Federal Register Vol. 82, No.115,

Background

The PRC is currently eligible to export processed poultry products to the United States if they are processed in certified establishments in the PRC from poultry slaughtered in federally inspected establishments in the United States or in other certified slaughter establishments in other countries eligible to export poultry to the United States. FSIS is proposing to amend the poultry inspection regulations (9 CFR 381.196(b)) to list the PRC as also eligible to export to the United States poultry products from birds slaughtered in certified PRC establishments to the United States.

Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.

Section 381.196(a) requires a foreign country's poultry inspection system to include standards equivalent to those of the United States and to provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering of poultry and processing of poultry products by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the PPIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(ii)).

The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) competent, qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(i)).

The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards and advises FSIS of those establishments that are certified or removed from certification. Before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, FSIS must first determine that reliance can be placed on the certification of establishments by the foreign country (9 CFR 381.196(a)(1)).

As indicated above, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. FSIS requests that countries provide information about their inspection systems through its self-reporting tool (SRT). The SRT is a standardized questionnaire that FSIS provides to foreign governments to gather information that characterizes foreign inspection systems. Through the SRT, FSIS collects information on practices and procedures in six areas, known as equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight (e.g., Organization and Administration), (2) Government Statutory Authority and Food Safety and Other Consumer Protection Regulations (e.g., Inspection System Operation, Product Standards and Labeling, and Humane Handling), (3) Government Sanitation, (4) Government HACCP Systems, (5) Government Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and (6) Government Microbiological Testing Programs.1 FSIS evaluates the information submitted to verify that the critical points in the six equivalence components are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an onsite review is scheduled using a multidisciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program. This comprehensive process is described more fully on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-overview.

The PPIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries be listed in the CFR as eligible to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products to the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS reinspects and randomly samples those products at ports-of-entry before they enter U.S. commerce.

In May 2004, the government of the PRC requested approval to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS conducted a document review of the PRC's poultry (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system was equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that the PRC's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were equivalent to those of the United States.

Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of the PRC's poultry inspection system from December 1 to December 17, 2004, to verify that the PRC's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ), which is the PRC's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection, effectively implemented a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. During the 2004 on-site audit, FSIS identified problems with the PRC's sanitation controls, slaughter/processing controls, residue controls, and enforcement controls. For example, FSIS found that the sanitation programs at the establishments visited by the audit team lacked measures to prevent recurring deficiencies that could result in direct product contamination or adulteration, but AQSIQ inspectors did not identify the problems. FSIS also found that the CCA did not have adequate control and supervision over establishments, and official veterinarians did not adequately understand FSIS standards.

From July 27 to August 12, 2005, FSIS conducted a follow-up initial equivalence audit to determine whether the outstanding issues identified during the previous audit had been resolved. FSIS concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed all of the 2004 audit findings for poultry processing. However, the 2005 audit had identified a new systemic deficiency within the risk area of enforcement controls for poultry slaughter. Specifically, FSIS found that ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection procedures and dispositions were performed by establishment-paid veterinarians. On the basis of the 2005 audit, FSIS determined that the PRC's system for processed poultry was equivalent to that of the United States system, but denied the PRC's eligibility to export slaughtered poultry.

In April 2006, FSIS published a final rule in the Federal Register that added the PRC to the list of countries eligible to export poultry products to the United States with the stipulation that the PRC could only export processed poultry products derived from birds slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States or from another country eligible to export slaughtered poultry products (see 71 FR 20867; April 24, 2006). However, shortly after the publication of the final rule, Congress prohibited FSIS from using funds to establish or implement a rule allowing poultry products to be exported to the United States from the PRC (see Sec. 733 of Pub. L. 110-161). As a result, the PRC was unable to export poultry products to the United States.

In October 2009, Congress lifted the ban on poultry product exports from the PRC on the condition that FSIS conduct on-site reviews of slaughter and processing facilities, laboratories, and other control operations and conduct annual audits and reviews after the PRC is deemed equivalent (see Sec. 743 of Pub. L. 111-80).

In June 2010, a team of FSIS experts traveled to the PRC to collect information related to legislation applicable to their poultry inspection system. FSIS conducted a comprehensive analysis of the PRC's Food Safety Law (FSL) promulgated in 2009 and other information submitted by the PRC to verify that the following equivalence components were addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement: (1) Government Oversight (e.g., Organization and Administration); (2) Government Statutory Authority and Food Safety and Other Consumer Protection Regulations (e.g., Inspection System Operation, Product Standards and Labeling, and Humane Handling); (3) Government Sanitation; (4) Government HACCP Systems; (5) Government Chemical Residue Testing Programs; and (6) Government Microbiological Testing Programs.

From December 1 to 21, 2010, FSIS conducted separate but concurrent on-site audits of the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system to verify whether the CCA was able to effectively implement a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. The auditors concluded that the CCA was able to meet the principal requirements for the equivalence components of Sanitation and Chemical Residue Programs. However, FSIS identified systemic inadequacies in both the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system within the equivalence components for: Government Oversight (e.g., Organization and Administration), Government Statutory Authority and Food Safety and Other Consumer Protection Regulations (e.g., Inspection System Operation, Product Standards and Labeling, and Humane Handling), Government HACCP Systems, and Government Microbiological Testing Programs. For example, FSIS found that the CCA lacked a standardized method to assign inspection personnel to slaughter facilities based on objective measurements such as production line rates, inspection workloads, or line configuration. The CCA also utilized establishment-paid inspectors to conduct official inspection duties. The CCA responded by developing a comprehensive corrective action plan addressing the findings.

From March 4 to 19, 2013, FSIS conducted follow-up on-site audits to verify whether the CCA maintained effective oversight of the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system and to verify whether the PRC implemented the corrective actions proffered in response to the previous audit's findings. On the basis of the 2013 audit of the processed poultry inspection system, FSIS concluded that the PRC's processed poultry inspection system met all the equivalence components for FSIS equivalence criteria. Therefore, on August 30, 2013, FSIS announced in the Constituent Update (available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ad2eb47-a47f-4d16-9b81-0e57368f0c07/ConstUpdate083013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=9ad2eb47-a47f-4d16-9b81-0e57368f0c07) that the PRC could export processed poultry products to the United States. However, the CCA did not adequately address all previously identified concerns about its poultry slaughter inspection system. The CCA was able to meet the principal requirements of the equivalence components for Government Sanitation, Government HACCP Systems, Government Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and Government Microbiological Testing Programs, but FSIS found that the Government Oversight (e.g., Organization and Administration) and Government Statutory Authority and Food Safety and Other Consumer Protection Regulations (e.g., Inspection System Operation, Product Standards and Labeling, and Humane Handling) components were not equivalent. Specifically, the CCA still lacked a standardized method to assign inspection personnel to slaughter facilities on the basis of objective measurements. The CCA responded to these concerns, stating that it would implement changes to its poultry slaughter inspection system.

From May 8 to 28, 2015, FSIS conducted separate but concurrent on-site audits to verify whether the PRC's processed poultry inspection system remains equivalent to the United States' system, and to verify whether the CCA adopted the necessary corrective measures to its poultry slaughter inspection system. FSIS concluded, from the 2015 follow-up audits, that the PRC's processed poultry inspection system remains equivalent to the United States' system. FSIS also concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed all issues of concern that FSIS raised in its 2013 audit of the PRC poultry slaughter inspection system and had met the FSIS equivalence criteria for all six components.

On August 21, 2014, FSIS published a final rule to modernize poultry slaughter inspection (79 FR 49566). The rule implemented new U.S. regulatory requirements including (1) the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS), an optional post-mortem inspection system, and (2) regulatory changes that apply to all poultry slaughter establishments. On August 11, 2016, the PRC sent a letter to FSIS outlining the changes that were made to the PRC's poultry inspection system to achieve equivalency with the revised U.S. regulations. The PRC stated in the letter that it had updated its inspection manuals to require that establishments develop, implement, and maintain written procedures in their HACCP plans, Sanitation SOPs, or other prerequisite programs to ensure that carcasses with visible fecal contamination do not enter the chiller. According to the letter, the manuals also require establishments to develop, implement, and maintain written procedures in their HACCP plans, Sanitation SOPs, or other prerequisite programs to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and visible fecal material. The PRC stated in the letter that these written procedures must include sampling and analysis for microbial organisms to monitor process control for enteric pathogens. The PRC stated in the letter that it had adopted the U.S. requirements for NPIS, and that establishments must get approval from their local official regulatory agency before they may use the system. On September 1, 2016, the PRC sent copies of their updated inspection manuals to FSIS. FSIS has reviewed the submitted letter and updated inspection manuals and has determined that the PRC poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent with the new U.S. regulatory requirements in the August 21, 2014 final rule.

In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and has verified that the PRC made necessary to corrective actions to its poultry slaughter inspection system in response to the FSIS audits. Therefore, FSIS has determined that, as implemented, the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system. The full audit reports on the PRC's poultry inspection system (slaughter and processing) can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

Should this rule become final, the government of the PRC must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export slaughtered poultry products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify whether the establishments certified by the PRC's government meet the United States requirements through annual scheduled audits of the PRC's poultry inspection system.

Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of APHIS's regulations, which also regulate the exportation of poultry products from foreign countries to the United States. For example, APHIS has classified the PRC as a region affected with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza subtype H5N1 and Exotic Newcastle Disease. Therefore, even if FSIS were to list the PRC as a country eligible to export slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, at this time, the PRC would only be allowed to export cooked poultry products to the United States (see 9 CFR 94.6). Since the PRC's disease status may change during the equivalence process, FSIS will follow-up with APHIS and take into consideration how changes in the animal disease status may impact the country's eligibility to export certain types of poultry products to the United States.

If this proposed rule is adopted, all slaughtered poultry, or parts and products thereof, exported to the United States from the PRC will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detection of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter United States commerce. If they do not meet United States requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/fsis_import_reinspection/index.asp.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866 and is not subject to the provisions of E.O 13771.

