Federal Register Vol. 80, No.30,

I. Introduction

Section 2222 of EGRPRA 1 requires that not less frequently than once every 10 years, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC),2 along with the Agencies,3 conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.4 The EGRPRA regulatory review provides an opportunity for the public and the Agencies to look at groups of related regulations and to identify opportunities for burden reduction. For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of statutes and regulations that share similar goals or complementary methods where one or more Agencies could eliminate overlapping requirements. Alternatively, commenters may identify regulations or statutes that impose requirements that are no longer consistent with the way that business is conducted and that, therefore, the Agencies might eliminate.

The EGRPRA review also provides the Agencies and the public with an opportunity to consider how to reduce burden in general, but especially on community banks and other small, insured depository institutions or holding companies. We are keenly aware of the role that these institutions play in providing consumers and businesses across the nation with essential financial services and access to credit, and we are concerned about the impact of regulatory burden on these smaller institutions. We understand that when an Agency issues a new regulation or amends a current regulation, smaller institutions may have to devote considerable resources to determine if and how the regulation will affect them. Through the public comment process, the EGRPRA review can help the Agencies identify and target regulatory changes to reduce unnecessary burden on these smaller institutions.

Burden reduction must be consistent with the Agencies' statutory mandates, many of which require the issuance of regulations. This includes ensuring the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions, their affiliates, and the financial system as a whole. EGRPRA recognizes that effective burden reduction may require legislative change. Accordingly, as part of this review, we specifically ask the public to comment on the relationships among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, and statutory mandates.

In addition, we note that the Agencies also consider the burden imposed each time we propose, adopt, or amend a rule. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agencies assess each rulemaking with respect to the burdens the rule might impose. Furthermore, we invite the public to comment on every rule we propose, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Taken together for purposes of EGRPRA, the Agencies' regulations covering insured depository institutions encompass more than 100 subjects.5 Consistent with the EGRPRA statute, the Agencies have grouped these regulations into the following 12 regulatory categories:

Applications and Reporting; Banking Operations; Capital; Community Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection;6 Directors, Officers and Employees; International Operations; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; Safety and Soundness; and Securities. To determine these categories, we divided the regulations by type and sought to have no category be too large or broad.

To carry out the EGRPRA review, the Agencies plan to publish four Federal Register notices, each addressing one or more categories of rules. Each Federal Register notice will have a 90-day comment period. On June 4, 2014, the Agencies published the first such notice, seeking comment on three categories of rules: Applications and Reporting, Powers and Activities, and International Operations.7 Today, we are publishing the second notice, addressing the Banking Operations, Capital, and the Community Reinvestment Act categories of regulations. We invite the public to identify outdated, otherwise unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their holding companies in these three categories.

To assist the public's understanding of how we have organized the EGRPRA review, the Agencies have included a table in Section IV that lists the three categories of regulations for which we are requesting comments. On the table, the left column divides the categories into specific subject-matter areas. The headings at the top of the table identify the types of institutions affected by the regulations.

After comments have been received, the Agencies will review the comments and decide whether further action is appropriate with respect to the regulations. The Agencies will make this decision jointly in the case of rules that we have issued on an interagency basis. Similarly, we will undertake any rulemaking to amend or repeal those rules on an interagency basis. For rules issued by a single agency, the issuing agency will review the comments received and independently determine whether amendments to or repeal of its rules are appropriate. If so, that Agency will initiate a rulemaking to effect such change. In all cases, the Agencies will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed amendment to or repeal of a regulation, as required by the APA.

Further, as part of the EGRPRA review, the Agencies are holding a series of outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested persons to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the Agencies on any of the categories of regulations in the EGRPRA review.8 More information about the outreach meetings can be found on the Agencies' EGRPRA Web site, http://egrpra.ffiec.gov.

Finally, EGRPRA also requires the FFIEC or the Agencies to publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying significant issues raised and commenting on these issues. It also directs the Agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate. The statute additionally requires the FFIEC to submit to Congress a report that summarizes any significant issues raised in the public comments and the relative merits of such issues. The report also must include an analysis of whether the Agencies are able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues or whether these burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

In response to the First Notice, the Agencies received approximately 40 comments from financial institutions, industry trade groups, consumer advocacy groups, and other members of the public. The Agencies will carefully consider those comments, including the issues raised and the suggestions made, and discuss them in the EGRPRA report to Congress and as part of any rulemaking to which they relate.

In addition to comments regarding the regulations contained in the First Notice, the Agencies also received comments about the EGRPRA Review Process. First, we received comments concerning which of the Agencies' rules are included in the review. As explained above, we have not included in this review those rules that will go into effect during the EGRPRA review, new regulations that have only recently gone into effect, or rules that we have yet to implement fully. The Agencies consider burden when adopting regulations. In addition, the Agencies, financial institutions, and the public need the benefit of experience with these regulations in order to assess their effect on insured depository institutions.

We also received comments on which agencies participate in the EGRPRA review. As explained above, only the OCC, Board, and FDIC are statutorily required to undertake this review. Although other agencies may undertake regulatory reviews, those reviews are separate and distinct from this review. Finally, we received comments about whether the consumer regulations transferred to the CFPB by the Dodd-Frank Act are included in the EGRPRA review. The Agencies will seek comment only on those consumer regulations for which they retain rulemaking authority following passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, such as the fair housing advertising and recordkeeping, flood insurance, safeguarding customer information, and identity theft rules.9

As noted previously, the Agencies are asking the public to comment on regulations in the Banking Operations, Capital, and the Community Reinvestment Act categories to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their regulated holding companies. Where possible, we ask commenters to cite to specific regulatory language or provisions. We also welcome suggested alternative provisions or language in support of a comment, where appropriate. Where implementation of a suggestion would require modification of a statute, we ask the commenter to identify the statute and the needed change, where possible.

The Agencies note that recently promulgated rules 10 amended, directly or by reference, several rules listed in the Capital category of the table published with the First Notice. The changes either went into effect in 2014 or will go into effect during 2015. Consistent with the above-described EGRPRA Review Process,11 the Capital category in the table clarifies the specific regulations on which we are requesting comment. Where the table in the First Notice listed general subject-matter areas in the Capital category, the table in this notice provides citations to the specific sections that the Agencies are including in this review.

Specific issues for commenters to consider. The Agencies specifically invite comment on the following issues as they pertain to the Agencies' Banking Operations, Capital, and Community Reinvestment Act rules addressed in this notice.

• Need for statutory change. (1) Do any statutory requirements underlying the rules in these categories impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements? (2) If so, please identify the statutes and indicate how they should be amended.

• Need and purpose of the regulations. (1) Have there been changes in the financial services industry, consumer behavior, or other circumstances that cause any regulations in these categories to be outdated or otherwise unnecessary? (2) If so, please identify and indicate how they should be amended. (3) Do any of these regulations impose burdens not required by their underlying statutes? (4) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Overarching approaches/flexibility. (1) With respect to the regulations in these categories, could an Agency use a different approach to lessen the burden imposed by the regulations and achieve statutory intent? (2) Do any of these rules impose unnecessarily inflexible requirements? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Effect on competition. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes create competitive disadvantages for one part of the financial services industry compared to another or for one type of insured depository institution compared to another? (2) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Reporting, recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes in these categories impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements on insured depository institutions or their holding companies? (2) Could a financial institution fulfill any of these requirements electronically (if they are not already permitted to do so) and experience burden reduction? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Unique characteristics of a type of institution. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes in these categories impose requirements that are unwarranted by the unique characteristics of a particular type of insured depository institution or holding company? (2) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Clarity. (1) Are the regulations in these categories clear and easy to understand? (2) Are there specific regulations for which clarification is needed? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Burden on community banks and other smaller, insured depository institutions. (1) Are there regulations or underlying statutes in these categories that impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary requirements on a substantial number of community banks or other smaller, insured depository institutions or holding companies? (2) Have the Agencies issued regulations pursuant to a common statute that, as applied by the Agencies, create redundancies or impose inconsistent requirements? (3) Should any of these regulations be amended or repealed in order to minimize this impact? (4) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Scope of rules. (1) Is the scope of each rule in these categories consistent with the intent of the underlying statute(s)? (2) Could we amend the scope of a rule to clarify its applicability or reduce burden, while remaining faithful to statutory intent? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0085; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-078-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0062, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0085.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-78-3021, Revision 03, dated October 15, 2014. Aircelle has issued Service Bulletin 78-AG924, dated September 26, 2012. This service information describes procedures for modifying and marking the sleeves for hinges number 3 and number 4 on the cowl doors of Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

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

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-78-3021, Revision 03, dated October 15, 2014, include procedures and tests that are identified as RC (required for compliance) because these procedures have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-78-3021, Revision 03, dated October 15, 2014, procedures and tests identified as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operators' maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 29 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $59,160, or $2,465 per product.

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

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

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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0083; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-131-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0127, dated May 15, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes; and all A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0083.

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014, which provides procedures for inspection of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3548, dated October 31, 2013, which provides procedures for reinforcement of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014, which provides procedures for inspection of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4354, dated October 31, 2013, which provides procedures for reinforcement of cockpit instrument panel bracket 6.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

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

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3538, Revision 02, dated April 24, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4351, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2014; include procedures and tests that are identified as RC (required for compliance) because these procedures have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests identified as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $51,680, or $680 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the follow-on repairs specified in this AD.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on replacements would take about 23 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,955 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

We estimate that the optional modification would take about 9 work hours and require parts costing $1,770, for a cost of $2,535.

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

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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0199, dated September 05, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The corrective actions include a repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

We reviewed the following Airbus service information:

• Airbus A300 Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W002-14, dated April 02, 2014.

• Airbus A300 AOT A57W003-14, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014.

Airbus A300 Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W002-14, dated April 02, 2014, describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the FR40 forward fitting on A300 aircraft post MOD 10453S20571. Airbus A300 AOT A57W003-14, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014, describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the FR40 forward fitting on A300-600 aircraft pre MOD 10221S20394 and post MOD 10453S20571. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,630, or $255 per product.

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

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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

The current Federal oil valuation regulations have been in effect since 2000, with a subsequent amendment relating, primarily, to the use of index pricing in some circumstances. The current Federal gas valuation regulations have been in effect since March 1, 1988, with various subsequent amendments relating, primarily, to the transportation allowance provisions. The current Federal and Indian coal valuation regulations have been in effect since March 1, 1989, with minor subsequent amendments relating, primarily, to the Federal black lung excise taxes, abandoned mine lands fees, State and local severance taxes, and washing and transportation allowance provisions. In the years since we wrote these regulations, the Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary) responsibility to determine the royalty value of minerals produced has not changed, but the industry and marketplace have changed dramatically. ONRR proposes these amendments to our valuation regulations to permit the Secretary to discharge the Department of the Interior's (Department) royalty valuation responsibility in an environment of continuing and accelerating change in the industry and in the marketplace. The Secretary's responsibilities regarding oil and gas production from Federal leases and coal production from Federal and Indian leases require the development of flexible valuation methodologies that lessees can accurately comply with in a timely manner.

To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our rules, ONRR is proposing proactive and innovative changes. We intend for this proposed rulemaking to provide regulations that (1) offer greater simplicity, certainty, clarity, and consistency in product valuation for mineral lessees and mineral revenue recipients; (2) are more understandable; (3) decrease industry's cost of compliance and ONRR's cost to ensure industry compliance; and (4) provide early certainty to industry and to ONRR that companies have paid every dollar due. Therefore, ONRR proposes to amend the current regulations at 30 CFR part 1202, subpart F, and part 1206, subparts C, D, F, and J, governing the valuation, for royalty purposes, of oil, gas, and coal produced from Federal leases and coal produced from Indian leases.

ONRR received requests for an extension to the comment deadline for this proposed rule. This action extends the comment period until May 8, 2015. ONRR believes that this extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. ONRR will review and carefully consider all comments that we receive on the proposed rule.

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2014-1011] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-1011) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.506 were last amended on July 21, 2014 (79 FR 42197).

This rulemaking is authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. It updates the list of permanent special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones at 33 CFR 165.506, established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays at various locations within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR). The Fifth Coast Guard District AOR is defined in 33 CFR 3.25.

Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes efficiency and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring marine events and fireworks displays and their accompanying regulations, special local regulations, and safety zones.

This rule would add 2 new special local regulations for marine events, remove 1 regulation and revise 10 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 2 new special local regulations. The proposed special local regulations are listed in TABLE 1, including reference by section as printed in the TABLE to § 100.501.

One previously published special local regulation for marine event would be removed from 33 CFR 100.501, i.e. “Ragin on the River” power boat race that took place on the Susquehanna River, near Port Deposit, MD.

This rule would revise 10 preexisting special local regulations that involves change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in TABLE 2, with reference by section as printed in the TABLE to § 100.501.

Based on the nature of marine events, large number of participants and spectators, and event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of participant injury or death resulting from near or actual contact with non-participant vessels traversing through the regulated areas. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.

This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commander may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.

This rule would add 6 new safety zones, remove 1 safety zone and revise 11 previously established safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise the regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by adding 6 new safety zone locations to the permanent regulations listed in this section. The new safety zones are listed in TABLE 3, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

One safety zone would be removed from 33 CFR 165.506, specifically, the fireworks display that took place over the Potomac River, near Newburg, MD.

The rule would revise 11 preexisting safety zones that involves change to event date(s) and coordinates. These revised safety zones are shown in Table 4, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.

The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in these regulated areas during the times the zones are enforced.

These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas will be given, except during the period that the Coast Guard patrol vessel is present. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this section of the rule.

This rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

A. Authority. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly and hereinafter referred to as Public Law 84-99, authorizes an emergency fund to be expended at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers for: Preparation for natural disasters; flood fighting and rescue operations; repair or restoration of flood control works threatened, damaged, or destroyed by flood, or nonstructural alternatives thereto; emergency protection of federally authorized hurricane or shore protection projects which are threatened, when such protection is warranted to protect against imminent and substantial loss to life and property; and repair and restoration of federally authorized hurricane and shore protection projects damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water of other than ordinary nature. The law includes provision of emergency supplies of clean water when a contaminated source threatens the public health and welfare of a locality, and activities necessary to protect life and improved property from a threat resulting from a major flood or coastal storm. This law authorizes the Secretary of the Army (Secretary) to construct wells and to transport water within areas determined by the Secretary to be drought-distressed. The Secretary of the Army has delegated the authority vested in the Secretary under Public Law 84-99 through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to the Chief of Engineers, subject to such further direction as the Secretary may provide.

