Draft Program Comment for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Regarding the Effects of Communication Facilities Construction or Modification Subject To Review by the Federal Communications Commission, 47807-47809 [E9-22273]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices
Management (ICH),’’ June 2006 (https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatory
Information/Guidances/
ucm073511.pdf), and FDA’s guidances
for industry entitled ‘‘PAT—A
Framework for Innovative
Pharmaceutical Development,
Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance,’’
September 2004 (https://www.fda.gov/
downloads/Drugs/GuidanceCompliance
RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/
ucm070305.pdf), and ‘‘Quality Systems
Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP
Regulations,’’ September 2006 (https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatory
Information/Guidances/
ucm070337.pdf). Quality-by-design and
risk-based approaches are also described
in ‘‘Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality
Systems,’’ April 2009 (https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatory
Information/Guidances/
ucm073517.pdf).
The agency’s Office of New Drug
Quality Assessment in OPS, CDER,
initiated a pilot program (70 FR 40719,
July 14, 2005) to gain experience in
assessing CMC sections of new drug
applications (NDAs) that demonstrate
an applicant’s product knowledge and
process understanding at the time of
submission. This pilot was extremely
useful in helping identify appropriate
information to be shared regarding
quality-by-design for small molecules.
Although many of the principles of
quality-by-design apply equally to small
molecules and more complex
pharmaceuticals, the ability to assess
relevant attributes is a much greater
challenge for complex pharmaceuticals.
Because the pilot program initiated in
2005 proved constructive, on July 2,
2008, FDA announced this pilot
program to provide additional
information to FDA for use in
facilitating quality-by-design, risk-based
approaches for complex molecules.
Based on experience gained during the
pilot program and prior knowledge,
FDA will develop procedures to
facilitate implementing a quality-bydesign, risk-based approach for complex
products. In addition, the experience
gained by FDA under this pilot is
expected to facilitate the development
of guidance for industry. The pilot is
open to original submissions and
postapproval supplements to biologics
license applications (BLAs) and NDAs
reviewed by the Office of Biotechnology
Products (OBP).
The July 2, 2008, notice provided
deadlines related to the submission of
certain information related to the pilot
program. To ensure inclusive and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:35 Sep 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
relevant results from the pilot program,
this document extends the deadline for
requests to participate in this pilot
program for products regulated by OBP
from September 30, 2009, to September
30, 2010. Because the deadline for
requests to participate in the pilot is
being extended, FDA is also extending
the application submission deadlines.
As explained in the July 2, 2008, notice,
it is preferable for original applications
to enter the pilot as INDs. FDA is
extending the deadline for submission
of INDs from March 31, 2010, to March
31, 2011. FDA is also extending the
deadline for submission of postapproval
supplements from March 31, 2010, to
March 31, 2011. In addition, the pilot is
being expanded from five to eight
original applications for products
reviewed by OBP (BLA or NDA) in
Common Technical Document format,
paper or electronic. See the July 2, 2008,
notice for instructions on submitting
requests to participate in the pilot
program and additional information
regarding the pilot program.
Dated: September 11, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9–22378 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Draft Program Comment for the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural
Utilities Service Regarding the Effects
of Communication Facilities
Construction or Modification Subject
To Review by the Federal
Communications Commission
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Issue
Program Comments for the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service
Regarding the Effects of Communication
Facilities Construction or Modification
Subject to Review by the Federal
Communications Commission.
The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) is
considering issuing a Program Comment
for the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural
Utilities Service that would relieve them
of the need to conduct a separate
Section 106 review regarding the effects
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47807
of communication facilities construction
or modification that will be subject to
such review by the Federal
Communications Commission. The
ACHP seeks public input on the
proposed Program Comment.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments
concerning this proposed Program
Comment to Blythe Semmer, Office of
Federal Agency Programs, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 803,
Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606–
8647. You may submit electronic
comments to: bsemmer@achp.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Blythe Semmer, (202) 606– 8552,
bsemmer@achp.gov; or Laura Dean,
PhD, RUS Federal Preservation Officer,
(202) 720–9634,
laura.dean@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties and
to provide the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) a
reasonable opportunity to comment
with regard to such undertakings. The
ACHP has issued the regulations that set
forth the process through which Federal
agencies comply with these duties.
