A few more elements on the semi-suspended MN Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) program

Previously on hongpong.com: MK Occupy Minnesota: The Drug Recognition Evaluator BCA Investigation files (Nov 12 2012) -- MK Occupy Minnesota (May 3 2012)

The training section of Minnesota's Drug Recognition Evaluator program continues to be suspended, after a 513-page Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigation raised more questions and stonewalling from officials. Whether or not anyone will 'get real' about intrinsically corrupt war on drugs and protected misconduct is another question. Whether or not anyone will admit the war on drugs funnels profits into Wall Street is yet another.

Fox 9 reporter Tom Lyden covered the DRE story (VIDEO), talking to one of the test subjects as well as my friend, attorney Nathan Hansen, who is planning to file a lawsuit. (I have done a little design work for Hansen in years past)

The role of the Minneapolis Police Department in DRE remains untouched by local officials. 3 months ago I interviewed the chair of the city public safety committee, council member Don Samuels (VIDEO) about the shutdown of civilian oversight in the city, and he said that there was no expected report from MPD about the DRE.

Other typical recent misconduct: MPD Officer Blayne Lehner named in misconduct lawsuit; Mpls settles for $85k - City Pages Blotter

CityPages has covered DRE from the beginning and has posted a series on it: DRE 'victims' to file civil lawsuit against alleged pot-distributing officers [SECOND IN SERIES] - Minneapolis - News - The Blotter

Here are a few more new DRE documents a research colleague found from elsewhere on the interwebs:

http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/Labor%20Day%20Period%20Totals%2020102.pdf - typical touting of arrests. Crossposted to Scribd: DRE Labor Day Period Totals 20102

Via Washington state, the 2010 version of the official DRE manual (it has the same distinct typeface as the DRE IACP certification form in the BCA document) : http://www.wsp.wa.gov/breathtest/docs/webdms/DRE_Forms/Manuals/dre7/Student%20Manual%20-%20January%202010%20-%20Part%201.pdf - rejected by Scribd because of password protection. Mirrored at http://hongpong.com/files/dre/DREStudentManual-January2010-Part1.pdf  - 4MB - 212 pgs. Again it is important to note this material emerges from a committee of the decidedly sketchy International Association of Chiefs of Police, not a scientific body with open peer review. Good stuff about licking toads on page 187 etc etc.

Minnesota - the 1997 DRE plan: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/970234.pdf - crossposted to Scribd: DRE-MN-POST-1997-970234

Another DRE document from Littleton CO indicates state & federal funding: http://townoflittleton.org/images/TOLimgs/files/septpdactivities2012.pdf -

A password-protected Powerpoint. Anyone care to take a look? http://hongpong.com/files/dre/DRE_STL06.ppt . via http://entrapped.com/Media/DRE_STL06.ppt .


Out in the wider world the drumbeat of drug war corruption continues. A popular cartoon from Politico / M.Wuerker:


In both Mexico and Afghanistan, absurd formations are emerging. (via here) Pentagon Wants to Keep Running Its Afghan Drug War From Blackwater's HQ | Danger Room | Wired.com, related to 2009 - cryptogon.com » Blackwater Worldwide Changes Its Name to Xe; Same Mercenaries, but Now with More “Aviation Support”. Also the latest from NarcoNews: Mexico’s New President Set to Empower a “Devil’s Cartel” | the narcosphere.

Also via DaveyD, thorough documentation of this racist project: US Marshal Told By Supervisors Not to Bring the ‘War on Drugs’ to White Communities | Davey D's Hip Hop Corner

We'll leave it there for now...

FAA Sets Large ND Drone Training Airspace - Federal Register Makes It So

The plan to convert America, and the world, into a hellish dystopia patrolled by killer flying robots continues apace with a fine fanciful scheme for flying more drones around North Dakota. It is apparently controlled by the FAA Minneapolis office to some extent.

PublicIntelligence.net reported more on the drone scheme at http://publicintelligence.net/dod-us-drone-activities-map/

According to their data, doom bogies to keep an eye on include:
Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND Air Force Global Hawk, Predator - Future
Camp Ripley, MN Army Shadow - Current
Fargo, ND Air Force Predator - Current
Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD Air Force Predator - Future

Via the crucial Cryptome.org : http://cryptome.org/2012/06/faa062012.htm

20 June 2012

FAA Sets Large ND Drone Training Airspace

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36907-36914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15008]

Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 36907]]


Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0117; Airspace Docket No. 09-AGL-31]

Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-
5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F; Devils Lake, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: This action establishes restricted area airspace within the 
Devils Lake Military Operations Area (MOA), overlying Camp Grafton 
Range, in the vicinity of Devils Lake, ND. The new restricted areas 
permit realistic training in modern tactics to be conducted at Camp 
Grafton Range while ensuring the safe and efficient use of the National 
Airspace System (NAS) in the Devils Lake, ND, area. Unlike restricted 
areas which are designated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 
(14 CFR) part 73, MOAs are not regulatory airspace. However, since the 
restricted areas overlap the Devils Lake East MOA, the FAA is including 
a description of the Devils Lake East MOA change in this rule. The MOA 
change described herein will be published in the National Flight Data 
Digest (NFDD).

DATES: Effective Dates: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations 
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.



    On November 28, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Restricted Areas R-
5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F in the 
vicinity of Devils Lake, ND (76 FR 72869). Interested parties were 
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written 
comments on the proposal. In response to public request, the FAA 
extended the comment period for 30 additional days (77 FR 1656; January 
11, 2012). There were 43 comments received in response to the NPRM with 
42 opposing various aspects of the proposal and one comment supporting 
the proposal as published. All comments received were considered before 
making a determination on this final rule. The following is a 
discussion of the substantive comments received and the agency's 

Discussion of Comments

    One commenter contended that the 500 feet above ground level (AGL) 
base for R-5402 would impact low level, aerial operations such as crop 
dusters, wildlife and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical 
access. The FAA recognizes that when active, R-5402 would restrict 
nonparticipating aircraft from operating within its boundaries. To 
mitigate impacts to the aviation activities described above, the United 
States Air Force (USAF) has agreed to implement scheduling coordination 
measures to de-conflict laser operations and accommodate access by 
local farming, ranching, survey, and medical aviation interests when 
they need to fly in or through R-5402, when it is active.
    Another commenter noted that VFR traffic would have to 
circumnavigate active restricted airspace resulting in increased time 
and distances flown. The FAA acknowledges restricted area airspace 
segregates nonparticipating aircraft from hazardous activities 
occurring inside the restricted area and that, on occasion, 
nonparticipating aircraft affected by the restricted area will have to 
deviate from preferred routings to remain clear. The lateral boundaries 
and altitudes of the restricted area complex were defined to minimize 
impacts to nonparticipant aircraft, yet still support the military in 
accomplishing its training mission. The subdivided configuration of the 
restricted area complex, the altitude stratifications, and the entire 
restricted area complex designated as ``joint use,'' affords 
nonparticipant aircraft access to the portions of restricted area 
airspace not in use by the military to the greatest extent possible.
    One commenter expressed concern that segregating airspace for new 
types of aircraft sets a dangerous precedent. The FAA agrees and 
maintains its policy to establish restricted area airspace when 
determined necessary to confine or segregate activities considered 
hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The FAA considers UAS 
operations to be non-hazardous. However, the FAA recognizes that some 
UAS platforms have the ability to employ hazardous ordnance or sensors. 
Since the MQ-1 Predator [UAS] laser is non-eye safe and will be used 
during training sorties flown by the military, its use constitutes a 
hazardous activity that must be confined within restricted area 
airspace to protect nonparticipating aircraft.
    Two commenters suggested that Special Use Airspace (SUA) should be 
ceded back to civil control when not in use. The FAA proposed that the 
restricted areas be designated as ``joint use'' airspace, specifically 
to afford the highest level of access to NAS users and limit this 
access only when necessary. This rule provides that when the restricted 
areas are not needed by the using agency, the airspace will be returned 
to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control 
Center, for access by other NAS users.
    Another commenter recommended that the proposed restricted area 
airspace be developed for concurrent use. The FAA considered the 
commenters use of ``concurrent use'' to mean ``sharing the same 
airspace, at the same time, between participating and nonparticipating 
aircraft.'' As noted previously, restricted areas are established to 
confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to 
nonparticipating aircraft; such as dropping bombs, firing guns/
missiles/rockets, or lasing with a non-eye safe laser. Concurrent use, 
as described above, would not be prudent in such an environment as it 
constitutes an unacceptable risk to nonparticipating aircraft.
    Twenty-two commenters stated that the proposed restricted areas 

[[Page 36908]]

have been developed in conjunction with the North Dakota Airspace 
Integration Team (NDAIT), a group formed to find solutions to UAS 
integration into the NAS, as well as coordinate UAS activities state-
wide. To clarify, the focus of this proposed action is consideration of 
establishing restricted areas to support hazardous military training 
activities, not UAS integration into the NAS. The FAA notes that the 
NDAIT was not established until after the USAF airspace proposal was 
submitted to the FAA and many of the NDAIT members took the opportunity 
to submit comments on the proposal.
    One commenter stated that the proposed airspace should be 
environmentally assessed for the broad array of military aircraft that 
would be expected to employ in conjunction with UAS. The FAA agrees and 
has confirmed that the Environmental Impact Statement for the bed down 
of the MQ-1 Predator at Grand Forks Air Force Base (AFB) addresses 
other aircraft that would likely train with the UAS in the proposed 
restricted area airspace complex.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed restricted area airspace 
would eventually be activated almost full time as is the current 
Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) over Grand Forks AFB. The TFR 
referred to by the commenter is contained in the Special Security 
Instruction authorized under 14 CFR 99.7 for Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) UAS operations conducted from Grand Forks AFB. 
Although the TFR is active while the CBP UAS is flying, it allows 
airspace access by non-participant aircraft using procedural separation 
rules. The restricted areas proposed by this action are being 
established with specific times of designation, to support the 
hazardous non-eye safe laser training conducted by the USAF. The times 
are described by ``core hours'' and also may be activated by NOTAM to 
allow for training periods outside the core hours, i.e. at night.
    Twenty commenters argued that the proposal is contrary to FAA 
policy, in that it is designed for the sole purpose of separating non-
hazardous types of VFR aircraft. The FAA has established this 
restricted area airspace to confine the MQ-1 Predator employment of a 
non-eye safe targeting laser, which is hazardous to nonparticipating 
pilots. This laser training for UAS pilots must be contained in 
restricted areas to confine the hazardous activity, as well as protect 
non-participating aircraft flying in the vicinity of the restricted 
areas. Even though the Predator operations in the restricted areas will 
normally occur in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), the UAS will 
be on an IFR flight plan in accordance with U.S. Air Force 
    Two commenters requested that the FAA establish a formal, annual 
review process and public report on the use and impacts of any 
designated airspace associated with UAS activity in Grand Forks, ND. 
The request to establish a formal annual review process with public 
reporting on use and impacts falls outside the scope of this proposed 
action. However, the FAA has a Restricted Area Annual Utilization 
reporting program already established to assist the FAA in managing 
special use airspace areas established throughout the NAS. These annual 
utilization reports provide objective information regarding the types 
of activities being conducted, as well as the times scheduled, 
activated, and actual use, which the FAA uses to assess the appropriate 
use of the restricted areas.
    Nineteen commenters recommended that proposed restricted airspace 
have a ``sunset'' date. The restricted areas are established to confine 
hazardous non-eye safe laser training, which will continue as long as 
the Predator UAS are operating from Grand Forks AFB. Technology 
developments to integrate UAS into the NAS with manned aircraft, as 
well as military Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) maturation 
may provide an opportunity to reconfigure the restricted area airspace 
at a future date, but the requirement for restricted area airspace will 
exist as long as the non-eye safe laser training is conducted.
    One commenter recommended a requirement for equipping the UAS with 
forward viewing sensors that would enable the UAS to comply with 14 CFR 
part 91 see-and-avoid rules. While the FAA is working with the industry 
to develop see-and-avoid solutions for the safe and eventual seamless 
integration of UAS into the NAS, this suggestion is outside the scope 
of this action.
    One commenter asked that the proposal be tabled until the FAA 
publishes its final Order/Advisory Circular regarding UAS operations in 
the NAS. The Order/Advisory Circular address the integration of UAS in 
the NAS, which is separate from the action of establishing restricted 
area airspace to confine hazardous non-eye safe laser training 
activities. This action is necessary to support the military's training 
requirement beginning this summer. The FAA is completing this airspace 
action separate from its UAS NAS integration guidance development 
    Several commenters recommended that instead of creating new SUA for 
these activities that the USAF use existing restricted areas or the 
airspace subject to flight restrictions under Sec.  99.7 SSI and used 
by the Customs & Border Protection Agency (CBP) at Grand Forks AFB. The 
FAA advocates the use of existing SUA and requires proponents to 
examine all reasonable alternatives, prior to considering the need to 
establish new SUA. In this case, the USAF conducted an extensive 
analysis of alternatives and considered criteria including proximity to 
Grand Forks AFB, existence of a suitable air-to-ground range for laser 
targeting, and air traffic density both en route and at the training 
complex. The Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is approximately 
three times as far as the proposed airspace, has much heavier air 
traffic density, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range. The Tiger MOAs 
in north central North Dakota are the same distance as the proposed 
airspace, have favorable air traffic density, but have no air-to-ground 
gunnery range. The airspace in the vicinity of the existing CBP Sec.  
99.7 SSI flight restriction would be closer, but has much higher 
traffic density and complexity, and has no air-to-ground range. 
Additionally, there were no useable restricted areas within reasonable 
distance of Grand Forks AFB for consideration. The FAA believes the 
USAF considered and analyzed the alternatives to this action and that 
establishing new SUA is the only reasonable option.
    One commenter suggested that the restricted area complex be moved 
north of Devils Lake. The FAA notes that the USAF studied an 
alternative of establishing restricted areas in the Tiger North and 
Tiger South MOAs, located north of Devils Lake, ND. While proximity to 
Grand Forks AFB and the air traffic density compared favorably to the 
proposed airspace area, the lack of an air-to-ground gunnery range 
suitable for hazardous laser training made this option operationally 
unfeasible. The FAA accepted the USAF's consideration and analysis of 
this alternative and proposed establishing the restricted areas set 
forth in this action.
    One commenter recommended that the proposed airspace be moved to 
another state as it would impact flying training in the vicinity of 
Grand Forks. This airspace proposal resulted from Congress' Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission of 2005 decision to retain Grand 
Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota for an emerging UAS mission. As 
addressed previously, Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is the 
nearest SUA outside of North Dakota. It was approximately three times 
the distance from Grand Forks AFB, has much higher

[[Page 36909]]

