Federal Register Vol. 80, No.57,

The Forest Service, an agency of the federal government sells saw logs in accordance with the Small Business Act (Pub. L. 85-536 as amended) and the National Forest Management Act (Pub. L. 94-588 as amended). Timber is regularly sold from the federal forests managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USDA/FS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (DOI/BLM). On occasion, timber is sold from federal forests which are under the supervision of the U.S. Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Collectively, these agencies are considered the “sales agencies.” SBA and the sales agencies jointly set aside timber sales for bidding by small concerns when market data demonstrates that small businesses would not obtain their fair share under open sales. In 1971, USDA and SBA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to accomplish the declared policy of Congress that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be made to small business enterprises defined by SBA (Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C. 631, et seq.). In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts to protect species habitat and watersheds in compliance with federal law and regulation resulted in dramatic changes to the United States timber industry. These changes included reduced timber harvests on Federal and private lands which in turn caused market failures for timber mills that could not adapt and retool. As a result, many small timber mills (western mills in particular) have been forced to close. As such, the Small Business Timber Set-Aside Program has become increasingly important to ensure that a “fair proportion” of Federal timber is available for purchase by qualified small business concerns.

SBA is soliciting public comment on the Small Business Timber Set-Aside Program to help the agency determine what, if any, changes should be proposed. Specifically, SBA is soliciting public comments on methods to include stewardship sales in the calculation of the timber sale share for small business and considerations for how timber sale appraisals are performed for small business set-aside sales. These possible amendments would not impact the DOI/BLM's Timber Sale and Forest Management Programs. DOI/BLM's small business set-asides, which are limited to 8 markets in Oregon, are made in accordance with the terms of a separate MOU between SBA and DOI/BLM. Rather than setting forth computation methods for small business market share considerations, SBA's MOU with DOI/BLM affords SBA the opportunity to review DOI/BLM annual timber sale plans prior to publication and to request set-asides under the authority of the Small Business Act. When DOI/BLM agrees to set aside certain timber sales, DOI/BLM consults with SBA concerning financial and other performance qualifications to be included in the conditions of sale. While DOI/BLM utilizes various stewardship contracting vehicles, the regulatory amendments contemplated by SBA will not impact DOI/BLM's use of stewardship contracting. Further, DOI's current policy regarding small business set-aside timber sales is to appraise the hauling costs to the closest mill that qualifies as a small business under SBA's definition located in.

Saw logs are sold through conventional timber sales and through stewardship contracting. The stewardship contracting program was established by Section 347 of the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277) to help achieve land management goals on the national forests, and to help meet the needs of local and rural communities. Stewardship contracting is a goods-for-services arrangement that requires timber companies who cut trees on National Forest System lands to perform other service work in exchange for the timber volume. Integrated Resource Timber Contract (IRTC) formats were developed by the Forest Service for exclusive use in implementing stewardship contracting projects when the value of goods exceeds the cost of services. Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC) formats were developed by the Forest Service for exclusive use in implementing stewardship contracting projects when the cost of services exceeds the value of the goods. As demonstrated below, stewardship sales accounted for 31% of all timber (sawtimber plus non-sawtimber) sold by the FS in Fiscal Year 2013. This is the highest percentage of total sales in the last ten years. However, some stakeholders believe that certain FS Regions could/should do consistently better in making timber sales awards to small business.

To help ensure a fair proportion of timber sales go to small businesses, timber sales must be set aside when small business participation falls below a certain amount. In determining this trigger amount, the FS calculates the amount of small business market share based on small business purchases of saw timber volume over a five-year period. This percentage, based upon historical purchases, sets the framework for what constitutes small businesses' fair proportion of the total sales volume. Currently, the computation of small business market share does not include saw logs from stewardship contracts. SBA is seeking comment on whether the calculation should also include saw timber purchased through stewardship contracts. Specifically, SBA invites comments and supporting data in response to the following questions.

1. How should the FS include the saw timber volume on stewardship contracts awarded to small business in the computation of small business market share?

2. How might including stewardship saw timber volume impact future market share calculations for small business concerns that participate in stewardship contracts and/or conventional timber sales?

3. What are the potential impacts (costs and benefits) if SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.506 were to include the saw timber volume from IRTCs and IRSCs in the calculation of small business market share?

a. What is the anticipated impact of the inclusion of saw timber volume from stewardship contracts on stumpage prices?

b. If inclusion of saw timber volume from stewardship contracts leads to lower stumpage prices, what is the impact to land management activities (paid for by stumpage prices) and retained receipts?

c. What is the anticipated impact on sale values both from an agency perspective and a treasury perspective?

4. What would be the most efficient and effective way to account for actual saw timber volume from stewardship contracts awarded to small business?

5. Would an increase in the utilization of stewardship contracts in a market area result in a lower representation of small businesses successfully bidding for timber sales in that market area? Should this lead to lowering the market share for small business set-aside sales in that market area when the FS and SBA compute small business participation?

6. Would including stewardship saw timber volume on contracts awarded to small business in the calculation result in more accurate representation of small business participation in the market area?