Those regulations are codified under 36
CFR part 800 (Section 106 regulations).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those
regulations, agencies can request the
ACHP to provide a ‘‘Program Comment’’
on a particular category of undertakings
in lieu of conducting individual reviews
of each individual undertaking under
such category, as set forth in 36 CFR
800.4 through 800.7.
The ACHP is now considering issuing
a Program Comment to the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) that would
relieve them of the need to conduct a
separate Section 106 review regarding
the effects of communication facilities
construction or modification that will be
subject to such review by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
I. Background
On February 17, 2009, President
Obama signed the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act) into law. The Recovery Act
provides the NTIA and the RUS with
$7.2 billion to expand access to
broadband services in the United States.
In implementing this responsibility,
NTIA, through its Broadband
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47808
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices
Technology Opportunities Program
(BTOP), will award grants to expand
public computer capacity, encourage
sustainable adoption of broadband
service and deploy broadband
infrastructure to unserved and
underserved areas. RUS, through its
Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP),
will use loan and grant combinations to
support broadband deployment in rural
communities.
Technological solutions available to
speed the deployment of affordable
broadband under those programs are
diverse and include the construction
and modification of communications
towers and antennas. Some of those
communication towers and antennas
will be regulated by the FCC. For such
proposals that are regulated by the FCC
and assisted by RUS and/or NTIA, each
agency would be individually
responsible for compliance with Section
106.
The FCC, ACHP, and the National
Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) have
executed the Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement for Review of Effects on
Historic Properties For Certain
Undertakings Approved by the FCC
(FCC Nationwide PA) and the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas
(FCC Collocation PA) to govern how
FCC meets its Section 106
responsibilities for certain undertakings,
including communication towers and
antennas. In implementing the terms of
those programmatic agreements, FCC
has established a procedure that is
supported by innovative approaches
that expedite review and facilitate the
involvement of stakeholders, most
notably Indian tribes, to ensure that
effects to historic properties are taken
into account.
Currently, it is not possible for RUS
and NTIA to benefit from the
implementation of those programmatic
agreement solutions in meeting their
individual Section 106 responsibilities,
because the FCC Nationwide PA
stipulates that it does not govern the
Section 106 responsibilities of any
federal agency other than the FCC. This
means that FCC, RUS and NTIA must
each conduct separate Section 106
reviews for the same proposed
undertaking. Such an approach does not
seem to be efficient, particularly within
the context of the compressed schedules
established by the Recovery Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to 36 CFR
800.14(e), NTIA and RUS have
requested the ACHP to issue a program
comment that removes their
requirement to comply with Section 106
with regard to the effects of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:35 Sep 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
communications facilities construction
or modification that has undergone, will
undergo, or is exempt from, Section 106
review by the FCC under the cited FCC
programmatic agreements.
Under the Recovery Act, all NTIA and
RUS grants and loans must be awarded
by September 30, 2010. Construction of
proposals receiving awards must be
complete within three years of the
award. Recovery Act responsibilities of
NTIA and RUS, therefore, will extend to
2013. In order to accommodate for
currently unknown contingencies, RUS
and NTIA have requested that the
effective termination of the proposed
program comment be extended to
September 30, 2015.
RUS and NTIA have informed the
ACHP that, prior to their formal request,
they sought to share their intent to
develop this program comment with the
following historic preservation, tribal,
and telecommunications industry
organizations: National Trust for
Historic Preservation, NCSHPO,
American Cultural Resources
Association, National Association of
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(NATHPO), United South and Eastern
Tribes (USET), National Congress of
American Indians, Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, Office of Hawaiian
Affairs (OHA), CTIA The Wireless
Association, PCIA—The Wireless
Infrastructure Association, and the
Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials. RUS and
NTIA discussed this proposal with all of
the listed parties except OHA, and
reported that, in general, those
organizations contacted were
supportive, noting that this approach
represented a common sense solution.