B. Need for Revision. The Code of Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part 203, details administrative policies, guidance, and operating procedures for the Public Law 84-99 program and was last revised in 2003, 68 FR 19357-01, 21 April 2003. Since then, significant disasters, including Hurricane Sandy (2012), flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013) and Hurricane Katrina (2005), provided information regarding system performance and the need for improved system and community resilience that should be considered in formulating revised Pub. L. 84-99 rehabilitation policies. A more detailed understanding of the nature and severity of risk associated with flood control projects and the development of risk-informed decision making approaches and other technological advancements have influenced the outlook about how Pub. L. 84-99 activities could be implemented with a shift towards better alignment with USACE's Levee Safety and National Flood Risk Management Programs as well as the National Preparedness and Response Frameworks. Both of these USACE programs work with non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess, communicate and manage the risks to people, property, and the environment associated with levee systems and flood risks. Additionally, significant input from state and federal agencies, stakeholders, and other interested parties regarding the challenges of satisfying USACE vegetation management guidelines in light of the needs of listed threatened and endangered species caused USACE to reevaluate using technical criteria to determine active status in the Public Law 84-99 Rehabilitation Program.

The following reference material is available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov to assist the public in reviewing this ANPR and providing comments.

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, but will be of particular interest to a wide variety of organizations, to include tribal, state, and local emergency management agencies, water resource agencies, environmental and fish and wildlife management agencies and organizations, floodplain and levee safety managers, and non-federal interests (this term should be understood to include “non-federal sponsors” as used in 33 U.S.C. 701n and as defined at 33 CFR 203.15) with flood control works and hurricane or shore protection projects.

B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for Submission? Commenters not familiar with current policy should review the references cited above available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference a specific paragraph or subparagraph of 33 CFR part 203 or one of the questions or issues in Section IV below. If the subject of the comment is not addressed in either the current CFR or the questions and issues below, then the commenter should clearly state the issue or concern, provide or reference any supporting documentation (e.g., reports, statistical data, and studies), and make a proposal or recommendation about how to improve the current policy.

C. What Is the Intent of USACE in this Rulemaking Effort? The intent of USACE is to revise and update 33 CFR part 203 so that it incorporates new information from recent storm events and better aligns with the current strategy of the USACE National Flood Risk Management Program and Levee Safety Program, while following these guiding principles:

1. Effective risk management and levee safety includes working with non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess, communicate, and manage life-safety risks.

2. Federal assistance under authority of Pub. L. 84-99 supplements tribal, state, and local efforts, and does not replace them.

3. Non-federal sponsors have primary responsibility for operations and maintenance (O&M) of flood control works and risk communication activities associated with their projects.

4. USACE will promote the use of a risk-informed decision making process to guide non-federal sponsors O&M activities and inspection activities for flood control projects.

5. USACE will encourage a collaborative approach to address complex natural resources issues, tribal treaty rights, and complex systemic deficiencies.

6. USACE will work to develop policies and procedures that maintain the benefits of any federal investment(s).

1. Advance Measures. USACE may undertake emergency measures in advance of imminent threats of unusual flooding. The current eligibility criteria are listed in 33 CFR 203.72.

(a) USACE may perform Advance Measures prior to flooding or flood fighting activities to protect against loss of life and significant damages to urban areas and public facilities due to an imminent threat of unusual flooding. Advance Measures assistance may be technical and/or direct assistance. Technical assistance may include: providing personnel to inspect projects to identify problems and solutions and requirements for additional flood protection; provide existing hydraulic, hydrologic, structural and/or geotechnical analysis; provide existing information to local entities for use in evacuation or contingency flood fight plans. Typically direct assistance will be temporary in nature, using temporary construction standard and methods, technically feasible, designed to deal effectively with the specific threat, and capable of construction in time to prevent projected damages. To be eligible for Advance Measures a public sponsor must agree to execute a cooperative agreement (CA), and, at no cost to USACE, when the operation is over, remove all temporary advance measures constructed by USACE or agree to upgrade the work to standards acceptable to USACE. In addition, the public sponsor is responsible for providing the traditional lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and borrow and dredged or excavated materials disposal areas (LERRDs) necessary for the project, at its own expense, in accordance with the CA.

• Question 1: What (if any) additional types of Advance Measures assistance should be considered?

• Question 2: What (if any) additional eligibility or performance requirements should be considered generally for Advance Measures assistance?

(b) Permanent structures constructed as Advance Measures are currently cost shared at 75 percent federal and 25 percent local with the LERRDs necessary for the project provided at no cost to the federal government. However, flood control works constructed under other USACE authorities have a minimum cost share of 65 percent federal and 35 percent local with credit provided for the LERRDs necessary for the project. USACE is considering changing the cost share for permanent structures constructed as part of Advance Measures to be consistent with other authorities and to encourage non-federal interests to develop permanent structures through the standard USACE planning process for new projects so that full cost and benefit analyses can be conducted and appropriate public comments considered.

Question 3: Would changing the cost share serve as an effective incentive for promotion of the standard USACE planning process? If not, what other incentives or requirements for using the standard USACE planning process for permanent construction should be considered?

1. Eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance. USACE is considering changing the criteria used to determine eligibility for rehabilitation assistance (commonly known as Active status under 33 CFR 203.41) for flood control projects from a strict, condition-based overall inspection rating of the project to a broader set of actions by non-federal sponsors such as emergency preparedness planning, flood risk communication, and implementation of risk-prioritized O&M activities. USACE is considering these changes to: 1) promote risk-informed, cost effective prioritization of risk management activities; 2) encourage community awareness of risks and promote a broad set of flood risk management activities to manage risk; 3) encourage dialogue and problem solving between USACE and non-federal sponsors, and 4) provide flexibility to align flood risk management activities with requirements to protect and restore natural resources.

Question 4: What should USACE evaluate to determine if a non-federal sponsor is adequately operating and maintaining its flood control project? What should be considered adequate operations and management for eligibility purposes?

Question 5: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's emergency preparedness, notification, evacuation planning and exercise plan and activities to determine if they are adequate? What should USACE evaluate? What should be considered adequate?

Question 6: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's risk communications plan and activities for informing local officials, residents, and business owners about risks associated with the potential failure of the flood control project (e.g., a levee breach)?

Question 7: Are there other criteria that USACE should consider using to determine eligibility for rehabilitation assistance that would assist and encourage non-federal sponsors and flood-prone communities to reduce their risks from flooding?

2. Improving Collaboration to Address Complicated Natural Resources Challenges and System-Wide Repairs. USACE intends to incorporate the System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) policy into 33 CFR part 203. The SWIF allows non-federal sponsors (currently, of levees and floodwalls only) to retain eligibility for rehabilitation assistance while actively conducting longer-term, system-wide improvement activities that are beyond the scope of usual O&M activities. This includes activities related to complex, serious or systemic deficiencies, addressing complex natural resources challenges such as threatened or endangered species, undocumented encroachments, and tribal treaty rights, all of which require additional time and coordination beyond what is normally allowed under current policy. The purpose is to ensure the imperatives of public safety, tribal rights, and environmental principles are met while still reducing the risk from floods.

Question 8: What improvements to the existing SWIF policy should be made?

Question 9: Currently, the SWIF policy has only been used for levee projects. Should the SWIF concept be applied to other types of flood control projects like channels? If so, for what purposes and using what criteria?

Question 10: If the eligibility for rehabilitation assistance moves away from a standards-based inspection criteria and moves toward an activities-based approach (as is considered in Section B.1 above), what role should the SWIF policy play? Under what circumstances would development of a SWIF be useful to non-federal sponsors?

3. Mitigating Impacts to Threatened or Endangered Species and Tribal Treaty Rights During Project Rehabilitation. USACE is considering allowing additional types of features and approaches that can be incorporated into rehabilitation efforts to minimize or address impacts to threatened and endangered species and impacts on tribal treaty rights. Features currently being considered include planting berms, set back levees, and overbuilt sections.

Question 11: Are there other types of features and approaches that USACE should allow during rehabilitation efforts to minimize or address impacts on threatened and endangered species and tribal treaty rights while still providing the intended benefits of the flood control projects and reducing the risk of loss of life and significant economic damages?

4. Early identification of Nonstructural Alternative Projects (NSAPs). USACE currently has the authority to undertake a nonstructural alternative project in lieu of a structural rehabilitation effort at the request of the non-federal sponsor and in accordance with 33 CFR Section 203.50. However, 15 years of experience shows that NSAPs can be difficult to implement in the immediate aftermath of a flood. Challenges to NSAP implementation include difficulties in obtaining easements, land transfers, and municipal permits, as well as legal limitations of some non-federal sponsors, and a lack of public awareness. USACE is considering how to enable non-federal interests to identify viable NSAPs prior to a flood event so that the non-federal sponsors may be able to effectively implement as viable NSAPS an alternative to structural rehabilitation efforts after a flood event.

Question 12: What advance planning activities could USACE undertake with non-federal interests to enable non-federal interests to consider NSAPs as viable alternatives to structural rehabilitation efforts if the project is damaged in a future flood event?

Question 13: How can the current NSAP policy be improved?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), USACE must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

After consideration of Executive Orders 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Because this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for USACE to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on this ANPR, you may include any comments or information that could help the Agency to assess the potential impact of a subsequent regulatory action on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or to consider potential impacts to state and local governments or tribal governments. USACE will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent rulemaking.

This rulemaking proposes to approve Alabama's noninterference demonstration, submitted on November 14, 2014, in support of the State's request that EPA relax the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year (i.e., during high ozone season) in the Area. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision which includes a technical demonstration that changing the federal RVP requirements in this Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.1 It should be noted that when Alabama requested that EPA redesignate the Birmingham Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the State took a conservative approach for the associated maintenance demonstrations and modeled the 9.0 psi RVP requirement for this Area rather than the 7.8 psi RVP requirement currently in place. While the State had already accounted for the use of fuel with an RVP of 9.0 psi in the maintenance plans to support those redesignation requests, the State did not, at that time, request the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area. Alabama is now requesting the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for this Area and, as part of that request, has reevaluated whether removal of this requirement would interfere with air quality in the Area. To make this demonstration, Alabama completed a technical analysis to estimate the change in emissions that would result from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel based on current conditions. EPA has reviewed this technical analysis and is proposing to find that Alabama's technical demonstration supports the conclusion that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Birmingham Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

This preamble is hereinafter organized into five parts. Section II provides the background of the Birmingham Area designation status with respect to the various ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the applicable history of federal gasoline regulation. Section IV provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards. Section V provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by Alabama to support a change for the conventional gasoline volatility standard in the Birmingham Area.

The Birmingham Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The Birmingham nonattainment area at that time was geographically defined as Jefferson County, Alabama. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law under section 181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the Birmingham nonattainment area as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone and added Shelby County to the nonattainment area. See 56 FR 56693. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in section III, below, a 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirement first applied to the Area during the high ozone season given its status as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard. Subsequently, in order to comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Alabama opted to implement a state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone season. EPA incorporated the state RVP requirement of 7.0 psi for gasoline sold in the Birmingham Area into the Alabama SIP on November 7, 2001. See 66 FR 56218.

ADEM originally requested a redesignation of the Birmingham Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1997. EPA disapproved this request on September 19, 1997, due to a violation of the ozone NAAQS. See 62 FR 49154. Subsequently, the Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone on March 12, 2004, based on 2001-2003 ambient air quality monitoring data. See 69 FR 11798. Alabama's 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request to remove the 7.0 psi state RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area from the SIP nor a request to relax the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard.

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The Birmingham Area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.087 parts per million (ppm). Subsequently, the Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.084 ppm using three years of quality assured data for the years of 2003-2005. The Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on May 12, 2006. See 71 FR 27631. Alabama's 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request for the removal of the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard, nor did it include a request to change the 7.0 psi state RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area. However, to support its request for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Alabama took a conservative approach and estimated emissions using a 9.0 psi RVP in its modeling supporting the State's maintenance demonstration.

On March 2, 2012, Alabama submitted a SIP revision requesting that EPA remove the State's 7.0 psi RVP requirement for the Area from the SIP. EPA approved Alabama's March 2, 2012, SIP revision on April 20, 2012. See 77 FR 23619. In EPA's final rulemaking to remove the State RVP requirement, EPA noted that the action did not remove the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area.

Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated the Birmingham Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30, 2012). Although the Birmingham Area is designated as attainment, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in place.

Alabama is now requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area, and it submitted a SIP revision on November 14, 2014, containing a noninterference demonstration to support its request.

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

As noted above, Alabama did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when the Birmingham Area was redesignated to attainment for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS but did take a conservative approach in estimating emissions for the maintenance plan associated with its redesignation request for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by using a level of 9.0 psi.

To support Alabama's request to relax the federal RVP requirement in the Birmingham Area, the State must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l). Although the modeling associated with Alabama's maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are premised upon the 9.0 psi RVP requirements, no requests for a change in the federal RVP requirement were made at the time that EPA approved these plans. EPA's approval of the maintenance plans was based on an evaluation of the air quality monitoring data at the time of the EPA actions, the information provided in the individual maintenance plans, and the maintenance plan requirements in the CAA.

EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Alabama's November 14, 2014, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

EPA notes that in today's action, it is only proposing to approve the State's technical demonstration that the Area can continue to attain and maintain the NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements after switching to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in the Birmingham Area during the high ozone season and to amend the SIP to include this demonstration. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking to relax the current federal requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Birmingham Area.