Unrelated to stewardship contracting, SBA is also seeking public comments on potential amendments to its current regulations at 13 CFR 121.507(a)(4)(i), which provides that on a set-aside timber sale, the small business may not resell more than 30% of the saw timber volume to a large business concern. When the FS offers any timber sale, it appraises the sale for its potential market value and sets the minimum bid that it will accept based on that appraisal. One factor in the appraisal is the haul cost that the purchaser (small or large) will absorb to bring the timber to a manufacturing facility. Currently, all appraisals are made to the nearest mill. In timber sales set aside for small businesses, large mills are ineligible to bid. In the context of a set-aside, if the nearest mill is a large mill, the appraisal will not accurately capture the haul cost to eligible bidders. As such, SBA is seeking public comment on whether the appraisal for a small business set-aside sale should be made to the nearest, small mill.

1. How can the actual haul costs to eligible small business timber set-aside purchasers be better reflected in the appraisal process?

2. Should there be considerations for keeping the appraisal point to the nearest mill on a small business timber set-aside sale in those market areas that do not have mills that would qualify as “small” under the SBA criteria?

3. How should the prohibition against small businesses reselling more than 30% of the saw timber volume to a large business concern be taken into account when making appraisals for small business timber set-aside sales?

4. What is the financial impact to the Forest Service if the 30% rule is included in the appraisal point haul cost calculation of a small business timber set-aside sale?

5. What is the anticipated impact on trust funds (e.g., Knutson-Vandenberg), if any, if appraisals are made to a small mill rather than the closest processer.

6. SBA is also requesting data on mill size and location.

The SBA welcomes comments and any available data to help substantiate recommendations made in response to the foregoing general questions, or other potential policy options—including status quo—that should be considered for the Small Business Timber Sales Set-Aside Program.

Table of Contents     Paragraph

1. The Commission is proposing to amend Rule 508 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 1 to eliminate the requirement that participants in Commission trial-type evidentiary hearings must provide paper copies of all exhibits introduced as evidence. The Commission proposes to amend section 385.508 of the Commission's regulations by removing paragraph (a)(2) and redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2). While still retaining the option to provide exhibits in paper form, the proposed rule will facilitate a shift toward electronic hearing procedures which should improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process, reduce the burden and expense associated with paper exhibits, and facilitate the compilation and transmittal of the hearing record to the Commission in electronic format.

2. The Federal government has set a goal to substitute electronic means of communication and information storage for paper. For example, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act directed agencies to provide for the optional use and acceptance of electronic documents and signatures, and electronic record-keeping, where practical.2 Similarly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130 required agencies to use electronic information collection techniques, where such means will reduce the burden on the public, increase efficiency, reduce costs, and help provide better service.

3. On September 21, 2000, the Commission issued Order No. 619, which implemented the use of the Internet for submission of certain documents to the Commission for filing.3 The eFiling system plays an important role in the Commission's efforts to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act's requirement that agencies provide the option to submit information electronically, when practicable, as a substitute for paper.4 Filing via the Internet is optional for eligible documents.5 Since issuing Order No. 619, the Commission has greatly expanded its ability to accept electronically filed material, including interventions, protests, rehearings, complaints, and applications for certificates and licenses.6 In 2008, the Commission further implemented a system for electronic tariff filing.7 Consistent with these prior efforts to provide electronic filing options, the Commission is proposing to eliminate the requirement that all exhibits introduced at Commission hearings must be provided in paper form.

4. Section 385.508 of the Commission's regulations currently requires that “[a]ny participant who seeks to have an exhibit admitted into evidence must provide one copy of the exhibit to the presiding officer and two copies to the reporter, not later than the time that the exhibit is marked for identification.” 8 Under current practice, the court reporter assigns Exhibit Numbers to the paper copies and provides the paper copies to the Commission's Docket Branch to be scanned into the Commission's eLibrary system. Copies of all exhibits and motions that are not pre-filed must also be provided to all participants at the hearing.9

5. The administrative law judges recently adopted a revised practice for handling exhibits and creating the Exhibit List that removes the need for providing paper copies at the hearing. Under this policy, within seven days of the end of the hearing, participants must file (via eFiling) a “Joint Exhibit List” and each sponsoring party must file (via eFiling) the “Official Copies” of each exhibit that was offered into evidence and admitted or rejected.10 Thus, it is no longer necessary or efficient to require all participants to provide the presiding judge and court reporter with paper copies of each exhibit introduced at the hearing.

6. The Commission therefore proposes to eliminate the requirement that participants provide one paper copy of each exhibit to the presiding officer and two paper copies to the court reporter.11 The proposed rule represents a continuation of the Commission's efforts to implement the goal of substituting electronic means of communication and information storage for paper means. The proposed rule should save resources because participants will no longer be required to make multiple paper copies of all exhibits that they intend to submit into evidence. The proposed rule also will facilitate the presiding judge's compilation and transmittal of the hearing record to the Commission in electronic format.