In addition to those parties, NTIA and
RUS have worked closely with the FCC
throughout the development of the
proposed program comment.
RUS and NTIA also reported that
several parties expressed concern that
the proposed program comment would
alter or modify the FCC Nationwide PA.
That is not the intent of the proposed
program comment and a statement to
that effect has been included in the
proposal itself.
RUS and NTIA anticipate that BTOP/
EIP applications will not consist solely
of tower construction and modification.
Accordingly, they have clarified the
applicability of the program comment
for multi-component proposals.
NCSHPO was concerned about how
this program comment would affect
existing agreements. If, under the
program comment, RUS and NTIA are
not responsible for compliance with
Section 106 for FCC regulated towers,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
then the trigger for existing agreements
has been removed.
USET explained to RUS and NTIA
that it did not support expansion of the
scope of the proposed program
comment to all federal agencies.
Accordingly, the proposal submitted to
the ACHP applies to only NTIA and
RUS. Finally, USET expressed concern
that this process is being rushed and, as
a consequence, tribes will not be
allowed sufficient time to consult with
agencies. However, the congressionally
mandated Recovery Act schedules argue
for an expedited process.
III. Text of the proposed Program
Comment
The text of the proposed Program
Comment is included below:
Program Comment for Streamlining
Section 106 Review for Wireless
Communication Facilities Construction
and Modification Subject To Review
Under the FCC Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement and/or the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
for the Collocation of Wireless
Antennas
I. Background: The Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) and the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) provide
financial assistance to applicants for
broadband deployment, which can
involve the construction and placement
of communications towers and
antennas, and therefore RUS and NTIA
must comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, 16
U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing
regulations at 36 CFR part 800 (Section
106). Some of those communications
towers and antennas are also regulated
by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and therefore
undergo, or are exempted from, Section
106 review under the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for Review of
Effects on Historic Properties for Certain
Undertakings Approved by the FCC
(FCC Nationwide PA) and the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas
(FCC Collocation PA). The FCC
Nationwide PA was executed by the
FCC, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), and the National
Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) on
October 4, 2004. The FCC Collocation
PA was executed by the FCC, ACHP,
and NCSHPO on March 16, 2001. The
undertakings addressed by the FCC
Nationwide PA primarily include the
construction and modification of
communication towers. The
undertakings addressed by the FCC
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices
Collocation PA include the collocation
of communications equipment on
existing structures and towers.
This Program Comment is intended to
streamline Section 106 review of the
construction and modification of
communication towers and antennas for
which FCC and RUS or NTIA share
Section 106 responsibility.
Nothing in this Program Comment
alters or modifies the FCC Nationwide
PA or the FCC Collocation PA, or
imposes Section 106 responsibilities on
the FCC for elements of an RUS or NTIA
undertaking that are unrelated to a
communications facility within the
FCC’s jurisdiction or are beyond the
scope of the FCC Nationwide PA.
II. Establishment and Authority: This
Program Comment was issued by the
ACHP on (date to be determined)
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e).
III. Date of Effect: This Program
Comment went into effect on (date to be
determined).
IV. Use of this Program Comment to
Comply with Section 106 for the Effects
of Facilities Construction or
Modification Reviewed under the FCC
Nationwide PA and/or the FCC
Collocation PA: RUS and NTIA will not
need to comply with Section 106 with
regard to the effects of communication
facilities construction or modification
that has either undergone or will
undergo Section 106 review, or is
exempt from Section 106 review, by the
FCC under the FCC Nationwide PA and/
or the FCC Collocation PA. For purposes
of this program comment, review under
the FCC Nationwide PA means the
historic preservation review that is
necessary to complete the FCC’s Section
106 responsibility for an undertaking
that is subject to the FCC Nationwide
PA.