air traffic density airspace, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range 
for hazardous laser training. The FAA recognizes the proposed 
restricted areas could impact civil flight training, largely conducted 
by the University of North Dakota and east of the proposed complex. 
Additionally, nearly all civil flight training activity that currently 
occurs in the vicinity of the restricted areas would take place below 
the proposed R-5403 footprint. Whereas the floor of R-5402 goes down to 
500 feet above ground level (AGL), its cylinder footprint was reduced 
to a 7 NM radius around R-5401 and the Camp Grafton Range to mitigate 
impacts to these civil operations. This airspace action provides a 
reasonable balance between military training requirements and 
accommodation of non-participant flight training.
    Three commenters stated that the vast size of the restricted area 
complex is not necessary. The restricted areas being established by 
this action provide the minimum vertical and lateral tactical 
maneuvering airspace required for UAS operators to accomplish target 
acquisition prior to attack, and then contain the non-eye safe laser 
during firing. The restricted area complex was configured to confine 
two UAS operating on independent mission profiles at the same time, 
while minimizing airspace impacts to non-participating aircraft. As the 
UAS training flight transitions from one phase of the mission profiles 
to another, unused segments will be deactivated and returned to the NAS 
consistent with the FAA's Joint Use Airspace policy. The subdivided and 
stratified configuration of the restricted area complex enables the 
USAF to only activate the restricted areas needed for their training 
sorties while leaving the rest of the complex inactive and available 
for NAS users. The FAA believes the segmentation and stratification of 
the complex will enhance civil access to those parts of the complex not 
activated for USAF training requirements. Actual procedures for 
restricted area activation and deactivation will be defined in a Letter 
of Procedure between the using and controlling agencies.
    Two commenters asked if the USAF could find a less cluttered area 
with more suitable weather for MQ-1 Predator operations. The FAA 
acknowledges that weather challenges will exist for the MQ-1 Predator 
operations at Grand Forks AFB. The decision to base Predator UAS at 
Grand Forks AFB, however, was mandated by Congress. The restricted 
areas proposed by this action were situated and proposed in the only 
location that met the USAF's operational requirements of proximity to 
launch/recovery base, low air traffic density, and availability of an 
existing air-to-ground gunnery range suitable for the hazardous non-eye 
safe laser training activities.
    One commenter contended that Alert Areas are more appropriate for 
UAS training activity. Alert Areas are designated to inform 
nonparticipating pilots of areas that contain a high volume of pilot 
training operations, or an unusual type of aeronautical activity, that 
they might not otherwise expect to encounter. However, only those 
activities that do not pose a hazard to other aircraft may be conducted 
in an Alert Area. Since employment of the non-eye safe laser carried by 
the MQ-1 Predator UAS is an activity hazardous to non-participants, an 
Alert Area is not an appropriate airspace solution.
    Two commenters stated that the Air Force is proposing restricted 
areas as a means to mitigate for lack of see-and-avoid capability for 
UAS operations. They noted, correctly, that the Air Force could use 
ground-based or airborne assets to provide see-and-avoid compliance 
instead. FAA policy dictates that restricted areas are established to 
confine activities considered hazardous to non-participating aircraft. 
As mentioned previously, the focus of this action is establishing 
restricted areas to support hazardous military training activities, not 
UAS integration into the NAS. As such, the FAA does not support 
establishing restricted areas as a solution to overcome UAS inability 
to comply with 14 CFR Part 91 see-and-avoid requirements. The FAA is 
establishing the restricted areas addressed in this action to confine 
the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities conducted by the 
    One commenter stated that new restricted airspace should be offset 
by reallocation of unused SUA elsewhere in the NAS. The proposed 
restricted areas fall almost entirely within the existing Devils Lake 
East MOA. When activated, the new restricted areas will be, in effect, 
replacing existing SUA. Although the regulatory and non-regulatory 
process for establishing SUA is not directly linked to the restricted 
area and MOA annual utilization reporting process, the FAA does review 
restricted area and MOA utilization annually. If candidate SUA areas 
are identified, the FAA works with the military service to 
appropriately return that airspace to the NAS.
    Seventeen commenters stated that Predator pilots can get the same 
training through simulation. The FAA cannot determine for the USAF the 
value of simulated UAS operator training over actual flying activities. 
The USAF is heavily investing in Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) 
training options. As the commenters infer, the migration to a virtual 
training environment would be expected to reduce the demand for 
activating R-5402 and R-5403A-F. However, actual employment of the non-
eye safe laser will still be required for both training proficiency and 
equipment validation. This action balances the training airspace 
requirements identified by the USAF as it matures its UAS capabilities 
with the airspace access requirements of other NAS users.
    Twenty commenters addressed the increased collision hazard due to 
air traffic compression at lower altitudes and around the periphery of 
the proposed complex. The FAA recognizes that compression could occur 
when the restricted areas are active; however, the actual impact will 
be minimal. The FAA produced traffic counts for the 5 busiest summer 
days and 5 busiest winter days of 2011 during the proposed times of 
designation (0700-2200L) from 8,000 feet MSL to 14,000 feet MSL. Totals 
for all IFR and known VFR aircraft ranged between 4 and 22 aircraft 
over the 17-hour span. Volumes such as this are easily managed by 
standard ATC procedures. To enhance non-radar service in the far 
western part of the proposed complex, the FAA is considering a separate 
rulemaking action to modify V-170 so that it will remain clear of R-
5402 to the west. On average, four aircraft file V-170 over a 24-hour 
day. Lastly, the FAA is nearing completion of a project to add three 
terminal radar feeds, from Bismarck, Fargo, and Minot AFB, covering the 
restricted area airspace area into Minneapolis ARTCC. These feeds will 
improve low altitude radar surveillance and enhance flight safety 
around the proposed restricted areas.
    One commenter argued that the proposed airspace should be limited 
to daylight hours only. While daytime flying is usually safer in a 
visual see-and-avoid environment; when it comes to the military 
training for combat operations, darkness provides a significant 
tactical advantage and UAS must be capable of operating both day and 
night. While the USAF has a valid and recurring requirement to train 
during hours of darkness, the USAF was able to accept a 2-hour 
reduction in the published times of designation core hours from ``0700-
2200 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance,'' to ``0700-2000 daily, by 
NOTAM 6 hours in advance.''

[[Page 36910]]

    Another commenter sought details on the UAS lost link plan. 
Although the lost link plan is not within the scope of this action, the 
FAA does require detailed procedures for UAS lost link situations for 
all UAS operations. These procedures will be similar to those in place 
today for UAS operations across the NAS. The servicing ATC facility and 
UAS operators closely coordinate lost link procedures and will 
incorporate them into the implementing Letters of Procedure (LOP) for 
the restricted areas established in this rule.
    Two commenters commented that the proposed restricted area complex 
stratification and segmentation was confusing and would lead to SUA 
airspace incursions. The FAA promotes stratifications and segmentation 
of large SUA complexes to maximize the safety and efficiency of the NAS 
and to enable more joint use opportunities to access the same airspace 
by non-participating aircraft. Sub-dividing the complex permits 
activation of a small percentage of the overall complex at any one time 
while still providing for a diverse set of training profiles during UAS 
sorties, which is especially well-suited for long duration UAS training 
missions. Additionally, enhanced joint use access eases compression of 
air traffic in the local area; thus, increasing flight safety.
    Nineteen commenters noted that UAS will not be able to see-and-
avoid large flocks of birds using migratory flyways, which could create 
a hazard for personnel on the ground. Both Grand Forks AFB and the 
University of North Dakota flight school, located at the Grand Forks 
International Airport, have conducted extensive research into bird 
strike potential and prevention. Their research found that more than 90 
percent of bird strikes occur below 3,500 feet AGL and that there are 
predictable windows for migratory bird activity, which are adjusted 
year-to-year based on historical and forecast weather patterns. Also, 
bird strikes are nearly twice as likely to occur at night compared to 
the day. The USAF has long standing bird strike avoidance procedures 
specifically customized for Grand Forks AFB, which will be optimized 
for UAS operations. Other mitigations include having the bases of the 
restricted airspace well above most bird activity, conducting most 
training during daylight hours, and adjusting UAS operations during 
seasonal migratory activity. These mitigations conform to both civil 
and military standard bird strike avoidance measures that are in place 
across the NAS.
    Eighteen commenters contended that persons and property under the 
proposed airspace would not be protected from the non-eye safe laser 
training. The USAF conducted a laser safety study in 2009 for the Camp 
Grafton Air-to-Ground Range. This range, where the laser targets will 
be placed, lies within the existing R-5401. The study examined laser 
and aircraft characteristics, topography, target composition, and 
employment parameters, and determined that the proposed airspace would 
adequately protect persons and property outside the footprint of R-
5401. Personnel working at the range will use proper protective gear 
should they need to access the target areas during laser employment 
periods. The FAA has reviewed and accepts the USAF's laser safety 
study. The restricted areas established by this action are designed to 
allow laser employment without hazard to persons and property in the 
vicinity of R-5401.
    Two commenters stated that it is dangerous to mix UAS with visual 
flight rules (VFR) air traffic. UAS are permitted to fly outside 
restricted area airspace in the NAS today and in the vicinity of VFR 
aircraft, under FAA approved Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 
(COA). Specific to this action, UAS operations will be occurring inside 
restricted area airspace that is established to confine the hazardous 
non-eye safe laser training activities; thus, segregated from 
nonparticipating aircraft.
    One commenter said that VFR pilot violations will increase and 
those less informed will pose a safety hazard. The FAA interpreted the 
commenters use ``violations'' to mean SUA airspace incursions. VFR 
pilots must conduct thorough pre-flight planning and are encouraged to 
seek airborne updates from ATC on the status of SUA. The FAA finds that 
the restricted areas established by this action pose no more risk of 
incursion or safety hazard than other restricted areas that exist in 
the NAS.
    Two commenters observed that the NPRM failed to identify how UAS 
would transit from Grand Forks AFB to the proposed restricted areas. 
The FAA considers UAS transit and climb activities to be non-hazardous; 
therefore, establishing new restricted areas for transit and climb 
purposes is inappropriate. While UAS transit and climb activities are 
non-hazardous, they are presently atypical. Therefore, specifics on 
transit and climb ground tracks, corridor altitudes and widths, and 
activation procedures will be accomplished procedurally and consistent 
with existing COA mitigation alternatives available today. The 
establishment of restricted areas airspace is focused on the hazardous 
non-eye safe laser training activities.
    Twenty four commenters noted that the proposed restricted areas 
would block V-170 & V-55 and impact V-169 & V-561. The FAA acknowledges 
that the proposed restricted area complex will have a minimal impact on 
three of the four Victor airways mentioned, depending on the restricted 
areas activated. The airway analysis began with V-170, which runs 
between Devils Lake, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with a Minimum En route 
Altitude (MEA) of 3,500 feet MSL along the effected segment of the 
airway. An average of four aircraft per day filed for V-170. R-5402, 
when active, impacts V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 10,000 feet MSL. The 
FAA is considering a separate rulemaking action to modify V-170 by 
creating a slight ``dogleg'' to the west, which would allow unimpeded 
use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the status of R-5402. 
Impacts to V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL are dependent upon which 
restricted areas are active.
    V-55 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 
8,000 feet MSL along the affected segment of the airway. An average of 
7 aircraft per day filed for V-55. Activation of R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, or R-5403C would have no impact on V-55. The FAA raised the 
floor of R-5403D to 10,000 feet MSL and reduced the blocks for R-5403D 
and R-5403E to 2,000 feet each to allow ATC more flexibility to climb/
descend IFR traffic on V-55. The FAA is also considering establishing a 
Global Positioning Satellite MEA along the affected segment of V-55 to 
allow properly equipped non-participating aircraft to fly the V-55 
ground track, but at a lower altitude.
    V-561 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with an MEA 
of 4,000 feet MSL along this segment of the airway. An average of two 
aircraft per day filed for V-561. When activated, the southeast corner 
of R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F encroach upon V-561 from 10,000 feet 
MSL-11,999 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL-13,999 feet MSL, or 14,000 feet 
MSL-17,999 feet MSL, respectively.
    V-169 runs between Devils Lake, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA 
of 3,500 feet MSL along this segment. The nearest point of any 
restricted area is 5 nautical miles (NM) from the centerline of V-169. 
Since Victor airways are 4 NM wide; the restricted areas do not 
encumber the use of V-169.
    The FAA acknowledges potential impacts to users on Victor airways 
V-55, V-170, and V-651 by the restricted areas established in this 

[[Page 36911]]

However, based on the 13 total average daily flights filing for V-55, 
V-170, and V-651 in the same airspace as the proposed restricted area 
complex (V-169 is not affected by the proposed airspace), the impacts 
of the restricted areas on the three affected airways is considered 
minimal. These aircraft have air traffic control procedural 
alternatives available to include vectoring, altitude change, or re-
routing as appropriate.
    Nineteen commenters found that transcontinental and local area 
flights would be forced to deviate around restricted areas, increasing 
cost and flight time. The FAA understands that when the restricted 
areas are active, non-participation aircraft will have to accomplish 
course deviations or altitude changes for avoidance, which can increase 
distances flown and costs incurred. For this action, the FAA and USAF 
worked together to define the minimum airspace volume necessary to meet 
USAF training mission requirements and maximize airspace access to 
other users of the NAS. Reducing the overall size and internally 
segmenting and stratifying the complex have reduced course deviation 
distances and altitude changes required by non-participants to avoid 
active restricted areas. Additionally, the USAF as agreed to 
temporarily release active restricted airspace back to ZMP for non-
participant transit during non-routine/contingency events (i.e. due to 
weather, icing, aircraft malfunction, etc.). Air traffic in this part 
of the NAS is relatively light and the level of impact associated with 
establishing the restricted areas in this action is considered minimal 
when balanced against valid military training requirements.
    Twenty-four comments were received stating that four hours prior 
notice is insufficient lead time for activation by NOTAM, with most 
recommending that the prior notification time be increased to six 
hours. The FAA recognizes that many aircraft today have flight 
durations long enough that flight planning before takeoff may occur 
outside of the 4-hour window. Restricted areas provide protected 
airspace for hazardous operations with no option to transit when 
active, so changes in airspace status after flight planning would have 
an impact on routing or altitude. These impacts could be reduced by 
increasing the NOTAM notification time; therefore the proposed time of 
designation for R-5402 and R-5403A-F is amended to ``0700-2000 daily, 
by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM.''
    One commenter stated that the SUA should be limited to published 
times of designation or times that can be obtained through an Automated 
Flight Service Station (AFSS) or ZMP. The times of designation for the 
restricted areas conforms to FAA policy and provides military users the 
operational flexibility to adjust for unpredictable, yet expected 
events, such as poor weather conditions or aircraft maintenance delays. 
By establishing the restricted areas with a ``By NOTAM'' provision for 
activations, the AFSS will receive scheduled activation times at least 
6 hours in advance and can provide activation information when 
requested. Additionally, ZMP can provide the most current restricted 
areas status to airborne aircraft, workload permitting, as an 
additional service to any requesting IFR or VFR aircraft.
    Nineteen commenters contended that local and transient pilots would 
avoid the restricted areas regardless of the activation status. The FAA 
understands that some pilots may opt to avoid the vicinity of this 
proposed airspace complex; however, pilots have multiple ways to obtain 
SUA schedule information during preflight planning and while airborne 
to aid their situational awareness. Daily SUA schedules will be 
available on the sua.faa.gov Web site, NOTAMs will be issued at least 6 
hours prior to activating the restricted areas, and AFSS will brief SUA 
NOTAMS upon request. Airborne updates will also be available through 
ZMP or AFSS. Lastly, the USAF will provide a toll-free phone number for 
inclusion on aeronautical charts that will enable NAS users to contact 
the scheduling agency for SUA status information; similar to what is in 
place for the Adirondack SUA complex in New York.
    Two commenters requested that the FAA chart an ATC frequency for 
updates on the restricted areas. The FAA has frequencies listed on both 
the L-14 IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart and the Twin Cities Sectional 
Aeronautical Chart already. Upon review, the VHF frequency listed on 
the IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart near where R-5402 and R-5403A-F 
restricted areas will be established was found to be different than the 
frequency listed on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart listing of SUA for 
the existing R-5401 (which R-5402 and R-5403A-F will overlay). The FAA 
is taking action to correct the discrepancy so that matching 
frequencies are charted.
    Seventeen commenters stated that the NOTAM system is generally 
inadequate to inform users of SUA status, and the number of components 
to this restricted airspace would lead to intricate and confusing 
NOTAMs. The restricted area complex is comprised of 7 individual areas 
and structured to minimize complexity and maximize nonparticipant 
access when not required for military use during certain phases of a 
training mission. The overall complex configuration, with seven sub 
areas, is a reasonable balance between efficiency, complexity, and 
military requirements. The NOTAM system is designed to disseminate many 
types of aeronautical information, including restricted area status 
when activation is ``By NOTAM'' or outside published times of 
designation. Because of the ``By NOTAM'' provision in the legal 
description times of designation, activation NOTAMs for R-5402 and R-
5403A-F will be included in verbal briefings from AFSS, upon pilot 

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 to expand the vertical and 
lateral limits of restricted area airspace over the Camp Grafton Range 
to contain hazardous non-eye safe laser training operations being 
conducted by the emerging UAS mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base 
(AFB); thus, transforming the range into a viable non-eye safe laser 
training location. Camp Grafton Range is currently surrounded by R-
5401; however, the lateral boundaries and altitude are insufficient to 
contain the laser training mission profiles and tactics flown in combat 
operations today. This action supplements R-5401 by establishing 
additional restricted areas, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-
5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, to provide the vertical and lateral 
tactical maneuver airspace needed for UAS target acquisition prior to 
attack, and to contain the non-eye safe laser during laser target 
designation training operations from medium to high altitudes.
    The restricted area R-5402 is defined by a 7 nautical mile (NM) 
radius around the center of R-5401, with the northern boundary adjusted 
to lie along the 47[deg]45'00'' N latitude. The restricted area 
altitude is upward from 500 feet above ground level to, but not 
including 10,000 feet MSL. This new restricted area provides a pathway 
for the non-eye safe laser beam to transit from R-5403A, R-5403B, and 
R-5403C (described below) through the existing R-5401 and onto Camp 
Grafton Range.
    The restricted areas R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C share the same 
lateral boundaries, overlying R-5402 and layered in ascending order. 
The northern boundary of these R-5403 areas, as described in the 
regulatory text, share the same northern boundary as R-5402, the 
47[deg]45'00'' N latitude. The