7. Certain collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).12 OMB's regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.13 This Proposed Rule does not contain any information collection requirements, as defined under section 3502(3) of the PRA, and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus not required.

8. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.14 This action has been categorically excluded under section 380.4(a)(2)(ii), addressing procedural rules.15

9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 16 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) concerns procedural matters and, if adopted, is expected to reduce the burden and expense associated with paper exhibits and improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process.

10. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this NOPR, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An analysis under the RFA is not required.

11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due May 26, 2015. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM15-5-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

16. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected].

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

On October 10, 2014, OSHA published in the Federal Register (79 FR 61384-61438) a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting stakeholder feedback with respect to OSHA's overall approach to managing hazardous chemical exposures in the workplace. The document outlines potential modifications to OSHA's current risk and feasibility assessment approaches and requests additional information about chemical management for the workplace that may be more efficient, while still maintaining worker protection. The RFI set a date of April 8, 2015 for submitting written comments.

OSHA has received multiple requests from stakeholders, including the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and ORCHSE Strategies, LLC, to extend the comment period by 60 to 180 additional days. These groups have requested this additional time in order to better research, consider, and formulate responses to the over 50 questions OSHA included in the RFI.

OSHA has decided to extend the comment deadline to October 9, 2015, which provides stakeholders an additional 6 months in which to submit comments.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 33 U.S.C. 941; 40 U.S.C. 3704 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, 1/25/2012); and 29 CFR part 1911.

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-2014-0863] 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-2014-0863) 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 by 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.

Under the authority provided in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, 33 CFR part 147 permits the establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the OCS for the purpose of protecting life, property and the marine environment. The protections included in a safety zone established under 33 CFR part 147 include promoting safety of life and property on the facilities as well as their appurtenances and attending vessels and also for the adjacent waters located in and around each facility. Therefore, a safety zone under 33 CFR part 147 may also include provisions to restrict, prevent, or control certain activities, including access by vessels or persons to maintain safety of life, property and the environment. Chevron North America requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around its facility located in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico on the OCS. Placing a safety zone around this facility will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

The safety zone proposed by this rulemaking is on the OCS in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico in Walker Ridge 29 with a center point at N. 26°55′58″, W. 90°31′12″. For the purpose of safety zones established under 33 CFR part 147, the deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also includes an extensive system of fairways.

Chevron North America requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone extending 500 meters from each point on the Big Foot TLP facility structure's outermost edge. The request for the safety zone was made due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the facility, including its appurtenances and attending vessels, and the environment. Chevron North America indicated that it is highly likely that any allision with the facility would result in a catastrophic event. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to, (1) the level of shipping activity around the facility, (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the facility, (3) concerns for the environment, (4) the likeliness that an allision would result in a catastrophic event based on proximity to shipping fairways, offloading operations, production levels, and size of the crew, (5) the volume of traffic in the vicinity of the proposed area, including those vessels providing services to or working with the facility, (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the proposed area, both related and unrelated to facility operations, and (7) the structural configuration of the facility.

Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of a safety zone of 500 meters around the facility. The proposed safety zone would restrict all vessels from entering into, transiting through, remaining in, or anchoring in the safety zone area. Vessels attending to, servicing, or working with the facility would be exempt from the restrictions in this proposed rule. This proposed safety measure reduces significantly the threat of allisions, collisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas and increases the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Authorization to deviate from this proposed rule and transit through the safety zone may be requested from the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Such deviation requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the Big Foot TLP—on the Outer Continental Shelf—and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Additionally, the area covered by this proposed safety zone is limited in scope as it would encompass only the waters within 500 meters of the outer edges of the facility structure. This is the area where the facility operates and vessels servicing the facility transit and maneuver, presenting the area most vulnerable to risk of allision or collision. Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone using alternate routes. Exceptions to this proposed rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing. Deviation to transit through the proposed safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.

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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within the area extending 500 meters from the outermost edges of the Big Foot TLP facility structure located in Walker Ridge 29 on the OCS.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone using alternate routes. Based on the limited scope of the safety zone, any delay resulting from using an alternate route is expected to be minimal depending on vessel traffic and speed in the area. Additionally, exceptions to this proposed rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing. Deviation to transit through the proposed safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.

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 submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it 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.

We have analyzed this proposed rule 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around an OCS facility to protect life, property and the marine environment. This proposed rule is categorical excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and the 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 proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

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-2014-1069] 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-2014-1069) 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.

Safety zones are proposed during the following five (5) individual marine events:

(1) New Orleans Navy Week is a single, non-repeating fireworks event. This event is scheduled to occur on April 27, 2015, on the Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit. The permit application is currently under review but the Coast Guard believes that additional safety measures in the form of a temporary safety zone will be necessary for safety of navigation during the event. There is no regulatory history for this event.

(2) The Hosts Global fireworks event is an annually-occurring event which occurs in late April on the Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit. The permit application is currently under review but the Coast Guard believes that additional safety measures in the form of a temporary safety zone will be necessary for safety of navigation during the event. The sponsor applied for the 2014 occurrence of this event and the permit was approved. A temporary safety zone was enforced through actual notice for the 2014 occurrence.

(3) The Madisonville 4th of July fireworks display is an annually-occurring event which occurs on July 4 each year in the Tchefuncta River near Madisonville, Louisiana. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit. The permit application is currently under review but the Coast Guard believes that additional safety measures in the form of a temporary safety zone will be necessary for safety of navigation during the event. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit in 2014 but the event was cancelled by the fireworks provider due to short notice on the sponsor's part.

(4) The Mandeville City Seafood Festival is an annually-occurring fireworks event that occurs on July 4 each year at Fountainbleau State Park in Mandeville, Louisiana. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit. The permit application is currently under review but the Coast Guard believes that additional safety measures in the form of a temporary safety zone will be necessary for safety of navigation during the event. There is no other regulatory history for this event.

(5) The Mandeville Lakefront fireworks show is a single event which is scheduled to occur July 4, 2015, in Mandeville, Louisiana. The sponsor for this event applied for a marine event permit. The permit application is currently under review but the Coast Guard believes that additional safety measures in the form of a temporary safety zone will be necessary for safety of navigation during the event. There is no regulatory history for this event.

Upon initial review of the details for each of these events, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures will be necessary.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The Coast Guard has determined that temporary safety zones are necessary to promote the safety of life on navigable waterways within the COTP New Orleans Zone during these events.

The Coast Guard proposes to establish five temporary safety zones within the Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans Zone between April 27, 2015 and July 4, 2015.

The events to be covered by this proposed rule will be enforced on the respective dates listed in the table below.

The COTP New Orleans will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) and local notices to mariners (LNM) of the enforcement periods for the safety zones as well as any changes in the planned schedules. Mariners and other members of the public may also contact Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Command Center to inquire about the status of the safety zones, at (504) 365-2200.

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. These temporary safety zones will restrict navigation on the Lower Mississippi River in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, the southern end of the Tchefuncta River near Madisonville, Louisiana, and Lake Pontchartrain in vicinity of Mandeville, Louisiana. No safety zone will be established for longer than one hour. Due to the limited scope and short duration of each temporary safety zone, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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 proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the following waterways on the listed dates: The Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana on April 27, 2015 and April 28, 2015; the Tchefuncta River near Madisonville, Louisiana on July 4, 2015, and the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain in the vicinity of Mandeville, LA on July 4, 2015. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is limited in scope and each temporary safety zone will only be in effect for approximately one hour on one day. Before enforcement, COTP New Orleans will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the impacted waterways and will make notifications to the public through marine band radio when the temporary safety zones are being enforced. Additionally, deviation from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a case by case basis by COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative.

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 proposed rule involves establishing temporary safety zones in the Lower Mississippi River, Tchefuncta River, and Lake Pontchartrain. This 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 proposed rule.

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

I. Background

Biomass materials, which include wood residue and wood products, animal manure (including litter and other bedding materials), vegetative agricultural materials as well as silvicultural materials, can be used as fuel burned to provide heat and power. New technologies and environmental initiatives have recently increased the use of biomass material for combustion in the State of Maryland. Therefore, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has established emission standards for the combustion of biomass fuel by developing a new Code of Maryland (COMAR) regulation, COMAR 26.11.09.12—“Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Greater Than 350,000 British Thermal Units (Btu)/Hour (hr) Heat Input.” The typical type of equipment that is regulated under this new regulation is a boiler; however, it also applies to process heaters and other applications.

On January 12, 2015, MDE submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning new regulation COMAR 26.11.09.12 (Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Equal to or Greater Than 350,000 Btu/hr) and related amendments to regulations .01, .04, .06, .07, .09, and .10 under COMAR 26.11.09—Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations. The new regulation, COMAR 26.11.09.12, Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Equal to or Greater Than 350,000 Btu/hr, establishes particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission limits (see Table 1) and additional requirements (such as compliance and record keeping and reporting) for biomass fuel-burning equipment. According to MDE, small biomass boilers will need to install PM emission controls; however, MDE asserts the NOX emission rates for biomass fuel-burning equipment can be achieved through efficient system design and do not require add-on pollution controls. MDE also asserted in the SIP submittal that new biomass fuel-burning equipment would still be subject to standards based on federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT), generally available control technology (GACT), and best available control technology (BACT) analysis. Further EPA analysis and information on the MDE regulations for this SIP submittal are provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) with Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0089.

MDE has submitted the new biomass fuel-burning provisions in COMAR 26.11.09.12 and revised provisions in COMAR 26.11.09.10 for inclusion in the Maryland SIP. The SIP submittal also includes revisions to COMAR 26.11.09.01 (February 22, 2011, 76 FR 9650), .04 (November 3, 1992, 57 FR 49651), .06 (July 6, 2005, 70 FR 38774), .07 (November 3, 1992, 57 FR 49651), and .09 (May 1, 2003, 68 FR 23206), which were previously included in the Maryland SIP.