The costs of this rule would accrue primarily to domestic poultry producers in the form of greater competition from the PRC. In the short run, the cost is likely to be small as the expected volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule is likely to be small (see Expected Benefits section below.)

The domestic producers would probably start to feel the pressure of competition should the PRC become eligible to export raw and other non-fully-cooked poultry products, and more establishments become certified to export to the United States. Some domestic producers may lose market share, and would have to make the necessary investment to be more efficient and stay competitive. As discussed before, the Agency cannot predict when this could happen. However, because the initial impact is likely to be small, as the expected PRC export volume is low, the Agency expects that the United States' industry would have time to prepare for the potentially larger impact and adjust their business strategies.

FSIS has not estimated the potential impact in the long run. However, the PRC is the second largest poultry producing country in the world, trailing closely behind the United States.2 If the PRC were to export other poultry products (for example, if APHIS allows the PRC to export raw chicken products) 3 to the United States and more PRC establishments become certified to be eligible, consumers will likely benefit from more choices and more competitive prices in the marketplace, and producers will likely become more efficient to be competitive.4 The Agency did not quantify the value of these benefits because of the lack of predictability associated with the many factors that heavily influence trade patterns and volume. These factors include results of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards issues (e.g. the avian influenza), exchange rates,5 and domestic political and economic conditions.

Adoption of this rule will increase trade between the United States and the PRC in poultry products. In the short run, the volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule is likely to be small because the PRC only intends to certify five slaughter establishments to provide poultry to certified processing establishments to export fully-cooked poultry products to the United States. Data from the PRC showed that these five slaughter establishments will supply poultry to five processing establishments that the PRC will certify as eligible to ship product to the U.S.—three of them intend to export cooked chicken quarter-legs and chicken breasts, one to export cooked duck legs and duck breasts, and one to export roasted boneless duck to the United States. According to the data, the projected volume of export to the United States will be about 324 million pounds per year for the next five years. 6 Given that the United States domestic annual production volume of RTE fully-cooked poultry is about 12,325 million pounds,7 the projected cooked poultry products from the PRC would only be about 2.6 percent of total United States production in the next five years.8 The immediate impact on the United States consumers and domestic processors is likely to be minor, as the low volume of trade is likely to have little effect on supply, demand, and prices.

The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The expected trade volume will be small, with little or no effect on all U.S. establishments, regardless of size.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) No retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) Administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided the PRC with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB control number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp. FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, shall exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0490; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-13-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0490.

Ipeco has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 063-25-08, Revision 00; SB 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB 063-25-10, Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016. These SBs provides instructions, differentiated by the part numbers of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats, for the modification and reidentification of these seats. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require modification and reidentification of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects an unknown number of pilot and co-pilot seats installed on 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0555; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-183-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On January 23, 2013, we issued AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-12”), for all EADS CASA (now Airbus Defense and Space S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. AD 2013-02-12 was prompted by reports of incorrect electrical polarity connections on engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges. AD 2013-02-12 requires a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repair if necessary. We issued AD 2013-02-12 to detect and correct incorrect polarity connections, which could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation during a potential engine fire, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to passengers.

Since we issued AD 2013-02-12, a new modification for the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harness has been developed by the manufacturer. Embodiment of this modification introduces a design solution that avoids maintenance errors during connecting and reconnecting of the affected fire extinguisher circuit harness after accomplishment of maintenance tasks or functional tests.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0201, dated October 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0555.

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses.

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has also issued Airbus Military All Operator Letter (AOL) 235-020, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2013. The service information describes procedures for identifying the correct polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repairing the erroneous wiring polarity if necessary.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2013-02-12, and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-02-12 is $340 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,280 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be about $50,580 or $4,215 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0452; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-14-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

We learned from the manufacturer that the affected HPC impellers installed on CT7-8A and CT7-9B turboshaft engines may have suffered from material degradation during the manufacturing process. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC impeller, uncontained HPC impeller release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane/helicopter.

We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP S/B 72-0524, dated June 16, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing the affected HPC impellers.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require removal of the affected HPC impellers.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 engine installed on a helicopter of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

CPSC is an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC uses a variety of approaches to achieve its mission. Among the agency's tools is issuing regulations concerning the safety of consumer products. The Commission is seeking suggestions from the public about ways to lessen burdens and reduce costs of its existing rules, regulations, or practices without increasing the risk of deaths or injuries to consumers. When submitting suggestions with respect to existing rules, regulations or practices, the Commission requests information and data in support of the suggestion, and answers to the questions, as appropriate, listed in Section V.b of the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Regulations-Laws-and-Standards/Rulemaking/FINALrulereviewplanAPRIL2016.pdf.

To submit your ideas, please follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On December 8, 2016, Overload Productions notified the Coast Guard that it intends on conducting a high speed water ski race on Commencement Bay. Approximately 40 motor boats and water skiers will be participating in the races and operating at high speeds with limited maneuverability, which poses a significant hazard to race participants and other boaters. In addition the event sponsors anticipate a potential small number of on-water spectators to be present during the races.

The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22934), proposing a special local regulation. We are issuing this supplemental proposal to amend the special local regulation to include August 5, 2017 as a race day, increasing the size of the race area, and extending the comment period to account for these changes.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and participants in the race as well as spectators and the maritime public. The rulemaking would accomplish this purpose by establishing two regulated areas before, during, and after the scheduled event, one for race participants, and one for spectators and the maritime public. Many factors amplify the potential hazards of the race, including limited maneuverability of the race participants, commercial vessel traffic, and the number of local recreational and fishing vessels. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, WA for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This special local regulation would establish two separate regulated areas, a race area and a spectator area. Within the race area, all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within. Within the spectator area, all vessels are prohibited from anchoring and are required to transit at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course, minimizing vessels wake, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders 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.

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

As this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around race area or through the spectator area which would only impact a small designated area of Commencement Bay for less than nine hours during the days of event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated areas.

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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting for nine hours on each day the event occurs and would prohibit entry into the race area and restrict movement within the spectator area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(h) pertains to special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Background and Purpose

On June 1, 2017, we published a notification of tribal consultation (82 FR 25207) related to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA,” that we published February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10313). In May 2017 (82 FR 22448, May 16, 2017), we reopened the comment period on the NPRM, which is now set to close on August 9, 2017.

In the June 1, 2017 notification, we identified the scheduled date and time of the tribal consultation as July 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., but we did not provide the address. We are publishing this document to provide you with the location of the tribal consultation.

You may view the NPRM in our online docket, in addition to supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard—for example, environmental checklist, and comments submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert “USCG-2016-0916” in the “Keyword” box and click “Search.”

We encourage all interested tribes to participate in this formal consultation by responding orally at the consultation or in writing. If you bring written comments to the formal consultation, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. We will also provide a written summary of the government to government tribal consultation and comments and will place that summary in the docket.

Comments submitted after the meeting must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 9, 2017. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation, contact at Mr. Laird Hail at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The Coast Guard will hold a formal tribal government to government consultation regarding its proposed rule on Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Suquamish Tribe's House of Awakened Culture, 7235 NE Parkway, Suquamish, WA 98392. We request that tribes intending to participate in this consultation submit the following information to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document by June 30, 2017: (1) Whether the tribe will attend the face-to-face tribal consultation, (2) the name and contact information of anyone other than the Chief Executive of the tribe that is authorized to engage in government to government consultation with the Coast Guard for this tribal consultation, and (3) any proposed agenda items and written materials it intends to present. We will also provide a written summary of the government to government tribal consultation and comments and will place that summary in the docket. Members of the public will have time to submit further comments between the posting of the summary of the tribal consultation and the closing of the comment period on August 9, 2017.

Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. We announce our intent to develop proposed title IV regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA.

We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committees from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select from the nominees individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA.

We intend to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations to revise the gainful employment regulations published by the Department on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64889). We intend to convene a second committee to develop proposed regulations to revise the regulations on borrower defenses to repayment of Federal student loans and other matters, published November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75926), and the authority of guaranty agencies in the Federal Family Education Loan Program to charge collection costs under 34 CFR 682.410(b)(6) to a defaulted borrower who enters into a repayment agreement with the guaranty agency.

After a complete review of the public comments presented at the public hearings and in the written submissions, we will publish a document (or documents) in the Federal Register announcing the specific topics for which we intend to establish the negotiated rulemaking committees and a request for nominations for individual negotiators for the committees who represent the communities of interest that would be significantly affected by the proposed regulations. This document will also be posted on the Department's Web site at: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2017/index.html.

We will hold two public hearings for interested parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda. The public hearings will be held:

• July 10, 2017, at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC 20202.

• July 12, 2017, at Southern Methodist University, Underwood Law Library-Walsh Classroom, 6550 Hillcrest Ave., Dallas, TX 75275.

The public hearings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., local time. Further information on the public hearing sites is available at www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2017/index.html.

Individuals who would like to present comments at the public hearings must register by sending an email to [email protected]. The email should include the name of the presenter along with the public hearing at which the individual would like to speak, the general topic(s) the individual would like to address, and a general timeframe during which the individual would like to speak (for example, a presenter could indicate morning or afternoon, or before 11 a.m. or after 3 p.m.). We will attempt to accommodate each speaker's preference, but, if we are unable to do so, we will make the determination on a first-come first-served basis, based on the time and date the email was received. It is likely that each participant will be limited to five minutes. The Department will notify registrants of the location and time slot reserved for them. An individual may make only one presentation at the public hearings. If we receive more registrations than we are able to accommodate, the Department reserves the right to reject the registration of an entity or individual that is affiliated with an entity or individual that is already scheduled to present comments, and to select among registrants to ensure that a broad range of entities and individuals is allowed to present. We will accept walk-in registrations for any remaining time slots on a first-come first-served basis, beginning at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the public hearing at the Department's on-site registration table. Registration is not required to observe the public hearings; however, space may be limited.

The Department will post transcripts of the hearings to www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2017/index.html. Although the Department will not be videoing the hearings, as this is a public meeting, speakers should be aware that they may be filmed or recorded by members of the public.