[[Page 36912]]

western boundary lies approximately 14 NM west of R-5402 along the 
99[deg]15'00'' W longitude and the eastern boundary lies approximately 
7 NM east of R-5402 along the 98[deg]15'00'' W longitude. Finally, the 
southern boundary is established to remain north of the protected 
airspace for V-55. The restricted area altitudes, in ascending order, 
are defined upward from 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including 10,000 
feet MSL for R-5403A; upward from 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including 
14,000 feet MSL for R-5403B; and upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but 
not including Flight Level (FL) 180 for R-5403C. The additional lateral 
and vertical dimensions provided by these restricted areas, in 
conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403D, R-5403E, R-5403F, establish 
the maneuvering airspace needed for UAS aircraft to practice the 
tactical maneuvering and standoff target acquisition training 
requirements necessary for the combat tactics and mission profiles 
flown today and to contain the hazardous non-eye safe laser, when 
employed, completely within restricted airspace.
    The areas R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F also share the same lateral 
boundaries, adjacent to and southeast of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C, 
and are also layered in ascending order. The northern boundary of these 
R-5403 areas, as described in the regulatory text, shares the southern 
boundary of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C. The western boundary point 
reaches to the 99[deg]15'00'' W longitude and the eastern boundary lies 
along the 98[deg]15'00'' W longitude. Finally, the southern boundary is 
established to lie along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude. The restricted 
area altitudes, in ascending order, are defined upward from 10,000 feet 
MSL to, but not including 12,000 feet MSL for R-5403D; upward from 
12,000 feet MSL to, but not including 14,000 feet MSL for R-5403E; and 
upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including Flight Level (FL) 180 
for R-5403F. The additional lateral and vertical dimensions provided by 
these restricted areas, in conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, R-5403C, and the Camp Grafton Range, establish the maneuvering 
airspace, standoff target acquisition, and hazardous non-eye safe laser 
employment training completely within restricted airspace, as noted 
    During the NPRM public comment period, it was realized that the 
proposal section of the NPRM preamble described the southern boundary 
for the proposed R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F to lay along the 
47[deg]30'00'' N latitude, in error. However, the regulatory text in 
the NPRM correctly described the southern boundary for these proposed 
restricted areas to lie along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude. This 
action confirms the southern boundary for R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F 
is along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude.
    Restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-
5403E, and R-5403F are all designated as ``joint-use'' airspace. This 
means that, during periods when any of the restricted airspace areas 
are not needed by the using agency for its designated purposes, the 
airspace will be returned to the controlling agency for access by other 
NAS users. The Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center is the 
controlling agency for the restricted areas.
    Lastly, to prevent confusion and conflict by establishing the new 
restricted areas in an existing MOA, and having both SUA areas active 
in the same volume of airspace at the same time, the Devils Lake East 
MOA legal description is being amended in the NFDD. The Devils Lake 
East MOA amendment will exclude R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-
5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F when the restricted areas are 
active. The intent is to exclude the restricted areas in Devils Lake 
East MOA individually as they are activated. This MOA amendment will 
prevent airspace conflict with overlapping special use airspace areas.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows:
    As presented in the discussion of comments section of this 
preamble, commenters stated that there could be the following potential 
adverse economic impacts from implementing this final rule: the rule 
will block V-170 and V-55 and limit the use of V-169 and V-561; VFR and 
local area flights will be forced to deviate around restricted areas, 
increasing cost and flight time; and the 500 feet AGL floor for R-5402 
will affect low level aerial operations such as crop dusters, wildlife 
and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical access.
    With respect to the first potential impact, as discussed in the 
preamble, the FAA acknowledges that users of Victor airways V-55, V-
170, and V-561 could be potentially affected when the restricted areas 
established in this action are active; however users of V-169 will not 
be affected at all. Users of V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 8,000 feet MSL 
would be affected only when R-5402 is active. The FAA's has determined 
that there is an average of 4 flights per day between Devils Lake, ND, 
and Jamestown, ND. Of these flights, 90 percent are general aviation 
flights (many of them University of North Dakota training flights) and 
10 percent are military or air taxi flights. The potential effect on 
users of V-170 could be offset by several actions. One action would be 
to modify V-170 by creating a slight ``dogleg'' further west of R-5402 
to allow unimpeded use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the 
status of R-5402. The FAA estimates that this ``dogleg'' would add 
about 5 miles to the length of the flight between Devils Lake and 
Jamestown. Another action would be for air traffic control to either 
vector the aircraft west of R-5402 or climb the aircraft to 8,000 feet 
MSL to avoid R-5402. V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL, V-55, and V-561 can 
still be used by the public, even during military training

[[Page 36913]]

operations, if the nonparticipant aircraft flies at a different 
altitude than the altitudes the military is using at that time. The FAA 
has determined that these adjustments will result in minimal cost to 
the affected operators.
    With respect to the second potential impact, with the exception of 
R-5402, the public will not be required to deviate around the 
restricted areas, even during military operations, as long as the 
nonparticipating aircraft flies at an altitude above or below the 
altitudes that the military is using at that time. The FAA has 
determined that these altitude adjustments will have a minimal effect 
on cost.
    With respect to the third potential impact, the USAF has agreed to 
implement scheduling coordination measures for R-5402 that will 
accommodate access by local farming, ranching, survey, and medical 
aviation interests. Further, when any of the restricted areas are not 
needed by the USAF for its intended purposes, the airspace will be 
returned to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic 
Control Center, for access by other NAS users; providing considerable 
time for these interests to perform most of their aviation activities 
in a timely manner. The FAA has determined that these potential 
disruptions in public aviation will have a minimal effect on cost.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
    The FAA received two comments from small business owners and a 
comment from the North Dakota Agricultural Aviation Association 
(NDAAA), representing agricultural aviation operators. The comments 
from the business owners expressed concerns about the availability of 
airspace and that they would be diverted from their normal flight 
plans, thereby increasing their costs. As previously stated in this 
preamble, however, these routes will not be closed even during military 
operations--they can be flown by nonparticipant aircraft so long as 
those aircraft are not at the altitudes being used by the military. The 
NDAAA comment that agricultural aircraft are frequently ferried at 
altitudes greater than 500 feet applies only to those aircraft in R-
5402--not in any of the other areas. As previously noted, the agreement 
with the USAF and the fact that there are no restrictions in R-5402 
when it is not being used by the military will minimize the potential 
economic impact to agricultural aviation operations in this airspace.
    While the FAA believes that one air taxi operator, a few small 
business operators, and a few agricultural aviation operators 
constitute a substantial number of small entities, based on the 
previous analysis, the FAA determined that the final rule will have a 
minimal economic impact.
    Therefore, as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it 
will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on 
international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable law, 
the USAF prepared and published The BRAC Beddown and Flight Operations 
of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North 
Dakota'' dated July 2010 (hereinafter the FEIS) that analyzed the 
potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
creation of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-
5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F. In September 2010, the USAF issued a 
Record of Decision based on the results of the FEIS. In accordance with 
applicable CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.6) and the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between FAA and Department of Defense (DOD) dated 
October 2005, the FAA was a cooperating agency on the FEIS. The FAA has 
conducted an independent review of the FEIS and found that it is an 
adequate statement. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3(a) and (c), the FAA is 
adopting the portions of the FEIS for this action that support the 
establishment of the above named restricted areas. The FAA has 
documented its partial adoption in a separate document entitled 
``Partial Adoption of Final EIS and Record of

[[Page 36914]]

Decision for the Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402 and 5403.'' 
This final rule, which establishes restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, will not result in 
significant environmental impacts. A copy of the FAA Partial Adoption 
of FEIS and ROD has been placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking and is incorporated by reference.

FAA Authority

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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 
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the 
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the 
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient 
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority 
as it establishes restricted area airspace at Camp Grafton Range, near 
Devils Lake, ND, to enhance safety and accommodate essential military 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:


1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.54  [Amended]

2. Section 73.54 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-5402 Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
98[deg]47'19'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]31'25'' 
W.; then clockwise on a 7 NM arc centered on lat. 47[deg]40'31'' N., 
long. 98[deg]39'22'' W.; to the point of beginning, excluding the 
airspace within R-5401 when active, and R-5403A when active.
    Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to, but not including, 10,000 
feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.
* * * * *

R-5403A Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
    Designated altitudes. 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
10,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403B Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
14,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403C Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
    Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403D Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
12,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403E Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 12,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
14,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403F Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2012.
Paul Gallant,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-15008 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]

Interview on streaming radio & shortwave today on DRE drug scandal / MK Occupy Minnesota

UPDATE June 4: It was a cool interview but got cut off immediately after the host asked if there were similar nationwide patterns to DRE -- which of course there are, for example the Cleveland 5 entrapment case drugs were used to help get control of the FBI's patsies according to a report on Alternet by Arun Gupta:

Peskar says jobs weren’t the only thing Azir was hooking them up with. Baxter admitted to him that he was taking Adderall, a widely abused prescription stimulant. Peskar says, “Connor was also taking it, and mentioned, ‘I have a connect for Adderall.’ Both Wright and Baxter said the connection for the Adderall was Azir. I asked Baxter where he got it from, and he said ‘Doug’s boss.’”

So I only got about half the time I was allotted but nonetheless it was great to reach a new audience for these issues via shortwave, and I was able to discuss at some length National Special Security Events and the plan for domestic deployment of military forces known as USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations, which I believe NSSEs are partially used as live exercise cover for. (and mentioned the dual status task force which was in Chicago at the NATO summit yet not really seen)

Around 5:30PM Central today I'm doing a phone interview on the DRE drug scandal / MK Occupy Minnesota with the Global Freedom Report (streaming http://freedomradio.us/vof/ - shortwave WWCR World Wide Christian Radio 9.350 MHz!) & other topics - i'll try to get at the latest w Cruz house, etc over 40 mins as well. Fun fun!

Link to video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTgN17FZGKE

BTW: Also I got a kick out of this video by various folks including the ACLU & Joseph Gordon-Levitt which shows in cartoon form, a cop selling drugs to a couple guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2eXtCuVyFM&feature=youtu.be

Wins in Minneapolis & Choppy seas indeed: Glowing Monsanto corn, Fukushima quake would make total Cesium northern hemisphere doom

EU bankfail as everyone relishes Spain's 'successful auction' - American bankfail continues as homeless spirals, inflation & money velocity drift

On the MN front, well the Occupy movement in Minneapolis really flushed out a lot of authoritarian over-reactions in the last couple weeks, starting with a haphazard police action slapping a KSTP photographer, arresting a dozen occupiers including an indy videographer (which the tut tutters ignore, etc). A meeting with the mayor and police chief was achieved. Videos & stills from the street incident by various folks including myself and roguemedia.org at youtube.com/hongpong & quickly circulated as far as Iran's state news service PressTV lol.

A few days later, Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson tried to sneak an unlawful resolution without any public notice, which would have instantiated shutting down many inalienable rights between midnight and 6 AM on Nicollet Mall and Peavey/Greenway/Riverside plazas etc., including my right to collect stories and media as a journalist, a proselytizer's right to preach the Gospel, a protesters right to protest, a homeless person's right to exist, etc., in the name of the hellish blandness demanded by corporate psychopaths who want peace & quiet and these damn kids off their publicly owned lawns. The Council kicked it to committee 9-4 after the mayor lobbied for the corrupt resolution.

For the moment, anyhow, this pushed Johnson from the perceived 'center' to the 'right' of the DFL-dominated city political continuum. With an embarrassing defeat for the mayor, with the high stakes Vikings Stadium deal to rail thru without a vote in Minneapolis on the rocks at the Capitol, and Barb's greasy Peavey Plaza plan whacked in at least one committee, it seems the wheels of shadiness have trouble turning when a little sand gets in the gears. (the next hearing is May 2nd or 3rd, this would be a public hearing for the public safety committee vote, don't have info on hand. see facebook.com/occupymn or occupyminneapolis.mn )

According to one source, Mayor Rybak & Johnson's defeat last Friday was enough to spur one pol to discuss finally taking on the city machine -- the notion is that this new shakeup could finally crack open some political space in Minneapolis for an alternative after years upon years of stasis and acquiescence to top-down control (on behalf of the big banks and police union types in particular).

If nothing else then, it shows that the Founding Feathers insisted upon enough cracks in the machine to get the sand into. They never really could guarantee that the machine would work, but it seems like the saving grace for the last week was basically our dwindling freedom to throw sand in the machine. Good times. Even in Big Stone County people are standing up against massive mining projects.

Kind of a linkdump to throw here. Let's roll...

Keiser Report: Vicious Circle of Bankster Huddles (E277) - RT video 25mins with Matt Taibbi, covers the glorious Warren Buffett's Wells Fargo ownership link re drug money laundering with Wachovia & 22 tons in cocaine at about 20 minutes.

I missed this article rounding out the Bank of America situation: Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail. Taibbi addresses in the RT segment how to deal with breaking down complex financial crimes to a mass audience, and sycophant trends in the journalism industry... tough stuff especially when the blasé corruption of a whole generation creates a nice thick layer of cynicism which has to be pierced and/or eroded before a damn thing changes. My favorite angle is Bank of America manipulating London's LIBOR inter-bank interest rate to alter the $350,000,000,000,000 - yes $350 trillion worth of securities. [Everything is priced linked to LIBOR as a general index] More corruption: Yet Another Obama Big Lie: Mortgage Fraud Investigation Not Even Staffed « naked capitalism

Wanted Pakistani man surfaces in video - Asia - Al Jazeera English. Adnan Rashid another operative out and about to tangle with that Pakistani government the interventionists enjoy ragging on. Oh yeah... Iran war. No time for that, but the whole middle east geopolitical equation with Iran/Syria is like some damn junior-year daydream scenario of mine. It's just weird. (see one of my favorite pieces from the Mac Weekly 2004: Lunch Beyond Good and Evil: Around a Table with Michael Ledeen)

NATO Summit 2012 - Police State Chicago - YouTube - lol get ready, this is Lower Wacker Drive hehe...

dead honeybees in colony collapse studyMonsanto glowing corn; Honey has a sad. Monsanto got control of a bee research place to inject more disinfo in the discourse about that other colossal eco-collapse, I'm sure. Someone told me a good one about the time Monsanto tried to make a new variety of corn and it glowed. It was a huge failure and they went to some lengths to cover it up. I wonder what other freakish creations they've made?

Here is a nice study by two beekeepers and a Harvard man. www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lu-final-proof1.pdf

Colony Collapse Disorder in bees triggered not just by pesticides, but also by GMO high-fructose corn syrup. NaturalNews can be a bit hippyish but overall its not a bad place to start & they catch decent stories as well as in-depth on the federal food & drug fascist network operations going on at the behest of the Big Ag cartel, the Chicago-based milk price fixing racket etc. "Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing," wrote the authors. "15 or 16 imidacloprid-treated hives (94%) were dead across four apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing."

So the pesticides left over in the corn syrup wastes the bees pretty easily. Makes sense, but it sucks they are feeding bees pesticide-laden corn syrup to make cheap honey eh?

Fukushima kabewm: Massive industrial strength coverup. One good place to start: OpEdNews - Article: Is Fukushima's Doomsday Machine About to Blow? Look up Arnie Gundersen's videos, etc. Where are the EPA readings? Videos of people with 3x hazmat-triggering radiation levels in Los Angeles air filters. Vancouver etc., it's all hot now. Almost as horrible as the disfigured seafood coming out of the Gulf in droves nowadays.

Cancer studies gigafail as medical journals verified as mostly spam-laundering for spoofing FDA processes with new "intellectual property": Also, perhaps a bit dramatic but 88% failure rate is not acceptable, you chumps: Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated. Roundup: Cell phone radiation and cancer: Just how much more proof do you need?

President of Iceland explains how to tell banks to go screw themselves and win yr country back! Proof positive we can defeat the bankster police state slavery policy through resistance and courage! Iceland's President Explains Why The World Needs To Rethink Its Addiction To Finance - Business Insider. "Recovering faster and more effectively" than any other economy -- by dumping bad debt, not backing up zombie banks! If you read one interview, it should be this one :) He even points out that BankBloat absorbs more useful tech people, IT, engineers etc., and when the banks collapsed, those people got productive jobs in the primary (or "real") economy, which picked up even more.

Funniest damn thing: this video I didn't bother to watch but the idea of ancient nephilim giants coming to eat frozen corpses in FEMA coffins is like some kind of prize achievement in conspiracy thinking. Madame Blavatsky would be proud of the mythological cuisinart going on here, and the tags are great too: FEMA CAMPS - People frozen and eaten? - YouTube. Why not?

ZBV Backscatter van coming to protests and Super Bowls near you: This has been out for a bit but not too high profile. Around the time of big Capitol protests in March 2011 I saw a weird tall van in Madison WI with California plates, parked among the state patrol & ranger types. It was not as wide as this van, but it sat lurking all night with some dude doing stuff, and the engine running... Something like an unmarked mobile command center or etc. Anyway: "ZBV" - Z Backscatter Van - YouTube

Islamic universalism, colonial divide & rule lecture: Hour+ video just posted with Dr Fouzi Slisli Islamic Universalism and Colonial Divide and Rule Policies.

College courses for slum dwellin IT guys: a cynical take but let's see: Top U.S. Colleges to Offer Free Classes Online

Assange, RT and a Hezbollah interview? There's a word for this: trolling. Here come the haters! Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics - Salon.com. Another review by Kevin Gosztola: About Julian Assange’s New Revolutionary Television Show | The Dissenter

Keep it classy, down with paganism! Rep. Mary Franson infuriated by Earth Day, calls it "Pagan holiday" [UPDATE] - The Blotter

FBI grabs Riseup server: Consequences spill over harming many legit organizations. FBI Seizes a Server Used by CLG's Webhoster in Bomb Threat Investigation | Citizens for Legitimate Government. Notably the FBI doesn't grab Google's servers physically - it's proof that the unbelievably reliable Riseup.net isn't playing the same game as the other guys. Official note: Server Seizure, April 2012 - help.riseup.net

Foreclosure mill: Moar fake vice presidents. Economy Watch - Inside the foreclosure factory, they're working overtime

Colombia Secret Service fail: reeks of covert ops. Didn't I post just before this happened that merging Homeland Security and the Secret Service was bad news?! Can this please somehow lead to the end of the war on drugs AND the end of the war on sex workers? CBS: At Least 20 Women Involved In Secret Service Prostitution Scandal - YouTube

Older stuff; TSA VIPR nightmare: The TSA's mission creep is making the US a police state -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net // "Dominate. Intimidate. Control." - Reason. (James Bovard is a damn good libertarian writer, details without the usual fluff)

Meet the new DNA? Scientists create DNA alternative | The Raw Story. Well at least we know XNA will be the operating system of our hellish cyborg overlords. See also: [1204.4116] An existing, ecologically-successful genus of collectively intelligent artificial creatures. First line "People sometimes worry about the singularity" lolll...