On November 14, 2014, ADEM submitted a noninterference demonstration to support the State's request to modify the RVP summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Birmingham Area. This demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards and on the maintenance of the other NAAQS.2 Alabama focused its analysis on the impact of the change in RVP to attainment and maintenance of the ozone, PM,3 and NO2 NAAQS because RVP requirements do not affect lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; because VOC and NOX emissions are precursors for ozone 4 and PM; and because NO2 is a component of NOX.

ADEM's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2010b Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources.5 These mobile source emissions are used as part of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. As summarized in Table 1, below, the MOVES model predicted minor increases in mobile source NOX and VOC emissions from the switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel and much larger decreases in emissions resulting from fleet turnover.6 When considered together, these changes are projected to decrease mobile source NOX and VOC emissions. The modeling results summarized in Table 1 also demonstrate that the projected increase in mobile source NOX and VOC emissions due to relaxation of the RVP requirement is negligible when compared with total NOX and VOC emissions in the Area projected for 2015 (approximately 0.1% and 0.7%, respectively).

Tables 2 and 3, below, show that overall 24-hour and annual mobile emissions of NOX and VOC are projected to continue to decrease in the Birmingham Area using a 9.0 psi RVP for years 2015 through 2024 and the fleet turnover assumptions contained in EPA's 2010b MOVES model.

As discussed above, the Birmingham Area is currently designated as attainment for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.7 Although the Area was previously designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Birmingham Area was redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS on May 12, 2006. See 71 FR 27631. Because the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997 8-hour standard, Alabama's November 14, 2014, noninterference demonstration for the ozone NAAQS is focused on the 2008 8-hour standard. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 ppm or less. As shown in Table 4, all ozone monitors in the Birmingham Area are currently well below the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

We use multiple acronyms and terms in this document. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this document and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of This Document. The information in this document is organized as follows:

In their requests, Dow and ExxonMobil cite various regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 that will apply to the different vent gas streams that will be collected and routed to their pressure-assisted multi-point ground flares (MPGF) at each plant. These requirements are included in Table 1.1 In all cases, these rules reference the flare operating requirements located in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11.

As shown in Table 1, the applicable rules require that control devices achieve destruction efficiencies of either 95 percent or 98 percent either directly, or by reference, or allow control by flares meeting the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11. The flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11 specify that flares shall be: (1) Steam-assisted air-assisted, or non-assisted; 2 (2) operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours); and (4) operated with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. The flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11 also specify requirements for both the minimum heat content of gas combusted in the flare and the maximum exit velocity at the flare tip.3 These provisions specify maximum flare tip velocities based on flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted or air-assisted) and the net heating value of the flare vent gas (see 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3), 63.11(b)(6)). These maximum flare tip velocities are required to ensure that the flame does not “lift off” or separate from the flare tip, which could cause flame instability and/or potentially result in a portion of the flare gas being released without proper combustion. Proper combustion for flares is considered to be 98 percent destruction efficiency or greater for HAPs and VOCs, as discussed in our recent proposal titled ”Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards,” 79 FR 36,880, 36,904-36,912 (June 30, 2014).

The MPGF proposed by both Dow and ExxonMobil are conceptually similar yet inherently different in both flare head design and operation than the more traditional steam-assisted, air-assisted and non-assisted flare types currently able to comply with the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11. The MPGF technology operates by using the pressure upstream of each individual flare tip burner to enhance mixing with air at the flare tip due to high exit velocity, which allows the MPGF to operate with smokeless burning. The MPGF are constructed differently than normal elevated flares in that they consist of many rows of individual flare tips which are approximately 8 feet above ground level. The ground flare staging system opens and closes staging valves according to gas pressure such that stages containing multiple burners are activated as the flow and pressure increase or decrease in the header. While information supplied by Dow, and relied on by both Dow and ExxonMobil, indicates that the flare tips operate smokelessly and achieve high destruction efficiencies, the MPGF cannot meet the exit velocity requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, which limit the exit velocity at the flare tip to a maximum of 400 feet per second. The exit velocities from MPGF typically range from 600 feet per second up to sonic velocity (which ranges from 700 to 1,400 feet per second for common hydrocarbon gases), or Mach =1 conditions. As a result, Dow and ExxonMobil are seeking an alternative means of complying with the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11; specifically, the exit velocity requirements in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) and in 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6),(b)(7) and (b)(8).

As noted in Table 1, the specific rules in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, or the General Provisions for parts 60, 61 and 63 of the CAA 4 allow a facility to request an AMEL. These provisions allow the Administrator to permit the use of an alternative means of complying with an applicable standard, if the requestor demonstrates that the alternative achieves at least an equivalent reduction in emissions. The EPA must provide notice of the request and an opportunity for a public hearing on the request. After considering comments received, the EPA will issue a notice permitting the use of an alternative means of emission limitation, if the Administrator determines that the alternative will achieve an equivalent reduction in emissions.

In its August 5, 2014, request, Dow indicates that it plans to construct and operate two new MPGFs at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, TX. One MPGF would be located at Dow's Propane Dehydrogenation Plant (PDH-1), scheduled to start-up in early 2015 and whose primary product is propylene. The other MPGF would be located at Dow's Light Hydrocarbons Plant (LHC-9), scheduled to start-up in early 2017 and whose primary product is ethylene.

The flare systems proposed for use by Dow at both plants consist of a staged design concept. The first stage, which is not at issue nor specifically part of the notice requesting an AMEL because it can meet the flare operating requirements of 40 CFR of 60.18 and 63.11, is a steam-assisted ground flare which has the primary function of controlling waste gases during periods of normal operation. The remaining stages consist of arrays of pressure-assisted flare tips (the MPGFs) and will control waste gases during periods of upset, maintenance, startup and shutdown (high-pressure, high flow periods). Pressure-assisted flares are also known as sonic flares because the exit velocity during periods of high-pressure feeds is at sonic velocities.

At Dow, Stage 1 is the low pressure stage in which the flare acts as a steam-assisted flare. Stages 2 and beyond are activated for high-pressure/high exit velocity flows. The flare system is surrounded by a panel type fence to protect nearby workers from the radiant heat from the flare system. At various times ranging from 2 hours for startup of processing equipment to 160 hours for a complete plant shutdown, Dow will have emissions from the MPGF for the following maintenance, start-up and shutdown (MSS) activities: Perform plant start-up and shutdown, process equipment startup and shutdown, off-spec flaring, non-routine clearing and commissioning of process equipment and piping, fuel purging and flaring to maintain pressure of the net-gas system.

Dow conducted testing on the two types of individual flare tips in its MPGF design to demonstrate that the MPGF can achieve good combustion efficiency under certain conditions and has proposed operating requirements for these MPGF that can achieve the emissions standards in the applicable NSPS and NESHAP. These proposed operating requirements are contained in Dow's request dated August 5, 2014, located in the docket for this document. A summary of test data and a complete copy of the emission testing report and appendices are available in the docket. The tests were conducted on individual flare tips because it is not possible to test the full field of MPGF because of the size and configuration of the full-scale MPGF installation (there are approximately 300 flare tips in the proposed array pattern that cover the size approximately equivalent to that of a football field in the actual installations). Although two flare tip types were tested during the effort, the results of one burner type, a steam-assisted flare burner, John Zink model SKEC, are not discussed further as Dow is not seeking an AMEL for this burner because it operates at lower velocity and, thus, can meet the existing flare operating requirements.

In its October 21, 2014, request, ExxonMobil indicates it plans to construct and operate two MPGFs, one at its Baytown Olefins Plant (BOP) in Baytown, TX, and the other at its Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant (MBPP) in Mont Belview, TX. Both of the proposed control strategies will be designed such that vent gases are routed to either a low pressure system, or in infrequent cases where high-pressure/high flow events occur, the high pressure MPGF. Both low pressure control systems at the BOP and MBPP consist of an elevated flare, but the MBPP low pressure control system also consists of three flameless thermal oxidizers. The elevated flares at both the BOP and MBPP will comply with 40 CFR 60.18 and/or 40 CFR 63.11, as applicable.

ExxonMobil did not supply any additional test data, but rather is relying on a series of publically available MPGF emissions tests, among them the 2013 test submitted by Dow, a 2012 test done by Marathon Petroleum Corporation, LP, a 2006 pipeline burner test done by Dow, and two earlier tests conducted by the EPA in the 1980s. ExxonMobil indicates that the BOP and MBPP burner tip designs will have comparable performance to the burners recently tested and submitted December 14, 2014, supplemental application containing additional information on plans to use the John Zink LRGO burners for the MPGF installation at the MBPP, and ZEECO burners at the BOP. ExxonMobil asserts that the ZEECO burner design provides equivalent combustion efficiency and flame stability as that of the John Zink burners tested, although ExxonMobil has not supplied any data or information that could confirm this assertion of equivalency. We are requesting comment on this assertion as well as specifically soliciting data and comments from the public on burner design and performance of these MPGF burners.

Dow and ExxonMobil are proposing to follow all of the flare operating requirements contained in either 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11, except for the exit velocity requirements. They are proposing to operate their high pressure MPGFs at higher velocity than the current requirements because their data indicate that these burners can operate with a stable flame at higher velocities and still achieve good combustion and destruction efficiencies. Instead of complying with the exit velocity requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11, Dow and ExxonMobil are requesting that EPA grant their AMEL requests to allow them to operate the high pressure sections of their MPGFs such that the vent gas flowing to the flare tips is maintained with a net heating value that has been demonstrated to be equal to or greater than the values that were determined to achieve a reduction in emissions of pollutants being controlled by a steam-assisted, air-assisted or non-assisted flare complying with the requirements of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b) during the burner emission tests.

In the emission tests, the high pressure burners were subjected to a number of different operating conditions, and each set of conditions represented a separate test series. For purposes of this discussion, the relevant test results are those from Dow's 2013 test report, which are comprised of runs from test series P1 through P4 and were tested on John Zink's pressure assisted flare burner model LRGO-HC, as well as emissions data reported in Marathon's 2012 test report, which are from test series PA1 and PA2 and were tested on John Zink's pressure assisted flare burner model LRGO-D. These tests used the analytical technique of passive fourier transform infrared (PFTIR) spectroscopy to assess combustion efficiency. Dow's 2013 test report also presents data collected using an extractive method where flue gas was extracted from a collection hood that was suspended above the burner tip and analyzed using standard EPA methods. The Marathon 2012 test report (see “Performance Test of Steam-Assisted and Pressure-Assisted Ground Flare Burners with Passive FTIR—Garyville”) and the Dow 2013 test report (see “Report on Emissions Testing of Pressure Assisted LRGO-HC and Steam Assisted SKEC Burners”) are provided in the docket.

The results of the PFTIR testing indicated that when a flame was present on the pressure-assisted flare burners tested that an average combustion efficiency of 99 percent or greater was always achieved. Each set of operating conditions tested by both Dow and Marathon for both combustion efficiency and flame stability generally consisted of a series of triplicate runs. In all, a total of 34 test runs were analyzed from these two tests (21 from Dow's P1 through P3 test series and 13 from Marathon's PA1 and PA2 test series). For test series P4, which was conducted as part of Dow's 2013 test using a 90 volume percent hydrogen/10 volume percent natural gas mixture, no combustion efficiency test was conducted; instead, a qualitative indication that the flame was stable at the conditions tested was made. We note that in Dow's 2013 test report that three of the 21 test runs were aborted because of loss of flame (which we refer to as flameout); only two of the three test runs (one in the P2H series and one in the P2L series) produced enough information before flameout to be analyzed in more detail. We requested more detailed information from Dow on the conditions that resulted in this loss of flame as it informs us of the conditions that would create a failure of the burners to sustain a stable flame and achieve good combustion. This document is included in the docket titled “Supplement 1 to Dow report.” Additionally, we also note that in Marathon's 2012 test report that two of the 13 test runs also experienced loss of flame (test PA1 Runs 4(2) and 4(4)). The results of all of these test runs are discussed in the memorandum titled “Review of Available Test Data on Multipoint Ground Flares,” located in the docket.

There are two general conclusions from these test reports that are consistent with the earlier EPA 1985 study done on pressure-assisted flares (see conclusions on pages 2-19 and 2-22 in September 1985 EPA report titled “Evaluation of the efficiency of industrial flares: Flare head design and gas composition”). The first is that “flare head design can influence the flame stability curve.” This is evident in Figures 2-3 and 2-5 of the 1985 EPA report where different stability curves were generated for the different flare heads (burners) tested over a range of differing exit velocities and flare gas net heating values. When comparing the current maximum flare tip velocity requirements in the general provisions with those tested on pressure-assisted flare burners, this conclusion still holds true. The agency's current requirements would require that flares meet an increasing minimum net heating value with increasing velocity, all the way up to a minimum waste gas net heating value of 1,000 BTU/scf and maximum velocity of 400 feet per second. However, the recent test reports on pressure-assisted burners show that flame stability can be achieved at significantly higher velocities (i.e., sonic velocity) with waste gas net heating values below 1,000 BTU/scf. The second general conclusion made from EPA's 1985 study is that “stable flare flames and high (>98-99) combustion and destruction efficiencies are attained when flares are operated within operating envelopes specific to each flare burner and gas mixture tested. Operation beyond the edge of the operating envelope can result in rapid flame de-stabilization and a decrease in combustion and destruction efficiencies.” The data where flameout of the burners occurred from test runs in both the Marathon 2012 test report and the Dow 2013 test report showed that the flare operating envelope was different for the different gas mixtures tested. Additionally, it was observed that combustion degradation beyond the edge of the operating envelope for pressure-assisted MPGF burners was so rapid that when a flame was present, the flare would still achieve a high level of combustion efficiency right up until the point of flameout.

In order to assess the proper operating envelope for these flare types, the EPA evaluated both the net heating value (in BTU/scf), which is how the 40 CFR part 60 and 63 General Provisions currently address combustion zone properties, as well as the lower flammability limit (LFL) because the LFL may be a better indicator of performance than net heating value for some flare vent gas streams, notably those with the potential for high hydrogen content. Hydrogen is relatively flammable, but its net heating value is low on a BTU/scf basis when compared to other hydrocarbons. By using LFL, we eliminate the need to correct the hydrogen heat content or to select a lower BTU/scf limit for high hydrogen cases. Although Dow has requested operating limits in the form of BTU/scf and has presented the test data in BTU/scf, we believe it is important to consider both types of operating limits.