Speakers may submit written comments at the public hearings. In addition, the Department will accept written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, and by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery, through July 12, 2017. (See the ADDRESSES section of this document for submission information.)

We anticipate that any committees established after the public hearings will begin negotiations in November or December of 2017, with the committees meeting for up to three sessions of three to four days each at roughly five- to eight-week intervals. The committees will meet in the Washington, DC area. The dates and locations of these meetings will be published in a subsequent notice in the Federal Register, and will be posted on the Department's Web site at: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2017/index.html.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6C111, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 203-9155 or by email: [email protected].

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a.

I. Background

On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final Rule,” at 81 FR 35824 (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses, among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (“fugitive emissions requirements”) and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (i.e., centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels), the rule requires certification by a professional engineer of the closed vent system design and capacity, as well as any technical infeasibility determination relative to controlling pneumatic pumps at well sites. For further information on the 2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016) and associated Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.

On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).1 Those petitions include numerous objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer.

In accordance with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration.

In a letter dated April 18, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for reconsideration of the following objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an alternative means of emission limitations (AMEL) for purposes of compliance with the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule; and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites.2

After issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, in a notice published June 5, 2017, the EPA identified objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer (“PE certification requirement”); and (2) the well site pneumatic pump standards. As part of the administrative reconsideration proceeding, the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer, and the issues associated with these requirements.

In the notice published June 5, 2017, the EPA stayed the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pumps requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer for three months pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. That initial stay is effective from June 2, 2017, to August 31, 2017. When we have issued similar stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a rulemaking process. See, e.g., 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009).

In a separate action published today, the EPA is proposing to stay these requirements for two years. This proposed two-year stay will provide the EPA with sufficient time to propose, take public comment, and issue a final action on the issues concerning the specific requirements on which EPA has granted reconsideration. During the two year proposed stay, the EPA also plans to complete its reconsideration process for all remaining issues raised in these reconsideration petitions regarding fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps, and certification by professional engineer requirements. For the reasons stated below, in this document the EPA is issuing a proposal to stay these requirements for three months. This stay would take effect upon the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

The two-year proposed stay published today, if finalized as proposed, would likely be determined to be a major rule under the Congressional Review Act and therefore under section 801 of that Act may not take effect until sixty days after publication or after Congress receives the rule report, whichever is later.

Therefore, while the EPA intends take final action on that rulemaking before the initial three-month stay of these requirements expires, there could potentially be a gap in the stay due to the sixty-day delay in the effectiveness of that action. Such a gap would create unnecessary burden and confusion as to what regulatory requirements are in effect and what regulated entities must do during the reconsideration proceeding. Therefore, to avoid such a potential gap, in this document the EPA is proposing a three-month stay, which is not a major rule under the CRA and could become effective upon publication. The EPA intends to publish the final rule on or before the expiration of the initial three-month stay.

Note that we are not taking comment at this time on substantive issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the other provisions subject to the reconsideration. This notice simply proposes to stay the specified requirements for three months. The EPA is seeking comment pertaining to this stay and its duration. Given the importance of not introducing a gap in the stay, the EPA is also requesting comment on whether a four-month stay may be appropriate. A separate Federal Register notice published in the near future will specifically solicit comment on substantive issues concerning these requirements.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. The information collection requirements in the final 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does not result in changes to the approved ICR for subpart OOOO or the submitted ICR for subpart OOOOa, so the information collection estimates of project cost and hour burdens have not been revised.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action proposes a limited stay for certain requirements. This proposed stay will not increase the burden on small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a final RFA analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on children's health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on children's health in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on minority populations and low-income populations caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on minority populations and low-income populations in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

b. Adding paragraph (f).

The addition reads as follows:

The revision and addition read as follows:

I. Background

On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final Rule,” at 81 FR 35824 (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses, among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (“fugitive emissions requirements”) and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (i.e., centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels), the rule requires certification by a professional engineer of the closed vent system design and capacity, as well as any technical infeasibility determination relative to controlling pneumatic pumps at well sites. For further information on the 2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016) and associated Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.

On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).1 Those petitions include numerous objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer.

In accordance with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration.

In a letter dated April 18, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for reconsideration of the following objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an alternative means of emission limitations (AMEL) for purposes of compliance with the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites.2

After issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, the EPA identified objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer (“PE certification requirement”); and (2) the well site pneumatic pump standards. As part of the administrative reconsideration proceeding, the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer, and the issues associated with these requirements.

On June 5, 2017, the EPA published a notice that it stayed the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pumps requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer for three months pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. This stay is effective from June 2, 2017, to August 31, 2017. When we have issued similar stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a rulemaking process. See, e.g., 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009). In this case, for the reasons stated below, we propose to stay these requirements in the 2016 Rule for two years.

The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer in the 2016 Rule until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

As explained above, the EPA has convened a proceeding for reconsideration based on the following two objections to the fugitive emission requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an AMEL for the fugitive emissions requirements; and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites. These issues determine the universe of sources that must implement the fugitive emissions requirements. With respect to the AMEL issue, the EPA recognizes that a number of states have developed programs to control oil and gas emission sources in their own states, and that certain owners or operators may achieve equivalent, or more, emission reduction from their affected source(s) than the required reduction under the 2016 Rule by complying with their state-mandated requirements. 81 FR 35871. During development of the 2016 Rule, the EPA evaluated state fugitive emissions programs in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Additionally, California has recently proposed regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas activities, including proposing fugitive emissions requirements. These seven states represent a significant portion of the oil and gas activities in the U.S. To encourage states' proactive efforts to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry, the EPA included AMEL provisions in the final 2016 Rule, which can be used to request and obtain EPA approval of state programs, or other means, as an alternative for complying with the fugitive emissions requirements. Id.

While the AMEL provisions apply to work practice standards besides the fugitive emissions requirements, these other standards (i.e., well completions and reciprocating compressors work practice standards) have been implemented since they were first promulgated in 20123 (subpart OOOO) to reduce VOC emissions from hydraulically fractured gas well completions and reciprocating compressors used in production, and there has not been a demand for AMEL for these standards. In contrast, the newly promulgated fugitive emissions requirements are still in the process of being phased in.4 In addition, as the EPA observed in the 2016 Rule, fugitive emissions monitoring is a field of emerging technology, and major advances are expected in the near future. 81 FR 35860-1. For the reasons stated above, the AMEL provisions are of particular importance to the fugitive emissions requirements as they directly impact how compliance can be achieved with respect to the fugitive emissions requirements. However, several administrative reconsideration petitions raised issues and questions regarding the AMEL provisions relative to the fugitive emissions requirements (e.g., who can apply for and who can use an approved AMEL).

These inquiries and concerns suggest that the AMEL provisions included in the 2016 Rule, which were finalized without having been proposed for notice and comment, may not be sufficiently clear to facilitate effective application and approval of AMEL, and therefore fail to serve their intended purpose. The ability to apply for and obtain AMEL for fugitive emissions requirements determines whether well sites and compressor stations, in particular those subject to existing state programs or those which have invested in emerging technology, must now redirect or expend additional resources and efforts to implement the 2016 Rule's fugitive emissions requirements, which may negatively impact or otherwise complicate their compliance with applicable state programs and/or their progress in using emerging technology, an endeavor that may potentially be rendered unnecessary should the sources qualify for AMEL. For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the fugitive emissions requirements while it completes a review of the current AMEL process via rulemaking.

The low production well site issue concerns the scope of the sources subject to the well site fugitive emissions requirements. The EPA had proposed to exempt low production well sites from the fugitive emissions requirements, believing the lower production associated with these wells would generally result in lower fugitive emissions. 80 FR 56639. However, in the final rule, the EPA required that these well sites comply with the fugitive emissions requirements, based on information and rationale not presented for public comment during the proposal stage. See 81 FR 35856 (“. . . well site fugitive emissions are not correlated with levels of production, but rather based on the number of pieces of equipment and components”). Available information indicated that “30 percent of natural gas wells are low production wells, and 43 percent of all oil wells are low production wells.” 81 FR 35856. In light of the sizable percentage of well sites that may be impacted by the outcome of this reconsideration, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the well site fugitive emissions requirements while the EPA reassesses whether an exemption is appropriate and, if so, establishes proper criteria for such exemption.

For closed vent systems used to comply with the emission standards for various equipment used in the oil and natural gas sector, the 2016 Rule requires certification by a professional engineer that a closed vent system design and capacity assessment was conducted under his or her direction or supervision and that the assessment and resulting report were conducted pursuant to the requirements of the 2016 Rule. This certification requirement must be met in order comply with the emissions standards for centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels; as such, this requirement impacts a wide range of sources with respect to their ability to show compliance. With the exception of pneumatic pumps, all of the equipment mentioned above is covered by the oil and gas NSPS, subpart OOOO, that was promulgated in 2012, and have had to demonstrate compliance without this certification requirement. While the EPA has observed instances of inadequate design and capacities of the closed vent system resulting in excess emissions from some storage vessels, 80 FR 56649, it is not clear how pervasive this issue is, in particular with respect to all the other equipment mentioned above. Further, as noted by one petitioner, “no costs associated with the certification requirement were considered or provided for review during the proposal process.” 5 Section 111 of the CAA requires that the EPA consider, among other factors, the cost associated with establishing a new source performance standard. See 111(a)(1) of the CAA. The statute is thus clear that cost is an important consideration in determining whether to impose a requirement.

In finalizing the 2016 Rule, the EPA made clear that it viewed the PE certification requirement to be an important aspect of a number of performance standards in the rule. The EPA acknowledges that it had not analyzed the costs associated with the PE certification requirement and evaluated whether the improved environmental performance this requirement may achieve justifies the associated costs and other compliance burden. Because the emission standards for these various equipment (with the exception of the well site pneumatic pump standards as discussed later in this notice) will continue to apply during the proposed stay of this certification requirement, emission reductions from this equipment will continue to be achieved during the stay. For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the requirement for closed vent system certification by professional engineer while the EPA evaluates the benefits, as well as the cost and other possible compliance burden, associated with this requirement.