Drug war aside, Backstrom as Elvis: Dakota County Attorney and dedicated drug-warrior James Backstrom will actually run away rather than answer questions about whether or not cannabis has been used as medicine for centuries. Try it, it's fun! Thus, playing a man felled by Big Pharma like Elvis makes sense. Well hat tip to Backstrom here: Dakota County Attorney By Day, Elvis By Night? « CBS. // The next sham in Minnesota, pretending Schedule I actually means "no medical use" for cannabis: HF2508 Status in House for Legislative Session 87 // A little essay: Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War - Forbes // 1989: Drug-money Launderers Cleaning Up With Cash - Chicago Tribune:

Leigh Ritch, convicted of drug trafficking in 1986, testified at his trial that he regularly moved hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug profits to the Cayman Islands with ease.

Ritch said he stuffed the money into suitcases and took it to the Caymans, where local banks charged a 1 percent fee for ``counting the cash,`` a euphemism for laundering. The banks then shipped the money to the U.S. Federal Reserve system, he said.

As U.S. officials successfully pressured Caribbean nations to curtail such practices, Panama, with a longstanding policy of allowing untaxed, numbered bank accounts and asking few questions, became the banking center of Latin America.

Man, European new world order eugenic bloodline types are the worst! And who worse than those maniacs in the Netherlands!? Queen Beatrix’s Brother-In-Law Calls For Mandatory Birth Control For The “Unfit” - Alex Jones. Classic 1984 clip of Prince Philip talking about humanity in "plague proportions." Damn reptilians! Why can't they just hang out in old castles and dine on human flesh like their forefathers? (yes really)

Propellerheads unite: The Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver is now a real thing of sorts (io9)

Rise of the drones: coming for a county cattle rustler near you! The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Romney's Mormon mafia on the rise? Courthouse News Service - Bain Capital management slaves say they were fired because they weren't Mormon. Ugh. Mitt Romney, American Parasite - villagevoice.

The Nation and its OWS VISA offer: Gawd what an eye roller. Don't these people understand VISA and compound interest are right at the core of the problem!? Lol at Adbusters. The Pitch: Move Your Money Relay | The Nation...

Show your support today for OWS's Move Your Money Relay by applying for The Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card from UMB Bank of Kansas City.

UMB is a small, regional bank recommended by the Move Your Money project, a project we support. When you apply for and use the Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card, the bank will donate $50 and a percentage of all your future purchases on the card to The Nation! .... The more of us who participate, the bigger the impact. Show your support today for Occupy Wall Street and The Nation magazine and Move Your Money!

This is worth its own post but.... yeah. Wow. Re: Battle for the Soul of Occupy | Adbusters.

More econ items: Chris Martenson: "The Trouble With Money" | ZeroHedge // Forget '5 Minutes To Midnight', We Are 'An Inch From War' | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Floating Exchange Rates - Unworkable And Dishonest | ZeroHedge // The Risk Of 'Hot' Inflation | ZeroHedge


Europe Drops Dismally Amid Deja Vu | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Wages And Consumption Are Both In Long-Term Downtrends | ZeroHedge // Is The Real Indicator Of The Global Economy In Africa? | ZeroHedge // The Check Is In The Mail And Other Lies | ZeroHedge

Cool fallback plan bro: Guest Post: How States Can Protect Themselves From Financial Collapse | ZeroHedge: "States with heavy resources will be in a perfect position to decouple from the failing establishment and build their own systems (which is probably a main motivation behind Obama’s latest “National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order…). Step 5: Adopt Alternative Currencies... Provide for yourself and others what the mainstream system will not, and eventually, they will either have to conform to your logic, because it works, or, they will have to try and stop you with violence and expose their inherent tyranny, building greater resistance. In either case, you win." etc. neat!

Montana GOP gets the Iran Contra Psyop Treatment!: Bob Janjuah Dismisses Central Bank Independence Amid Monetary Anarchy // Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama | ZeroHedge -- an exciting account of shady lunatic operative Neil Livingstone and his Psyops guru buddy Paul Vallely electioneering around; Vallely's a co-writer of the infamous Michael Aquino tract "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory".

Vallely has been posing locally and nationally as a Liberty Movement proponent with his organization “Stand Up America”, just as Livingstone and Zinke have been posing as Constitutional freedom loving traditional conservatives. Anyone who has studied the Cointelpro operations of the 1960’s and 1970’s would probably see a familiar pattern in all of this, but many Montanans I fear may not be quite so aware.

So Montana is in a pretty hard core situation with a ring of Ollie North types cutting a major move. Where else can we spot the template?

The Mother Of All Infographics: Visualizing America's Derivatives Universe | ZeroHedge // Fasten Your Seatbelts: High Frequency Trading Is Coming To The Treasury Market | ZeroHedge // Gravitation Returns As Apple Falls, Drags Everything With It | ZeroHedge // Italy Jumps On Nationalization Bandwagon: Tax Police "Seizes" 20% Of Second Largest Domestic Insurer | ZeroHedge // Viva Central Planning | ZeroHedge // electricity is deteriorating but it's worse for brokerages than anyone else?! All that wasted electricity - not to mention the talent as Iceland's five-term president described above. Yet Another Exponential Chart... And A Different Spin On "Keynesianism" | ZeroHedge. woww...

A little more grab bag action: Prison Planet.com » Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes - a good example of PrisonPlanet going slightly off kilter with their headline -- the decidedly reactionary writer Steve Swick says "let's let their houses burn" which is a really off-putting kind of statement, but it's not the same as 'burning down'. Let's lock PrisonPlanet's Watson and Zwick in a room for a while...

Bill Gates comic book: this guy... wow man, the Gates Foundation and the whole bit. Arggg.. This site is a little odd but they are having some fun with a new approach: The Daily Bell - Is the Vaccine Industry Beginning to Fail?

HOMELESS VETERANS: I just heard more info on this - BIG pdf report on CHALENG, a homeless coordination services project. More info: Project CHALENG - Homeless Veterans // www.va.gov/HOMELESS/docs/chaleng/CHALENG_Report_Seventeenth_Annual.pdf . United States Interagency Council on Homelessness | People's Advocacy Council // Opening Doors Across America | Take Action | United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). For every fraudulently conveyed mortgage and robosigned fake document, every eviction and foreclosure you get more homeless and an empty house (and a further depressed housing market).

THis is nuts: F-35 fighter jet's escalating costs are on Washington's radar - latimes.com

Looks cool - notes in MN: Global Robotics Innovation Park // Wedge Co-op warehouse employees unionize //

Homeland security story propagates: interestingly, a lot of people across the political spectrum picked up the post about Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and their monstrous trucks. » Homeland Security Unveils Monstrous SWAT Trucks Alex Jones // SHTF411.com • SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM RIDES..... // Full-Spectrum-Dominance.com | FSD.net // ConspiracyCulture.com // Resistor in the Rockies: Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns - HSI Homeland Security Investigations // Special Response Team: Coming To A Neighborhood Near you, by Homeland Security | Decrypted Matrix // seeing is believing ....sit down - Back Country Rebels - Forums // Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters // The republican Mother: This is how the government preps, you amateurs! etc. People seem instantly infuriated by the sight of those damn trucks!

Anyway that is it for now. Hope you enjoy zee ol linkdump!

BREAKING: Minnesota Statute used to repress Occupy Minneapolis right now: Unconstitutional speech block & apparent pseudo bomb scare drive repression

UPDATE 7:30AM: We have a slow-motion version showing KSTP videographer assaulted by MPD officer last night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2uDcMI71rs as well as unedited version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iOXECa1Rw

For more info - http://occupyminneapolis.mn - http://facebook.com/occupymn


We have word from downtown Minneapolis right now that the Minneapolis police are using something akin to a bomb scare to shut down the space around the relaunching Occupy Minneapolis space at Peavey Plaza. As usual the pseudo-war on terror lets those Constitutional rights get carved away one space at a time.

At this time many have gathered in Loring Park after Minneapolis PD issued an order to clear away from Peavey Plaza. According to pieces of paper distributed by people collecting government paychecks, PICTURE: Ow.ly - image uploaded by @OccupyMN -


I don't think this has been used before (such as the RNC) - and of course at this very moment it is being used here illegally to regulate the content of speech in an unconstitutional fashion. In this emergency circumstance, we have just received the full Westlaw analysis of MN Statute 609.74 PUBLIC NUISANCE and have attached it. We have a more interestingly extreme level of government operations going on -- the exact type of conduct which bills before the legislature seek to conceal under permanent secrecy.

As these things become more extreme, less and less transparency will happen. Basically because they are shoehorning their actions into statutes like 609.74.

DOWNLOAD: Westlaw_Document_19_49_25.doc

Obviously this statute is being applied right now to abrogate a lot of Constitutional rights, and the state government in this statute, and local police, on the streets, do not have the standing to remove & detain people for asserting their Consitutional rights tonight using this statute in a 24-hr access public park, yet here we are. The misplacing of priorities here -- rather than say, focusing their resources on fraud, etc -- is a major part of the reason our civilization is in dire straits.

Or as they say in Monty Python, "Now we see the violence inherent in the System!"

a few links tonite ---



http://twitter.com/uneditedcamera - & ustream!