Our review indicates that the LRGO burners tested achieve a high level of combustion efficiency when the lower flammability limit of waste gases burned in the flare is less than 6.5 volume percent (vol%) LFL or above 800 BTU/scf. We suggest the 6.5 vol% LFL based on the flammability of the stream during the flame out conditions experienced during the high pressure test run P2H1 (at 6.6 vol% LFL). The corresponding BTU content of the waste gas at this value was 789 BTU/scf (according to Dow, the gas chromatograph analysis indicated this value was 746 BTU/scf, although the John Zink report based on measured flow rates indicated it was 789 BTU/scf). Dow's proposed operating conditions included startup/shutdown cases where the waste gas heat content could be as low as 690 BTU/scf and as high as 6.9 vol% LFL, and data from these tests indicate that good combustion can occur at these conditions. However, to establish the alternative operating requirements at a level that ensures good combustion and flame stability at all times under all operating conditions, we believe it is reasonable to establish the heat content requirements for BTU/scf above which there were no flame out observations. For LFL, that level would be set below which there are no flame out observations. This is because gas mixtures with a relatively high LFL are less flammable when released to the air than mixtures with a relatively low LFL. A gas mixture with a relatively high LFL requires a larger volume of the mixture to burn in a specific volume of air, than would a mixture of gases with a relatively low LFL being combusted in that same volume of air. We believe the flame out observations establish the limiting case because a flameout is a complete failure of the burner, indicating zero-percent combustion. Because of the quantity of waste gases potentially flared in the high-pressure zones of these MPGF, we believe it would be prudent to establish limits on the conservative side to prevent air emissions of unburned waste gas.

We also reviewed whether we should consider velocity or burner operating pressure in describing conditions that should be met during the MPGF operation and whether we should require some testing to ensure that the individual burners will ignite properly when a new stage goes into service. Dow provided information on its process control system and indicated that cross-light testing (testing of burner ignition from pilots) of individual burners at its off-site test facility has been conducted and the burners performed as expected. This discussion, titled “Process control system overview-multipoint ground flare system,” is in the docket for this action. At this time, we are not considering any requirements for additional process control or ignition testing. However, we believe it would be important to require that cameras are installed and operated such that operators have a visual indication of flames from the flare at all times that the MPGF is operating and that this footage be available for inspection by the permitting agency, along with operational records of the waste gas flowrate, pressure in header and stages, pilot and waste gas composition.

Because these flares are located at ground level, it is possible that ambient concentrations of pollutants could be higher than they would be under an alternative scenario where waste gases would be flared in an elevated flare, enabling greater dispersion and potentially lessening the impact to neighboring communities. To that end, we are soliciting comment on whether additional ambient monitoring is warranted to provide for immediate notification to emergency planning officials and the community during significant events and malfunctions of the system.

Considering the above requests from both Dow and ExxonMobil, we are seeking the public's input on the operating requirements for the proposed pressure-assisted MPGFs that would be used by both companies which would establish an AMEL that will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions being controlled by a steam-assisted, air-assisted or non-assisted flare complying with the requirements of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b). Information provided in the AMEL requests and the available emissions test data from the test reports described above indicate that the following list of operating requirements for pressure-assisted MPGF result in destruction efficiencies at least equivalent to destruction efficiencies expected from complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b) and 40 CFR 60.18(b) for the pressure-assisted MPGF being proposed for use by both Dow and ExxonMobil:

1. The flare system must be designed and operated such that the net heating value of the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) for the pressure assisted flare burners meets a minimum heating value of 800 BTU/scf or a lower flammability limit of the combustion zone gas (LFLcz) of less than or equal to 6.5 percent by volume under all conditions. We would expect owners or operators to calculate NHVcz and LFLcz in a manner similar to those in the currently proposed requirements of 79 FR 36980-40 CFR 63.670(l)-(m).

2. The flare system must be operated with a flame present at all times when in use. Each row of flare burners must have at least one pilot with a constant pilot flame. The pilot flame(s) must be continuously monitored by a thermocouple. The time, date and duration of any loss of pilot flame must be recorded. Each monitoring device must be maintained or replaced at a frequency in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

3. The flare system must be operated with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours. A video camera can be used in order to conduct visible emission observations since operating personnel cannot enter the fenced area while the MPGF is operating.

4. The operator must install and operate an on-line vent gas flow meter and an on-line gas chromatograph to measure the flow and composition of the vent gas to each flare. We would expect the operator to comply with similar monitoring and testing requirements and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these monitoring systems as currently proposed in 79 FR 36980-40 CFR 63.670(i)-(j) and (l)-(m).

5. The operator should install and operate pressure and/or flow monitors on each stage of the flare. We would expect the operator to comply with similar applicable monitoring and testing requirements and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these monitoring systems as currently proposed in 79 FR 36980-40 CFR 63.670(i).

We solicit comments on all aspects of these requests for an AMEL. We specifically seek comment regarding whether or not the potential alternative operating requirements listed in section III above would be adequate for ensuring that the MPGF will achieve good combustion at all times and enable the facilities to meet their applicable emission standards. Additionally, several other entities have indicated to us that they intend to make similar requests for the ability to operate pressure-assisted MPGFs. We are also soliciting comment on whether the requirements listed above, if followed by these other entities, could enable these other facilities to receive approval of their own AMELs. As noted in section II.B above, we also solicit comment and data on other pressure-assisted flare burner types. Commenters should include data or specific examples in support of their comments.

HHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Clinical Trials Registration and Results Submission in the Federal Register on November 21, 2014 (79 FR 69566). The NPRM proposes requirements for submitting registration and summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drugs (including biological products) and devices and for pediatric postmarket surveillances of a device to ClinicalTrials.gov, the clinical trial registry and results data bank operated by the National Library of Medicine. The proposed rule provides for the expanded registry and results data bank specified in Title VIII of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) to enhance patient enrollment, provide a mechanism to track subsequent progress of clinical trials, provide more complete results information, and enhance patient access to and understanding of the results of clinical trials. The deadline for written comments was originally established as February 19, 2015. Since the NPRM was published, the Department has received requests to extend the period for the public submission of comments. Effective with this notice, we are extending the comment period with a deadline of 5 p.m. EST on March 23, 2015.

NIH published a related request for public comments on a draft NIH Policy on Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information in the NIH Guide for Contracts and Grants (NOT-OD-15-019) on November 19, 2014. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-019.html. The draft NIH Policy aims to promote broad and responsible dissemination of information on clinical trials funded by the NIH through registration and submission of summary results information to ClinicalTrials.gov. The original deadline for written comments on the draft NIH Policy was February 19, 2015, but the deadline is also being extended until 5 p.m. EST on March 23, 2015.

Instructions for Submitting Comments: We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in the proposed rule, and on specific issues identified in the document. All submissions received must include the agency name, the Docket No., and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received at http://www.regulations.gov may be posted without change, including any personal information provided. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means NIH will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. You can assist us in considering your comment by referencing the number assigned to each key issue discussed in section III.C of the preamble or the number of the section of this proposed rule to which your comment relates. For access to background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document into the “Search” box and follow the prompts.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 14-209, adopted on December 17, 2014 and released on December 18, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This NPRM contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

OMB Control Numbers: 3060-xxxx.

Title: Sections 25.701, Other DBS Public Interest Obligations, and 25.702, Other SDARS Public Interest Obligations.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3 respondents and 3 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 18 hrs.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 54 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $592.

Obligation to Respond: Required to be obtained or retained for benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 721 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's Web site. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

Needs and Uses: In FCC 14-209, the Commission proposes to expand the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC-hosted online public file database to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services (SDARS) licensees, among other entities. The Commission's goal is to make information that these entities are already required to make publicly available more accessible, by placing this information online, while also reducing costs both for the government and the public sector. The public and FCC use the information in the public file to evaluate information about the DBS or SDARS entity's performance and to ensure that the entity is operating pursuant to the FCC's rules. In addition, maintenance of political files by DBS and SDARS entities enables the public to assess money expended and time allotted to a political candidate and to ensure that equal access was afforded to other legally qualified candidates for public office.

OMB Control Numbers: 3060-0214.

Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

Form Numbers: None.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal government; Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 24,961 respondents; 59,902 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1-52 hours per response.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,860,656 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $3,653,372.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's Web site. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

Needs and Uses: In FCC 14-209, the Commission proposes to expand the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC-hosted online public file database to commercial and noncommercial broadcast radio licensees, among other entities. The Commission's goal is to make information that these entities are already required to make publicly available more accessible, by placing this information online, while also reducing costs both for the government and the public sector. Among other things, the public and FCC use the information in the public file to evaluate information about the broadcast licensee's performance and to ensure that the station is addressing issues concerning the community which it is licensed to serve. In addition, maintenance of political files by broadcast and cable entities enables the public to assess money expended and time allotted to a political candidate and to ensure that equal access was afforded to other legally qualified candidates for public office.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0316.

Title: 47 CFR Sections 76.1700, Records to be maintained locally by Cable System Operators; 76.1702, Equal Employment Opportunity; 76.1703, Commercial Records on Children's Programs; 76.1707, Leased Access; 76.1711, Emergency Alert System (EAS) Tests and Activation.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 3,000 respondents; 3,000 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 18 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 54,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $591,840.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, and 573 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's Web site. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

Needs and Uses: In FCC 14-209, the Commission proposes to expand the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC-hosted online public file database to cable operators, among other entities. The Commission's goal is to make information that these entities are already required to make publicly available more accessible, by placing this information online, while also reducing costs both for the government and the public sector. Among other things, the public and FCC use the information in the public file to evaluate information about the broadcast licensee's performance and to ensure that the station is addressing issues concerning the community which it is licensed to serve. In addition, maintenance of political files by broadcast and cable entities enables the public to assess money expended and time allotted to a political candidate and to ensure that equal access was afforded to other legally qualified candidates for public office. Section 76.1700 contains the recordkeeping requirements applicable to cable systems, including public inspection file requirements. This NPRM proposes to revise Section 76.1700 to reflect the requirement that cable operators maintain their public inspection file online on the Web site hosted by the FCC. In addition, this NPRM proposes a reorganization of Section 76.1700 to more clearly address which records must be maintained in the public inspection file versus those that must be made available to the Commission or franchising authority upon request. Among other changes, the Commission proposes to clarify that proof-of-performance test data and signal leakage logs and repair data must be made available only to the Commission and, in the case of proof-of-performance test data, also to the franchisor, and not to the public. Accordingly, this information would not be required to be included in the public inspection file or in the online public inspection file.

1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), we propose to expand to cable operators, satellite TV (also referred to as “Direct Broadcast Satellite” or “DBS”) providers, broadcast radio licensees, and satellite radio (also referred to as “Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services” or “SDARS”) licensees the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC's online database. In 2012, we adopted online public file rules for broadcast television stations that required them to post public file documents to a central, FCC-hosted online database rather than maintaining the files locally at their main studios. Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, Second Report and Order, 77 FR 27631 (May 11, 2012) (“Second Report and Order”). Our goal was to modernize the procedures television broadcasters use to inform the public about how they are serving their communities, to make information concerning broadcast service more accessible to the public and, over time, to reduce the cost of broadcasters' compliance. We initiate this proceeding to extend our modernization effort to include the public file documents that cable operators, DBS providers, and broadcast and satellite radio licensees are required to maintain. While the Commission first included only television broadcasters in its public file database to “ease the initial implementation of the online public file,” television broadcasters have successfully transitioned to the online file over the past two years. Accordingly, we now believe it is appropriate to commence the process of expanding the online file to other media entities in order to extend the benefits of improved public access to public inspection files and, ultimately, reduce the burden on these other entities of maintaining these files.

2. One of a broadcaster's fundamental public interest obligations is to air programming responsive to the needs and interests of its community of license. To ensure that stations meet this obligation, the Commission relies on viewers and listeners as an important source of information about the nature of a station's programming, operations, and compliance with Commission rules. To provide the public with access to information about station operations, the Commission's rules have long required television and radio broadcast stations to maintain a physical public inspection file, including a political file, at their respective stations or headquarters and to place in the file records that provide information about station operations. The purpose of the public inspection file requirement is to “make information to which the public already has a right more readily available, so that the public will be encouraged to play a more active part in dialogue with broadcast licensees.”

3. The Commission promulgated its first political file rule in 1938. That initial rule was essentially identical to our current political file regulation in its requirement that the file be available for public inspection and include both candidate requests for time and the disposition of those requests, including the “charges made” for the broadcast time. In 1965, following action by Congress to allow greater public participation in the broadcast licensing process, the Commission adopted a broader public inspection file rule to enable local inspection of broadcast applications, reports, and related documents. The Commission noted that Congress' actions “zealously guarded the rights of the general public to be informed” and that the Commission's goal was to make “practically accessible to the public information to which it is entitled.”

4. Cable, DBS, and SDARS entities also have public and political file requirements modeled, in large part, on the longstanding broadcast requirements. In 1974, the Commission adopted a public inspection file requirement for cable, noting that “[i]f the public is to play an informed role in the regulation of cable television, it must have at least basic information about a local system's operations and proposals.” The Commission also noted that “[r]equiring cable systems to maintain a public file merely follows our policy for broadcast licensees and is necessary for similar reasons” and that “[t]hrough greater disclosure we hope to encourage a greater interaction between the Commission, the public, and the cable industry.” With respect to DBS providers, the Commission adopted public and political inspection file requirements in 1998 in conjunction with the imposition of certain public interest obligations, including political broadcasting requirements, on those entities. DBS providers were required to “abide by political file obligations similar to those requirements placed on terrestrial broadcasters and cable systems” and were also required to maintain a public file with records relating to other DBS public interest obligations. Finally, the Commission imposed equal employment opportunity and political broadcast requirements on SDARS licensees in 1997, noting that the rationale behind imposing these requirements on broadcasters also applies to satellite radio.