In addition to the closed vent system certification requirement, there are other issues that we are reconsidering that may further complicate a source's ability to comply with the well site pneumatic pump standards. Specifically, the 2016 Rule requires certification by a professional engineer of technical infeasibility in order for a well site pneumatic pump to qualify for an exemption from controlling emissions using an existing control or process. The certification requirement was included in the 2016 Rule without having been previously proposed for notice and comment. Further, the technical infeasibility exemption is not available for a well site that is a “greenfield” site, a caveat and term that was also not proposed for notice and comment and, as evident from several reconsideration petitions, has generated a number of questions and issues.

As explained above, certification of closed vent systems by a professional engineer affects how compliance with various emission standards is to be determined. The technical infeasibility exemption and the associated certification by professional engineer requirement, as well as the “greenfield” issues described above, dictate whether a source must comply with the emission reduction requirement for well site pneumatic pumps. These requirements and their associated issues directly impact the ability of a wide range of sources, in particular well site pneumatic pumps, to achieve and show compliance with their applicable standards. Therefore, the EPA believes it is reasonable to stay these requirements pending reconsideration.

The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer for 2 years. As described above, these three requirements entail a wide range of technically complex issues. For example, the AMEL provisions involve determining equivalency with the fugitive emissions requirements, and the low production well site exemption requires determining the factors that correlate to fugitive emissions. Further, based on the great interest expressed by stakeholders (including states, industry, and manufacturers of emerging monitoring technology), in particular on the AMEL,6 the EPA anticipates receiving a large amount of information during the reconsideration proceeding. Also, during the reconsideration proceeding the EPA intends to request comment on the cost and other compliance burden, among other relevant information, associated with the requirement for certification by a professional engineer. In light of the above, the EPA believes that two years would provide sufficient time to review available information and propose, take public comment, and issue a final action on the reconsideration of these issues. The administrative reconsideration petitions raise numerous other issues relative to the fugitive emission requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and requirements for certification by professional engineer other than those described above. The EPA has also been asked clarifying questions on implementation of these requirements from stakeholders since the 2016 Rule was published. These questions touch on issues such as the timeframe for repair of leaking components, timeframe for closed vent system inspection definitions related to fugitive emissions and pneumatic pump requirements, definitions of the affected facilities, and the temperature waiver for quarterly monitoring. Given the breadth of the issues identified in the petitions for reconsideration of the 2016 Rule, and the additional implementation questions from stakeholders following publication, the EPA believes that it is in the public interest that it address these other related issues at the same time it reconsiders the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pumps standards, and the certification by professional engineer requirements, thereby avoiding addressing these requirements in a piecemeal fashion. The EPA believes that staying the specified requirements for two years is necessary to provide sufficient time to complete the actions described above.

Note that we are not taking comment at this time on substantive issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the other provisions subject to the reconsideration. This notice simply proposes to stay the specified requirements for two years. The EPA is seeking comment pertaining to this stay and its duration. A separate Federal Register notice published in the near future will specifically solicit comment on substantive issues concerning these requirements.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with the 2016 Rule, which is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. As this action affects two of the components that were included in the costs and benefits estimations, the fugitive requirements and the pneumatic pump requirements, as well as only affects three years of compliance activity, 2017 through 2019, the cost estimates provided here focus only on those affected provisions and years. It should be noted that these figures only represent the cost reductions associated with these activities. Although there would be foregone benefits as a result of this proposed delay, a quantitative estimate of this effect is not currently available, and therefore the associated foregone benefits are not presented.

This action delays compliance for fugitive requirements from approximately September 2017 until September 2019. In the 2016 rule, fugitive components accumulated as affected sources from September 2015 until June 2017, when all accumulated and new sources moving forward had to be in compliance. The previously published three-month stay delayed compliance until September 2017. This proposed stay further delays compliance so affected components accumulate from September 2015 through September 2019, after which all accumulated sources and new sources moving forward must be in compliance.

This action also extends the stay for pneumatic pump requirements at well sites that was enacted in the three-month stay. Pneumatic pump affected facilities at well sites were required to be in compliance from November 2016 until June 2017 when EPA issued the three-month stay. Newly affected sources accumulate under the initial three-month stay starting in June 2017 to September 2017. This proposed stay delays compliance until September 2019, after which the accumulated affected sources and newly affected sources moving forward must be in compliance.

Costs and benefits for each year after 2019 remain unaffected. Using the estimated source counts as presented in Table 3-2 of the 2016 RIA, the EPA estimated a baseline for the capital costs, annual operating and maintenance costs and value of product recovery between 2017 and 2019 for the two requirements. This baseline accounts for the initial three-month stay. Then, the EPA estimated these costs under this proposed stay. Total costs for both actions were calculated as capital costs plus annual costs minus revenue from product recovery. These undiscounted costs are presented in Table 1, below. The difference between them, cost savings due to this proposed stay, is presented in Table 2. Table 3 presents the total costs, accounting for the value of product recovery, and their differences discounted to 2017 using both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate, the present values of these costs, and their equivalent annualized values. The equivalent annualized values are the annualized present values, or the even flow of the present values, over the three years affected by this proposed action. These costs are presented in 2016 dollars.7

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 17-56, adopted May 18, 2016, and released May 19, 2017. The full text of the NPRM is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-56A1.pdf. The NPRM is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

• Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.

• Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an original and four copies of each filing.

Filings may 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. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• 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.

• Persons With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

We will treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

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 to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on two broad proposals to facilitate the deployment of Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) and reduce the regulatory burdens on ESIMs. First, we propose to reorganize and consolidate the sections in part 25 of the Commission's rules, including technical and operational as well as application rules, for the three types of Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations that the Commission authorizes to transmit while in motion: Earth Stations on Vessels (ESVs), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs), and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAAs). We will refer to these earth stations collectively as ESIMs.

Second, we propose new rules to allow the operation of ESIMs in the conventional Ka-band. Specifically, our proposals would apply to ESIMs communicating with geostationary-orbit (GSO) FSS space stations operating in 18.3-18.8 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 28.35-28.6 GHz and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands.1 The proposed rule changes for ESIMs in the conventional Ka-band would promote innovative and flexible use of satellite technology, and provide new opportunities for a variety of uses. The proposed rules would also create regulatory equity by adopting a regulatory regime for ESIM operations in the conventional Ka-band similar to that which currently exists in the conventional C-band, the conventional Ku-band, and in portions of the extended Ku-band.2 We seek comment on these proposals and solicit input on other ideas for streamlining our rules while providing flexibility moving forward.

Part 25 of the Commission's rules is organized in the following manner: Subpart A contains general rules relating to scope and definitions; Subpart B contains rules relating to application filing requirements and licensing procedures; Subpart C provides technical standards for licensing earth and space stations; and Subpart D contains rules governing the technical operations of earth and space station operations.3 In this NPRM, we propose to make revisions in each of these subparts. Through this proceeding, to the extent possible, we propose to eliminate duplicative rule provisions that apply to ESIMs on specific vehicle types operating in specific frequency bands and require instead that ESIMs meet the same requirements as fixed and temporary fixed earth stations. We propose to maintain those rule provisions that ensure that FSS earth stations operating while in motion do not cause more interference than FSS earth stations at fixed locations. We seek comment on these proposals.

In this NPRM, we propose to amend current definitions and add new definitions that will allow for greater clarity regarding the operation of earth stations in motion with GSO FSS space stations. We seek comment on these proposals.

Definition of ESIMs. We propose to define Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) in § 25.103 to mean a term that collectively designates ESVs, VMESs and ESAAs, which are already defined in § 25.103.

Revised Definition of Blanket License. We propose to amend the definition of Blanket License in § 25.103.4 We propose to change the designation of the type of earth station in this definition, i.e., fixed or mobile, to refer instead to the type of satellite service in which the earth station operates, i.e., FSS or MSS. Changing the earth-station categorization in this definition to FSS and MSS better reflects the nature of ESIM operations as proposed in this NPRM. Additionally we propose minor rewording of the second clause to more directly mirror the first clause of the definition. Specifically, the revised definition of Blanket License, as proposed, would read: “A license for: (1) multiple earth stations in the FSS or MSS, or for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, that may be operated anywhere within a geographic area specified in the license, or (2) for multiple space stations in non-geostationary-orbit.”

Definition of Network Control and Monitoring Center (NCMC). We propose to add a definition of Network Control and Monitoring Center to § 25.103. An NCMC, as used in the part 25 rules, is a facility that has the capability to remotely control earth stations operating as any part of a satellite network or system.5

Revised Definitions of VMES and ESAA. Because we are proposing to consolidate the current VMES and ESAA operating requirements (now codified in §§ 25.226 and 25.227, respectively) into a new ESIM section (proposed as § 25.228), §§ 25.226 and 25.227 would be deleted as a consequence of that consolidation. Similarly, any cross-references to those deleted sections elsewhere in the rules would need to be deleted as well. As such cross-references appear in the § 25.103 definitions of VMES and ESAA, we propose to revise these definitions accordingly.6

Revised Definition of Routine Processing. The current definition of routine processing in § 25.103 includes a cross-reference to § 25.138(a), which we propose to consolidate into § 25.218(i). We propose to delete this cross-reference, because the definition already includes a cross-reference to § 25.218.

Revised Definition of Two-Degree Compliant Space Station. The current definition of a two-degree compliant space station in § 25.103 contains a cross-reference to § 25.138, which we propose to consolidate with § 25.218, and cross-references to §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 in connection with off-axis e.i.r.p. limits that we also propose be included in § 25.218. We therefore propose to update this definition to remove the cross-references to §§ 25.138, 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.