Minnesota Statutes Annotated CurrentnessCrimes, Criminals (Ch. 609-624) Chapter 609. Criminal Code (Refs & Annos) Public Misconduct or Nuisance 609.74. Public nuisance
Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; or
(2) interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or
(3) is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is spe-cifically provided.
Laws 1963, c. 753. Amended by Laws 1971, c. 23, § 74, eff. March 5, 1971; Laws 1986, c. 444.
<Section 480.059, subd. 7, provides in part that statutes which relate to substantive criminal law found in chapter 609, except for sections 609.115 and 609.145, remain in full force and effect notwithstanding the Rules of Criminal Procedure.>
2009 Main Volume
The present Minnesota statute on the subject of public nuisance is § 616.01, which reads:
“A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state and consists in unlawfully doing an act or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission shall:
“(1) Annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of per-sons;
“(2) Offend public decency;
“(3) Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for passage, a lake, naviga-ble river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, or highway; or
“(4) In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of property.”
Minn.St. § 616.02 makes violation a misdemeanor and makes persons who permit a building to be used for such nuisance also liable.
The two sections will be superseded by the above recommended section. These sections were adopted in 1886 from the New York Penal Code of 1881. They have been interpreted by the New York courts as merely stating the common law on the subject.
Minnesota cases appearing on these sections are confined almost entirely to civil suits in actions for dam-ages. The New York cases construing these sections attach no material significance to terms used in these sections in reaching decisions on what constitutes a public nuisance. Common-law principles have been on the whole pursued and read into the sections.
The cases tend to involve several classes of cases:
(1) Where gambling or bawdy houses are maintained, and this has been extended to include places where drinking occurs and to which the public may go, and to establishments where abortions are performed.
It was this class of cases to which the second clause of Minn.St. § 616.01 is directed.
(2) Cases where the question is whether a particular industry is, or is conducted in such manner that it is, a public nuisance. This usually involves weighing of relative values.
This class of cases is covered by Clause 1 of § 616.01.
(3) Interference with the public use of highways, waterways, etc.
This is covered by Clause 3 of § 616.01.
No case was found which turned on the provisions of Clause 4 of § 616.01. The cases cited by the New York revision commissioners, relating to noise and offensive odors, can easily be brought under Clause 1.
A number of states do not make the maintenance of a public nuisance a crime. They rely instead on the power of prosecuting officials to bring abatement or injunction proceedings. This includes Wisconsin and Louisiana.
At the present time the power of the state or local authority to bring an injunction proceeding to abate a public nuisance is well recognized. See State ex rel. Goff v. O'Neil, 1939, 205 Minn. 366, 286 N.W. 316.
There is probably still a place for the crime of public nuisance but it is believed it should be restricted to those instances which come within the purposes of the criminal law.
This will require (1) some criminal intent and (2) limitation of the statute to such specific terms as the na-ture of the problem permits.
Clause (1): Changes from the present statutes made by Clause (1) are:
(1) The word “intentionally” has been added. This will eliminate those cases where there is a good faith claim on the part of the defendant that he has a right to continue with the activity in which he is engaged. This claim he should be entitled to make without the possibility of a criminal penalty hanging over him.
(2) The word “unreasonably” has been added. Reasonable use of one's own property is not a nuisance. This is the present law.
(3) The words “unlawfully doing an act” have been omitted. Many, if not most, nuisance cases involve conduct on one's own premises. It is not illegal unless it is a nuisance.
(4) The word “morals” has been inserted and the present Clause 2 of Minn.St. § 616.01 has been removed.
(5) “Members of the public” has been substituted for “persons.” The distinguishing aspect of a public nui-sance is that it is the public that is affected. There may be “a considerable number of persons” affected and the public still not be involved as interpreted by judicial decisions.
(6) “Creates a condition” is new. The purpose is to emphasize the characteristic feature of a nuisance; namely, that it is something which is more than a single act but is a state of affairs or situation or condition, harmful to the public. The present statute is deficient in this respect. “A certain degree of permanence ... is usually a part of the conception of a nuisance.” Holmes, in Commonwealth v. Patterson, 1885, 138 Mass. 498.
If single specific acts are sought to be prohibited, they should be the subject of a separate statute defining the act as a crime.
Clause (2): This restates Subd. 3 of § 616.01 with some addition and rewording. This is a well recognized basis for a public nuisance.
It might well be made a specific crime quite aside from the crime of nuisance, but it was believed better to continue to treat it as a nuisance and retain the remedies that go with it, such as the right of public authori-ties to bring an action for an injunction.
This will duplicate Minn.St. § 160.27, Subd. 5, Clause (1), in a measure but the duplication is not deemed objectionable.
Public parks are not specifically mentioned in this clause since a public nuisance in a public park is deemed sufficiently covered by Clause (1).
Clause (3): This covers the provision in Minn.St. § 616.02 to the same effect.
There are a number of statutes declaring certain acts public nuisances. These include:
§ 18.331:
This makes certain grain-rust producing plants and bushes public nuisances.
§ 37.21:
This makes the sale of intoxicating liquor near the state fair grounds a public nuisance.
§ 169.07:
This makes obstructing the view to highway traffic signs a public nuisance.
§ 360.032:
This makes trees and other obstructions to airport approaches public nuisances.
§ 411.40:
This empowers cities of the first class to declare public nuisances.
§ 411.45:
This preserves legal actions to abate nuisances.
§ 437.09:
This makes itinerant carnivals, street shows, etc., public nuisances.
§ 461.07:
This authorizes ordinances making dense smoke a nuisance. See also Minn.St. § 461.09 giving similar authority to cities of the third class.
§ 462.17:
This makes buildings not conforming to city ordinances public nuisances.
§ 471.92:
This makes open wells, cesspools, cisterns, etc., public nuisances.
§ 614.01:
This section is superseded by recommended §§ 609.75 to 609.76. No provision has been included in this revision making a lottery a public nuisance. However, places where lotteries are conducted contribute to injury of public morals and would thus fall within the meaning of Clause (1) of the recommended section.
§ 616.39:
This makes itinerant carnivals public nuisances.
§ 617.33:
This makes houses of prostitution public nuisances. Subsequent sections empower the county attorney to bring an action to abate the nuisance.
§ 618.14:
This makes drug addict resorts a common nuisance.
No provision has been included that is equivalent to Clause 4 of § 616.01. This was regarded as too broad and sweeping to include in a criminal statute. It adds nothing to what falls within Clause (1) of the recom-mended section.
2009 Main Volume
St.1961, §§ 616.01, 616.02, 616.16.
St.1927, §§ 10241, 10245.
Gen.St.1923, §§ 10241, 10245.
Gen.St.1913, §§ 8759, 8760.
Rev.Laws 1905, §§ 4987, 4988.
Gen.St.1894, §§ 6613, 6615, 6616.
Pen.Code, §§ 319, 321, 322.
Gen.St.1878, c. 98, §§ 8, 9.
Laws 1876, c. 54, §§ 1, 2.
The 1971 amendatory act substituted the specified penalty of misdemeanor for a former penalty of imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.
Laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of nonsubstantive gender specific references.
Abatement, powers and duties of the board of health, see §§ 145A.04, 145A.05.Abortion, obscenity, public nuisances, see § 617.80 et seq.Buildings declared a nuisance, see § 462.17.Misdemeanor, penalty when not otherwise provided, see § 609.03.Noxious bushes and weeds, see § 18.75 et seq.Nuisance; acts constituting, see § 617.81.Nuisance defined, see § 561.01.Nuisance liability of agricultural operations, see § 561.19.Offensive trades and employments, see § 145A.05.Unauthorized signs on highways, abatement, see § 169.07.Uses of right-of-way, misdemeanors, see §§ 160.27, 160.2715.
Animal feedlot regulation in Minnesota. Marcia R. Gelpe, 1981, 7 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 399.
Environmental rights act. 1972, 56 Minn.L.Rev. 575.
Governmental tort liability. Orville C. Peterson. 26 Minn.L.Rev. 613 (1942).
Jet noise in airport areas. May 1967, 51 Minn.L.Rev. 1087.
Liability of municipality and abutting property owner for injuries resulting from ice and snow. 21 Minn.L.Rev. 703 (1937).
Need for a principled expansion of the role of local government in environmental enforcement. Beverly Conerton and LeRoy Paddock, 16 Wm.Mitchell L.Rev. 949 (1990).
Obscenity and the law: Curious bed-fellows. Ronald I. Meshbesher. Feb. 1970, 38 Hennepin Law. 4.
Public water rights. William G. Peterson. 31 Bench & B.Minn. 3 (Sept. 1974).
Nuisance 61, 95.Westlaw Topic No. 279.C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 4, 10, 34 to 39, 41 to 46, 48 to 57, 59 to 60, 62, 157.
Treatises and Practice Aids
10 Minnesota Practice Series CRIMJIG 13.122, Public Nuisance--Defined.
25 Minnesota Practice Series § 10:12, Pre-Condemnation Procedures.
9A Minnesota Practice Series § 58.7, Nuisances.
In general 1Animals 6Burden of proof 14Businesses 4Jury questions 15Obstruction of public right of way 9Pollution 5Private nuisance 3Probable cause 13Purpose 2Road signs 10Sidewalks 11Sirens 7Trespass 8Waters 12
1. In general
While the Legislature cannot prevent a lawful use of property by declaring a certain use to be a nuisance, which is not in fact a nuisance, and prohibiting such use, yet acts or conditions which are detrimental to the comfort and health of the community may be effectively declared nuisances by the Legislature, though not so determined at common law. State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 1911, 114 Minn. 122, 130 N.W. 545, Am.Ann.Cas. 1912B,1030. Nuisance 60
2. Purpose
Section 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances, was designed to protect against either intentional or negligent misconduct. Kelsey v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 1962, 264 Minn. 49, 117 N.W.2d 559. Nuisance 60
The purpose of the provision declaring it a public nuisance to obstruct or render dangerous the exercise of the pub-lic right of passage on a highway is to secure to every one an enjoyment of a public right. Hanson v. Hall, 1938, 202 Minn. 381, 279 N.W. 227. Highways 153
The purpose of § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances, was to secure to everyone an enjoyment of a public right. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-B-10-j, Apr. 10, 1951.
3. Private nuisance
Position of railroad's trestle did not constitute a public nuisance under this section even though its static physical location obstructed street intersection; this section contemplated actual obstructions caused by affirmative acts or omissions. Olmscheid v. Paterson, App.1989, 440 N.W.2d 124, review denied. Municipal Corporations 693
A public nuisance must be redressed by prosecution in name of state, while a private nuisance is redressed by pri-vate action. Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 1961, 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749. Nuisance 44; Nuisance 82
The violation of the provision of § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) making it a public nuisance to obstruct or render dangerous exercise of public right of passage on highway, did not give private individual cause of action if only wrong he suffered, was wrong common to all members of public in that only his exercise of his right to travel was impeded. Hanson v. Hall, 1938, 202 Minn. 381, 279 N.W. 227. Highways 155
Where passenger elevator, installed in building under construction was fully completed except for glass in the doors and plaintiff stuck his forehead into elevator shaft through an opening in door left to receive glass and was severely injured by movement of elevator, § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances, was inap-plicable. Gibbons v. Gooding, 1922, 153 Minn. 225, 190 N.W. 256. Workers' Compensation 2089
4. Businesses
Where liquor and gambling statutes were continuously and persistently violated at a public tavern which ostensibly was operated as a private club, and repeated convictions had failed to stop the offenses, the remedies at law, that of prosecution under the gambling and liquor laws, prosecution for violation of § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this sec-tion) and of abatement of the tavern after judgment were inadequate, authorizing injunction to abate the tavern as a public nuisance. State v. Sportsmen's Country Club, 1943, 214 Minn. 151, 7 N.W.2d 495. Intoxicating Liquors 261; Nuisance 80
A complaint alleging that a small loan business, catering to a large class of poor and necessitous wage-earners, was so conducted that in every loan made the usury statute was flagrantly and intentionally violated, and that there was no adequate or effective remedy which the borrowers were willing or able to use to obtain redress for violation, stated a cause of action for injunctive relief against the maintenance of a public nuisance. State ex rel. Goff v. O'Neil, 1939, 205 Minn. 366, 286 N.W. 316. Nuisance 84
A trapdoor in floor of lavatory in restaurant in village was not a nuisance. Lyman v. Hermann, 1938, 203 Minn. 225, 280 N.W. 862.
Maintenance of truck warehouse and depot in district, at best but semiresidential, was not nuisance, either public or private, notwithstanding noise caused during nighttime by necessary pulling of endgate chains, running of motors, loading of cans, moving of loading platforms, and glare of truck lights. Village of Wadena v. Folkestad, 1935, 194 Minn. 146, 260 N.W. 221. Automobiles 109
“Nuisance” is sufficiently comprehensive to include unlawful business which necessarily works harm, injury and prejudice to the individual and is prejudicial to public welfare. State v. Guilford, 1928, 174 Minn. 457, 219 N.W. 770.
Bawdyhouses were a public nuisance under § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section). State v. Gilbert, 1914, 126 Minn. 95, 147 N.W. 953.
5. Pollution
Action of taconite mining and processing company in discharging taconite tailings into waters of Lake Superior in such manner as to release into air and water large quantities of minute asbestos-like amphibole fibers known to be directly associated with occurrence of cancer in humans constituted both violation of Federal Water Pollution Con-trol Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1151 et seq., superceded by 33 U.S.C.A. § 1251 et seq.) and common-law nuisance in inter-state and intrastate waters of Lake Superior and in ambient air of surrounding communities. U. S. v. Reserve Min. Co., D.C.Minn.1974, 380 F.Supp. 11, remanded 498 F.2d 1073, application denied 94 S.Ct. 3203, 418 U.S. 911, 41 L.Ed.2d 1156, application denied 95 S.Ct. 287, 419 U.S. 802, 42 L.Ed.2d 33, application denied 95 S.Ct. 1441, 420 U.S. 1000, 43 L.Ed.2d 758, modified and remanded 514 F.2d 492, modified 529 F.2d 181, on remand 408 F.Supp. 1212, on remand 412 F.Supp. 705, on remand 417 F.Supp. 789. Environmental Law 206; Environmental Law 284; Nuisance 62
Dense smoke is not a nuisance per se, but only becomes such when it permeates the air surrounding people, and in-vades their residences and places of occupation. State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 1911, 114 Minn. 122, 130 N.W. 545, Am.Ann.Cas. 1912B,1030. Nuisance 62
6. Animals
That civil remedies were available for arrestee's allowing her animals to escape and damage property did not render pursuit of matter in criminal court objectively unreasonable for purposes of qualified immunity analysis in arrestee's § 1983 action. Myers v. Becker County, D.Minn.1993, 833 F.Supp. 1424. Civil Rights 1376(2)
Sheriff's officer who swore out summons and complaint had objectively reasonable belief that probable cause ex-isted to charge arrestee with misdemeanor public nuisance, so that he was entitled to qualified immunity in arrestee's § 1983 action; officer had information indicating that arrestee knew that her animals were escaping from her farm and allegedly causing damages to other property and that inadequate fencing was allowing animals to escape, arres-tee ignored warning about fences and took no action to abate problem, sheriff's office was contacted repeatedly by arrestee's neighbors over period of two years about animals escaping, and animals escaped onto public road adjacent to her farm. Myers v. Becker County, D.Minn.1993, 833 F.Supp. 1424. Civil Rights 1376(6)
Sheep and other domestic animals were not within the purview of § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances. Op.Atty.Gen., 146f, Feb. 6, 1961.
Question whether the keeping of horses or other animals in a residential district constitutes a nuisance depends on the facts and circumstances involved, and unquestionably such keeping may be held a nuisance by reason of the location, manner of keeping, or other pertinent circumstances. Op.Atty.Gen., 441-H, Oct. 17, 1956.
7. Sirens
The blowing of village fire siren every night at eight o'clock in the evening for a curfew, was not a public nuisance within § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section). Op.Atty.Gen., 913, Sept. 26, 1949.
8. Trespass
Allegations by taxpayers that actions of protestors, who were arrested for criminal trespass, § 609.605, constituted a private or public nuisance did not state a cause of action for private or public nuisance, where taxpayers did not allege any interest in the affected property and did not assert any special or peculiar damage not common to the gen-eral public. North Star Legal Foundation v. Honeywell Project, App.1984, 355 N.W.2d 186, review denied. Nuisance 48; Nuisance 76
9. Obstruction of public right of way
Conducting construction operations on a portion of highway not intended to be open for public use was not “public nuisance” within this section, although done negligently. Dornack v. Barton Const. Co., 1965, 272 Minn. 307, 137 N.W.2d 536. Nuisance 62
The provisions of § 219.383, prohibiting railroad from stopping a train across a street for more than 10 minutes, modified provisions of § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances and § 160.34 (re-pealed; see, now, § 160.27) and legalized any obstruction of public highway incident to a stop for not longer than 10 minutes, and there could be no violation of the latter sections by stopping a train across public highway unless the stop exceeded 10 minutes in violation of § 219.383, but where the 10 minutes was exceeded all three statutes were violated. Mlenek v. Fleming, 1947, 224 Minn. 38, 27 N.W.2d 800. Railroads 246
Section 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) relating to public nuisances, and § 160.34 (repealed; see, now, § 160.27), and § 219.383 which had as their common subject matter the prohibition of obstruction or closing of public highways, were in pari materia, and were to be construed together. Mlenek v. Fleming, 1947, 224 Minn. 38, 27 N.W.2d 800. Statutes 223.2(14)
If defendant had removed large quantities of rock filling from embankment of roadway within limits of highway and had removed a substantial part of support of roadway and if defendant had used explosives endangering lives and property of highway travelers, defendant was guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, but defendant's criminal con-duct would not bar injunctive relief. State v. Nelson, 1933, 189 Minn. 87, 248 N.W. 751.
Construction and maintenance of logging railroad across highway by fee owner was not incompatible with travel thereon and did not constitute a nuisance under § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section). Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co., 1928, 174 Minn. 305, 219 N.W. 172. Highways 86
An abutting owner owns to the center of the street, subject to the easement of the public, and may use it for a pur-pose compatible with the free use by the public, and whether a use by an abutter is consistent with the free enjoy-ment of the easement by the public depends on the nature of his use and the needs and character of the occupation by the public and his use may be an obstruction inconsistent with the public easement. Kelty v. City of Minneapolis, 1923, 157 Minn. 430, 196 N.W. 487. Municipal Corporations 663(1)
Where abutting owner constructs or maintains fences within the right of way limits, impairing the usefulness of the highway to the traveling public or rendering such use dangerous, the construction and maintenance of the fences constitute a public nuisance. Op.Atty.Gen., 377-B-10-j, Apr. 10, 1951.
10. Road signs
An advertising sign in the form of crosses similar to railroad crossing signs bearing the words “Stop, Look and Lis-ten” adjacent to trunk highway was contrary to law and constituted a public nuisance, subjecting owner thereof to action to compel removal thereof or for injunction. Op.Atty.Gen.1934, No. 485, p. 739.
11. Sidewalks
Where defect in public sidewalk resulted from roots of a tree growing along front of their premises adjacent to the sidewalk and where it was the duty of the city to keep the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition for travel, no nui-sance was committed by abutting property owners by merely permitting the roots of the tree to grow. Sand v. City of Little Falls, 1952, 237 Minn. 233, 55 N.W.2d 49. Municipal Corporations 808(1)
In action against occupant of premises abutting sidewalk for injuries sustained in fall in icy driveway over sidewalk, condition of driveway over sidewalk was not nuisance which occupant was in duty bound to abate, where its surface was not different from that of any other part of sidewalk. Abar v. Ramsey Motor Service, 1935, 195 Minn. 597, 263 N.W. 917. Municipal Corporations 808(5)
Accumulation of ice on public sidewalk, resulting when fresh snow on cornice of building melted and water dripped to sidewalk, was not public nuisance, within St.1927, § 10241 (repealed; see, now, this section) as basis for impos-ing liability on owner of building. Mesberg v. City of Duluth, 1934, 191 Minn. 393, 254 N.W. 597. Municipal Cor-porations 808(5)
Lot owner's driveway, built from street across sidewalk, wrongly obstructed sidewalk and constituted nuisance, sub-ject to abatement. City of Marshall v. Cook, 1926, 169 Minn. 248, 211 N.W. 328. Municipal Corporations 667
12. Waters
While village had authority under § 412.19 (repealed) to change natural outlet within its corporate limits of mean-dered and navigable lake, such power was subject to requirements and limitations of §§ 616.01 and 616.02 (re-pealed; see, now, this section) that new outlet should not become a nuisance by obstructing free and appropriate use of one's own property. Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 1945, 220 Minn. 296, 19 N.W.2d 726. Municipal Cor-porations 834
The erection and maintenance of a dam across a natural water course to utilize water power was not a nuisance. City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 1910, 113 Minn. 33, 128 N.W. 817, Am.Ann.Cas. 1912A,108. Nuisance 61
An unreasonable and unnecessary obstruction of a navigable stream may be a public nuisance in its general effect upon the public, and at the same time a private nuisance as to those individuals who suffer a special and particular damage therefrom, distinct and apart from the common injury. Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co., 1893, 53 Minn. 492, 55 N.W. 608, opinion vacated on rehearing 53 Minn. 492, 55 N.W. 1119. Water Law 2600
The owner of premises bounded by a navigable stream has the right to make a pier for his own use, or that of the public; but such structure must not obstruct the navigation thereof. Rippe v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co., 1876, 23 Minn. 18. Water Law 2620
Where a frozen stream to which the public lawfully has access is not so minor as to be beyond reason, it would be doubtful that the snowmobiling public could be fenced off. Op.Atty.Gen., 1003, April 17, 1968.
Normally a riparian owner could build a fence extending into the water to the normal low-water mark if the fence did not interfere with the public use of the lake. Op.Atty.Gen., 273c-6, Oct. 26, 1960.
Whether a fence extending from the shore about four feet into a lake would constitute a public nuisance was a ques-tion of fact determinable by examination of the particular circumstances. Op.Atty.Gen., 273c-6, Oct. 26, 1960.
If operation of boats and racing hulls on the Mississippi River should result in annoying, injuring or endangering the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of persons, the offender or offenders can be prose-cuted by city. Op.Atty.Gen., 273-D-2, Aug. 12, 1952.
Operation of speed boat so as to endanger safety of others is unlawful. Op.Atty.Gen., 273-D-2, Aug. 23, 1951.
If offense against state law was committed by placing of buoys on waters of Lake Minnetonka outside boundaries of village of Deephaven, village justice of the peace could receive complaint for such violation and issue warrant for arrest of alleged offender and try cause as a misdemeanor or, in case of charge more serious than misdemeanor, hold a preliminary hearing. Op.Atty.Gen., 273-A-14, Aug. 20, 1946.
Public nuisance constituted by a beaver dam, if a crime at all, was a misdemeanor, and whether a prosecution lay depended on facts of case. Op.Atty.Gen., 211-D-7, June 4, 1946.
Construction of an artificial point by extending a natural point at various distances commencing with 97 feet from the original natural point back to about 387 feet when finally completed, might under certain circumstances institute basis for criminal prosecution under § 616.01 (repealed; see, now, this section) as public nuisance for unlawful inter-ference with or obstruction or tending to obstruct or render dangerous for passage a lake, navigable river, bay, stream or other water. Op.Atty.Gen.1932, No. 163, p. 189.
Where maintenance of artificial channel between meandered lake and non-meandered lake injuriously affected me-andered lake with respect to interests of public in navigation, fishing, propagation, or otherwise, it could be abated as a public nuisance and owner might also be subject to criminal prosecution and would also be liable to riparian owners of meandered lake for any damage to property resulting from diversion of waters in excess of such reason-able amount as he might lawfully take within his riparian rights. Op.Atty.Gen.1930, No. 266, p. 242.
13. Probable cause
Police officers, who arrested homeowners and their guests after neighbor complained about loud party, were pro-tected by qualified immunity from claim that officers violated Fourth Amendment by arresting partygoers outside house after police had ordered them to disperse; police could have thought there was probable cause for arrests, as officers were on second call for loud party at almost 2:00 a.m. and themselves heard loud talking, giving them prob-able cause to arrest homeowners for maintaining public nuisance, and guests were resisting dispersal order. Greiner v. City of Champlin, C.A.8 (Minn.)1994, 27 F.3d 1346. Civil Rights 1376(6)
14. Burden of proof
To maintain a conviction under the public nuisance statute for endangering the safety of the public, the state must prove through testimony and evidence that the public was in fact endangered. State v. Otterstad, 2007, 734 N.W.2d 642. Nuisance 62
In a prosecution under state public nuisance statute, the state did not meet its burden of proving that defendants maintained a condition that endangered the safety of a considerable number of members of the public when they displayed political signs on bridge over state highway containing text and graphic picture of aborted fetus; there was no evidence of an accident involving motorists who could actually see signs, testimony from drivers whose ability to control their vehicle was impaired by signs, or police officer's observation of traffic disturbances involving drivers distracted by signs. State v. Otterstad, 2007, 734 N.W.2d 642. Nuisance 92
15. Jury questions
Whether property owner's rock garden was “obstruction” to public right-of-way within meaning of public nuisance statute [M.S.A. § 609.74(2)] was jury issue. State v. Davis, App.1985, 375 N.W.2d 599. Nuisance 93
M. S. A. § 609.74, MN ST § 609.74
Current with laws of the 2012 Regular Session through Chapter 131
(C) 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Let them eat cake! Republican State Representative Mary Franson in district filled with poor kids declares feeding poor people with food stamps == feeding wild animals

IN an astoundingly offensive display of casual Malthusian freestyling, Representative Mary Franson compared supporting poor people with food stamps to feeding wild animals.