5. In 2002, Congress adopted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) which amended the political file requirements in section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. 47 U.S.C. 315. The amendments apply to broadcast television, cable, and DBS. The BCRA essentially codified the Commission's existing political file obligations by requiring that information regarding any request to purchase advertising time made on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office be placed in the political file. In addition, the BCRA expanded political file obligations by requiring that television, cable, and DBS entities also place in the political file information related to any advertisements that discuss a “political matter of national importance,” including in the case of an issue advertisement the name of the person or entity purchasing the time and a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors of any such entity.

6. In 2012 the Commission replaced the decades-old requirement that commercial and noncommercial television stations maintain public files at their main studios with a requirement to post most of the documents in those files to a central, online public file hosted by the Commission. See Second Report and Order, 77 FR 27631 (May 11, 2012). As noted above, the Commission's goals were to modernize the procedures television broadcasters use to inform the public about how they are serving their communities, make information concerning broadcast service more accessible to the public, and reduce broadcasters' cost of compliance. The television online public file rules were the culmination of a more than decade-long effort to make information regarding how a television broadcast station serves the public interest “easier to understand and more accessible,” “promote discussion between the licensee and its community,” and “lessen the need for government involvement in ensuring that a station is meeting its public interest obligation.”

7. In June 2011, the Commission staff released “The Information Needs of Communities” Report (“INC Report”), a comprehensive report on the current state of the media landscape created by a working group including Commission staff, scholars, and consultants. See www.fcc.gov/infoneedsreport. The INC Report discussed both the need to empower citizens to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities in exchange for the use of public spectrum, and the need to remove unnecessary burdens on broadcasters who aim to serve their communities. The INC Report recommended an online system for public inspection files in order to ensure greater public access. The INC Report further suggested that governments at all levels collect and publish data in forms that make it easy for citizens, entrepreneurs, software developers, and reporters to access and analyze information to enable them to present the data in more useful formats, and noted that greater transparency by government and media companies can help reduce the cost of reporting, empower consumers, and foster innovation.

8. Based upon commenter suggestions, in the Second Report and Order the Commission determined that each television station's entire public file would be hosted online by the Commission. The Commission took a number of steps to minimize the burden of the online file on stations. Broadcasters were required to upload only those items required to be in the public file but not otherwise filed with the Commission or available on the Commission's Web site. Any document or information required to be kept in the public file and that is required to be filed with the Commission electronically in the Consolidated DataBase System (“CDBS”) is imported to the online public file and updated by the Commission. In addition, television stations were not required to upload their existing political files to the online file; rather, stations were required only to upload new political file content on a going-forward basis. Because of privacy concerns, stations also were not required to upload letters and emails from the public to the online file; rather, they must continue to retain them in a correspondence file at the main studio.

9. In addition, to smooth the transition for both television stations and the Commission and to allow smaller broadcasters additional time to begin posting their political files online, the Commission phased-in the new political file posting requirement. Stations affiliated with the top four national networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) and licensed to serve communities in the top 50 Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) were required to begin posting their political file documents online starting August 2, 2012, but other stations were exempted from posting their political file documents online until July 1, 2014. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission also rejected several proposals in the FNPRM to increase public file requirements in conjunction with implementation of the online file. Rather, the Commission determined that stations would be required to place in their online files only material that is already required to be placed in their local files.

10. The Commission stated in the Second Report and Order that it was deferring consideration of whether to adopt online posting for radio licensees and multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) until it had gained experience with online posting of public files of television broadcasters. The Commission noted that starting the online public file process with the much smaller number of television licensees, rather than with all broadcasters and MVPDs, would “ease the initial implementation of the online public file.” In response to the FNPRM, a group of public television licensees requested that the Commission permit NCE radio stations, or at least those licensed to the same entity as, or under common control with, an NCE-TV station, to maintain their public inspection files online on the Commission's Web site on a voluntary basis. While the Commission declined to grant this request, it stated that “as we and the broadcasting industry gain more experience with the online public file we will revisit the possibility of allowing stations not required to use the online public file to use it on a voluntary basis.” In addition, the Commission delegated to the Commission staff “the authority to allow (but not require) radio stations to voluntarily post their public files at such time the staff determines that such an option is feasible and desirable.” To date, the Commission staff has not made this option available to radio stations, instead focusing initially on ensuring that the database was functioning smoothly and was capable of handling the increase in volume once all television stations were required to use the online file beginning July 1, 2014.

11. In July 2014, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, and the Sunlight Foundation (collectively, “Petitioners” or “CLC”) filed a joint Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to expand to cable and satellite systems the requirement that public and political file documents be posted to the FCC's online database. See Campaign Legal Center, et al., Petition for Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 14-127, at 1 (July 31, 2014) (“Petition”). The Petitioners argue that cable and satellite services have increasingly become outlets for political advertising. According to Petitioners, political spending on cable is projected to constitute as much as 25 percent of total projected political television spending in the 2014 election cycle. Petitioners also assert that, due to advances in technology, satellite television providers are preparing to sell household-specific “addressable advertising,” a feature that has attracted interest from advertising campaigns. Petitioners assert that moving the television public file online has resulted in “unquestionably substantial” public benefits, which would also arise if cable and satellite systems were required to upload their public and political files online. In addition, Petitioners argue that television broadcasters experienced few problems moving to the online file, and cable and satellite systems would also likely not be burdened by the online filing requirement.

12. On August 7, 2014, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the Petition and, in addition, on whether it should initiate a rulemaking to expand online public file obligations to broadcast radio stations. See Public Notice, Commission Seeks Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, and the Sunlight Foundation Seeking Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators, Bureau Also Seeks Comment on Expanding Online Public File Obligations to Radio Licensees, 79 FR 51136-01 (August 27, 2014)(“Public Notice”). The National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) filed comments supporting the extension of the online public file to cable and satellite providers, stating that there is “no rational basis” for requiring television broadcasters, but not their competitors in the video marketplace, to disclose public and political file material online. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”) argued that, if the Commission were to open a proceeding to expand online file obligations, it should examine how to tailor any online posting requirements to minimize burdens on cable operators and avoid requiring them to upload files of little interest to the public. With respect to radio, while CLC and the American Public Media Group supported the initiation of a rulemaking to require all radio stations to post their public and political files to the FCC's online database, the majority of commenters addressing this issue either objected to extending the online filing requirement to radio and/or argued that the Commission should carefully consider the financial burden on struggling radio stations as well as the technical and financial challenges to the FCC that would be posed by expanding the online file to include radio. In addition, a number of commenters also argued that extending the online public file to radio at this time is premature and that, at most, the Commission should first consider a voluntary online public file for radio before mandating online filing.

13. We propose to adopt a phased-in approach to expanding the online file requirements to cable and DBS providers and broadcast and satellite radio entities. The implementation of the television online file represents a significant achievement in the Commission's ongoing effort to modernize disclosure procedures to improve access to public file material. Since it was launched on August 2, 2012, more than 650,000 documents have been successfully uploaded into the online file, and the site has generated close to six million page views. Despite initial concerns, NAB characterized the first wave of implementation as “uneventful.” As of July 1, 2014, all television broadcast stations have fully transitioned to the online file and, with this transition now complete, it is time to seek comment on expanding the online file to encompass cable, satellite, and radio public file material.

14. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, this modernization of the public inspection file is “plain common sense.” The evolution of the Internet and the spread of broadband infrastructure have transformed the way society accesses information today. It is no longer reasonable to require the public to incur the substantial expense and inconvenience of traveling to a station or headquarters' office to review the public file and make paper copies when a centralized, online file would permit review with a quick and essentially costless Internet search.

15. Our goal in this proceeding is to modernize the outdated procedures for providing public access to cable, DBS, radio, and SDARS files in a manner that avoids unnecessary burdens on these entities. By taking advantage of the efficiencies made possible by digital technology, we intend to make information that cable and DBS providers and broadcast and satellite radio licensees are already required to make publicly available more accessible while also reducing costs both for the government and the private sector. The Internet is an effective, low-cost means of maintaining contact with, and distributing information to, viewers and listeners. Placing the public file online will permit 24-hour access from any location, without requiring a visit to the site where the paper file is maintained, thereby improving access to information about how cable, satellite, and radio entities are serving their communities and meeting their public interest obligations. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the public benefits of posting public file information online, while difficult to quantify with exactitude, are unquestionably substantial.

16. Expansion of the online public file to more media is particularly important with respect to improving public access to political files. As Petitioners point out, political advertising is increasingly shifting from broadcast television to cable and satellite television, and the advent of technological advances such as addressable advertising are likely to further this trend. Political advertising on radio is also on the rise. According to CLC, political advertising expenditures on radio in 2012 ranked third behind spending on broadcast television and cable and could reach as high as 7 percent of overall spending on political advertising in 2014. Adding cable, satellite television, and broadcast and satellite radio political file material to the existing television online database would facilitate public access to disclosure records for all these media and allow the public to view and analyze political advertising expenditures more easily in each market as well as nationwide.

17. We propose to take the same general approach to transitioning cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS to the online file that the Commission took with television broadcasters, tailoring the requirements as necessary to the different services. We also propose to take similar measures to minimize the effort and cost entities must undertake to move their public files online. Specifically, we propose to require entities only to upload to the online file public file documents that are not already on file with the Commission or that the Commission maintains in its own database. We also propose to exempt existing political file material from the online file requirement and to require only that political file documents be uploaded on a going-forward basis.

18. With only minor exceptions—requiring cable operators to provide information about the geographic areas they serve, clarifying the documents required to be included in the cable public file, and requiring cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities to provide the location and contact information for their local file—we do not propose new or modified public inspection file requirements in this proceeding. Our goal is simply to adapt our existing public file requirements to an online format. We seek comment on this approach. While we propose to place the entire public file online, we invite comment on whether we should instead require only that certain components of the public file be placed on the Commission's online database. We note that limiting online file requirements to certain components of the public file would require entities to upload certain documents and maintain others in the local public file, thereby potentially imposing a greater burden than moving documents to the online file over time. We seek comment on these issues. One benefit of this proceeding, however, is to ensure that, within a short timeframe, there will be less need for the public to visit the affected entities, which will enable such entities to improve security and minimize risks to employees. We seek comment on these issues, including ways to further reduce the burdens of the public file and limit visits to the affected entities.

19. While no commenter responding to the Public Notice opposed the extension of the online public file to cable or DBS providers, as discussed above a number of commenters either opposed imposing online public file obligations on broadcast radio or urged the Commission carefully to consider a number of obstacles unique to radio before requiring radio stations to use the online file. In general, these commenters argue that many radio stations are very small and have limited financial resources and small staffs. Some argue that, for many stations, the additional responsibility of maintaining an online file would take time and resources that would be better devoted to providing local programming and information. Other commenters note that many small stations already face significant economic challenges simply to stay on the air and might be unable to withstand any additional financial pressure an online public file obligation would impose. Finally, some commenters argue that local radio listeners that might be interested in accessing the current public file can do so easily. These commenters contend that moving the public file online would not improve access for current listeners but only encourage complaints from advocacy groups and that responding to these complaints would further strain stations' limited resources.

20. In the television online public file proceeding, the Commission rejected similar arguments regarding the burden an online file requirement would pose and concluded that the benefits of the online file outweighed any potential burden. The Commission also took a number of steps to minimize the costs of moving public files online, most of which we propose to take in this proceeding as well. With respect to radio, we recognize that concerns regarding the potential cost of an online public file requirement carry more weight, particularly for very small radio stations, which may struggle financially and have fewer resources than small television stations. While we believe that moving toward an online public file makes sense in today's world for all entities that currently have public file requirements, we are committed to considering carefully all concerns raised in this proceeding with respect to potential online file requirements. With respect to broadcast radio licensees, as discussed further below, we propose to commence the transition to an online file with commercial stations in larger markets with five or more full-time employees, while postponing temporarily all online file requirements for other radio stations. We believe that this approach addresses the concerns raised by commenters and will help ensure that the transition to the online file is not unduly burdensome.

21. We reject the argument that we should not expand the online file requirement to broadcast radio because doing so will benefit only non-local advocacy groups. Making the file available online will make it easier for the public generally to access the file, including local listeners, and will give the Commission and the public the information needed to evaluate whether stations are meeting their responsibilities to their local community.

22. We recognize that adding cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities to the Commission's online file will greatly increase the number of users of the file and the volume of material that must be uploaded. NAB notes that, if radio stations are required to use the online file, there could be more than 17,500 broadcast entities uploading quarterly issues/programs lists on the same four dates in a year. In addition, we recognize that there is likely to be a heavy demand on the online file during peak political seasons, when many broadcast stations take new advertising orders and modify existing orders on a daily basis. NAB urges the Commission to consider increasing its online capacity to accommodate the significant increase in network traffic that will occur when a large number of filings must be uploaded on the same date and consider ways to stagger filings to relieve network congestion. Other commenters argue the Commission should consider expanding the traditional 10-day filing window for many broadcast reports to a 30-day filing window to place less stress on the database. We seek comment on these proposals to stagger or otherwise alter filing deadlines and any other suggestions for ways in which the Commission could improve performance of its online public file database.

23. The Commission noted in the Second Report and Order that allowing the use of private web hosting services in connection with the online file would allow for greater station efficiencies. As several commenters note, work to establish an interface between the online file database and web hosting services has not yet been finished. Once work on this interface is completed, we anticipate that this would enable an entity to establish a link between its own privately-maintained electronic file database at the system or station to enable automatic synchronization with the database hosted at the FCC. We recognize that web hosting services could assist many entities with their obligation to maintain the online public file, particularly smaller entities, and continue to examine issues related to implementation of such services. We also intend to investigate adding the capability to permit entities to upload documents to multiple online files using a single upload.

24. Television stations are not required to upload material to the online file that is already filed with the Commission or available on a Commission database, and we propose to take a similar approach with respect to cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities. Broadcast radio licensees, like television broadcasters, file material electronically with the Commission via CDBS (which is currently being migrated to LMS), which is already connected to the online public file. Filings and data concerning cable systems, however, are currently maintained in the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”) database, which does not currently interface with the Commission's online file database. The Commission intends to create a connection between this database and the online file database as appropriate and plans to complete that process before the effective date of any cable online filing requirement that may be adopted in this proceeding.