Section 25.218 contains off-axis e.i.r.p. density envelopes for FSS earth stations transmitting to GSO FSS space stations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, or extended Ku-band.7 Earth stations in these frequency bands that comply with these envelopes are considered “two-degree-spacing compliant,” and the operators of their target space stations are not required to coordinate their operations with operators of nearby space stations. 25.138(a) contains similar provisions for FSS earth stations transmitting to GSO FSS space stations in the conventional Ka-band. To improve the organizational coherence of part 25, we propose to move these provisions of § 25.138(a) into § 25.218(i),8 and to extend the applicability of § 25.218 to conventional Ka-band GSO FSS earth stations.9

Section 25.138(b) states that operation in the conventional Ka-band with off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels exceeding the limits in § 25.138(a) are subject to coordination under § 25.220. Current § 25.218(i) contains a similar coordination provision governing operations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, and extended Ku-band. To clarify the rule in § 25.138(b), we propose to amend § 25.218(i) so that it lists all of the frequency bands included in the revised § 25.218(a).10

Section 25.138(f) states that space station operators may not transmit communications to or from user transceivers in the United States in the conventional Ka-band unless such communications are authorized under an FCC earth station license. We propose to make this a general requirement applicable to space station operators in all frequency bands, to clarify the language of the requirement, and to place this requirement in a new section, § 25.289. We propose that this requirement would be merged with § 25.287(d) that imposes the same condition for mobile transmitters or transceivers operating in some Mobile-Satellite Service frequencies. Section 25.287(d) could then be removed. The new rule would state: “The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license will be responsible for operation of any earth station under that license. Operators of satellite networks and systems must not transmit communications to or from such earth stations in the United States unless such communications are authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket earth station license or under a service contract with another party with authority for such operation delegated by such a blanket licensee.”

We propose applying § 25.218 to all applications for fixed and temporary-fixed FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the conventional or extended C-band or Ku-band, or the conventional Ka-band, and to all applications for ESIMs in the conventional C-, Ku-, or Ka-band, except for 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 signals with bandwidths greater than 200 kHz. We propose modifying § 25.218(a)(1) accordingly.11

We propose to bring all the technical, operational and coordination requirements for blanket licensed-ESV, VMES and ESAA earth stations that are linked to GSO FSS space stations—currently arrayed in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227 of our current rules—under one new umbrella rule section applicable to ESIMs generally: Proposed § 25.228. This current array of ESIM rules would then be eliminated entirely, as all the requirements therein would either be subsumed by new § 25.228, or will be consolidated in certain other provisions described below.12 While we do not think there will be any significant costs associated with reorganizing and consolidating these rule sections, we invite comments that will help estimate costs and benefits of the proposals. Under the rules as they now stand, the technical and operational rules for each of these types of ESIMs can be found primarily in the paragraph (a) provisions of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227, while the coordination requirements are primarily located in the paragraph (c) and (d) provisions of these same sections. Broadly speaking, some of these rules are the same regardless of the type of ESIM, while others vary depending on the vehicle type and frequency band at issue. Accordingly, in crafting § 25.228 as an umbrella regulation that includes both the provisions that apply to all ESIMs and those that are tailored to specific circumstances, we propose to group ESIM requirements into the following categories, the details of which we discuss below: (1) Core rules (i.e. those applicable to all ESIMs); (2) vehicle-type specific rules that apply across multiple frequency bands; (3) frequency-band specific status and coordination rules; and (4) vehicle-type specific rules that apply to a single frequency band.

In this NPRM, we seek comment on streamlining the core ESIMs rules. In this context, core rules refer to those rules that are currently the same for each type of ESIM and those that we propose to amend in order to create such uniformity. These rules are related to the Commission's GSO FSS two-degree orbital spacing policy, control of operating ESIMs, operational reports, and electromagnetic radiation safety. With regard to revising requirements in order to create additional uniformity, we propose substantive changes to some of the rules to eliminate unnecessary variations across types of ESIMs, eliminate unnecessary duplication of rules across different rule sections, and eliminate rules that are better served by reliance on other sections of the Commission's rules. Specifically, we propose substantive changes to the following areas of our ESIM rules: (1) Antenna pointing accuracy requirements, (2) e.i.r.p. density limits, (3) the self-monitoring (self-diagnostics) requirement, (4) the network control and monitoring center requirement, (5) logging requirements, and (6) the installation requirements related to radiation safety.

Overview of Earth Station Licensing Rules. The licensing rules in part 25 for FSS earth stations transmitting digital emissions provide two main options for obtaining a license for an earth station at a fixed location. The first option is to demonstrate compliance with default limits on emissions in directions other than toward the target satellite, which are referred to as off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits.13 These limits were developed to implement the Commission's GSO FSS space station two-degree orbital spacing policy. They ensure earth station compatibility with networks using adjacent satellites in a two-degree orbital spacing environment by controlling the level of emissions from an earth station that can be transmitted toward adjacent satellite orbital locations. The second option is to demonstrate that the operations of the earth stations in the satellite network have been coordinated with operators of networks using adjacent satellites that would be affected by emissions of the earth stations that exceed the default off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits, under the coordination requirements of § 25.220. Under the first option, there are two alternatives for showing compliance. One alternative is to demonstrate that the earth station antenna gain pattern comports with the off-axis gain limits in § 25.209, and that the antenna input power density comports with limits in § 25.212. However, this alternative is not currently available for ESV, VMES, or ESAA applications. The other alternative is to demonstrate that the off-axis e.i.r.p. density of the earth station emissions comports with the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits. There are provisions very similar to this alternative for ESV, VMES, and ESAA applications. In the following paragraphs, we propose to continue to make both options for obtaining a license available for ESIMs while changing our rules to allow ESIM applicants to use both alternatives for showing compliance under the first option.

Antenna Pointing Accuracy Requirement. The Commission's current rules for licensing ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs all contain antenna pointing accuracy requirements. These requirements were based on the premise that highly directional earth station antennas mounted on moving platforms will have to accurately track the target satellite to maintain communications with that satellite and avoid interfering with reception of signals by adjacent satellites. The original ESV rules adopted in 2005 contained the same definition of off-axis angle, which the Commission called θ (theta) that was used by the ITU in Resolution 902. According to this definition, θ is measured from the axis of the main lobe of the ESV antenna. In the 2009 ESV Reconsideration Order, however, the Commission changed the definition of θ to be consistent with a definition adopted for fixed earth stations that it adopted in the Part 25 Streamlining 8th R&O. In the definition of θ adopted in 2009, the off-axis angle is measured with respect to a line between the focal point of the earth station antenna and the location of the target satellite. This definition of θ anchors one end of the reference line from which θ is measured to the location of the target satellite. For a GSO FSS satellite, which is typically authorized with a ± 0.05 degree stationkeeping accuracy requirement, the reference line thus remains within 0.05 degrees of the line from the earth station to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite. In contrast, under the 2005 off-axis angle definition, when the axis of the main lobe of the earth station antenna moves, off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits tied to that axis would apply to directions that also move around in space. The 2009 definition of θ is now contained in the ESV, VMES, and ESAA rules in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.14 This definition of θ obviates the need for an antenna pointing accuracy requirement, because the limit on off-axis e.i.r.p. toward adjacent satellites is fixed regardless of the direction in which the earth station antenna is pointed.15 Therefore, the ESIM rules we propose here eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement. This will afford ESIM operators more flexibility, because they can meet the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits either by maintaining accurate antenna pointing or by reducing the radiated off-axis e.i.r.p. density when the antenna is mispointed. We seek comment on this proposal.

Off-Axis E.I.R.P. Density Limits. Section 25.218, the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits rule, currently only applies to applications for GSO FSS earth stations at fixed locations, and specifically excepts applications for ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs. The numerical e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218 over each specified angular range are the same as those for the same frequency bands in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. Furthermore, the definition of θ in § 25.218 is the same as the one in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.16 Thus, rather than duplicating the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in the proposed ESIMs rules, we propose to cross-reference the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits that already exist in § 25.218. More specifically, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 prescribe off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral density limits for C- and Ku-band ESVs, Ku-band VMESs, and Ku-band ESAAs respectively, for applicants proposing to comply with the Commission's off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits. We propose to replace these requirements with a requirement for ESIM licensees to comply with the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218. To extend the ESIMs rules to cover conventional Ka-band ESIMs, we propose that this requirement include the conventional Ka-band limits currently in § 25.138, which we propose to merge into § 25.218.

In the 2015 Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted the same definition of θ as described in the preceding paragraph in § 25.209, the off-axis antenna gain limits rule. Moreover, the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218, and those resulting from the combination of antenna input power density limits in § 25.212 and antenna off-axis gain limits in § 25.209 are the same as the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. We thus propose to allow ESIM applicants the option of certifying compliance with the antenna pattern requirements of § 25.209 and the antenna input power density requirements of § 25.212, in lieu of the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218. We seek comment on this proposal.

Shutdown Requirements. Paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 set forth cessation of emission requirements for ESV, VMES, and ESAA transmitters, based on detection of antenna mispointing. We propose to replace these requirements with provisions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 25.228 requiring cessation or reduction of emissions in the event that the ESIM or its associated network control and monitoring system detects that the ESIM has exceeded or is about to exceed the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits. We also propose to include a requirement in the ESIM application rules in § 25.115 to demonstrate how that requirement will be met.

Paragraphs (a)(2) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 set forth requirements for ESV, VMES, and ESAA systems that operate with e.i.r.p. spectral density levels above the levels provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of those sections. These provisions require such ESIM systems to operate in accordance with the off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels that have been coordinated by the operator of their target satellite(s) with the operators of adjacent satellites. The underlying purpose of these paragraphs can be satisfied by requiring ESIM operators that plan to operate their systems with off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels above the limits currently codified in §§ 25.138 and 25.218 to have their operations coordinated by their target satellite operator(s) pursuant to § 25.220. Specifically, we propose to include a technical and operational requirement in § 25.228(a) that would replace the current provisions in §§ 25.211, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. Paragraphs (a)(2) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 also prescribe automatic cessation or reduction of emissions requirements in the event that an individual ESIM or multiple ESIMs using variable power density exceed the coordinated e.i.r.p. density levels. We proposed moving those requirements to § 25.228, paragraphs (b) and (c), as discussed in paragraph 25 supra.