The Republicans pulled the YouTube once the magnitude of their irresponsibility hit the intertubes. But the usual suspects didn't bother to download a copy, so as a service to political journalism and lulz we are mirroring the censored Malthusian Republican video here, courtesy of Sally Jo Sorensen @ Bluestemprairie.http://hongpong.com/files/RepresentativeFransonLegislativeUpdate.mp4 (QT 480x360 h264/AAC 9.6MB)

Mirrored on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/37844511

Mirrored on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijWu7lK7Hss

embedded version:

Last week, we worked on some welfare reform bills.

And here, it's kind of ironic, I'll read you this little funny clipped that we got from a friend. It says, 'Is't it ironic that the food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to please not feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

Our reform bills are meant to bring people up out of the clutches of poverty. We want to provide a safety net, no longer a safety hammock. In one of the bills Representative Kurt Daudt authored would reduce the amount of time that you could stay on welfare from five years to three years.

In three years I believe that we can get Minnesota's poorest of the poor back up on their feet and moving more toward a prosperous future.

For more info see Bluestem post: "Heartless in the heartland."

Review: "Contagion": Minneapolis faces instant social collapse in latest Hollywood portrayal of martial law!


SPOILER ALERTS! -- Plagued man (lower left) staggers off bus at Lake & Lyndale; Paltrow croaks at Fairview University Medical Center; MDH painted as buffoons; Matt Damon defends saddest Minnesota XMas ever w/ shotgun & sweaters!


Snagged advance tickets to Steven Soderbergh's A-List disease disaster flick "Contagion." Rumpled but sagacious institutions going through the motions make for a dour rhythm & pacing. Overall it resembles a video news release designed to make us feel comfortable with lining up for shots at the FEMA/Red Cross center -- that's the whole catharsis at the end basically. Thanks to Cryptogon for the tip on this film!

But weirdly, a whole vision of wintertime midwest social collapse goes down in my general neighborhood -- Minneapolis to the Martial Law-lockdown Wisconsin border!

The Minneapolis Armory downtown is transformed into a pandemic doomcenter!


It's kind of an initiation into USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 2591 for Dummies: Line up You Crazed Minnesotans! It's NCIS: Team Bacteria, basically plodding dialogue rarely gets any humor catharsis.

It's too bad this stolid film could have been so sardonic – come on, with Fargo you've got a real Minnesota film. Even though few shots except say the downtown Armory actually appeared to be shot here. Still, the blue light & Thanksgiving-Xmas interval of complete doom bore the mark of a dark winter experience. Still this film needed humor -- they just couldn't put much in at all.

Quickly in Minnesota, panic and total social collapse sets in at martial food distribution ops and the grocery store.

contagion-mpls-foodfail.png contagion-groceryfail.png

Army trucks all over downtown in the morning hours:

contagion-mpls-martial-law.png contagion-groceryfail2.png

Martial law is setup at the Minnesota/Wisconsin border -- closed by the Wisconsin National Guard. Not filmed in Stillwater but should have been. I actually made a sketch of similar Wi/Mn border bridge freakout one time -- this film has it all!




Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) deserves far more credit than the obligatory "baffled public official" exposition scene. They're actually very good at tracing outbreaks -- E Coli strains in industrial food for example -- but get zero credit really. Except for a You-Betcha-Bubble-Suit-Next-to-Mass-Graves type moment.



No one is really portrayed solving things cleverly except Fishburne's people. Will this look kind of like a Duck-And-Cover propaganda film in 50 years? "Cheating" or taking risks bending the rules is peculiarly rewarded -- i.e scientist with Biohazard Level 3 lab still finds the virus growth medium after they try ordering him to shut down.

Jude Law is a pigeonholed as conspiracy disease blogger and you never ultimately see if he's a shady fear profiteer. By the end he's painted as vaguely pitching profitable homeopathic cure for a possible hedge fund payoff. The hedge fund turns him in to Homeland Security. Doesn't make sense. He's left filming silently people lining up at a Red Cross/FEMA arena as they peacefully await shots like lambs.


Even as masked pillagers go through "suburban Minneapolis" in no sense are neighbors considered to be banding together in Minnesota -- though in China a whole village tries to hold the health scientist Cotillard hostage for vaccines.

It felt like there'd been battles over the script. Something about the way that the plots were stubbed out...

Adjuvants get a mention as needed to really get the immune response kicked into action. Delicious thimerosol win! (of course high levels of gross damaging adjuvants are needed because frequently vaccines are weak failsauce)

Just-in-time commercial inventory spells direct social fail: Surprise! I felt like the kind of preparation which local organization like the U of M's top notch Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy which advises better supply chain strategies during dangerous pandemics. The pandemic supply chain fail basically leads straight to pandemonium in Minnesota.

There's no real sense of proper preparation -- a lack of creativity here. Actor Bryan Cranston as the military guy was pretty good.

Spoiler deets-

-- the crucial clue on Paltrow's camera -- Damon finally notices month later. Seriously they never found this earlier?



-- if they point out that fatality level from malnutrition is variable to nutrition, they could have promoted vitamin D but didn't

-- You get vaccinated == Arm Band seemed like prescripting or an introduction, as well as catharsis in plot!contagion-vaccines.png

-- At least no one gets chipped (altho vaccine fans will point out you can hide unique signatures in vaccine fluid)

-- No real 'mitigating' approach - be it neighborhood security radio or taking more vitamins -- no one is really creative outside of the government

-- Dr. Sanjay Gupta - CNN, NBC/Comcast KARE 11 are the media snippets. Gupta mediates the Fishburne/Law throwdown between CDC & Conspiracybloggers.

-- Chinese cooks hug western executive while greasy with pig guts fresh from the Chinese interior.

-- People coughing in the theater are scary!

-- Big FEMA Red Cross polite line of vaccine recipients is the catharsis "landing" basically


I didn't bother to stick around and look at the thank-yous to see who was involved in production. The way that it feels like you're mainly plodding, tumbling through the CDC's cogs reminded me of another similar film The Next Three Days wherein Russell Crowe triggers off similar National Security machinations. Hell the new Transformers movie has the military as a major character collectively. It just doesn't make the stories move along to cover all these institutions and their fictionally presented wonderful operations.

This site is promoted on the trailer -- it doesn't even mention Minneapolis after all this trouble!


Matt Damon gits a shotgun which weirdly wasn't looted from his neighbors -- while the food was.


Chicago gets the martial law treatment like the FEMA Region V headquarters it is.

contagion-chicago-femaregion.png contagion-martiallaw.png

Homeland Security Guy always seems like a douche but He Means Well.


Dimitri Martin handles yr viruses


I think this scene was cut? Or was I not paying attention.


Obligatory red blooming map


That about covers it. I always wash my hands and try to avoid touching my face. Minnesota is kind-of used to this stuff so I rather resent we are now portrayed as the exemplars of public panic!

Pawlenty promotes Mossad plane crash/bombing operations vs Iran scientists & trashing internets with Stuxnet offensive computer operations

UPDATE Sunday Aug14: LOLSo long and thanks for all the mullet. Theory: TPaw was not supposed to brag about Mossad ops at the debate - lol his campaign is Over Like Clover in an Iowa pasture. Why not? :-D

Our former Governor Tim Pawlenty plays for the ruthless neo-Cheneyite role in a future Republican presidency by touting the covertly staged plane crashes of Russian scientists & also Stuxnet industrial machinery hacking (SCADA and industrial control hacking).

As usual the embrace of criminal thuggery goes over well with the great unwashed.

Pawlenty's embrace & promotion of this criminal stuff, Mossad covert ops in particular, won't really do him much good as he tips the hand too readily. Maybe it's some weird way of putting some nasty intelligence cadre on notice.

This also immediately reminded me of poor Senator Paul Wellstone, who like GOP voting-IT guru Mike Connell and others since, suffered an abrupt sketchy plane crash which put an end to their political & legal meddling.

It reminds me that Cheney ordered Pawlenty to run for governor in the 2002 cycle while the already-weak-looking Norm Coleman was placed into the race against Wellstone.

It's so heartening to see a new generation of fine professional conservative leaders using covert ops to kill people taking shape. Also more evidence that the entire electoral political system has been subsumed into the intelligence industry. Jesse Ventura surprised the CIA, Pawlenty pushes the outward side of an assassination campaign. Hard times, friends.

Minnesota Government Shutdown Over: threat of alcohol-based general strike gets em going!

This was a pretty good edit I thought (we really crafted a nice mix) but hasn't gotten too many views yet :-/

The official 2011 special session budget omnibus bills are here.

Minnesota legislators time to get things done
We've been losing everything and you think this is fun
first you take our lottery and then you close our parks
Now you want the very thing that's closest to our hearts

No Beer No Work
Will be my battle cry
When I am feeling dry
I never could like lemonade or Pepsi
For beer is all I'll buy

I'll hide myself away until some brighter day
When I can drink my lager from a stein
No Beer No Work
will be my battle cry
after the first of July

We the people have a plan to make the shutdown end
Compromise and fair taxation now its time to bend
We can't pay our mortgages and this is just not fair
Do what's best for everyone and tax the millionaires


Minnesota's future and our kids are on the line
Don't cut education while the wealthy sip their wine
We bend over backwards and now you have shut the door
Minnesota's standing up and we can't take no more!


Directed by: Nick Espinosa
Edited by: Dan Feidt

TCIMC Exclusive: Contracts for IntelliDrive MnDOT Military-Industrial/U of M plan to GPS-track all cars


Minnesota taxpayers give intelligence contractor SAIC a cost-plus contract to evaluate MnDOT's GPS tracking program!

By Dan Feidt for Twin Cities Indymedia – Key info about Minnesota's elusive "GPS Mileage Tax" test program has finally turned up. It's actually part of a federal program called "IntelliDrive", as shown by new documents obtained on Wednesday. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has entered into a pilot program called the "Mileage Based User Fee Policy Examination" which includes a contract with the huge low-profile military-industrial intelligence contractor SAIC of McLean Virginia, a system intended to pass all GPS data from everyday travel into centralized vehicle databases. The University of Minnesota has a main leading role, along with the Battelle Institute, URS Corporation, Mixon-Hill in Kansas and the local Pierce Pini & Associates. The MnDOT data practices "handler" at headquarters in St Paul didn't like it when these documents were photographed, and they denied a request to simply copy the mileage tax project contracts onto a USB flash drive, which is the only reason we don't have the complete material at hand right now.

With these incomplete documents, it's still perfectly clear that this plan is intended to make Minnesota's roads into a mere part of a national IntelliDrive road monitoring grid - broadcasting tracking devices would be intended for all vehicles.

Some legislators already made an attempt this week to cancel funding for this mileage tax pilot project, as the Star Tribune reported, and they don't seem to want more information to reach the public before the end of Minnesota's regular legislative session this weekend. After all, you could just tax mileage by having drivers report odometer readings every year. Tracking every vehicle's location at every moment is obviously not necessary unless the goal is about controlling the vehicles and collecting real-time information on everyone's activities. Will the Democratic Dayton Administration and legislators continue to support spending more cash they don't have on this totally unnecessary total vehicle tracking 'trial balloon' program?

Below the Fold: Behavior modification as "consumer satisfaction" contract deliverables; Contact info for Military-Industrial SAIC contractors building Minnesot'a branch of the IntelliDrive vehicle tracking system; University of Minnesota and SAIC contract info. The latest version of the big tracking system is all here. SAIC: All your 10,000 Lakes Plates GPS Coordinates are belong to us :-D

So what is the point of all this?saic-project-header.jpg Basically the program is obviously intended to convert Minnesota roadways into spaces managed by something called "IntelliDrive". It looks like SAIC and the rest of them are cashing in on these programs. The official agenda of IntelliDrive is provided below: implementing trackers on cars and fixed points to make a complete grid of everywhere you go. None of this is really about "mileage" measurement, which again is available via the good ol Odometer.

Overall the program is intended to convert our roads into "IntelliDrive" managed spaces, which means radio transmitters and/or GPS chips in cars, and many receivers tracking your location at all times. SAIC's role seems kind of "meta": the intelligence contractors control whether the project is evaluated positively or not. The SAIC contract's criteria for "satisfaction" are quite strange.

Another detail: Preliminary rules for government personal data handling under the Minnesota Data Practices Act have been created for this pilot program.

An 2007 study on public opinion about the mileage tax was conducted by the Dieringer Research Group on behalf of MnDOT's Value Pricing Program was done (PDF here). Negative citizen impressions included (p39):

Sounds a little bit sketchy with a “Big Brother” impression. – Metro High Efficiency participant

Big Brother is really watching. – Duluth General Public participant I disbelieve that it would be tamper proof. There are websites devoted to cracking/

hacking anything – Metro Peak Commuter participant

I do not support any implementation of equipment by the government on my privately owned vehicles. I can not support this type of system based on this type of subversive invasion. – Mankato High Miles participant

All of these are perfectly obvious concerns, especially since the DOJ Solicitor General has recently declared the federal government should always be able to plant law enforcement GPS systems on anyone's cars at any time without a warrant. With the IntelliDrive tracking apparatus, law enforcement would merely have to tap into remote databases run by SAIC or whoever. No more bulky special GPS trackers for Internet gadget geeks to pick apart.


U of M MnDOT Contract No. 89261 Work Order No. 235: "Mileage Based User Fee Policy Examination"

MnDOT and the Regents of the University of Minnesota (via the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration at 450 McNamara Alumni Center) agree to furnish the Mileage Based User Fee Policy Examination project as a whole. They seem to be the masters of the project as a whole.


Also the University of Minnesota apparently provided some electronic device in order to ensure the programs were not overlapping – could that be the car transmitter element? The U of M's ITS Institute would seemingly be involved - see the advocacy of MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel on ITS at a conference in April. Here is TechPlan, the policy program with the Humphrey School.


SAIC MnDOT Contract No. 92809 - also listed as CFMS Contract B230(unknown): "VII for Safety, Mobility and User Fee Evaluation"


The major intelligence contractor SAIC – Science Applications International Corporation of McLean VA, is the "Evaluation Team" for the project. It has the title "VII for Safety, Mobility and User Fee Evaluation". It describes a main "Concept of Operations" (a military planning term) to be developed by a separate Technical Program Management Team contract. The Evaluation Team, SAIC, then determines how well the program is evaluated. VII seems to have meant "Vehicle Infrastructure Integration" and a fact sheet at this page recently vanished. The google cache is at the end of the article,

The contacts in the SAIC contract are:


SAIC Team:

Mark R. Carter - Principal Investigator - mark.r.carter@saic.com

Vaughan Inman - Human Factors Lead

Jennifer A Rephlo - Customer Satisfaction Evaluation Lead - Jennifer.a.rephlo@saic.com

CH2M Hill Team:

Howard Preston, PE - Local Coordinator, Safety Evaluation Support - Howard.preston@ch2mhill.com - 651-365-8614

Tom Maze, PE, PhD - Safety Evaluation Lead - tmaze@iastate.edu - 515-294-9523

E-Squared Engineering Team:

Richard Easley - Technical Advisor on Electronic Revenue Collection and ITS Standards (unknown..) - 703-858-5588

The SAIC Evaluation Plan includes the following impressive recategorizations of behavior manipulation as what else, Customer Satisfaction!


Customer Satisfaction:

System Awareness

Expectation of system benefits

System use

Response-decision-making and/or behavior change

Realization of benefits

Assessment of value


There is reference to the "RITA ITS Evaluation Resource Guide" (probably this) including "quantitiative change" in what appears to be driver behavior. Also it includes "implications of conforming to the National ITS Architecture" and the "National VII initiative" and "National ITS standards".

It appears a later Amendment to to the executed contract with SAIC, says the system called VII changed its name to "IntelliDrive" - a servicemarked name. MnDot "is currently developing their Intellidrive (formerly VII) for Safety Mobility and User Fee system in conjunction with the larger IntelliDrive national effort. As of June 30th 2009, Phase I was completed which included a concpet of operations, preliminary requrirements, a Phase II implementation scope of work and the preliminary evaluation plan. Mn/DOT expects The Contractor [SAIC] to conduct a final evaluation in Phase II to begin in 2010."



Mixon Hill contract: MnDOT Contract 92808: VII for Safety, Mobility and User Fee Technical Program Agreement with Mixon Hill, Incorporated.


"The Technical Program Management team was tasked with overall project management of Minnesota's VII (now IntelliDrive) initiative which includes project oversight, document review, technical support and coordination with the separately contracted Evaluation team. The Technical Project Mangement team had major deliverables for Phase I of the VII for Safety, Mobility and User Fee Project. A Concpet of Operations (ConOps), preliminary requirements and scope of work for the Phase II implementation.

The contract is being amended due to necessary revisions to Phase I tasks that fall within the original scope of the work. The University of Minnesota is currently planning a VMT [Vehicle Mileage Tax] project through Federal funds that will directly effect the development of IntelliDrive's eventual implementation. The State has reviewed the University's plan and has decided to incorporate a piece of hardware supplied by the University into their IntelliDrive project. The purpose of this hardware inclusion is to assure both projects are not competing with each other and to further the development of a sate-wide [SIC] IntelliDrive initiative.


Battelle Institute Contract - number not available.


Only the photograph of the contact information is available now, due to MnDOT's reluctance to share this file on Flash drive.

Battelle Team:

Bennett K. Pierce - Project/Program Manager - Office - 614-424-3905 - Fax - 614-458-3095 - pierceb@battelle.org

Matthew Burns - Principal Research Scientist

Robert Zimmer, CSEP - Senior Systems Engineer

URS Team:

Daryl Taavola, PE - Vice President - ITS and Traffic Engineering - Office - 612-373-6889 daryl_taavola@urscorp.org

Pierce Pini & Associates Team:

Peter Muehlbach - Safety Evaluation Lead - 763-537-1311 peter@piercepini.com


MnDOT tracking from NAFTRACS to IntelliDrive: Sadly this is all the hard MnDOT info we have right now, because of MnDOT's rather defensive on-site data handling practices. However all the remaining elements of the program fall under the Data Practices Act request that has been slowly going through the system.

Attorney Nathan Hansen says that four different main contracts were involved, as his photo shots show SAIC, University of Minnesota and Mixon Hill folders. The laptop he was presented with had no power supply, he said, and while the documents have been "produced" the agency representative asserted to Hansen that more fees would be required to get copies of these documents. Simply copying them onto a USB flash drive was not acceptable to the MnDOT person, Hansen said. He had no time to photograph proof of it Wednesday, but he said SAIC has a cost-plus contract with MnDOT.

This new IntelliDrive/SAIC turn has actually been a long time in the works. For years MnDOT has already been trying to implement corridor tracking systems with vendor help from the military-industrial complex. Hansen got spme access the new documents in a partial response to his data request posted on his website, along with material from years prior.

Hansen heard former Gov. Tim Pawlenty talking about vehicle tracking taxes years back, which spurred him to send data requests to MnDOT about tracking systems. Four years ago, when I was at Politics in Minnesota, Hansen brought me similar documents from MnDOT about a program called NAFTRACS run by the North American Super Corridor Coaliton, which turned out to be heavily funded by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed was spearheading a program to build an RFID tag-based tracking system based on their existing "Global Information Grid" (GIG) Pentagon tracking system.

Since then, apparently MnDOT's participation in NASCO and NAFTRACS pretty much ground to a halt – and more than a year ago a GOP senator told me that RFID readers were too obnoxious to set up. He chuckled that he'd been socially engineered into buying a hybrid car which gets better gas mileage, but now the state plan was to put in GPS tracking systems to tax his cars' mileage instead. Problem, reaction, solution.

Really, if the State of Minnesota is going to enter into contracts, the Attorney General should just post all contracts on the official websites. Hansen and I got to be good friends after working years ago on this strange highway tracking agenda – as well as the other ways military-industrial contractors are reshaping Minnesota through homeland security programs. If Hansen or people like him who are actually concerned about the direction of these authoritarian programs were in positions like attorney general or judges, county attorneys etc., maybe this stuff wouldn't be so aggressive, profitable and handled in secrecy. On the whole, these issues are more about authoritarianism vs freedom than left vs right.

The issues need to be raised in the formal election process as well as at every step, including the critical last days of the legislature, entirely out of money. Both parties aren't too concerned with the drift towards spending more on greater tracking, less privacy, and more ease for law enforcement and intelligence contractors to watch our every move. From Pawlenty to Dayton, the expensive surveillance policy complex continues to unfold without pause. Do Minnesotans really need to pay SAIC right now??


What is ITS?? The system called "ITS" heralded in the contracts is "Intelligent Transportation Systems" according to US Department of Transportation's Research and Innovative Technology Administration. ITS is described as: Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) - United States Department of Transportation (USDOT, US DOT or DOT):

The U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) ITS research program focuses on intelligent vehicles, intelligent infrastructure and the creation of an intelligent transportation system through integration with and between these two components. The Federal ITS program supports the overall advancement of ITS through investments in major research initiatives, exploratory studies and a deployment support program. Increasingly, the Federal investments are directed at targets of opportunity – major initiatives – that have the potential for significant payoff in improving safety, mobility and productivity.

ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014

On December 8, 2009, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) released the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014. This plan defines the strategic direction for the USDOT's ITS research program for the next five years and is designed to achieve a vision of a national, multi-modal surface transportation system that features a connected transportation environment among vehicles, the infrastructure and passengers’ portable devices. This connected environment will leverage technology to maximize safety, mobility and environmental performance.

Federal ITS Research Initiatives

At the core of Federal ITS research is connected vehicle research – a multimodal initiative that aims to enable safe, interoperable networked wireless communications among vehicles, the infrastructure, and passengers’ personal communications devices. This research leverages the potentially transformative capabilities of wireless technology to make surface transportation safer, smarter and greener. USDOT research supports the development and testing of connected vehicle technologies and applications to determine their potential benefits and costs. If successfully deployed, this smart communications between vehicles, and between vehicles and infrastructure, will ultimately enhance the safety, mobility and quality of life of all Americans, while helping to reduce the environmental impact of surface transportation.

More information about the USDOT IPS office is at: Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) page. Also see press releases.

More about Mixon Hill: Not much info is on their site but there is a page about building tracking systems on I-95. As a contractor in Kansas they are probably in a good position to join these plans for Interstate GPS-based tracking systems. mixonhill.com/services/information_technology.html

More about Battellebattelle-front.jpg : This organization has a ton of military-industrial projects going. Their website has a huge list of things they are involved with just in National Security alone! See http://battelle.org/index.aspx // http://battelle.org/commercialization/index.aspx // and the index at: http://www.battelle.org/solutions/?Nav_Area=Solution&Nav_SectionID=4. Their stuff includes:

Adaptive Systems and Controls Armor & Protective Systems Assay Development Avionics CBRNE Response / Preparedness Chem Demil Plant Support Critical Infrastructure Protection Demilitarization Processes Electronics Environmental Technology Explosives / Energetics Fatigue / Life Prediction Fitness for Service Food Security Government Business Consulting Individual Equipment Information / Knowledge Management Infrastructure Protection Integrated Manufacturing Simulation Logistics Management Material Development / Selection Probabilistic Mechanics Residual Stress / Distortion Ruggedized Packaging Sensors Strategy & Organization Consulting Technical Manuals / Publications Technology Insertion Threat Assessment & Characterization Transit Safety & Security Transportation Safety and Security Undersea Technology

And total freeway tracking for MnDOT. Huzzah!
More about E-Squared Engineering: of Ashburn Virginia, dedicated to providing quality services in the Intelligent Transportation Systems" with similar contracts on news page. Interesting staff support services: Currently, E-Squared Engineering has Staff Support Services contracts with the following organizations: the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, the International Parking Institute (IPI), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance(CVSA), the National Private Truck Council (NPTC), NACHA The Electronic Payments Association, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
More about Pierce Pini & Associates: A MN-based general civil engineering firm: ppa@piercepini.com 763.537.1311 10600 University Avenue NW, Suite 3B Coon Rapids MN. 100% Woman Owned Business established in 2003 and certified as such in the state. Pierce Pini & Associates, Inc.
poar01_spyagency0703.jpgMore about "Stealth Company" SAIC: More than half the 44,000 employees have security clearances. This is a really pretty important contractor with an impressive aura of national security weirdness, & deliberately low public profile. Here's their official history. They actually had a Remote Viewing (ie Staring at Goats style telepathy program) sent to them in 1991 called the StarGate Project. In 2002 they launched a huge important NSA program called Trailblazer and also failed to build a new FBI case file system in 2003. See also 2007 PBS report on failed projects and corruption .
See also SAIC's expansive role as intelligence contractors in legally dubious roles in Iraq: Washington's $8 Billion Shadow | Vanity Fair. SAIC is frequently found working with Booz Allen Hamilton in weird intelligence affairs. (Vanity Fair pic of McLean VA HQ by Coral von Zumwalt) Lead: "....the dark and ruthless corporation whose power extends into every cranny around the globe, whose technological expertise is without peer, whose secrets are unfathomable, whose riches defy calculation, and whose network of allies, in and out of government, is held together by webs of money, ambition, and fear.... If there were such a company—and, mind you, there isn't—it might look a lot like the largest government contractor you've never heard of:"
CH2MHill is a major global construction company based in Colorado. Tom Maze from Iowa State is part of their group on Safety issues evidently.
URS Corp: major contractor.
*******Let's Go Out with IntelliDrive and VII: The White Papers!
The final death of the great anonymous American drive is prescribed in the following white papers. For now we'll leave this article with most of the Intellidrive white paper text, and hope for a more properly informed public debate about spending money on having SAIC evaluate a Minnesota version of IntelliDrive when potholes, bridges, and many other concerns demand major funds.
Here is the 2010 IntelliDrive Roadmap via a supporting organization IntelliDrive Task Force - ITS America's Connected Vehicle Task Force Wikispace.
DOT.GOV RITA | ITS | From VII to IntelliDrive White paper: [The images are broken]

Purpose of the White Paper

This white Paper traces the strategic evolution of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) plans for IntelliDriveSM research. As this White Paper was being written, in Spring 2010, DOT was embarking on the ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 - IntelliDrive research comprises a major portion of the research program. DOT recognizes the need to provide stakeholders with an explanation of the major strategic issues that drove the development of its current plans for IntelliDrive research, and an explanation of how, and when, the research results will enable decisions regarding the future development of IntelliDrive capabilities.

The VII Vision

Launched in the mid 1990s, with roots stemming back to earlier DOT research in the 1960s, the U.S. DOT ITS Program adapts emerging technology innovations to the needs of the surface transportation community. The ITS Program initially focused on applying processes and technologies that had been developed by the defense community - such as surveillance technologies and systems engineering - to transportation systems.

In the early 2000s, it became apparent to the DOT ITS Program and its partners that the interaction between vehicles (Vehicle to Vehicle or V2V) and between vehicles and the roadway (Vehicle to Infrastructure or V2I) held tremendous potential to address the highway safety problem and other difficult transportation challenges. Building from earlier ITS research, DOT launched the Vehicle-Infrastructure-Integration (VII) Program in 2003. The VII vision was to use wireless communication with and between vehicles to achieve dramatic safety and mobility improvements.

The VII program was rebranded as IntelliDriveSM in January 2009 - largely for communications purposes. The VII name was not readily understood outside of research circles and was easily confused with the Roman numeral for seven. However, the program has also undergone changes in concept from the original vision, due to initial research findings.

The VII Approach

Fundamentally, VII was an engineering research program. As the VII Program was originally conceived, V2V was recognized as a potentially powerful technology that could address many safety issues. While V2V promised dramatic safety gains, it was assumed at the time that achievement of maximum safety benefits would require all vehicles (cars, trucks and buses) to have radio devices installed to provide the necessary V2V communications capabilities. Unfortunately, it would take 15 to 20 years for the vehicle fleet to turn over so that a sufficient number of vehicles would be equipped with the V2V technology and start to yield tangible benefits.

Because of this fleet-turnover-timeline problem with V2V implementation, the VII Program planners concluded that an alternative approach was needed. In-vehicle devices talking with roadside infrastructure (V2I) was seen as a way to achieve safety benefits more quickly and address safety issues that V2V could not. The VII research program was based on the premise that infrastructure-based radios would achieve benefits – particularly safety benefits – sooner. The program was grounded in the need for a nationwide deployment of roadside infrastructure to support the communication with and between vehicles, while radios became prevalent in the new vehicle fleet.

In addition, in the VII approach, both V2V and V2I required a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) radio tuned to the 5.9 GHz frequency in the vehicle and in the infrastructure. The Federal Communications Commission allocated, at the behest of the transportation community, 5.9GHz for transportation safety applications. This allocation gave the VII program the key technical requirement that would be needed for ultimate deployment. The spectrum was allocated for safety purposes, but it allowed unused bandwidth to be available for other applications, such as mobility or convenience. Preliminary indications were that safety messages would use only part of the communications bandwidth. As a result, non-safety applications, such as mobility and convenience applications, could also be accommodated through the same DSRC radio.

These assumptions - to start with V2I while V2V capabilities migrated gradually, and use of one DSRC radio at 5.9GHz for all applications - were a good starting point, but many questions remained. Would V2V and V2I work technically? Could these technologies be implemented practically?

Proof-of-Concept Test

First, DOT conducted a proof-of-concept (POC) test to address the basic technical feasibility questions. The POC, conducted in 2008 and 2009 in specially designed "test beds" located in Oakland County, Michigan and Palo Alto, California, was designed to validate the technical feasibility of key components of VII. For example, the first DSRC multi-channel radios were built for the test vehicles, and the first instrumented roadside equipment was placed at the test beds. The researchers conducted basic tests to assess the communication capabilities and characteristics of the DSRC radios and the 5.9GHz band. The POC testing proved that the basic technical concept would work. However, the POC test was never conceived as the answer to all technical questions. There were practical limitations regarding the scope of the tests. POC testing included less than 30 vehicles, and they represented only one vehicle type - light passenger vehicles. The testing focused on evaluation of message exchange between partially developed “stub” applications, using draft DSRC standards.

The POC testing accomplished much of the initial work necessary to determine that the concept was technically sound and feasible. But the question of whether it could be practically implemented remained.

The Chicken and Egg Dilemma

The VII approach had a classic "chicken and egg" problem. Why should vehicle manufacturers invest in developing and paying to install in-vehicle devices (DSRC radios) with no guarantee that there would be any infrastructure-based devices with which to communicate? Conversely, why should State and local agencies invest in the installation of infrastructure-based technology with no guarantee that there would be any in-vehicle devices for their infrastructure-based devices to talk to?

In particular, there were many uncertainties about infrastructure deployment. Early estimates indicated that approximately 300,000 roadside equipment (RSE) units were needed to support initial applications at a nationwide scale. An infrastructure installation of that magnitude had obvious problems. How quickly could those units be installed? Would infrastructure installation be faster than fleet turnover for V2V? Who would pay to install, operate and maintain RSE units? These 300,000 units needed to be installed alongside roads controlled by thousands of State and local jurisdictions. How could that many agencies all be convinced that installation of roadside radios at key locations was a worthwhile investment?

Figure 1: The Three Big Dilemmas to Achieving the VII and IntelliDrive Vision - U.S. DOT Image

VII and IntelliDrive share the same vision: safety and mobility through wireless technology. Three dilemmas exist to achieving that vision.

The VII infrastructure conundrum gave rise to three big dilemmas (Figure 1):

  • Which is installed first: vehicles or infrastructure?
  • How can the vehicle fleet be equipped with DSRC radios quickly enough to realize early benefits from the technology? In other words, how can market penetration be accelerated?
  • How can the financial and logistical challenges be overcome to achieve sufficient infrastructure deployment?

New Technologies

In the meantime, wireless technology exploded in the consumer marketplace, and consumer mobile communications devices, including smartphones and mobile internet devices, proliferated. These technologies had significant implications for the future of VII. To support high-speed transmission of text, voice and video data, telecommunications providers greatly expanded the bandwidths available for cellular phone technology, providing 3rd Generation (3G) networks. To make the wireless mobile devices more appealing to the customer, new applications were developed, including some capable of providing location-specific information - for example, applications that locate the closest store selling a hard-to-find item, or that forecast the weather for your location during the next 60 minutes. These applications use global positioning systems (GPS) or cellular positioning technology to pinpoint the device's location. As the wireless revolution exploded, other recent information technology innovations, including cloud computing and real-time search capabilities, showed potential for application to transportation.

As the VII Program progressed from the research laboratory stage into commercial testing and marketing, it became apparent that the DOT ITS Program needed to expand the scope of the VII Program to explore the potential applications of the newer wireless and computing technologies. To better reflect the expanded spectrum of the research, in 2009 DOT rebranded the VII Program to IntelliDrive. V2V and V2I communications remain critical components of the expanded program. While DSRC remains a primary focus for safety, the IntelliDrive research program also is exploring how other communications capabilities can be used to support non-safety applications - particularly for mobility applications.

The IntelliDrive Approach

The implementation dilemmas associated with the original VII approach and the new technologies emerging in the market indicated that it was time to adapt the research program based on new information. But, significantly, the original vision remained the same; it was only the approach to achieving the vision that needed to be revised to take advantage of new opportunities.