EPA's review of this material indicates that MDE's regulation provides emission limits on smaller biomass fuel-burning equipment providing PM and NOX emission reductions which will strengthen the Maryland SIP. The reductions in PM and NOX will help Maryland attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM. EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's January 12, 2015 SIP revision for biomass fuel-burning equipment. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Maryland rules regarding the definitions and requirements for biomass fuel-burning equipment in COMAR 26.11.09.01, .04, .06, .07, .09, .10, and .12. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region III office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to Maryland's biomass fuel-burning equipment standards does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. Id. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas was the Baltimore Area (specifically, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County), which was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. Id. Later, the Baltimore Area was reclassified as a serious nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 4901 (February 1, 2012). See 40 CFR 81.321. Air quality monitoring data from the 2012-2014 monitoring period indicate that the Baltimore Area is now attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. The determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Baltimore Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Baltimore Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates the Baltimore Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured ambient air monitoring data. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I) at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).

EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period for 2012-2014 for the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.084 ppm, and all monitors meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1). Based on this 2012-2014 data from the AQS database and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0883 and available online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0883.

EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Once this proposal is final, the requirement for this Area to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. Finalizing this determination does not constitute a redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). This determination of attainment also does not involve approving any maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area and does not determine that the Area has met all the requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that the attainment be due to permanent and enforceable measures. Therefore, the designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final rulemaking action to determine that such Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

This action proposes to make an attainment determination based on air quality data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, concerning a determination of attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

I. Background

On August 22, 2013, MDE submitted a SIP revision request to EPA. This SIP revision request, if approved, would revise Maryland's currently approved nonattainment NSR program by amending Regulation .01 under section 26.11.01 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), and Regulations .01 and .02 under COMAR 26.11.17. Generally, the revisions incorporate provisions related to the 2008 “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule). 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). The 2008 NSR PM2.5 rule: (1) Required NSR permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) established significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) established PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) required states to account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 emission limits.

Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule authorized states to adopt provisions in their nonattainment NSR rules that would allow major stationary sources and major modifications locating in areas designated nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset emissions increases of direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors with reductions of either direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors in accordance with offset ratios contained in the approved SIP for the applicable nonattainment area. The inclusion, in whole or in part, of the interpollutant offset provisions for PM2.5 is discretionary on the part of the states. In the preamble to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA included preferred or presumptive offset ratios, applicable to specific PM2.5 precursors, that states may adopt in conjunction with the new interpollutant offset provisions for PM2.5, and for which the state could rely on the EPA's technical work to demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios for use in any PM2.5 nonattainment area. Alternatively, the preamble indicated that states may adopt their own ratios, subject to the EPA's approval, that would have to be substantiated by modeling or other technical demonstrations of the net air quality benefit for ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The preferred ratios were subsequently the subject of a petition for reconsideration, which the Administrator granted. EPA continues to support the basic policy that sources may offset increases in emissions of direct PM2.5 or of any PM2.5 precursor in a PM2.5 nonattainment area with actual emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in accordance with offset ratios as approved in the SIP for the applicable nonattainment area. However, we no longer consider the preferred ratios set forth in the preamble to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule to be presumptively approvable. Instead, any ratio involving PM2.5 precursors adopted by the state for use in the interpollutant offset program for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be accompanied by a technical demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of such ratio for the PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it will be applied. Maryland's August 22, 2013 submittal did not include the interpollutant offset provisions.

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as the 2007 “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” (2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule) 1 ), was the subject of litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (hereafter, NRDC v. EPA).2 On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both rules EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter in subpart 4 of part D of title I (subpart 4).3 As a result, the court remanded both rules and instructed EPA “to re-promulgate these rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Although the D.C. Circuit declined to establish a deadline for EPA's response, EPA intends to respond promptly to the court's remand and to promulgate new generally applicable implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to proceed with implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection of public health intended by those NAAQS. In a June 2, 2014 final rulemaking entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final Rule,” (79 FR 31566), EPA identified the classification status under subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. That rulemaking also established a December 31, 2014 deadline for the submission of any additional attainment related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4.

EPA is in the process of evaluating the requirements of subpart 4 as they pertain to nonattainment NSR. In particular, subpart 4 includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major stationary sources of coarse particulate matter (PM10) precursors (and hence under the NRDC v. EPA court decision, PM2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” The evaluation of which precursors need to be controlled to achieve the standard in a particular area is typically conducted in the context of the state's preparing and the EPA's reviewing an area's attainment plan SIP. At the time of the August 22, 2013 SIP submittal, three areas in Maryland were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS: The Maryland portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA nonattainment area; the Baltimore nonattainment area; and the Maryland portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, MD-WV nonattainment area.

Since the SIP submittal, EPA has taken final action to redesignate all of these areas to attainment. On October 6, 2014, EPA took final action to redesignate the Washington, DC-MD-VA area. 79 FR 60081. On December 16, 2014, EPA took final action to redesignate both the Baltimore nonattainment area and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown nonattainment area to attainment. 79 FR 75032 (Baltimore area) and 79 FR 75035 (Maryland portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown area). As a result, MDE is no longer obligated to submit a nonattainment NSR SIP revision under section 189 of the CAA addressing nonattainment NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5, including the requirements under subpart 4. Therefore, EPA has not evaluated the August 22, 2013 submittal for the purposes of determining compliance with the subpart 4 requirements. To the extent that any area is designated nonattainment for PM2.5 in Maryland in the future, MDE will have to make a submission under section 189 of the CAA addressing how its nonattainment permitting program satisfies the CAA statutory requirements as to PM2.5, including subpart 4 and any applicable PM2.5 Federal implementation rules.

As previously discussed, this SIP revision incorporates provisions related to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, which: (1) Required NSR permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants;(2) established significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) established PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) required states to account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 emission limits.

To implement these provisions, Maryland amended Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 (General Administrative Provisions) and Regulations .01 and .02 under COMAR 26.11.17 (Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major Modifications). The general definitions at COMAR 26.11.01.01 were amended to add definitions of “PM2.5” and “PM2.5 emissions.” COMAR 26.11.17 contains the preconstruction requirements for new major stationary sources and major modifications locating in nonattainment areas. The definitions of “regulated NSR pollutant” and “significant” under COMAR 26.11.17.01 were amended. The amended definitions require that sources account for the condensable fraction of PM10 and PM2.5, require that NOX and SO2 be regulated as precursors to PM10 and PM2.5, and establish significant emission rates (SERs) for PM2.5 and its precursors. COMAR 26.11.17.02 was revised to specify that all of the major nonattainment NSR preconstruction requirements of the chapter are applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications that are major for PM2.5 or its precursors. COMAR 26.11.17.02 was also revised to clarify that in addition to the requirements of that chapter, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of COMAR 26.11.04.16 may also apply to sources locating in nonattainment areas.

EPA's review of this material indicates that the proposed revisions comply with the nonattainment NSR program requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations (including the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule) that are applicable in Maryland at this time. EPA is therefore proposing to approve MDE's August 22, 2013 submittal as a revision to the Maryland SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

In this proposed action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference amendments to Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 (General Administrative Provisions) and Regulations .01 and .02 under COMAR 26.11.17 (Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major Modifications). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This is a summary of the Auction 98 Request for Comment in AU Docket No. 15-3, DA 15-25, released on March 16, 2015. The complete text of this document, including any attachment, is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Auction 98 Request for Comment and related documents also are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/98/, or by using the search function for AU Docket No. 15-3 on the Commission's ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

All filings in response to the Auction 98 Request for Comment must refer to AU Docket No. 15-3. The Bureaus strongly encourage interested parties to file comments electronically, and request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be submitted electronically to the following address: [email protected].

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Federal Communication Commission's Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. 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 Attn: WTB/ASAD, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (FCC). All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to the FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). 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.

1. Auction 98 will offer 131 construction permits in the FM broadcast service. The construction permits to be auctioned are for 113 new FM allotments, including 18 construction permits that were offered but not sold or were defaulted upon in prior auctions. Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment lists the specific vacant FM allotments, along with the reference coordinates for each vacant FM allotment. These comprise FM channels added to the Table of FM Allotments, 47 CFR 73.202(b), and designated for use in the indicated communities.

2. Under established Commission policies, an applicant may apply for any vacant FM allotment listed in Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment. If two or more short-form applications (FCC Form 175) specify a construction permit for the same FM allotment in Auction 98, mutual exclusivity exists for auction purposes, and even if only one applicant is qualified to bid for a particular construction permit in Auction 98, that applicant is required to submit a bid in order to obtain that construction permit. Any applicant that submits a short-form application for Auction 98, but fails to become a qualified bidder for any reason, including a failure to timely submit an upfront payment, will retain its status as an applicant in Auction 98 and will remain subject to the rules prohibiting certain communications.

3. Each potential bidder is solely responsible for investigating and evaluating all technical and marketplace factors that may have a bearing on the value of the construction permits for broadcast facilities that it is seeking in this auction. Each bidder is responsible for assuring that, if it wins a construction permit, it will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance with the Commission's rules. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Each applicant should be aware that an FCC auction of FM station construction permits represents an opportunity to become an FCC permittee in the broadcast service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, the condition that FCC licenses and other authorizations (whether awarded through competitive bidding or otherwise) are subject to the authority of the FCC, under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to modification through rulemaking and adjudicative proceedings. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular service, technology, or product, nor does an FCC construction permit or license constitute a guarantee of business success.