The provisions in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(3)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 limit the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels for ESIM systems that use variable power-density control of individual simultaneously transmitting co-frequency earth stations in a target satellite receiving beam. The 2015 Second Report and Order adopted new provisions in § 25.218, subparagraph (4) of paragraphs (d) (C-band) and (f) (conventional Ku-band) and in § 25.138(a)(5) that are substantially the same as the provisions applying to ESIMs in paragraph (a)(3) and (a)(3)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227, thus warranting consolidation of these provisions. As discussed above, we have therefore proposed to make § 25.218 applicable to ESIMs, and to merge the conventional Ka-band off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.138 into § 25.218. Accordingly, we do not propose to include a separate requirement for this mode of ESIM system operation in § 25.228. We do, however, propose to codify cessation or reduction of emissions provisions similar to those in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (iii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 in § 25.228 paragraphs (b) and (c), as we have proposed for the similar provisions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(2) above.

Contention Protocols. Paragraphs (a)(4) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 require VMES and ESAA applicants that plan to use a contention protocol in the uplink transmissions of their ESIMs to certify that their use of the contention protocol is reasonable. We propose not to include such a requirement in § 25.228, because § 25.115(i) already contains this requirement, and applies by its terms to applications for ESIMs.17

Point of Contact in the United States. Paragraphs (a)(4) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 require that there be a point of contact in the United States with the authority and ability to cease all emissions from ESVs. Paragraphs (a)(5) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 contain a similar requirement. We propose to consolidate such requirements in the platform-specific rules for ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs in § 25.228.18

Data Logging Requirement. Paragraphs (a)(5) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 and paragraphs (a)(6) of §§ 25.226 and 227 require that C- and Ku-band ESV operators and Ku-band VMES and ESAA operators log the vehicle location, transmit frequency, channel bandwidth, and target satellite of ESIM transmissions. The required maximum recording intervals are 20 minutes for ESVs, 5 minutes for VMESs, and 1 minute for ESAAs. The ESIM operator must make this data available to a frequency coordinator, fixed system operator, FSS operator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (for Ku-band ESIMs only), or the Commission within 24 hours after a request. The Commission has never requested these data from an ESIM operator, and we are unaware of any other entity submitting requests for such data. We seek comment on whether the logging requirement is still necessary and useful, and if so, whether the existing recording intervals should be maintained or changed. We request that parties who wish to assert that this requirement should be maintained provide specific examples of instances in which the logging data has been requested from ESIM operators and how those data have been used to identify a source of interference.

Remote Monitoring and Control Requirement. § 25.227(a)(10) provides the requirements for remote terminal monitoring and control of ESAAs. Specifically, the current rule states that each remote terminal must be monitored and controlled by a network control and monitoring center (NCMC) or equivalent facility. Each remote terminal must comply with “disable transmission” commands from the NCMC. In addition, the NCMC must monitor the operation of each ESAA terminal in its network, and transmit a “disable transmission” command to a remote terminal that malfunctions in such a way as to cause unacceptable interference to another radiocommunication station. This provision achieves the same goal of ensuring the ability to remotely monitor and disable earth stations as the requirements included in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3)(iii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. We propose to incorporate a remote monitoring and control requirement in our proposed § 25.228(c), and make it applicable to all types of ESIMs.

Self-Monitoring Requirement. Section 25.227(a)(11) requires that remote ESAA terminals be self-monitoring and capable of automatically ceasing transmission. Section 25.227 paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3)(ii), and corresponding paragraphs in §§ 25.221, 25.222, and 25.226 contain similar self-monitoring requirements. We propose to make this requirement generally applicable to all types of ESIMs and to codify it in § 25.228(b).

Cessation of Uplink Transmissions Upon Loss of Downlink Signal. Section 25.226(a)(9) states that each VMES terminal must automatically cease transmitting upon the loss of synchronization or within 5 seconds upon loss of reception of the satellite downlink signal, whichever is the shorter timeframe. Similarly, § 25.227(a)(9) states that each ESAA terminal must automatically cease transmitting within 100 milliseconds upon loss of reception of the satellite downlink signal or when it detects that unintended satellite tracking has happened or is about to happen. The recently adopted § 25.271(g) states: “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.” We propose eliminating the rules specifically applicable to VMES and ESAA as redundant, because § 25.271(g) applies by its terms to all types of ESIMs and loss of synchronization to signals from the target satellite is general enough to cover all situations of interest.

ESIM Installation Requirement for Radiation Hazard Mitigation. The VMES and ESAA application requirements in §§ 25.226(b)(8) and 25.227(b)(8) respectively include a requirement that would be more appropriately located in the technical and operational rules than in the application rules. Specifically, §§ 25.226(b)(8) and 25.227(b)(8) require, in part, that all VMES and ESAA licensees ensure installation of VMES or ESAA terminals on vehicles by qualified installers who have an understanding of the antenna's radiation environment and use those measures best suited to maximize protection of the general public and persons operating the vehicle and equipment. The rules require that a VMES or ESAA terminal exhibiting radiation exposure levels exceeding 1.0 mW/cm2 in accessible areas, such as at the exterior surface of the radome, must have a label attached to the surface of the terminal warning about the radiation hazard and must include thereon a diagram showing the regions around the terminal where the radiation levels could exceed 1.0 mW/cm2. We propose extending this requirement to ESVs operating in the C-, Ku- and Ka-bands, because the same basic rationale for the VMES and ESAA requirement appears to apply equally to ESVs—i.e., to ensure protection of members of the public (including those manning the vessels and operating the equipment), who may be exposed to hazardous radiation environments on vessels as well as on or in the vicinity of land vehicles and aircraft. Accordingly, we propose to consolidate the requirement that currently appears in the VMES and ESAA rules, extend this requirement to include ESVs, and move it into paragraph (d) of the proposed § 25.228. We also propose to cross-reference § 1.1310 Table 1 of the Commission's rules, rather than specifying the maximum permitted radiation exposure level in § 25.228(d).

Part 25 of the Commission's rules contain some rules for earth stations in motion that are specific to the particular type, i.e. ESVs, VMESs, or ESAAs, across more than one frequency band. In the following section, we propose revisions and reorganization so that vehicle-specific requirements are minimized to the extent possible. Where retention of vehicle-specific requirements are necessary, we propose reorganization to codify the requirements for each type of ESIM in the proposed § 25.228.

There are currently two rule sections that address specific requirements for ESV operators. Both of these sections were adopted to codify section 306 of the Communications Act, which provides that while section 301 of the Act (which contains the licensing requirement for radio communications) does not apply to persons transmitting from foreign ships that come within the jurisdiction of the United States, radio communications or signals from such ships are subject to Commission regulations designed to prevent interference.

Vessels of Foreign Registry. Paragraphs (a)(6) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 require ESV operators licensed by the FCC communicating with ESVs on vessels registered outside the United States to maintain detailed information on each vessel's country of registry and a point of contact within the foreign administration responsible for licensing the ESV. The purpose of this rule is to enable the Commission, if necessary, to contact the administration responsible for an ESV that causes interference to U.S. stations, pursuant to our mandate under section 306 of the Communications Act. Because these sections are statutorily based, we propose to retain this requirement in paragraph (e)(3) of our proposed new § 25.228.

ESV Hub Earth Stations. Paragraphs (a)(7) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 require ESV operators to control ESVs using a hub earth station located in the United States, except that a U.S.-licensed ESV may operate under control of a hub earth station located outside the United States provided that the ESV operator maintains a point of contact in the United States that can make the ESV cease transmitting if necessary. This provision is similar to that in paragraph (a)(4) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222, except paragraph (a)(4) is focused on the remote ESV terminals, and paragraph (a)(7) is focused on the hub earth station with which the ESVs communicate. The purpose of this rule is to enable the Commission to prevent interference to U.S. and foreign stations. We propose to retain this requirement in paragraph (e)(1) of our proposed § 25.228. We also propose to update the language regarding ESV hub operators and hub earth stations for greater clarity. Specifically, in our revised rules, we propose to use the term “network control and monitoring center” (NCMC) 19 to better reflect the nature of the functions performed by such facilities.

There are currently no rules in part 25 of the Commission's rules that apply to VMES terminals in more than one frequency band. The VMES rules currently in part 25 only apply to Ku-band VMESs. With the goal of streamlining rules for all ESIM operators, we do not propose any VMES-specific rules that would apply across all frequency bands.

Section 25.227(a)(12) provides that ESAA applicants that comply with the off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section may request Permitted List authority. We propose to eliminate this rule section, because this flexibility is already afforded to ESV, VMES, and ESAA applicants by § 25.115(k)(1).

Section 25.227(a)(14) states that all ESAA terminals operating in U.S. airspace, whether on U.S.-registered civil aircraft or non-U.S.-registered civil aircraft, must be licensed by the Commission. All ESAA terminals on U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating outside of U.S. airspace must be licensed by the Commission, except as provided by section 303(t) of the Communications Act. We propose to keep this requirement and extend it to apply to all Ka-band ESAA terminals operated in U.S. airspace. We also propose moving this requirement into the proposed § 25.228(g)(2).

Section 25.227(a)(15) states that for ESAA systems operating over international waters, ESAA operators will certify that their target space station operators have confirmed that proposed ESAA operations are within coordinated parameters for adjacent satellites up to 6 degrees away on the geostationary arc. We do not propose to bring this requirement into the proposed ESIM rule section. In view of the provisions of § 25.140 and § 25.220, which apply to U.S. satellites and earth stations, and § 25.137, which also applies to foreign-licensed points of communication, we find these requirements are redundant, which redundancy will then be eliminated with our deletion of § 25.227 in its entirety.