When an RUS or NTIA undertaking
includes both communications facilities
construction or modification covered by
the FCC Nationwide PA or Collocation
PA and components in addition to such
communication facilities construction
or modification, RUS and NTIA will
comply with Section 106 in accordance
with the process set forth at 36 CFR 5
800.3 through 800.7, or 36 CFR 800.8(c),
or another applicable alternate
procedure under 36 CFR 800.14, but
will not have to consider the effects of
the communication facilities
construction or modification component
of the undertaking on historic
properties. Whenever RUS or NTIA uses
this Program Comment for such
undertakings, RUS or NTIA will apprise
the relevant State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer (THPO) of the use
of this Program Comment for the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:35 Sep 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
relevant communication facilities
construction or modification
component.
V. Amendment—The ACHP may
amend this Program Comment after
consulting with FCC, RUS, NTIA and
other parties as appropriate, and
publishing notice in the Federal
Register to that effect.
VI. Sunset Clause—This Program
Comment will terminate on September
30, 2015, unless it is amended to extend
the period in which it is in effect.
VII. Termination—The ACHP may
terminate this Program Comment by
publication of a notice in the Federal
Register thirty (30) days before the
termination takes effect.
Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).
Dated: September 10, 2009.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E9–22273 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–K6–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0744]
Certificate of Alternative Compliance
for the Offshore Supply Vessel TYLER
STEPHEN
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces
that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore
supply vessel Tyler Stephen as required
by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
DATES: The Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued on July 29,
2009.
The docket for this notice is
available for inspection or copying at
the Docket Management Facility (M–30),
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also
find this docket on the Internet by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2009–0744 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight,
Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone 504–671–2153. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47809
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
The offshore supply vessel Tyler
Stephen will be used for offshore supply
operations. Full compliance with 72
COLREGS and the Inland Rules Act will
hinder the vessel’s ability to maneuver
within close proximity of offshore
platforms. Due to the design of the
vessel, it would be difficult and
impractical to build a supporting
structure that would put the side lights
within 5.4’ from the greatest breadth of
the Vessel, as required by Annex I,
paragraph 3(b) of the 72 COLREGS and
Annex I, Section 84.05(b), of the Inland
Rules Act. Compliance with the rule
would cause the lights on the offshore
supply vessel Tyler Stephen to be in a
location which will be highly
susceptible to damage from offshore
platforms. The offshore supply vessel
Tyler Stephen cannot comply fully with
lighting requirements as set out in
international regulations without
interfering with the special function of
the vessel (33 U.S.C. 1605(c); 33 CFR
81.18).
Locating the side lights 6′– 95⁄8’’
inboard from the greatest breadth of the
vessel on the pilot house will provide a
shelter location for the lights and allow
maneuvering within close proximity to
offshore platforms.
In addition, the horizontal distance
between the forward and aft masthead
lights may be 23′–1 1⁄8’’. Placing the aft
masthead light at the horizontal
distance from the forward masthead
light as required by Annex I, paragraph
3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act,
would result in an aft masthead light
location directly over the aft cargo deck,
where it would interfere with loading
and unloading operations.
The Certificate of Alternative
Compliance allows for the placement of
the side lights to deviate from
requirements set forth in Annex I,
paragraph 3(b) of 72 COLREGS, and
Annex I, paragraph 84.05(b) of the
Inland Rules Act. In addition the
Certificate of Alternative Compliance
allows for the horizontal separation of
the forward and aft masthead lights to
deviate from the requirements of Annex
I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and
Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland
Rules Act.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47807-47809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22273]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Draft Program Comment for the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Rural Utilities Service Regarding the Effects of Communication
Facilities Construction or Modification Subject To Review by the
Federal Communications Commission
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Issue Program Comments for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Regarding the
Effects of Communication Facilities Construction or Modification
Subject to Review by the Federal Communications Commission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is
considering issuing a Program Comment for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service that would relieve
them of the need to conduct a separate Section 106 review regarding the
effects of communication facilities construction or modification that
will be subject to such review by the Federal Communications
Commission. The ACHP seeks public input on the proposed Program
Comment.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed Program
Comment to Blythe Semmer, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite
803, Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606-8647. You may submit
electronic comments to: bsemmer@achp.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blythe Semmer, (202) 606- 8552,
bsemmer@achp.gov; or Laura Dean, PhD, RUS Federal Preservation Officer,
(202) 720-9634, laura.dean@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of
their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to
comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the
regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies
comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR
part 800 (Section 106 regulations).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request
the ACHP to provide a ``Program Comment'' on a particular category of
undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each
individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR
800.4 through 800.7.