4. An applicant should perform its due diligence research and analysis before proceeding, as it would with any new business venture. In particular, the Bureaus strongly encourage each potential bidder to review all underlying Commission orders, such as the specific Report and Order amending the FM Table of Allotments and allotting the FM channel(s) on which it plans to bid. A Report and Order adopted in an FM allotment rulemaking proceeding may include anomalies such as site restrictions or expense reimbursement requirements. Additionally, each potential bidder should perform technical analyses and/or refresh any previous analyses to assure itself that, should it become a winning bidder for any Auction 98 construction permit, it will be able to build and operate facilities that will fully comply with all applicable technical and legal requirements. The Bureaus strongly encourage each applicant to inspect any prospective transmitter sites located in, or near, the service area for which it plans to bid; confirm the availability of such sites; and familiarize itself with 47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319.

5. The Bureaus strongly encourage each applicant to conduct its own research prior to Auction 98 in order to determine the existence of pending administrative or judicial proceedings, including pending allocation rulemaking proceedings that might affect its decisions regarding participation in the auction. The Bureaus strongly encourage participants in Auction 98 to continue such research throughout the auction. These due diligence considerations are not an exhaustive list of steps that should be undertaken prior to participating in this auction. As always, the burden is on the potential bidder to determine how much research to undertake, depending upon the specific facts and circumstances related to its interests.

6. Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction Design. The Bureaus propose to auction all construction permits included in Auction 98 using the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round auction format. This type of auction offers every construction permit for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids on individual construction permits. Typically, bidding remains open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

7. Bidding Rounds. Auction 98 will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction. Details on viewing round results, including the location and format of downloadable round results files, will be included in the same public notice.

8. The Commission will conduct Auction 98 over the Internet using the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System (FCC Auction System). Bidders will also have the option of placing bids by telephone through a dedicated Auction Bidder Line. The toll-free telephone number for the Auction Bidder Line will be provided to qualified bidders prior to the start of the auction.

9. The Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. Under this proposal, the Bureaus may change the amount of time for the bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal. Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by using other means.

10. Stopping Rule. To complete the auction within a reasonable time, the Bureaus propose to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach for Auction 98, which means all construction permits remain available for bidding until bidding stops on every construction permit. Specifically, bidding will close on all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder submits any new bid, applies a proactive waiver, or, if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, withdraws any provisionally winning bid which is a bid that would become a final winning bid if the auction were to close in that given round. Thus, unless the Bureaus announce alternative procedures, the simultaneous stopping rule will be used in this auction, and bidding will remain open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit. Consequently, it is not possible to determine in advance how long the bidding in this auction will last.

11. Further, the Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction 98. (1) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bid on a construction permit for which it is not the provisionally winning bidder, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. (2) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bid on a construction permit that is not FCC held, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit that does not already have a provisionally winning bid (an FCC-held construction permit) would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. (3) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that combines (1) and (2). (4) Declare the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (special stopping rule). If the Bureaus invoke this special stopping rule, they will accept bids in the specified final round(s), after which the auction will close. (5) Keep the auction open even if no bidder places any new bid, applies a waiver, or withdraws any provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction). In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had applied a waiver. The activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a waiver.

12. The Bureaus propose to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these options, the Bureaus are likely to attempt to change the pace of the auction. For example, the Bureaus may adjust the pace of bidding by changing the number of bidding rounds per day and/or the minimum acceptable bids. The Bureaus proposed to retain the discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior announcement during the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.

13. Information Relating to Auction Delay, Suspension or Cancellation. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2104(i), the Bureaus propose that they may delay, suspend, or cancel Auction 98 in the event of a natural disaster, technical obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. The Bureaus will notify participants of any such delay, suspension or cancellation by public notice and/or through the FCC Auction System's announcement function. If the auction is delayed or suspended, the Bureaus may, in their sole discretion, elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round or from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureaus to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureaus emphasize that they will exercise this authority solely at their discretion, and not as a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply activity rule waivers. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

14. Upfront Payments and Bidding Eligibility. The Bureaus have delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each construction permit being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the efficiency of the auction process and the potential value of similar construction permits. The upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on construction permits. Upfront payments that are related to the specific construction permits being auctioned protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of the auction. With these considerations in mind, the Bureaus propose the upfront payments set forth in Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment. The Bureaus seek comment on the upfront payments specified in Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment.

15. The Bureaus further propose that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding eligibility in bidding units. The Bureaus propose to assign each construction permit a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit per dollar of the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment. The number of bidding units for a given construction permit is fixed and does not change during the auction as prices change. A bidder may place bids on multiple construction permits, provided that the total number of bidding units associated with those construction permits does not exceed the bidder's current eligibility. A bidder cannot increase its eligibility during the auction; it can only maintain its eligibility or decrease its eligibility. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount and hence its initial bidding eligibility, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to bid (or hold provisionally winning bids) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment amount covering that total number of bidding units. The Bureaus request comment on these proposals.

16. Activity Rule. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. A bidder's activity in a round will be the sum of the bidding units associated with any construction permits upon which it places bids during the current round and the bidding units associated with any construction permits for which it holds provisionally winning bids. Bidders are required to be active on a specific percentage of their current bidding eligibility during each round of the auction. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level would result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility for the next round of bidding, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.