We propose to move the requirements of § 25.227(a)(16) to new § 25.228(g)(3), with a minor revision in the first sentence. The first sentence of § 25.227(a)(16) currently provides that “[p]rior to operations within the foreign nation's airspace, the ESAA operator will ascertain whether the relevant administration has operations that could be affected by ESAA terminals, and will determine whether that administration has adopted specific requirements concerning ESAA operations.” Specifically, we propose changing “will” to “must”. We also propose making the remaining sentences currently contained in § 25.227(a)(16) clearly imperative. As with several of the other Ku-band ESAA specific rules, we propose to apply this requirement to Ka-band ESAA operators.

Currently, there are frequency-band specific rules for ESVs, VMESs and ESAAs in the conventional and extended Ku-bands.20 We propose to eliminate some of these requirements, which are redundant with other provisions in part 25, with the exception of paragraphs (c) and (d) of §§ 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.

Specifically, §§ 25.226(a)(8) and 25.227(a)(8) provide that in the relevant bands,21 VMES and ESAA terminals receive protection from interference caused by space stations other than the target space station only to the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be caused to a hypothetical earth station employing an antenna conforming to the reference patterns defined in §§ 25.209(a) and (b) and stationary at the location at which any interference occurred.22 This requirement is redundant with § 25.209(c)(1).23 In view of this redundancy, we propose to eliminate the provisions in paragraphs (a)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227.

Similarly, §§ 25.222(a)(8), 25.226(a)(7) and 25.227(a)(7) state that in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands ESVs, VMESs and ESAAs must not claim protection from interference from any authorized terrestrial stations to which frequencies are either already assigned, or may be assigned in the future. These sections are redundant with footnote NG52 to § 2.106 of the Commission's rules.24 In view of the redundancy of these provisions, we propose eliminating paragraph (a)(8) of § 25.222 and paragraph (a)(7) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227.

Additionally, there are two sets of coordination requirements for Ku-band ESIMs, which are contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of §§ 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227. Paragraphs (c) in these rule sections address the coordination requirements related to the protection of the NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) in the 14.0-14.2 GHz frequency band. Paragraphs (d) address coordination requirements designed to protect the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) in the 14.47-14.5 GHz frequency band. These rule paragraphs, while covering the same frequency bands and coordination requirements to protect TDRSS and RAS operations, are worded slightly differently in each section. We propose unifying language for the requirements for all ESIMs to be included in § 25.228(j).

Part 25 includes rules that are particular to the type of ESIM in a specific frequency band. For example, C-band ESVs and Ku-band ESAAs have requirements that are unique to the combination of type of earth station and the particular frequency band in which it operates. The Commission has never adopted rules for C-band VMES and ESAA terminals, and we do not propose to do so here.

Several requirements in § 25.221 address issues that are unique to ESVs operating in the C-band. We propose to retain most of these C-band ESV specific requirements. Specifically, we propose to retain paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(12), and (a)(13) as written and move them to the new § 25.228(h). Table 4 lists these paragraphs and the current sub-paragraphs and the corresponding sub-paragraphs of § 25.228(h) to which we propose to relocate them.

Section 25.221(a)(11) states that ESVs while in motion do not receive protection in the downlink band.25 These rules were adopted in the 2005 ESV Order to protect FS and FSS providers in the C-band while providing maximum flexibility to ESV operators. We propose to move this requirement to § 25.228(h)(4), while upgrading the status of ESVs in the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band by eliminating the provision in § 25.221(a)(11) that they may not claim protection from harmful interference from satellites transmitting in the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band. We also propose to modify the second sentence of Non-Federal Government footnote NG180 of § 2.106, consistent with our proposed change to the text of the provision currently codified in § 25.221(a)(11).

Section 25.227(a)(13) sets out requirements for ESAA providers operating in the international airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a foreign administration. We propose only minor changes in the language consistent with other ESIMs rules. The requirements would be moved to the proposed § 25.228(i).

We do not propose any specific technical or operational requirements for ESVs, VMESs, or ESAAs operating in the conventional Ka-band. Such ESIMs would be authorized subject to the requirements in § 25.115(n), which includes the requirement to comply with the earth station off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in proposed § 25.218(i), unless the ESIM operations are coordinated under § 25.220. This is similar to the current blanket-licensing provisions for conventional Ka-band earth stations in § 25.138. Conventional Ka-band ESVs would be required to comply with the requirements in proposed § 25.228(e), conventional Ka-band VMESs would be required to comply with the requirement in proposed § 25.228(f), and conventional Ka-band ESAAs would be required to comply with the requirements in proposed § 25.228(g). We seek comment on any additional provisions that we should adopt for the operation of conventional Ka-band ESVs, VMESs, or ESAAs, such as minimum separation distances to protect the fixed and mobile services from ESV emissions, and/or power flux-density limits to protect the fixed and mobile services from ESAA emissions.

We propose to amend an existing footnote to the Table of Allocations to recognize the operation of ESIMs as an application of the FSS with primary status in the conventional Ka-band. We seek comment on our belief that ESIMs operating in the conventional Ka-band in accordance with our proposed rules would not pose more of a risk of interference to, nor require more protection from interference from other radiocommunication systems than other earth stations operating in the frequency band on a primary basis today.26 The Commission has taken similar steps to clarify the primary status of C-band and Ku-band ESIMs. Specifically, we propose to amend footnote NG55, which authorizes ESV, VMES, and ESAA use in the Ku-band, to include a portion of the Ka-band and to use the term “ESIMs.” The amended footnote would state: “In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space), Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs), as regulated under 47 CFR part 25, are applications of the fixed-satellite service and may be authorized to communicate with geostationary satellites in the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis.” 27

Iridium has expressed concern with respect to ESIM operations in the band 29.25-29.3 GHz.28 Inmarsat, EchoStar, and Hughes, collectively, and ViaSat filed ex parte letters opposing Iridium on the grounds that blanket-licensed fixed earth stations are currently authorized in this band.29 We seek comment on whether inclusion of the band 29.25-29.3 GHz would raise any new issues with respect to potential interference to NGSO FSS feeder links.

In addition, to the extent these proposed rule changes may facilitate increased deployment of ESIMs, we invite comment on whether the changes could unreasonably diminish future opportunities to introduce additional services into these bands or adjacent bands on a shared basis. We also seek comment on any possible effects that these proposed rules may have on existing or future services in adjacent frequency bands, such as Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz frequency band.

The earth station license application requirements for ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs, are currently contained in paragraph (b) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. Application requirements for FSS earth station authorizations at fixed and temporary-fixed locations are in § 25.115. We propose to move the ESIM application requirements into § 25.115 for better integration of the rules. Specifically, the application requirements for a particular frequency band for all types of ESIM platforms 30 will be in paragraphs (l) (for C-band), (m) (for Ku-band), and (n) (for Ka-band) of § 25.115. The appropriate introductory text will be in the opening sub-paragraph of those three paragraphs. As such, the introductory paragraphs in §§ 25.221(b), 25.222(b), 25.226(b), and 25.227(b) become unnecessary.

Paragraphs (b)(1) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 state that an ESIM applicant proposing to implement a transmitter under paragraph (a)(1) of these sections must provide the information required by § 25.115(g)(1). In the proposed rules, an ESIM applicant would follow the application procedures set out under the provisions in subparagraph (1) of §§ 25.115(l) through (n), and showings regarding antenna pointing accuracy would no longer be required.

An applicant under the current ESIM application requirements proposing to meet the 0.2 degree antenna pointing accuracy requirement must show how that will be accomplished.31 As discussed in paragraph 22 supra, we propose to eliminate the pointing accuracy requirement, because the off-axis angles in the e.i.r.p. density mask in § 25.218 and the antenna gain pattern mask in § 25.209 are both now defined based on the line from the earth station to the target satellite, not from the axis of the main lobe of the antenna pattern. In the proposed rules, the applicant would have to show how it will detect exceedance of the off-axis e.i.r.p. density mask and reduce power or shut down its transmitter, pursuant to subparagraph (3)(i) of §§ 25.115(l) through (n).

Further, in the existing ESIM rules, an applicant proposing to operate with a maximum pointing error greater than 0.2 degrees must declare its maximum pointing error and show that at the maximum mispointing, the e.i.r.p. density limits are still met. Again, because we are proposing to eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement, the proposed rules will provide applicants two options to qualify for a license: Either comply with the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits, and provide the information required by §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(1), or coordinate, and provide the information required by §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(2).

Additionally, because we propose to eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement, we propose to eliminate the pointing accuracy certification requirements of §§ 25.221(b)(1)(iii), 25.222(b)(1)(iii), 25.226(b)(1)(iii), and 25.227(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B). Similarly, we propose to eliminate the maximum mispointing declaration requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(A) and the cessation of transmissions upon mispointing demonstration requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B) in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.

Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 state that an applicant proposing to operate with off-axis e.i.r.p. density in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of these sections must provide the off-axis e.i.r.p. density showing required by § 25.115(g)(1), and the coordination certifications required by § 25.220(d). In the proposed rules, such an applicant would apply under the provisions in subparagraph (2) of §§ 25.115(l)-(n), which would contain substantially the same requirements for exhibits to its earth station application.

Paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 require detailed showings that each ESAA transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating e.i.r.p. density exceeding the applicable limits. In the proposed rules in §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(3)(i), the applicant would have to show how the transmitter will detect exceedance of the off-axis e.i.r.p. density mask and reduce the power of or shut down one or more transmitters within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits.

Section 25.221(b)(3)(v) states that certification that the ESV system will operate in compliance with the power limits in § 25.204(h) is required with an application for a C-band ESV. We propose to eliminate this requirement, which we believe is no longer necessary, because we do not require applicants to certify that they will comply with every part 25 rule, and we typically include a licensing condition stating this requirement in ESV license documents.32

We propose to incorporate the requirement to provide the off-axis e.i.r.p. density data currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of proposed §§ 25.115(l)-(n). In addition, we propose to incorporate the requirement currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(iii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to show that individual ESIM terminal is self-monitoring and capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds if the ESIM transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits in sub-paragraphs (3)(i) of §§ 25.115(l)-(n). We also propose to incorporate in those sub-paragraphs the requirement currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(iv) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to show that one or more transmitters in ESIM systems using variable-power-density control of individual ESIM transmitters are capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits. We invite comment on whether there should be a requirement that the network control and monitoring center be capable of detecting that the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits are being exceeded within a specific time limit, and if so, what that time limit should be.