The ACHP is now considering issuing a Program Comment to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) that
would relieve them of the need to conduct a separate Section 106 review
regarding the effects of communication facilities construction or
modification that will be subject to such review by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
I. Background
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act
provides the NTIA and the RUS with $7.2 billion to expand access to
broadband services in the United States. In implementing this
responsibility, NTIA, through its Broadband
[[Page 47808]]
Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), will award grants to expand
public computer capacity, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband
service and deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved
areas. RUS, through its Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), will use
loan and grant combinations to support broadband deployment in rural
communities.
Technological solutions available to speed the deployment of
affordable broadband under those programs are diverse and include the
construction and modification of communications towers and antennas.
Some of those communication towers and antennas will be regulated by
the FCC. For such proposals that are regulated by the FCC and assisted
by RUS and/or NTIA, each agency would be individually responsible for
compliance with Section 106.
The FCC, ACHP, and the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) have executed the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties For
Certain Undertakings Approved by the FCC (FCC Nationwide PA) and the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless
Antennas (FCC Collocation PA) to govern how FCC meets its Section 106
responsibilities for certain undertakings, including communication
towers and antennas. In implementing the terms of those programmatic
agreements, FCC has established a procedure that is supported by
innovative approaches that expedite review and facilitate the
involvement of stakeholders, most notably Indian tribes, to ensure that
effects to historic properties are taken into account.
Currently, it is not possible for RUS and NTIA to benefit from the
implementation of those programmatic agreement solutions in meeting
their individual Section 106 responsibilities, because the FCC
Nationwide PA stipulates that it does not govern the Section 106
responsibilities of any federal agency other than the FCC. This means
that FCC, RUS and NTIA must each conduct separate Section 106 reviews
for the same proposed undertaking. Such an approach does not seem to be
efficient, particularly within the context of the compressed schedules
established by the Recovery Act. Accordingly, pursuant to 36 CFR
800.14(e), NTIA and RUS have requested the ACHP to issue a program
comment that removes their requirement to comply with Section 106 with
regard to the effects of communications facilities construction or
modification that has undergone, will undergo, or is exempt from,
Section 106 review by the FCC under the cited FCC programmatic
agreements.
Under the Recovery Act, all NTIA and RUS grants and loans must be
awarded by September 30, 2010. Construction of proposals receiving
awards must be complete within three years of the award. Recovery Act
responsibilities of NTIA and RUS, therefore, will extend to 2013. In
order to accommodate for currently unknown contingencies, RUS and NTIA
have requested that the effective termination of the proposed program
comment be extended to September 30, 2015.
RUS and NTIA have informed the ACHP that, prior to their formal
request, they sought to share their intent to develop this program
comment with the following historic preservation, tribal, and
telecommunications industry organizations: National Trust for Historic
Preservation, NCSHPO, American Cultural Resources Association, National
Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), United
South and Eastern Tribes (USET), National Congress of American Indians,
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(OHA), CTIA The Wireless Association, PCIA--The Wireless Infrastructure
Association, and the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials. RUS and NTIA discussed this proposal with all of the listed
parties except OHA, and reported that, in general, those organizations
contacted were supportive, noting that this approach represented a
common sense solution. In addition to those parties, NTIA and RUS have
worked closely with the FCC throughout the development of the proposed
program comment.
RUS and NTIA also reported that several parties expressed concern
that the proposed program comment would alter or modify the FCC
Nationwide PA. That is not the intent of the proposed program comment
and a statement to that effect has been included in the proposal
itself.
RUS and NTIA anticipate that BTOP/EIP applications will not consist
solely of tower construction and modification. Accordingly, they have
clarified the applicability of the program comment for multi-component
proposals.
NCSHPO was concerned about how this program comment would affect
existing agreements. If, under the program comment, RUS and NTIA are
not responsible for compliance with Section 106 for FCC regulated
towers, then the trigger for existing agreements has been removed.
USET explained to RUS and NTIA that it did not support expansion of
the scope of the proposed program comment to all federal agencies.
Accordingly, the proposal submitted to the ACHP applies to only NTIA
and RUS. Finally, USET expressed concern that this process is being
rushed and, as a consequence, tribes will not be allowed sufficient
time to consult with agencies. However, the congressionally mandated
Recovery Act schedules argue for an expedited process.
III. Text of the proposed Program Comment
The text of the proposed Program Comment is included below:
Program Comment for Streamlining Section 106 Review for Wireless
Communication Facilities Construction and Modification Subject To
Review Under the FCC Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and/or the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless
Antennas
I. Background: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) provide
financial assistance to applicants for broadband deployment, which can
involve the construction and placement of communications towers and
antennas, and therefore RUS and NTIA must comply with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 (Section 106). Some of
those communications towers and antennas are also regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and therefore undergo, or are
exempted from, Section 106 review under the Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain
Undertakings Approved by the FCC (FCC Nationwide PA) and the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (FCC
Collocation PA). The FCC Nationwide PA was executed by the FCC, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) on October
4, 2004. The FCC Collocation PA was executed by the FCC, ACHP, and
NCSHPO on March 16, 2001. The undertakings addressed by the FCC
Nationwide PA primarily include the construction and modification of
communication towers. The undertakings addressed by the FCC
[[Page 47809]]
Collocation PA include the collocation of communications equipment on
existing structures and towers.
This Program Comment is intended to streamline Section 106 review
of the construction and modification of communication towers and
antennas for which FCC and RUS or NTIA share Section 106
responsibility.
Nothing in this Program Comment alters or modifies the FCC
Nationwide PA or the FCC Collocation PA, or imposes Section 106
responsibilities on the FCC for elements of an RUS or NTIA undertaking
that are unrelated to a communications facility within the FCC's
jurisdiction or are beyond the scope of the FCC Nationwide PA.
II. Establishment and Authority: This Program Comment was issued by
the ACHP on (date to be determined) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e).
III. Date of Effect: This Program Comment went into effect on (date
to be determined).
IV. Use of this Program Comment to Comply with Section 106 for the
Effects of Facilities Construction or Modification Reviewed under the
FCC Nationwide PA and/or the FCC Collocation PA: RUS and NTIA will not
need to comply with Section 106 with regard to the effects of
communication facilities construction or modification that has either
undergone or will undergo Section 106 review, or is exempt from Section
106 review, by the FCC under the FCC Nationwide PA and/or the FCC
Collocation PA. For purposes of this program comment, review under the
FCC Nationwide PA means the historic preservation review that is
necessary to complete the FCC's Section 106 responsibility for an
undertaking that is subject to the FCC Nationwide PA.
When an RUS or NTIA undertaking includes both communications
facilities construction or modification covered by the FCC Nationwide
PA or Collocation PA and components in addition to such communication
facilities construction or modification, RUS and NTIA will comply with
Section 106 in accordance with the process set forth at 36 CFR 5 800.3
through 800.7, or 36 CFR 800.8(c), or another applicable alternate
procedure under 36 CFR 800.14, but will not have to consider the
effects of the communication facilities construction or modification
component of the undertaking on historic properties. Whenever RUS or
NTIA uses this Program Comment for such undertakings, RUS or NTIA will
apprise the relevant State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) of the use of this Program
Comment for the relevant communication facilities construction or
modification component.
V. Amendment--The ACHP may amend this Program Comment after
consulting with FCC, RUS, NTIA and other parties as appropriate, and
publishing notice in the Federal Register to that effect.
VI. Sunset Clause--This Program Comment will terminate on September
30, 2015, unless it is amended to extend the period in which it is in
effect.
VII. Termination--The ACHP may terminate this Program Comment by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register thirty (30) days before
the termination takes effect.
Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).
Dated: September 10, 2009.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E9-22273 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P
