earth stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequencies
(i) Aggregate EIRP density from co-frequency earth stations in each target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the limits specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Each ESAA transmitter must be self-monitoring and capable of shutting itself off and must cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density in excess of the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) A system with variable power control of individual ESAA transmitters must monitor aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESAA transmitters at the network control and monitoring center. If simultaneous operation of two or more transmitters causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center must command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit, and those transmitters must comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(b) Applications for ESAA operation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) band to GSO satellites in the FSS shall include, in addition to the particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312, and associated Schedule B, the applicable technical demonstrations in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), and the documentation identified in paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(8) of this section.
(1) An ESAA applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must provide the information required by § 25.115(g)(1). An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must also provide the certifications identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. An applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section must also provide the demonstrations identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i)-(ii) [Reserved]
(2) An ESAA applicant proposing to operate with off-axis EIRP density in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section must provide the following in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) The certifications required by § 25.220(d); and
(iii) A detailed showing that each ESAA transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating EIRP density exceeding specifications provided to the target satellite operator; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESAA transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more ESAA transmitters causes the aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis EIRP density specifications supplied to the target satellite operator, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below those specifications; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(3) An applicant proposing to implement an ESAA system subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section must provide the following information in exhibits to its earth station application:
(i) Off-axis EIRP density data pursuant to § 25.115(g)(1);
(ii) A detailed showing of the measures that will be employed to maintain aggregate EIRP density at or below the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section;
(iii) A detailed showing that each ESAA terminal will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating off-axis EIRP density exceeding the limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section; and
(iv) A detailed showing that the aggregate power density from simultaneously transmitting ESAA transmitters will be monitored at the system's network control and monitoring center; that if simultaneous operation of two or more transmitters in the ESAA network causes aggregate off-axis EIRP density to exceed the off-axis density limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the network control and monitoring center will command those transmitters to cease emissions or reduce the aggregate EIRP density to a level at or below that limit; and that those transmitters will comply within 100 milliseconds of receiving the command.
(e) * * * In this regard, any single NGSO MSS operator may identify only one feeder-link earth station complex protection zone in each category identified in § 101.147(y)(2) of this chapter until the other NGSO MSS operator has been given an opportunity to select a location from the same category.
(b) Licensed GSO FSS earth stations in the vicinity of operational NGSO MSS feeder-link earth station complexes must, to the maximum extent possible, operate with frequency/polarization selections that will minimize unacceptable interference with reception of GSO FSS and NGSO MSS uplink transmissions in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band. * * *
(a) Each 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicant or licensee must submit a series of tables or graphs containing predicted off-axis gain data for each antenna that will transmit in the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band, in accordance with the following specifications. Using a Cartesian coordinate system wherein the X axis is tangent to the geostationary orbital arc with the positive direction pointing east,
(5) Over a greater angular measurement range, if necessary, to account for any planned spacecraft orientation bias or change in operating orientation relative to the reference coordinate system. The applicant or licensee must state the reasons for including such additional information.
(6) The predictive gain information must be submitted to the Commission when a license application is filed for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station or within 60 days after completion of critical design review for the space station, whichever occurs later.
(b) A 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicant or licensee must submit power flux density (pfd) calculations based on the predicted gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(1) * * * In this rule, the term prior-filed U.S. DBS space station refers to any co-frequency Direct Broadcast Satellite service space station for which an application was filed with the Commission, or an authorization was granted by the Commission, prior to the filing of the information and certifications required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Indicate the extent to which the calculated pfd of the 17/24 GHz space station's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(3) If the calculated pfd exceeds the threshold level of −117 dBW/m
(4) The information and any certification required by paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Commission when a license application is filed for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station or within 60 days after completion of critical design review for the space station, whichever occurs later. Otherwise, such information and certifications must be submitted to the Commission within 24 months after the grant of an operating license for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station or when the applicant or licensee certifies completion of critical design review, whichever occurs first.
(c) No later than 2 months prior to launch, each 17/24 GHz BSS space station licensee must update the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section by submitting measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information over the angular ranges, measurement frequencies and polarizations specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. * * *
(d) No later than 2 months prior to launch, or when applying for authority to change the location of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is already in orbit, each 17/24 GHz BSS space station licensee must provide pfd calculations based on the measured off-axis gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, as follows:
(1) * * *
(ii) At the location of any subsequently filed U.S. DBS space station where the pfd level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band calculated on the basis of measured gain data exceeds −117 dBW/m
(c) * * *
(5) Operators of blanket-licensed GSO FSS earth station networks that provide international service must maintain a control point within the United States, or maintain a point of contact within the United States available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the ability to shut off any earth station within the network immediately upon notification of harmful interference.
(g) Licensees of transmitting earth stations are prohibited from using remote earth stations in their networks that are not designed to stop transmission when synchronization to signals from the target satellite fails.
(e) Transmission from an earth station of an unmodulated carrier at a power level sufficient to saturate a satellite transponder is prohibited, except as consented to by the space station licensee to determine transponder performance characteristics.
(c)
If an NGSO MSS satellite transmitting in the 6700-6875 MHz band causes harmful interference to previously licensed co-frequency Public Safety facilities, the satellite operator has an obligation to remedy the interference.
| 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 |