Paragraphs (b)(5) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 state that any VMES or ESAA applicant filing for a VMES or ESAA terminal or system and planning to use a contention protocol must include in its application a certification that its contention protocol use will be reasonable, in compliance the requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of those sections. This requirement is substantially the same as the requirement in § 25.115(i), which we construe as applying to applications for ESIMs. Therefore, we do not propose duplicating the language from §§ 25.226(b)(5) and 25.227(b)(5) in the ESIM rules we propose here.

Paragraphs (b)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 also state that VMES and ESAA applicants must submit a radio frequency hazard analysis determining via calculation, simulation, or field measurement, whether ESAA terminals, or classes of terminals, will produce power densities that will exceed the Commission's radio frequency exposure criteria. Section 1.1307(b) of the Commission's rules requires applicants to prepare an Environmental Assessment if a transmitter would cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of the Maximum Permissible Exposure limits in 47 CFR 1.1310 Table 1. This rule also requires earth station applications to contain a statement confirming compliance with those limits. Thus we propose not to retain these provisions in paragraphs (b)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227, which are unnecessary in view of the requirements in § 1.1307(b). Paragraphs (b)(7) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 and § 25.226(b)(9) state that except for ESV or VMES systems operating pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of those sections, which are systems that propose to exceed the prescribed off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits, systems authorized pursuant to those sections will be eligible for a license that lists Permitted List as an authorized point of communication. We propose to delete this provision as duplicative of the provision that already exists in § 25.115(k)(1), which we construe as applicable to ESIM applications.

Currently, paragraphs (b)(7) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 require that any VMES or ESAA applicant must include in its application a certification that it will comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) of those sections, and paragraphs (a)(9), (a)(10), and (a)(11) of § 25.227. We invite comment as to whether the certification requirement serves a useful purpose, or whether we should eliminate it, because Commission licensees are required to comply with all applicable Commission rules.

Sections 25.226(b)(8) states that all VMES applicants must demonstrate that their VMES terminals are capable of automatically ceasing transmissions upon the loss of synchronization or within 5 seconds upon loss of reception of the satellite downlink signal, whichever is the shorter timeframe. § 25.271(g) requires that 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. We propose to eliminate the provision in § 25.226(b)(8) as redundant.

We propose to retain the requirements in paragraphs (b)(4) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227,33 in paragraphs (b)(5) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 and (b)(6) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227,34 and in paragraphs (b)(6) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 and (b)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227,35 and move those requirements into paragraphs (l)-(n) of § 25.115. Table 5 shows how these paragraphs would be redesignated. We seek comment on these proposals.

We propose to move the requirements in § 25.130, with minor revisions, into § 25.115(a)(5) through (10). In addition to the minor changes, the last sentence of § 25.130(a) currently states that “applicants that are not required to submit applications on Form 312EZ” must submit the information in subparagraphs (1) through (5) of this paragraph as an attachment to their applications. Because the use of Form 312EZ is not mandatory, but just an option available to applicants, we propose to change the word “required” to “permitted”. We would then reserve § 25.130. Cross-references to this section would be redirected to the appropriate paragraphs in § 25.115.

Currently, § 25.131 covers the application requirements for receive-only earth stations. We propose to move all of these requirements, with minor revisions, into § 25.115(b).36 We would then reserve § 25.131. Cross-references to this section would be redirected to the appropriate paragraphs in § 25.115.

We propose to remove and reserve § 25.115(a)(4), which currently contains instructions regarding electronically filing. We propose to incorporate this language in § 25.115(a)(1) instead.

We note that § 25.115(c)(1) retains language differentiating between domestic and international services. Because that distinction was eliminated in the DISCO II proceedings, we propose to eliminate the vestige in this rule.

Currently, § 25.115(k)(1) states that applicants for Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations that qualify for routine processing in the conventional C-band, the conventional Ku-band, and in portions of the extended Ku-band, may designate the Permitted Space Station List as a point of communication.37 We propose to revise the references within § 25.115(k)(1) to §§ 25.221, 25.226, and 25.227 to refer instead to the proposed paragraphs (l) through (n) of § 25.115, consistent with the unifying of the application requirements into § 25.115.

Similarly, we propose changes to § 25.115(k)(2) that do not substantively alter the requirements of that section. Specifically, we propose to adopt the following revised language: Notwithstanding paragraph (k)(1) of this section, an earth station that would receive signals in the 17.8-20.2 GHz band may not communicate with a space station on the Permitted Space Station List in that band until the space station operator has completed coordination under footnote US334 to § 2.106 of this chapter.

We propose several additional changes in other sections of part 25 to harmonize the various rule sections involving ESIMs.

Section 25.133(d) contains a cross-reference to § 25.131, the relevant portions of which we propose to move to § 25.115(b). We propose to update this cross-reference.

Section 25.140(a)(3)(iii) contains a cross-reference to § 25.138(a). We propose to update this cross-reference to point to § 25.218(i), which would contain the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits currently contained in § 25.138(a).

We propose revising § 25.202(a)(8) to eliminate the references to the individual ESIM sections, §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227, which we propose to eliminate.

Section 25.204 contains limits on the e.i.r.p. and e.i.r.p. density that ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs may transmit toward the horizon. To improve the organizational coherence of the ESIMs rules, we propose to relocate those requirements to § 25.228. Specifically, we propose to relocate the requirements in § 25.204(h) to § 25.228(h)(7), and to consolidate the requirements in paragraphs (i)-(k) of § 25.204 into § 25.228(j)(2).38

As previously noted, § 25.209(c)(1) cross-references §§ 25.130 and 25.131. We propose to update these cross-references to refer to §§ 25.115(b)(2) and (4), where the requirements would be located.

Section 25.209(f) states that an earth station with an antenna not conforming to relevant standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. In order to reflect the other proposed changes for ESIMs, we propose eliminating the references to the rule sections currently containing the ESIMs rules within that paragraph. We further propose revising the reference to §§ 25.138, 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to refer instead to § 25.218, and making other clarifying changes to § 25.209(f).

Section 25.258(b) states that operation of ubiquitously deployed GSO FSS earth stations in the 29.25-29.5 GHz frequency band shall conform to the rules contained in § 25.138. Consistent with our proposed relocation of the requirements of § 25.138 to § 25.218(i), we propose to update this cross-reference to point to the latter section.

Footnote NG52 of the Table of Frequency Allocations authorizes ESVs, VMESs, and ESAA in portions of the Ku-band. To be consistent with the terminology used in the proposed revision of footnote NG55, we propose to modify this footnote to refer to ESIMs instead of ESVs, VMESs, and ESAA.

Footnote US133 of the Table of Frequency Allocations, § 2.106, contains cross-references to sub-paragraphs of §§ 25.226 and 25.227, which we propose to eliminate. We propose to update those cross-references to point to the appropriate sub-paragraphs of proposed § 25.228.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this document. We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the comments by the deadlines for comments on the proposed rule provided above in Section V.D. The Commission will send a copy of the proposed rule, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the proposed rule and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a variety of proposals relating 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. Adoption of the proposed changes would, among other things, provide additional operational flexibility to applicants for Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft, collectively referred to as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs), simplify requirements for applications for routine licensing of ESIMs, expand the availability of routine licensing of ESIMs to include the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands, and consolidate and harmonize the application, technical, and operational rules for ESIMs. The NPRM proposes several changes to part 25 of the rules. Specifically, it proposes to:

(1) Expand the frequency bands for which routine licensing of ESIMs is available to include the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands,

(2) Eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement for ESIMs,

(3) Allow ESIM applicants to certify compliance with the antenna gain pattern masks in § 25.209 and the antenna input power density limits in § 25.212 in lieu of providing off-axis e.i.r.p. data,

(4) Consolidate the technical and operational rules for all types of ESIMs, currently spread over four rule sections, into one rule section,

(5) Consolidate the application rules for all types of ESIMs, currently spread over four rule sections, into § 25.115, the general earth station application rule section,

(6) Cross-reference certain rules governing the application, technical, or operating requirements for all GSO FSS earth stations instead of duplicating those provisions in the rules pertaining specifically to ESIMs,

(7) Clarify the requirements for blanket-licensed earth station licensees to be responsible for the operation of all earth stations operating under their licenses,

(8) Update and improve definitions.

The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).

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 proposed rules, if adopted. 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).

Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing 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.” The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that will affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for earth station operators. Most proposed changes, as described below, would decrease the burden for all businesses operators, especially firms that hold licenses to operate earth stations.

The NPRM seeks comment on revisions to simplify information collections in applications for Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft, collectively known as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). For example, the NPRM proposes eliminating the antenna pointing accuracy requirement and associated demonstrations that are currently required in all ESIM applications. The NPRM also seeks comment on extending eligibility for routine processing to applications for ESIMs operating in the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands. In addition, the NPRM proposes to consolidate the technical and operational rules for ESIMs into a single rule section to reduce repetition of provisions across multiple rule sections, and to consolidate the application rules for ESIMs into the general earth station application rule section of part 25.

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 NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties on revisions to simplify information collections in applications for ESIMs. In this NPRM, the Commission considers rule revisions to reflect changes and advances in the satellite industry. The NPRM proposes to eliminate unnecessary technical and information filing requirements, and reorganize and simplify existing requirements. All of these proposals could lessen the burden of compliance on small entities with more limited resources than larger entities.

The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the document. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the proposed rule, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

The proposed changes for earth station licensing would clarify requirements for routine licensing and expand applicability of routine licensing standards. Each of these changes could lessen the burden in the licensing process. Specifically, this NPRM proposes revisions to provide alternatives for filing requirements, reduce filing requirements and clarify ESIM license application requirements in such a way that applicant burden should be reduced. Thus, the Commission anticipates that the proposed revisions would ultimately lead to benefits for small earth station operators in the long-term.

None.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The revision reads as follows: