Vessel Documentation Regulations-Technical Amendments, 58749 [C1-2017-20023]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 239 / Thursday, December 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 4, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017–26899 Filed 12–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 67 [USCG–2016–0531] Vessel Documentation Regulations— Technical Amendments Correction In rule document 2017–20023 beginning on page 43858 in the issue of Wednesday, September 20, 2017, make the following correction: § 67.3 [Corrected] In § 67.3, on page 43863, in the third column, in the sixth through eighth lines, ‘‘redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) and (2);’’ should read ‘‘redesignate paragraphs (a) through (c) as paragraphs (1) through (3);’’. ■ [FR Doc. C1–2017–20023 Filed 12–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301–00–D FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket No. 17–79; FCC 17–153] sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) eliminates historic preservation review of replacement utility poles that support SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Dec 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 communications equipment, subject to conditions that ensure no effects on historic properties. The Commission also consolidates historic preservation requirements in a single new rule. DATES: Effective January 16, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sieradzki, David.Sieradzki@ fcc.gov, of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division, 202–418–1368. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Report and Order in WT Docket No. 17–79; FCC 17–153, adopted November 16, 2017, and released on November 17, 2017. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal 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 (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 418–0432 (TTY). I. Streamlining the Historic Preservation Review Process 1. Enhancing the nation’s wireless infrastructure is essential to meeting the exploding demand for robust mobile services and delivering the next generation of applications using transformative new network technologies. Review of deployment proposals pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108, generally serves the public policy objective of preserving the nation’s historic heritage. Not all infrastructure deployments, however, have the potential to affect historic properties. Where such potential effects do not exist, requiring an individual historic preservation review can impose needless burdens and slow infrastructure deployment. 2. Section 106 of the NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies to take into account the effect (if any) of their proposed undertakings on historic properties before proceeding with such undertakings. Agencies are responsible for deciding whether or not particular types of activities qualify as undertakings under the definitions in the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). See 36 CFR 800.3(a), 800.16(y). Where an agency determines that a type of activity PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 58749 has no potential to affect historic properties under any circumstances, the agency may unilaterally eliminate the review process for such undertakings. 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1). 3. In 2004, the Commission, the ACHP, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers agreed to the establishment of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings 2004 NPA). 47 CFR part 1. Of particular relevance here, the 2004 NPA excludes the construction of replacement structures from historic preservation review under defined conditions, but only if the structure being replaced meets the definition of a ‘‘tower,’’ meaning that it was constructed for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-authorized antennas. See 47 CFR part 1, Appendix C, section III.B. A structure that does not qualify as a tower, such as a pole that initially was erected to support electric utility lines, does not fall within the exclusion under the 2004 NPA even if it is later used to support Commission-authorized antennas. Consequently, if such a pole must be replaced to support a communications antenna and no other exclusion applies, the pole replacement is subject to review. 4. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the present proceeding, the Commission initiated a broad examination of the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment, and how we may remove or reduce such impediments, consistent with the law and the public interest, in order to promote the rapid deployment of advanced wireless broadband service to all Americans. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, 32 FCC Rcd 3330 (2017) (2017 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM) ; see also Proposed Rule, 82 FR 21761 (May 10, 2017). The Commission specifically sought comment on whether to expand the categories of undertakings that are excluded from historic preservation review to include pole replacements, and whether such a step would facilitate wireless facility siting while creating no or foreseeably minimal potential for adverse impacts to historic properties. The Commission asked whether the construction of replacement poles should be excluded from Section 106 review, provided that the replacement pole is not substantially larger than the pole it is replacing, and solicited input on whether any additional conditions would be appropriate. E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM 14DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2017-20023]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[USCG-2016-0531]


Vessel Documentation Regulations--Technical Amendments

Correction

    In rule document 2017-20023 beginning on page 43858 in the issue of 
Wednesday, September 20, 2017, make the following correction:


Sec.  67.3  [Corrected]

0
In Sec.  67.3, on page 43863, in the third column, in the sixth through 
eighth lines, ``redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) 
and (2);'' should read ``redesignate paragraphs (a) through (c) as 
paragraphs (1) through (3);''.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-20023 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D