25. In general, we propose to adopt a similar approach with respect to cable, DBS, broadcast and satellite radio online file requirements as we did for the television online file. Specifically, we propose that these entities' entire public files be hosted online by the Commission and that entities be responsible for uploading only items now required to be in the public file but not otherwise filed with the Commission or available on the Commission's Web site. As with the television online file, we propose that the Commission itself upload to the online public file material that is already on file with the Commission or that currently resides in a Commission database.

26. Political file. With respect to the political file, we also propose that cable operators, broadcast radio licensees, DBS operators, and SDARS entities not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file. Instead, as we required with television licensees, we propose that these entities be permitted to maintain at the station those documents already in place in their political file at the time the new rules become effective, and only upload documents to the online political files on a going-forward basis. Under this proposal, existing political file material must be retained in the local political file at the station or cable system for the remainder of the two-year retention period. Exempting existing political file material from the online file will substantially reduce the burden of transitioning to the online public file while allowing online access to the political file material most likely to be of interest to the public. The retention period for the political file for cable, DBS, and radio is two years, similar to the political file retention period for television stations. Consequently, as the Commission noted in the Second Report and Order, exempting the existing political file will require entities to continue to maintain this file locally only for a relatively short period. Consistent with the requirement we imposed on television broadcasters in the Second Report and Order, we also propose that, following the effective date of the new rules, cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities be required to upload new records to their online political file immediately absent unusual circumstances. We seek comment generally on these proposals.

27. Organization. In light of the expansion of the online file we propose herein, we invite comment on any steps we might take to improve the organization of the online file and facilitate the uploading and downloading of material. With respect to the television online political file, the Commission designed an organizational structure of folders and subfolders that ensures that the contents of the files are orderly as required by our rules. Each political file is first organized by year, then by type. Beyond that, we “populated” some additional subfolders by creating folders for major races and jurisdictions. The Commission then provided stations with the ability to create additional subfolders and subcategories for specific candidates, or other organizing structure, in compliance with their own practices. We intend to take the same approach in designing the online political file for cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities, and invite comment on this approach. We expect entities required to upload material to the online political file to do so in an organized manner so that candidates and members of public seeking information can easily navigate it.

28. Compliance dates. We intend to give entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the online public file before the effective date of any posting requirement. With respect to documents required to be placed in the file on a “going forward” basis, television stations were required to begin using the online public file upon the effective date of the Second Report and Order, which was 30 days after the Commission announced in the Federal Register that OMB had completed its review under the Paperwork Reduction Act and had approved the information collection. Should we follow the same timeline for documents required to be placed in the file on a “going forward” basis in this proceeding?

29. With respect to existing public file materials, we also seek comment on the amount of time we should provide entities to upload these documents to the online public file. Television stations were given six months from the effective date of the Second Report and Order to complete the uploading process. Is this amount of time sufficient for cable, DBS, and broadcast and satellite radio? Should we adopt a staggered date by service (cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS) or by some other basis? Should any of these entities be given more time to upload existing files? We note that we propose below to temporarily exempt radio stations in smaller markets from online public file requirements, and seek comment on whether also to temporarily exempt stations with few employees. We propose to permit these stations to commence uploading material to the online file early on a voluntary basis. This would provide these radio stations with more time to upload existing public file material and to budget for any additional cost or staff resources necessary to accomplish this task.

30. Back-up files. In addition, consistent with the approach the Commission took in the Second Report and Order, we propose that cable, DBS, and broadcast and satellite radio entities not be required to maintain back-up copies of all public file materials. Instead, as we do for the television online file, the Commission itself will create a mirror copy of each public file daily to ensure that, if the data in the online public file are compromised, the file can be reconstituted using the back-up copy. If the Commission's online file becomes temporarily inaccessible for the uploading of new documents, we will require entities to maintain those documents and upload them to the file once it is available again for upload. However, consistent with the approach taken with respect to television broadcasters, we propose that cable, DBS, and all radio entities be required to maintain local back-up files for the political file to ensure that they can comply with their statutory obligation to make that information available to candidates, the public, and others as soon as possible. Stations will only be required to make these backups available if and during such rare times as the Commission's online public file is unavailable and the Commission has tools available to entities that will minimize any burden caused by this requirement. We seek comment on this approach.

31. Format. The Commission determined in the Second Report and Order that it would not establish specific formatting requirements for documents posted to the online file and we do not anticipate changes to that approach at this time. We propose to require cable, DBS, and broadcast and satellite radio entities to upload any electronic documents in their existing format to the extent feasible; we will then display the documents in both the uploaded format and in a pdf version. To the extent that a required document already exists in a searchable format, we propose to require these entities to upload the filing in that format to the extent technically feasible. We seek comment on these proposals.

32. Announcements and links. Consistent with the Commission's approach in the Second Report and Order, we propose to require cable operators, DBS providers, and broadcast and satellite radio licensees that have Web sites to place a link to the online public file on their home pages. We also propose that these entities that have Web sites include on their home page contact information for a representative who can assist any person with disabilities with issues related to the content of the public file. We do not propose that cable and DBS operators or broadcast or satellite radio stations be required to make on-air announcements regarding the change in location of their public file. As required of television stations in the Second Report and Order, however, we propose to require radio stations to revise their on-air pre- and post-filing renewal announcements to reflect the availability of a station's renewal application on the Commission's Web site, as reflected in Appendix B. We invite comment on these proposals.

33. Location of public inspection file and designated contact information. As the Commission required with respect to television stations, we also propose that cable and DBS operators and broadcast and satellite radio licensees be required to provide information in the online public file about the location of the local public file and the individual who may be contacted for questions about the file. This information would be provided when the operator or licensee first establishes its online public file, but should be updated if and when staffing or location changes occur. We believe this information is necessary to inform the public of the location of the existing political file (until its retention period expires in two years), which will be publicly available at the local public file location, as well as the correspondence folder retained by commercial broadcasters. We seek comment on this proposal.

34. EEO materials. In the Second Report and Order, we continued to require that television stations make their EEO materials available on their Web sites, if they have one, and we propose to take the same approach in this proceeding with respect to cable operators, DBS providers, and broadcast and satellite radio licensees. Similar to television stations, we propose to permit these entities to fulfill this Web site posting requirement by providing, on their own Web site, a link to the EEO materials on their online public file page on the Commission's Web site. We seek comment on this proposal.

35. No major changes to public file obligations. Finally, with only minor exceptions, we do not propose to impose new public file obligations on cable, DBS, or broadcast or satellite radio entities in connection with this transition to the online public file. While we propose below a reorganization of the existing cable public file rules for purposes of clarification and seek comment on other minor changes to those rules, our intention for purposes of the initial transition to a centralized, online file for cable operators, DBS providers, and broadcast and satellite radio licensees is to simply adapt our existing requirements to the online file format. We seek comment generally on these proposals.

36. OVS. We note that Open Video System (“OVS”) operators have several public file obligations. Should OVS operators be required to make this information available on the Commission's online public file database, or is it sufficient that this information be made available by the operator locally? How can we identify those entities that do not have Physical System IDs (“PSIDs”) or facility ID numbers?

37. Certain issues related to the online public file requirement are unique to each service. Accordingly, we address each service separately below and also address whether and how to phase-in certain requirements for each service.

38. The FCC's rules regarding records to be maintained by cable systems distinguish between records that must be retained for inspection by the public and those that must be made available to Commission representatives or local franchisors only. The rules also impose different recordkeeping requirements based on the number of subscribers to the cable system. Operators of cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from many public inspection file requirements, including the political file, sponsorship identification, EEO records, and records regarding children's commercial programming. Operators of systems with between 1,000 and 5,000 subscribers must provide certain information “upon request” but must also “maintain for public inspection” a political file, while operators of systems having 5,000 or more subscribers must “maintain for public inspection” a political file and records regarding, among other things, sponsorship identification, EEO, and children's programming commercials. The rules state that the public inspection file must be maintained “at the office which the system operator maintains for the ordinary collection of subscriber charges, resolution of subscriber complaints, and other business or at any accessible place in the community served by the system unit(s).”

39. Cable system political file requirements are similar to those for television stations. The political file must contain a “complete and orderly record . . . of all requests for cablecast time made by or on behalf of a candidate for public office” including the disposition of such requests. The file must also show the “schedule of time purchased, when spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased.” With respect to issue advertisements, the file must disclose the name of the purchasing organization and a list of the board of directors. These records must be filed “immediately absent unusual circumstances,” and must be retained for at least two years.

40. As discussed above, consistent with the rules we adopted for television broadcasters, we propose to require that cable operators upload to the online public file all documents and information that are required to be in the public file but which are not also filed in COALS or maintained by the Commission on its own Web site. The Commission proposes to import these latter documents or information into the online public file itself.

41. We note that the only document that cable operators file with the Commission that must also be retained in their public inspection files is the EEO program annual report, which we propose that the Commission upload to the online file. Cable operators are not required to maintain in their public inspection files documents similar to The Public and Broadcasting manual, which television and radio broadcasters must retain in their public files and which the Commission makes available to the online file for television stations and will make available to the online file for radio stations. Accordingly, as the Commission maintains very few documents cable operators must retain in their public inspection files, most documents in the cable online file will be required to be uploaded by cable operators themselves.

42. Certain information that must be included in cable operators' public files is collected through FCC Form 325 (Annual Cable Operator Report), which is filed annually by cable systems with 20,000 or more subscribers. For example, operators must maintain at the “local office” a “current” listing of the cable television channels delivered to subscribers and must “maintain for public inspection” a list of all broadcast television stations carried in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements. Some of this information is also collected on FCC Form 325. Cable operators required to file the form are required to identify on the form whether a broadcast station is carried pursuant to must-carry obligations, but the form does not request all of the specific information about the system's must-carry channels that is required to be placed in the public file pursuant to 47 CFR 76.1709. We invite comment on whether the Commission should make FCC Form 325 available in the online file for those systems required to file this form annually. We also invite comment on any other ways we can import to the online file information cable operators would otherwise be required to upload to the file themselves in order to reduce the burden on operators of uploading information to the online file.

43. NCTA requests that the Commission review the ongoing need for channel lineups to be placed in the public inspection file as this information is provided to consumers in paper format and, according to NCTA, is available on operators' Web sites. We seek comment on this request. If most operators maintain this information electronically, we believe it would not be burdensome to require operators to upload this information to the online public file. We seek comment on this view. If we were to require all cable systems to upload channel lineups to the online file, should we require this information to be uploaded or updated annually or on some other schedule? To the extent an operator maintains the required information on a channel lineup its own Web site, we also seek comment on whether the operator should be permitted to provide a link directly to this channel lineup in lieu of uploading this information to the public file.

44. As discussed below, we propose to clarify our rules regarding proof-of-performance test data and signal leakage logs and repair data. Specifically, we propose to make it clear in our rules that this information must be made available only to the Commission and, in the case of proof-of-performance test data, also to the franchisor, and not to the public. Accordingly, this information would not be required to be included in the online public inspection file, thereby reducing the amount of material cable operators would be required to upload to the file.

45. We propose that cable systems be required to upload other material currently required to be maintained for public inspection or made available to the public “upon request.” For cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers, this material would include new political file material, sponsorship identification information, commercial records on children's programs, certain EEO materials, leased access policy information, records concerning operator interests in video programming, and copies of requests for waiver of the prohibition on scrambling/encryption. While cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers but fewer than 5,000 subscribers are currently required to provide certain materials to the public only “upon request,” we believe these systems should be required to place these materials in the online file as this will facilitate public access to these materials. We believe this requirement will be no more burdensome than placing the materials in a physical file and should be less burdensome over time. We invite comment on this approach.

46. We also propose to exempt cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers from all online public file requirements, either permanently or at least initially. As discussed above, these systems have far fewer public file requirements than larger systems and are not required to maintain a political file. Alternatively, we could exempt systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers that maintain public file information on their own Web sites. We seek comment on these possible approaches and any other suggestions for ways we should provide regulatory relief to very small cable systems.

47. Political file. As discussed above, consistent with the approach we adopted for television broadcasters, we propose that cable operators not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file; rather, we propose that they be permitted to maintain existing material in their physical political file and only upload documents to the online political file on a going-forward basis. We believe this approach will minimize the burden of transitioning to the online file for cable operators, while providing convenient access to the information most likely to be of interest to the public, and invite comment on this proposal. We note that Time Warner Cable, which is not currently required to maintain its public file online, already posts its political files online to save costs and expedite access to this material. We invite comment on whether there are any aspects of our current cable political file requirements that are unclear and that should be clarified in connection with our proposal to transition to an online political file.

48. To smooth the transition for both cable operators and the Commission and to allow smaller cable systems additional time to begin posting their political files online, we propose to phase-in the requirement to commence uploading political file documents to the online file for smaller cable systems. We invite comment on ways in which this phase-in period should be structured. One approach would be to start by requiring cable systems with 5,000 or more subscribers to post new political file materials online, while exempting systems with fewer than 5,000 subscribers for some period of time. As cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from all political file requirements, this temporary exemption would apply to systems with 1,000 or more subscribers but fewer than 5,000 subscribers. As discussed above, the rules currently exempt systems with fewer than 5,000 subscribers from some recordkeeping requirements, and we invite comment on whether this 5,000 subscriber cutoff should also be used to provide regulatory relief in this context. Another approach would be to define “small cable system” for purposes of the exemption as a system with fewer than 15,000 subscribers that is not affiliated with a larger operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers. The Commission used this definition for purposes of determining eligibility for a streamlined financial hardship waiver in the CALM Act Report and Order. The Commission explained in that Order that it believed that the streamlined waiver “should be available only to those systems that are most likely to face financial hardships in complying with” the Commission's CALM Act requirements. We invite comment on the appropriate definition of “small cable system” for purposes of the political file exemption and on the appropriate period of time we should exempt small systems from the requirement to commence posting political file material online. Should there be a means of providing the public with information regarding which systems' political files are included in the online file, and which are exempt, either temporarily or permanently?

49. While we are proposing to delay the transition to the online political file for small cable systems, we propose to allow these systems to commence uploading documents to the online political file on a voluntary basis at the same time that online political file requirements become effective for larger cable systems. In addition, if we were to decide to exempt systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers from all online public file obligations, we propose to allow these systems to participate in the online file database on a voluntary basis. Regardless of whether we determine to delay or exempt small systems from online filing requirements, we believe it is appropriate to permit any system that desires to participate in the online database to do so voluntarily. We invite comment on this proposal.

50. Geographic information. We propose to require cable operators, when first establishing their online public file, to provide a list of the geographic areas served by the system. The Commission currently lacks precise information about the geographic areas served by cable systems and we believe that making this information available in the online public file will make the information in the file, and especially the political file, more useful to subscribers, advertisers, candidates, and others. We propose to require cable systems to provide information regarding the ZIP Codes served by the system and the Designated Market Area (“DMA”) or areas it serves, and we seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on alternative proposals for collecting geographic information, such as Census Block or Census Tract information. We note that operators would have to provide this information when they first establish their public files on the Commission's database, and update it only to reflect changes. Therefore, we do not believe this requirement would be burdensome.

51. We also invite comment on any ways to facilitate access to the online database by consumers. Cable operators are currently required to maintain their public files on a per-system basis and we tentatively conclude that the same should apply to the online database. However, as NCTA notes, cable public files cannot be organized by call sign and the analogous unit, a physical system identifier, is not readily known by consumers. If we require cable operators to provide information on the geographic area served by the system, should we use that geographic information to help identify cable systems in the cable online file? Are there other ways in which systems can be identified to consumers so that they can quickly find the information they are seeking?

52. NCTA argues that we should streamline cable public file requirements to avoid requiring cable operators to incur the cost of posting unnecessary material. While we decline to undertake a comprehensive review of cable public inspection file requirements in this proceeding, we seek comment on several issues raised by NCTA and propose to clarify certain requirements. First, NCTA asks that we eliminate the requirement that proof-of-performance and signal leakage information be retained in the public inspection file. We note that the current recordkeeping rules regarding this information are unclear. While 47 CFR 76.1700(a), which sets out recordkeeping requirements, includes “proof-of-performance test data” and “signal leakage logs and repair records” in the list of items either to be made available “upon request” (for systems with 1,000 or more but fewer than 5,000 subscribers) or to be maintained in the public inspection file (for systems with 5,000 or more subscribers), the rule sections specifically addressing these requirements require only that this information be maintained for inspection by the Commission and local franchisor. We agree with NCTA that this information is unlikely to be of interest to the general public and does not need to be made available online. Accordingly, we propose to clarify that this information must be maintained and made available to the Commission and franchisor upon request, but does not need to be maintained in the system's public inspection file or uploaded to the online file. We seek comment on this proposal.

53. Second, NCTA requests that the Commission evaluate whether it should exclude headend location information from any online public inspection file as it is of no interest to the general public and revealing this information in a centralized database available to Internet users “raises potentially serious security risks.” We propose to exclude headend location information from the online public file and seek comment on this proposal.

54. Third, NCTA requests that the Commission consider eliminating the current requirement that cable operators post certain EEO materials on the system's own Web site, if it has one, as these materials would be available on the Commission's online public file. As discussed above, in the Second Report and Order, we continued to require that television stations make certain EEO materials available on their Web sites, if they have one, and we propose to take the same approach in this proceeding with respect to cable operators, DBS providers, and broadcast and satellite radio licensees. Consistent with the rules for television stations, however, we propose to permit these entities to fulfill this Web site posting requirement by providing, on their own Web site, a link to the EEO materials on their online public file page on the Commission's Web site.

55. We believe that a limited reorganization and clarification of the public inspection file rules would make them easier to locate and understand. The public inspection file rules for broadcasters are contained in two rule sections that identify all public inspection file requirements for commercial and noncommercial educational broadcasters, with references to other rule sections as appropriate. In contrast, the cable recordkeeping requirements are spread over several rule sections in part 76, subpart U (Documents to be Maintained for Inspection), with some requirements contained in a separate rule subpart. While 47 CFR 76.1700 of the rules includes references to many of these recordkeeping requirements it does not cite them all. Revising our rules to identify all cable recordkeeping requirements in a single rule section, with references to other sections as appropriate, would make these requirements easier to locate and facilitate compliance. Moreover, as confirmed by our discussion above regarding maintenance of proof-of-performance and signal leakage information, some of the current rules are confusing and inconsistent. We propose to revise 47 CFR 76.1700 to include references to all public inspection file requirements and to more clearly address which records must be maintained in the file versus those that must be made available to the Commission or franchising authority. We invite comment on these proposed revisions, which are set out in Appendix B.

56. DBS providers are required to maintain a public file containing four categories of information: Information regarding compliance with the carriage obligation for noncommercial programming (the “noncommercial set-aside”); information regarding compliance with the commercial limits in children's programming; certain EEO materials; and a political file. With respect to the noncommercial set-aside, the rules require that DBS providers “keep and permit public inspection of a complete and orderly record of,” among other things, measurements of channel capacity, a record of entities to whom noncommercial capacity is being provided, the rates paid by the entity to whom capacity is provided, and a record of entities requesting capacity and the disposition of those requests. With respect to compliance with the children's programming commercial limits, DBS providers airing children's programming must maintain records sufficient to verify compliance with the rules and “make such records available to the public.” With respect to EEO materials, DBS operators are required to maintain in their public file EEO reports and certain EEO program information.

57. DBS providers are also required to “keep and permit public inspection of a complete and orderly political file” and to “prominently disclose the physical location of the file and the telephonic and electronic means to access” it. The file must include, among other things, records of “all requests for DBS origination time” and the schedule of time purchased, when spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased for each request. These records must be placed in the file “as soon as possible” and must be retained for at least two years. Unlike broadcasters and cable systems, DBS providers must “make available via fax, email, or by mail upon telephone request, photocopies of documents in their political files and shall assist callers by answering questions about the contents of their political files.” In 2004, the Commission explained that it was requiring DBS providers to abide by political file obligations similar to those requirements placed on terrestrial broadcasters and cable systems. Because DBS is a national service and each provider's headquarters is not necessarily readily accessible to most of its viewers and to candidates, we require DBS providers to make their political files available upon telephone or electronic request. They may provide access to the file by fax, email, via Internet Web site access, or, if so requested, by mailing photocopies of the documents in their political files. We expect that DBS providers will assist callers by promptly answering questions about how to access the contents of the DBS providers' political files. DBS providers may require individuals requesting documents to pay for photocopying if the requester prefers delivery by mail, but the DBS provider must pay for postage. DBS providers are encouraged to put their political files on their respective Web sites but must provide alternatives for individuals who do not have Internet access. In view of these requirements and expectations, we do not find it necessary to require that a provider maintain a public file in every community that receives its signal. We do, however, require, that DBS providers prominently disclose the toll-free telephone number and email address of the department responsible for responding to requests for access to the political file. In addition, because DBS experience with the political broadcasting rules is relatively new, and to facilitate a future Staff Report, we will require that DBS providers maintain all requests for time from candidates or individuals on behalf of candidates, including general requests for availabilities and rate information. In addition, and for the same reasons, DBS providers will be required to retain information in their political files for four years, until 2006, and thereafter for two years, as is required of cable operators and terrestrial broadcast stations.

58. We propose to treat DBS providers in the same manner as television, cable, and broadcast and satellite radio entities by requiring them to upload to the online file only material that is not already on file at the Commission. Similar to cable operators, the only document that DBS providers file with the Commission that must also be retained in their public inspection files is the EEO program annual report, which we propose that the Commission upload to the online file. Like cable operators, the other information DBS providers are required to maintain in their public inspection files is not currently filed with or maintained by the Commission. Accordingly, most material required to be kept in the online file would have to be uploaded by DBS providers themselves, which includes channel capacity measurements and other records related to the use of and requests for noncommercial capacity, records related to compliance with children's commercial limits, certain EEO materials, and political file material.

59. We do not believe that requiring DBS providers to upload this material to the online file would be onerous. As compared to television and radio broadcasters and cable operators, DBS providers have the fewest number of public file requirements. In addition, there are currently only two U.S. DBS operators, each of which has sufficient financial resources to comply with any online file requirements we ultimately adopt in this proceeding. We agree with Petitioners that the transition to an online file is particularly important for DBS because of that service's nationwide reach. Each DBS provider is required to maintain only one public and political file for the entire U.S. at its headquarters, making in-person access very difficult. While staff members must copy and mail public and political file documents upon request under the current rules, making this material available online would considerably improve public access. Moreover, we believe that, for DBS providers, maintaining an online file hosted by the Commission will prove to be more efficient and less expensive over time than maintaining a local file, particularly in light of the extra steps DBS providers are required to take to assist callers requesting materials from the file.

60. We tentatively conclude, consistent with our approach for television stations and our proposal herein for cable systems and broadcast radio licensees, that DBS providers should not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file but rather should be permitted to maintain existing material in their physical political file and only upload documents to the online political file on a going-forward basis. If we require DBS providers to upload their political files, we propose to eliminate the requirement that they mail photocopies of documents in that file to individuals requesting copies, as these materials would be available online Additionally, to the extent that political file materials relate to ads shown on a local or hyper-local basis, we seek comment on how DBS providers can indicate in their public files the area in which such ads were or will be shown. We also invite comment on whether there are any aspects of our current DBS political file requirements that are unclear and that should be clarified in connection with our proposal to transition to an online political file.

61. The public inspection file rules for radio broadcasters are generally similar to those for television broadcasters. Every permittee or licensee of an AM or FM station in the commercial or noncommercial educational broadcast service must maintain a public inspection file containing, among other things, FCC authorizations, applications, contour maps, ownership reports, EEO materials, issues/programs lists, and time brokerage (also known as “local marketing”) and joint sales agreements. The file must be maintained at the station's main studio.

62. Radio stations must maintain a political file as part of the public inspection file. The political file must contain a “complete and orderly record” of requests for broadcast time made by or on behalf of a candidate for public office.” The file must also show the “schedule of time purchased, when spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased.” With respect to issue advertisements, stations must disclose the name of the purchasing organization and a list of the board of directors. These records must be filed “as soon as possible, meaning immediately, absent unusual circumstances,” and must be retained for at least two years.

63. As discussed above, consistent with the rules we adopted for television broadcasters we propose to require that radio broadcast licensees upload to the online public file all documents and information that are required to be in the public file but that are not also filed in CDBS (or LMS) or otherwise maintained by the Commission on its own Web site. Under this proposal, radio stations would be required to upload citizen agreements, certain EEO materials, issues/programs lists, local public notice announcements, time brokerage agreements, joint sales agreements, materials related to FCC investigations or complaints (other than investigative information requests from the Commission), and any new political file material. We propose that any document or information required to be in the public file that is electronically filed with CDBS (or LMS) will be imported to the online file by the Commission. For radio broadcasters, under this proposal the documents the Commission would upload to the online file include authorizations, applications and related materials, contour maps, ownership reports and related materials, EEO Reports, The Public and Broadcasting manual, and Letters of Inquiry and other investigative requests from the Commission, unless otherwise directed by the inquiry itself.

64. While all stations will have issues/programs lists and materials related to local public notice announcements, few will have time brokerage agreements and very few will have citizen agreements or materials related to an FCC investigation or complaint. While many stations will have political file material, in general we expect that these files will be smaller for radio stations than for television stations as fewer political advertisements air on radio. In addition, radio stations with fewer than five full-time employees are exempt from many of the EEO recordkeeping requirements. We seek comment on these issues.

65. Political file. As discussed above, consistent with the approach we adopted for television broadcasters and that we propose herein for cable operators, we propose that broadcast radio licensees not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file, but rather that they be permitted to maintain existing material in their local political file and only upload documents to the online political file on a going-forward basis. We believe this approach will minimize the burden of transitioning to the online file for radio licensees. We seek comment on this approach.

66. Delay in implementation for small market stations. We propose to implement the online public file for broadcast radio stations by imposing requirements, at first, only on stations with more resources. We propose to delay all mandatory online filing for other radio stations for some period of time. As discussed above, several commenters express concern about whether radio stations have sufficient resources to implement and maintain an online public file, particularly small stations with limited financial resources and small staffs. Some commenters argue that we should postpone any consideration of moving to an online file for broadcast radio or, if we do adopt online file obligations for that medium in this proceeding, that we exempt smaller stations and/or NCE stations. Those advocating an exemption for NCE stations argue that many of these stations have very small staffs and limited resources and that compliance with an online requirement would create a severe financial and staffing hardship. Ampers and NFCB also note that NCEs are prohibited from accepting funds from political candidates and organizations advocating on behalf of a candidate or political issue, making online access to the political file less important for these stations. Other commenters argue that, in order to minimize the risk of online public file requirements becoming the “proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back” for already struggling small radio stations, the Commission should not require small stations to upload the contents of their existing public files, or at least should provide stations with an extended period of time during which they could incrementally add those materials to the online file.

67. Another issue raised by radio commenters is the lack of computer or Internet access at some small, rural stations. According to NAB, some radio stations in remote locations, including Alaska, Maine, and areas of the Southwest, do not have access to reliable Internet service or even are without Internet access altogether. Other stations have no in-house computing resources or broadband capacity. According to Native Public Media, many Native-owned NCE radio stations operate on Tribal lands where broadband penetration rates are between five and 10 percent. Moreover, according to these commenters, in communities where broadband is theoretically available actual access is often severely hampered by high latency, slow dial-up speeds, and unreliable coverage. Native Public Media argues that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to require stations facing these circumstances to upload large files to the Commission's online database. In addition, these commenters argue that the cost of maintaining an online file would significantly outweigh the benefits in communities where listeners have limited Internet access.

68. We recognize that some radio stations may face financial or other obstacles that could make the transition to an online public file more difficult. Accordingly, we believe that it is reasonable to commence the transition to an online public file for radio with stations with more resources while delaying, for some period of time, all mandatory online public file requirements for other stations. We propose that other stations be permitted to voluntarily transition to the online file early, but not be required to participate until we have gained some experience with the inclusion of stations with greater resources. Adding radio stations to the online file incrementally over time will give us more time to address any technical issues that may arise in connection with our online file database as the volume of users increases. Given the large number of radio stations and the volume of material they will be uploading to the online file, we believe it makes sense to proceed in stages to include radio stations in the Commission's online database.

69. We seek comment generally on this approach. Is it appropriate to temporarily exempt a certain category of radio stations from all online public file requirements or should we instead temporarily exempt some stations from only the online political file? How should we define the category of stations that should be eligible for a temporary exemption? We note that, in the television online file proceeding, we implemented the online political file first with television stations in the top 50 DMAs that were also affiliated with the top four networks. With respect to radio, however, network affiliation is not a useful way to identify stations with more resources. Accordingly, we propose to begin implementation of online public file requirements for radio with commercial stations in markets 1 through 50, as defined by Nielsen Audio (formerly Arbitron), that have five or more full-time employees. We propose that these stations commence compliance with online public file requirements at the same time as cable, DBS, and SDARS entities. With respect to all other radio stations, we propose to delay all online public file requirements for two years. This two-year delay is the same length of time we delayed, in the television online file proceeding, the implementation of political file obligations for television stations in smaller markets and those unaffiliated with the top four networks. We propose to initially exempt NCE radio stations as well as those with fewer than five full-time employees from the online public file to help ensure that we commence online file requirements for radio with stations with greater resources. With respect to radio stations with fewer than five full-time employees, as noted above our rules exempt these stations from many EEO requirements. One advantage of tying an exemption for small radio stations to this EEO exemption is that information regarding the stations that are exempt from EEO requirements is readily available to the public, as this information is filed with the FCC and is available via the FCC's Web site. We seek comment on this and any other possible approach to structuring the temporary delay in online file requirements for certain radio stations. We also seek comment on whether we should permanently exclude certain radio stations, such as NCEs and stations with fewer than five full-time employees, from all online public file requirements, rather than simply delaying implementation of online file requirements for these stations.

70. While we are proposing to delay the transition to the online public file for certain radio stations, we also propose to allow these stations to commence uploading all or part of their public file documents to the online file on a voluntary basis before the delayed effective date of any online file requirement for these stations. As discussed above, public television licensees in the television online file proceeding requested that we allow NCE radio stations, or at least those licensed to the same entity as, or under common control with, an NCE television station, to maintain their public inspection files online on the Commission's Web site on a voluntary basis. Public television licensees argued that this would allow radio stations that were jointly owned or operated with television stations to avoid duplicative efforts from having to maintain two separate public file systems, involving some of the same documents. If we decide to delay implementation of online file requirements for all or some NCEs in this proceeding, we believe it is appropriate to allow them and any other smaller radio station to voluntarily transition to the Commission's online file early. We seek comment on this proposal.

71. We believe our proposal addresses many of the concerns raised regarding radio stations that may have fewer resources and, therefore, might find transitioning to the online file more burdensome. These stations would not be required to commence uploading documents to the Commission's database until stations with more resources have completed part or all of their transition to the online file. This delayed transition will assist small stations to budget for any initial costs to upload documents to the file and any extra staff time required for this effort. In the meantime, stations may commence uploading documents to the online database early on a voluntary basis. We invite comment on this approach and on ways we can help ensure that permitting stations to commence uploading documents early on a voluntary basis is not confusing to members of the public trying to locate and access public file material.

72. Radio stations are currently required to include in their public inspection files “any service contour maps submitted with any application” together with “any other information in the application showing service contours and/or main studio and transmitter location.” We propose to have the Commission create contour maps for the online file based upon existing data. Given the complexities of AM contour mapping, we may not be able to use the same tools that we used to map TV contours and that we anticipate using to map FM contours. We seek comment on ways to address this issue. Should AM stations be required to upload contour maps to the online file?

73. We also propose to require stations to provide information to the online file regarding the location of the station's main studio. The Commission's rules do not currently require the reporting of this information and it is not included on contour maps. We believe that information regarding the location of the main studio would help members of the public to engage in an active dialogue with radio licensees regarding their service, which is one of the goals of this proceeding. In addition, we believe this information is necessary to inform the public of the location of the correspondence file and existing political file (until its retention period expires in two years), both of which will be publicly available at the station. Therefore, consistent with the approach we took in the television station online file proceeding, we propose to require stations to include in the online public file the station's main studio address and telephone number, and the email address of the station's designated contact for questions about the public file. In addition, we propose that stations with a main studio located outside of their community of license be required to list the location of the correspondence file and existing political file, as well as the required local or toll free number. We seek comment on this proposal.

74. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission exempted letters and emails from the public from the online public file and instead required that such material be maintained at the station in a correspondence file. The Commission determined that including these documents in the online file could risk exposing personally identifiable information and that requiring stations to redact such information prior to uploading these documents would be overly burdensome. The Commission determined that letters and emails from the public should be maintained at the station's main studio either in a paper file or electronically on a computer. Further, the Commission clarified that, as required under the current public inspection file rules, this file should include all letters and emails from the public regarding operation of the station unless the letter writer has requested that the letter not be made public or the licensee feels that it should be excluded due to the nature of its content. Finally, the Commission determined that it would not require stations to retain social media messages in their correspondence file. We propose to take the same approach with respect to broadcast radio stations and the letters and emails they receive from the public, and seek comment on this proposal.

75. NCE stations are required to retain in the public inspection file lists of donors supporting specific programs. Native Public Media asks that, for the same reason the Commission excluded letters and emails from the public from the television online file requirement, donor lists also be excluded from any NCE online file requirements to ensure the privacy of donors. In the Second Report and Order we required NCE television broadcasters to include donor lists in their online public files, and we propose to take the same approach with respect to radio. We seek comment on this issue. Is there a reason to treat NCE radio station donor lists differently from NCE television station donor lists?

76. Licensees in the satellite radio service are required to maintain a public file with two categories of material. First, as discussed above, SDARS licensees are required to comply with EEO requirements similar to those imposed on broadcasters, including the requirement to file EEO reports and to maintain those reports in their public file together with other EEO program information. Second, also as discussed above, satellite radio licensees are required to maintain a political file. In addition, SiriusXM, the current, sole U.S. SDARS licensee, is required to retain a third category of material in the public file. SiriusXM made a voluntary commitment to make capacity available for noncommercial educational and informational programming, similar to the requirement imposed on DBS providers, in connection with its merger application. As part of its approval of the merger, the Commission required that the merged entity reserve channels for educational and informational programming, offer those channels to qualified programmers, and comply with the public file requirements of 47 CFR 25.701(f)(6), which sets forth public file requirements for the noncommercial set-aside for DBS providers.

77. We propose to treat satellite radio licensees in the same manner as television, cable, DBS, and broadcast radio entities by requiring them to upload to the online file only material that is not already on file at the Commission. We seek comment on this proposal. Similar to cable operators and DBS providers, the only document that SDARS entities file with the Commission that must be retained in the public inspection file is the EEO program annual report, which we propose that the Commission upload to the online file. We do not believe that requiring SDARS licensees to upload to the online file other material required to be maintained in the public file would be burdensome as the number of public file requirements for this service is fewer than for other services and entities discussed in this item and because the current, sole U.S. SDARS licensee has ample financial resources to comply with any online file requirement we ultimately adopt in this proceeding. We also believe that, similar to DBS, the transition to an online file is particularly important for satellite radio because of that service's nationwide reach and the fact that the current licensee maintains only one public and political file for the entire U.S., making in-person access very difficult.

78. With respect to the political file, we propose to treat satellite radio similar to DBS, as they are both nationwide services with few licensed service providers. As we do with respect to the DBS political file herein, we tentatively conclude, consistent with our approach for television stations and our proposal herein for cable systems and radio broadcasters, that SDARS licensees should not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file but rather should be permitted to maintain existing material in their physical political file, and only upload documents to the online political file on a going-forward basis. In addition, to the extent that political file materials relate to ads shown on a local or hyper-local basis, we seek comment on how satellite radio licensees can indicate in their public files the area in which such ads were or will be shown.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of this NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). In addition, this NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

2. This NPRM proposes to expand to cable and Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) operators and broadcast and satellite radio (“SDARS”) licensees the requirement that public and political files be posted to the online public file database hosted by the Commission. In 2012, the Commission adopted online public file rules for broadcast television stations which required them to post public file documents to a central, FCC-hosted online database rather than maintaining the files locally at their main studios. The Commission's goal was to modernize the procedures television broadcasters use to inform the public about how they are serving their communities by harnessing current technology to make information more accessible to the public and, over time, to reduce the cost of compliance. We are initiating this proceeding to extend our modernization effort to include the public file documents required to be maintained by cable operators, DBS providers, broadcast radio licensees, and SDARS licensees. While the Commission first included only television broadcasters in its public file database to “ease the initial implementation of the online public file,” television broadcasters have now successfully transitioned to the online file over the past two years. Accordingly, we now believe it is appropriate to commence the process of expanding the online file to other media in order to extend the benefits of improved public access to public inspection files and, ultimately, reduce the burden on these other entities of maintaining those files.

3. In general, this NPRM proposes to adopt a similar approach with respect to cable, DBS, and broadcast and satellite radio online file requirements as we did for the television online file. Specifically, we propose that these entities' entire public files be hosted online by the Commission and that entities be responsible for uploading only items now required to be in the public file but not otherwise filed with the Commission or available on the Commission's Web site. As with the television online file, we propose that the Commission itself upload to the online public file material that is already on file with the Commission or that currently resides in a Commission database. With respect to the political file, we also propose that cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and satellite radio entities not be required to upload their existing political files to the online file. Instead, as we required with television licensees, we propose that these entities be permitted to maintain at the station those documents already in place in their political file at the time the new rules become effective, and only upload documents to the online political file on a going-forward basis. With respect to radio, this NPRM proposes to commence the transition to the online file with commercial stations in larger markets with five or more full-time employees. In addition, the item invites comment on whether to temporarily delay the requirement to upload new political file material to the online file for small cable systems.

4. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 315, 317, 335, 601, 611, 651 and 653 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 315, 317, 335, 601, 611, 651, and 653.

5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

6. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data shows that there were are currently 660 cable operators. Of this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,629 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,057 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

7. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 54 million cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 540,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but ten incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

8. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for that entire year. Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small entities. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” As of 2002, the SBA defined a small Cable and Other Program Distribution provider as one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined under the superseded SBA size standard would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

9. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” According to review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of November 26, 2013, about 11,331 (or about 99.9 percent) of the then number of commercial radio stations (11,341) have revenues of $35.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 4,082. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. This estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

10. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

11. Satellite Radio. The rules proposed in this NPRM would affect the sole, current U.S. provider of satellite radio (“SDARS”) services, XM-Sirius, which offers subscription services. XM-Sirius reported revenue of $3.8 billion in 2013 and a net income of $377 million. In light of these figures, we believe it is unlikely that this entity would be considered small.

12. Open Video Systems. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for that entire year. Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of these businesses can be considered small entities.

13. Certain rule changes proposed in this NPRM would affect reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Cable, DBS, radio, and SDARS entities are currently required to maintain a “local” copy of their public inspection files. This NPRM proposes to require that these files be maintained online in the database hosted by the Commission. Entities subject to this requirement would be required to upload certain documents currently maintained in their local files to the online database.

14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

15. This NPRM proposes a number of measures to minimize the effort and cost entities must undertake to move their pubic files online. Specifically, we propose to require entities only to upload to the online file public file documents that are not already on file with the Commission or that the Commission maintains in its own database. We also propose to exempt existing political file material from the online file requirement and to require only that political file documents be uploaded on a going-forward basis. In addition, with only minor exceptions—requiring cable operators to provide information about the geographic areas they serve, clarifying the documents required to be included in the cable public file, and requiring cable, DBS, broadcast radio, and SDARS entities to provide the location and contact information for their local file—we do not propose new or modified public inspection file requirements in this proceeding. Our goal is simply to adapt our existing public file requirements to an online format. While we recognize that entities may incur a modest, one-time transitional cost to upload some portions of their existing public file to the online database, we believe this initial expense will be offset by the public benefits of online disclosure. We also believe that, over time, entities will benefit from the lower costs of sending documents electronically to the Commission as opposed to creating and maintaining a paper file at the local or headquarters' office or main studio and assisting the public in accessing it. While we propose to place the entire public file online, we invite comment on whether we should instead require only that certain components of the public file be placed on the Commission's online database. We note that limiting online file requirements to certain components of the public file would require entities to upload certain documents and maintain others in the local public file, thereby potentially imposing a greater burden than moving documents to the online file over time.

16. In addition, with respect to radio licensees this NPRM proposes to commence the transition to an online file with commercial stations in larger markets with five or more full-time employees, while postponing temporarily all online file requirements for other radio stations. This NPRM also proposes to exempt small cable systems temporarily from the requirement to commence uploading new political file material to the online public file and proposes to exempt very small cable systems from all requirements to upload documents to the Commission's online database. Finally, this NPRM also seeks comment on whether we should exclude certain radio stations from all online public file requirements, rather than simply delaying implementation of certain requirements.

None.

17. This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

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

19. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

20. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Kim Matthews of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, [email protected], (202) 418-2154.

21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 335 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 335 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

23. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, and the Sunlight Foundation is granted.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 25, 73, and 76 as follows:

On February 13, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 8656) a proposed rule to remove the Modoc sucker from Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to information suggesting that the species no longer needs protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). A completed scientific analysis of the biological information and threats facing the Modoc sucker is presented in detail in the Modoc Sucker Species Report (Service 2013, entire), which is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0133. The Species Report was prepared by Service biologists to provide thorough discussion of the species' ecology and biological needs, and to provide an analysis of the threats that may be impacting the species.

In order to comply with the public notification requirements of the Act under section 4(b)(5)(D) and to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our proposal, we are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see DATES, above).

We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party concerning the proposal to remove the Modoc sucker from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Please see the Information Requested section of the February 13, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 8656) for a list of the information and comments that we particularly seek.

If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final rulemaking. Our final determination concerning the proposed rule will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).