Results of a recent high-level NHTSA analysis of the potential of V2V and/or V2I to address crash types indicate that V2V has the potential to address a large proportion of crashes involving unimpaired drivers. Specifically, up to 82 percent of all crashes by unimpaired drivers could potentially be addressed by V2V technology. If V2V were in place, another 16 percent of crashes could potentially be address by V2I technology. In imminent crash situations, V2V is uniquely capable of addressing forward collisions and lane change/merge collisions. At very high market penetration levels V2V can also address intersection collisions. V2I has the potential to address road departure and intersections crashes at lower market penetration levels. The actual effectiveness of V2V and V2I in addressing these crash types still remains to be tested.

Implementation considerations quickly emerged as key hurdles for the original VII approach based on massive infrastructure installation up front. This fact prompted the USDOT to explore alternative approaches to achieving the safety vision.

Dilemma #1: Which is Installed First: Vehicles or Infrastructure?

The information from the NHTSA report provides a compelling reason to aggressively pursue V2V technology and applications while continuing to pursue V2I. In fact, the potential is so great, that NHTSA has embraced V2V as a priority for its rulemaking research plan, and has identified this technology for possible future regulation or other action to encourage its implementation. Action by NHTSA would dramatically change the pathways to implementation and would “crack” the chicken and egg problem by firmly establishing vehicles as the path to early implementation (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The Vehicles or Infrastructure First Dilemma - U.S. DOT Image

Answering the dilemma of which comes first – vehicles or infrastructure – could hinge on a
NTHSA regulatory decision in 2013 about whether to require technology on new vehicles.

However, regulation or other government action in private markets is not something that NHTSA or any other Federal agency takes lightly. Much research, data collection and analysis is needed to support a regulatory decision. The V2V research program outlined in the ITS Strategic Research Plan is structured to develop applications, test their effectiveness and validate the results to support a regulatory decision in 2013. If the research results indicate that IntelliDriveSM is beneficial, practicable and can be tested objectively, then NHTSA will proceed with rulemaking for light and heavy vehicles. If the results are sufficiently positive but do not justify a rulemaking, then the agency may advise drivers to purchase vehicles with this technology through its consumer information program.

If NHTSA chooses to issue a regulation requiring installation of V2V communications equipment in all new vehicles, then the "Which comes first?" question will be answered definitively. If NHTSA chooses not to regulate, then other implementation approaches to achievement of the safety goal will need to be considered.

Dilemma #2: How Can Market Penetration be Accelerated?

While the potential of V2V technology was recognized in the VII Program, benefits would be delivered only when a sufficient number of equipped vehicles were on roadways to interact. Early in the VII program, it was difficult to envision a feasible way out of this dilemma. But now, a plethora of consumer electronics devices are available in vehicles. The exponential growth of the use of these devices by travelers may open up a new avenue to accelerate DSRC into the vehicle fleet.

The concept is to embed DSRC communications in aftermarket devices, such as navigation systems, so that they emit a simple "Here I Am" message (Figure 3). The “Here I Am” message would be a subset of the full V2V message. Portable navigation systems are prevalent, and many smaller consumer devices also have navigation applications. "Here I Am" messages are continually emitted when these devices are turned on, and do not require any driver interface. Safety could be significantly increased by notifying other vehicles of the location of a vehicle that contains a "Hear I Am" device.

Figure 3 – Vehicle Emitting a “Here I Am Message” - U.S. DOT Image

Aftermarket devices have access to power, communication (typically cell) and location via GPS. This basic data, plus a little more, constitutes the “Here I Am” message. The V2V message includes all of this information, plus more robust data that is available directly from vehicle systems. The differences in message content will determine the type of applications that can be supported. “Here I Am” messages will probably have limitations in their capabilities; they will likely not have access to data from internal vehicle electronic systems. On the other hand, there is much that could potentially be accomplished with these simple messages. In addition, the presence of “Here I Am”- equipped devices would provide increased early benefit to fully equipped V2V vehicles, which could sense the location of an emitting device.

The V2V research program includes testing and validation of aftermarket DSRC devices and their potential benefit for owners of both vehicles and devices. If the research shows that these devices are effective, the market penetration dilemma may be diminished. If not, then other options need to be pursued (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The Fleet Penetration Dilemma - U.S. DOT Image

DOT supports a two pronged approach to the dilemma of accelerating market penetration: test the potential of DSRC-enabled aftermarket devices and continue to advance research on technology embedded in vehicles.

Dilemma #3: How Can Financial and Logistical Challenges Be Overcome to Achieve Sufficient Infrastructure Deployment?

Again, new research results provide new opportunities. As V2V research progresses, one of the key questions under investigation is the need for infrastructure to support V2V applications.

V2V applications are inherently about communication between vehicles. Does that require any infrastructure? Initial indications from the research indicate that some infrastructure is needed to support data security. Communications security is essential for critical safety applications - but what type of communications is needed, and what is the density of infrastructure required? These questions are still subject to study and refinement. Preliminary results are beginning to emerge that seem to indicate that communications for data security will not require DSRC; other communication technologies might be used. Further research is ongoing, but if this proves out, then it may be possible to achieve a large portion of the safety vision without requiring new DSRC infrastructure (Figure 5). It is too early to know with certainty, but the results of this research may lead to new opportunities, without some of the difficulties that greater infrastructure needs would imply.

Figure 5: Vehicle to Infrastructure Communication May Not Require DSRC for Basic Functionality (Security) - U.S. DOT Image

What would that mean for V2I applications? Clearly V2I technologies have the potential to address crash types that cannot be addressed otherwise. As mentioned earlier, V2I is uniquely suited to address intersection and road departure crashes around sharp curves. If research shows that pervasive infrastructure is not needed for V2V, then V2I applications potentially could be pursued for high-crash locations, such as signalized intersections and sharp curves. In this scenario, with infrastructure deployment limited to "spot safety" applications, far fewer than 300,000 roadside equipment units using DSRC would be needed (Figure 6).

Figure 6: The Infrastructure Deployment Dilemma - U.S. DOT Image

The infrastructure deployment challenge is lessened if DSRC is not needed for basic functionality (security) of the system, but can be applied for spot safety applications – enable gradual deployment over time.

Further research is required to explore V2I application development, testing, and validation of effectiveness, and is included in the ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014. Stakeholders are particularly interested in the potential to equip traffic signals with DSRC communications to emit a frequent message about signal status - which is termed “SPaT” (signal phase and timing) - the equivalent of a traffic signal “Here I Am” message (Figure 7).

Intuitively, SPaT data appears to provide the basis for several applications that would support safety and mobility. Additionally, it may provide early benefits for infrastructure-based technologies and spur their implementation. As more traffic signals with DSRC communications capability are deployed, this data can be captured for mobility applications as a supplement to other wireless and conventional transportation data.

Figure 7: Vehicle to Infrastructure Communication with Traffic Signals Using DSRC May be Valuable for some Safety and Mobility Applications - U.S. DOT Image


In the early stages of VII, it was understood that mobility applications that used vehicle-based communications did not need the same communications requirements as safety applications. In fact, only the most rigorous safety applications needed DSRC at 5.9GHz. Mobility applications had been a part of the original VII Program only because the spectrum could support BOTH safety and mobility simultaneously. If the DSRC radio was required for safety applications, the reasoning went, it could also be used for mobility. This was a rational approach for the initial program; however, technology innovations provided new opportunities.

Driven by the consumer marketplace, entrepreneurs have been using signals from cell phones to capture location data that could be converted into useful information for transportation applications. Other innovators are leveraging wireless equipment in vehicle fleets to capture traffic data. This data, already available, approximates the mobility data that could potentially be captured through V2I.

It now appears that the original mobility goals can be substantially realized using data from non-DSRC sources, while accommodating future DSRC data. Data from wireless sources is already being combined with data being collected by public sector agencies. Today these public sector data are collected by conventional equipment, such as loop detectors, traffic cameras, ramp meters and traffic signals. The challenge for the future is to increase the amount of data available and integrated for multiple uses. For instance, it remains a challenge to integrate data from multiple agencies to provide information across various modes or various jurisdictions within a connected region. Enhancing the quantity and quality of available data and the ability to combine data is likely to fuel new applications that could lead to revolutionary mobility improvements. Considerable research is required to understand user data requirements; to explore data quality issues related to new data sources; to understand how to integrate newer data with conventional data; and, finally, to develop applications for public sector use (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Achieving the IntelliDrive Vision for Mobility Applications - U.S. DOT Image

Achieving the IntelliDrive vision for mobility depends on the ability to combine data from multiple existing and new sources and use it in revolutionary new ways

The ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 includes two new programs to address these research questions: the Real-Time Data Capture and Management research program, and the Dynamic Mobility Applications research program.

The objective of the Real-Time Data Capture and Management research program is to enable the development of environments that support the collection, management, integration, and application of real-time transportation data. Some of the data types that can be captured and managed include: situational safety; environmental conditions; congestion data; and cost information (derived from both traditional sources - traffic management centers, Automated Vehicle Location systems; and non-traditional sources - mobile devices, IntelliDrive applications). Data also can be collected from toll facilities, parking facilities, and transit stations. The results of the Real-Time Data Capture and Management research program will reveal opportunities for achieving greater efficiencies within our transportation systems.

Dynamic Mobility Applications is a closely related research program. This program will seek to answer the question, “What do we do with all this data if we have it?” Key objectives include development of multi-modal applications targeted to public sector managers, leveraging the abundance of new data that is possible from wireless technology. DOT will work with stakeholders to identify a few high-value applications and test them in real-world environments to assess their effectiveness. The intent is to focus on applications that are of specific value to public agencies across all modes. Consumer applications will be left to private companies.

IntelliDrive also will create the capability for location-specific messages to be relayed back to individual vehicles - for instance, traffic, weather, school zone, speed limit, or road closure information. This would make other forms of message delivery, such as variable message signs, 511 systems, highway advisory radio, etc. less critical in the future - saving local agencies money. Ensuring safe, non-distracting, message delivery methods is a critical part of the ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014.

Other Vexing Issues

In addition to the challenges described above, other vexing issues must be addressed. The POC test accomplished a great deal by developing and testing the technical foundation needed to support IntelliDrive. However, many technical issues will need to be addressed to achieve a system that can be effectively implemented and is financially feasible. Discussed below are some of the particularly difficult remaining technical issues. Research to address these issues is under way. The ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 describes how the results of the technical research will be used to systematically resolve the issues into implementable solutions.

  • Data security: For IntelliDrive to be successful, data being transmitted wirelessly needs to be secure. Many questions remain around data security: What level of security is needed? What are the communications requirements? How much of what type of infrastructure is needed for secure data transmission? What are the tradeoffs between data security requirements and privacy principles?
  • Positioning: Positioning, or the precision and accuracy of locating a wireless device, is another challenging issue. V2V technologies require relative positioning ("Where is the other vehicle relative to me?"), whereas V2I communications require absolute positioning ("Where is the vehicle? On which road? In which lane? Where in the lane?"). Initial research indicates that relative positioning using equipment from a single GPS manufacturer may be reasonable; however, relative positioning using equipment from different GPS manufacturers may be more problematic. For V2V to work, relative positioning must be uniform and fully addressed to support safety applications.
  • Scalability: Another uncertainty of the IntelliDrive approach is whether these technologies, assuming they perform well in limited pilot and field operational tests, will be able to accommodate all 250+ million vehicles in the United States. The VII POC test involved only a small number of vehicles with prototype equipment. More extensive tests are needed to identify any issues for the communication network at full scale.

In addition to these and other technical issues, policy issues also remain. Many of these issues must be addressed iteratively, as technical research results inform policy options. Among the most complex policy issues are these:

  • Balancing technical data security requirements with privacy principles: The handling of security “certificates,” the frequency of certificate renewal, the use of multiple certificates, and the handling of fraudulent messages all require careful consideration and balancing of security requirements with privacy concerns. The VII Privacy Principles have served as a basis for technical design. As the design, particularly for security, is further developed, the implications for privacy will need to be fully considered.
  • Certification and enforcement: The IntelliDrive concept depends on interoperability of components developed by various manufacturers based on open standards. Purchasers must be able to trust that equipment does indeed work within the system as intended. A transparent process must be in place to instill this trust – whether it is based on self certification by manufacturers or some level of testing and oversight by outside entities. This issue is especially significant for active safety applications that are intended to safeguard against a crash. There may also be some authority or operating entity involved in issuing security certificates to system users. An approach for these oversight and authority issues needs to be developed.
  • Funding: At present, there are many unanswered questions about the ultimate structure that an IntelliDrive system would take, and whether it would be built and operated by the public or private sectors or through a partnership. Multiple developers and operators is another possibility. Regardless, there will be a cost for building and operating the system. Funding requirements and potential sources will need to be identified and assessed to determine feasibility.

These are just a few of the particularly difficult policy issues. Narrowing policy and technical options will require an iterative process that will include discussion and balancing of benefits, costs and societal acceptance.


Achieving the Vision

Much has changed with the metamorphosis of DOT’s VII Program into IntelliDrive. But what has not changed is the vision that these programs seek to achieve: dramatic improvements in safety and the potential for revolutionary improvements in mobility. A third major goal was added most recently - decreasing transportation’s impact on the environment.

While the vision remains the same, new opportunities have emerged to address the three major shortcomings of the VII approach. IntelliDrive embraces a multi-pathway approach that uses DSRC capabilities for safety; and explores aftermarket DSRC devices for their ability to more quickly provide benefits through faster penetration into the vehicle fleet. IntelliDrive also takes advantage of data collected by non-DSRC devices for mobility applications.

The broader IntelliDrive approach is designed to address the three dilemmas of the “chicken and egg” impasse between vehicle and infrastructure deployment; market penetration in vehicles; and the institutional and policy issues associated with infrastructure deployment. Many additional technical and policy issues remain to be addressed, but work is under way (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Achieving the IntelliDrive Vision ― the Full Concept - U.S. DOT Image

Safety, mobility, weather and environmental applications take different paths to achieving the IntelliDrive vision, but may ultimately converge in the use of DSRC over time.

The ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 is designed to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by advancing technology, and to do so in a way that specifically addresses the remaining research questions that need to be answered to ensure implementation of the full suite of applications that comprise IntelliDrive.

IntelliDrive is new next evolution of VII. It opens the research scope to new opportunities, while continuing to pursue the original goal of materializing the safety, mobility and environmental benefits that captivate our imaginations and motivate our work.

For more information about the ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014, please visit:http://www.its.dot.gov/strat_plan/index.htm

For more information about IntelliDrive, please visit: http://www.its.dot.gov/intellidrive/index.htm

Recently Deleted page - Google cache from May 6th 2011 RITA | ITS | Vehicle Infrastructure Integration

http://www.its.dot.gov/images/title_bckgnd.jpg); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII)

What It Is

The VII Initiative is a cooperative effort among USDOT, state governments, and the automobile industry to support development of an information infrastructure for ongoing real-time data communications with and among vehicles to enable a number of safety, mobility, and commercial applications. An implemented VII network will enable travelers to access traffic condition and routing information for multiple modes of travel, receive warnings about imminent hazards, and conduct commercial transactions within their vehicles. Transportationagencies will have access to data needed to better manage traffic operations, support planning, and more efficiently manage maintenance services. The goals of the VII initiative are to (1) assess the value; (2) determine the technical feasibility, economic viability, and social acceptance; and (3) conduct research needed to support development of a VII network.

America ’s roadways have a safety and congestion problem. Vehicle crashes account for more than 42,000 deaths per year. Urban surface transportation congestion is estimated at $80 billion per year. Fifteen years of ITS research have indicated that traffic condition and roadway information can have a tangible and significant positive impact on these statistics. Furthermore, new technology, enabling active safety applications, such as advanced warnings to drivers approaching a patch of ice or merging into another car, have the potential to provide whole new levels of safety benefits.

Current Status

USDOT’s VII program is divided into three phases:

  • Phase I - Operational testing and demonstration (SafeTrip-21)
  • Phase II - Research in the areas of enabling technology, institutional issues, and applications to support deployment
  • Phase III - Technology scanning to determine potential new technology horizons for VII

In December 2007, USDOT announced SafeTrip-21—Safe and Efficient Travel through Innovation and Partnerships in the 21 st Century. This multi-application field test of safety and congestion-reducing technologies will be launched at the Intelligent Transportation Systems World Congress in New York City from November 16-18, 2008 and then integrated into other test locations. SafeTrip-21 builds upon research into the use of information, navigation, and communications technologies to prevent accidents and alleviate congestion by providing drivers with real-time safety warnings, traffic and transit information, and advanced navigational tools. SafeTrip-21 will accelerate testing and deployment of these capabilities.

Phase II continues the foundational research necessary to determine the viability of a nationwide VII deployment decision. Significant work has been done in partnership with automakers, equipment suppliers, and State and local governments in assessing potential technology and applications. Concept testing is being conducted in Michigan, California, Virginia, Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and New York. Privacy principles and related technical requirements have been developed. Study of other legal and institutional issues is underway, and work has begun to explore potential deployment scenarios and business models. Phase III will be an ongoing scanning activity to make sure that the vehicle infrastructure integration initiative continues to plan for and use the best available technology over time.

FHWA-JPO-08-016 ITS EDL 14086

For more information go to: http://www.its.dot.gov/vii/index.htm or http://www.vehicle-infrastructure.org/

Syndicate content