17. The Bureaus propose to divide the auction into at least two stages, each with a different activity requirement. Under this proposal, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility would be required to be active on bidding units associated with construction permits representing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility in each round of the first stage of the auction. During Stage One, a bidder's reduced eligibility for the next round would be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current round activity level by five-fourths (5/4). The Bureaus propose to advance the auction to the next stage by announcement during the auction. A bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility would be required to be active in each round of the second stage of Auction 98 on 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility. During Stage Two, a bidder's reduced eligibility for the next round would be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current round activity by twenty-nineteenths (20/19). If the Bureaus implement a stage with an activity requirement other than 80 percent or 95 percent, the Bureaus propose to calculate a bidder's reduced eligibility for the next round by multiplying the bidder's current round activity by the reciprocal of the activity requirement. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility for the next round of bidding, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these activity requirements.

18. The Bureaus retain the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction and to change the activity requirements during the auction. For example, the Bureaus could decide to add an additional stage with a higher activity requirement, not to transition to Stage Two if the Bureaus believe the auction is progressing satisfactorily under the Stage One activity requirement, or to transition to Stage Two with an activity requirement that is higher or lower than the 95 percent proposed for Stage Two in the Auction 98 Request for Comment.

19. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing Eligibility. When a bidder's activity in the current round is below the required minimum level, it may preserve its current level of eligibility through an activity rule waiver. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding, not to a particular construction permit. Activity rule waivers can be either proactive or automatic. Activity rule waivers are principally a mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent it from bidding in a particular round.

20. The FCC Auction System assumes that a bidder that does not meet the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round in which a bidder's activity is below the minimum required unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waiver remaining or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has no waiver remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the auction.

21. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduced eligibility function in the FCC Auction System. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the activity requirement specified for that stage of the auction. Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility, even if the round has not yet closed.

22. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an activity rule waiver (using the apply waiver function in the FCC Auction System) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver applied by the FCC Auction System in a round in which there are no new bids, withdrawals (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or proactive waivers will not keep the auction open. A bidder cannot apply a proactive waiver after bidding in a round, and applying a proactive waiver will preclude it from taking any other bidding-related action in that round, including placing bids or withdrawing bids (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). Applying a waiver is irreversible; once a proactive waiver is submitted, it cannot be unsubmitted, even if the round has not yet closed.

23. The Bureaus propose that each bidder in Auction 98 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

24. Reserve Price or Minimum Opening Bids. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. The Bureaus do not propose to establish separate reserve prices for the construction permits to be offered in Auction 98.

25. A minimum opening bid is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. Because it is an effective bidding tool for accelerating the competitive bidding process, the Bureaus propose to establish minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 98 determined by taking into account the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and recent broadcast transaction data. Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment lists a proposed minimum opening bid amount for each construction permit available in Auction 98. The Bureaus seek comment on the minimum opening bid amounts specified in Attachment A of the Auction 98 Request for Comment.

26. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bid amounts will result in unsold construction permits, are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. The Bureaus ask commenters to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested amounts or formulas for reserve prices or minimum opening bids. In establishing the minimum opening bid amounts, the Bureaus particularly seek comment on factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the broadcast spectrum, including the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed FM broadcast facility, and any other relevant factors.

27. Bid Amounts. The Bureaus propose that, if the bidder has sufficient eligibility to place a bid on a particular construction permit in a round, an eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on that construction permit in any of up to nine different amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC Auction System interface will list the acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit. If there are duplicate bid amounts due to rounding, the FCC Auction System will omit the duplicates and will list fewer than nine acceptable bid amounts for the construction permit.

28. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid for the construction permit. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a certain percentage higher. That is, the FCC will calculate the minimum acceptable bid amount by multiplying the provisionally winning bid amount times one plus the minimum acceptable bid percentage. If, for example, the minimum acceptable bid percentage is 10 percent, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal (provisionally winning bid amount) * (1.10), rounded using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions as described in the Auction 98 Request for Comment. If bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, in the case of a construction permit for which the provisionally winning bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal the second highest bid received for the construction permit.

29. The FCC will calculate the eight additional bid amounts using the minimum acceptable bid amount and a bid increment percentage. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus the bid increment percentage, rounded. If, for example, the bid increment percentage is 5 percent, the calculation is (minimum acceptable bid amount) * (1 + 0.05), rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.05, rounded; the second additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus two times the bid increment percentage, rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.10, rounded; etc. The Bureaus will round the results using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions.

30. For Auction 98, the Bureaus propose to use a minimum acceptable bid percentage of 10 percent. This means that the minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be approximately 10 percent greater than the provisionally winning bid amount for the construction permit. To calculate the additional acceptable bid amounts, the Bureaus proposed to use a bid increment percentage of 5 percent. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.

31. The Bureaus retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bid amounts, the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, and the number of acceptable bid amounts if the Bureaus determine that circumstances so dictate. Further, the Bureaus retain the discretion to do so on a construction-permit-by-construction-permit basis. The Bureaus also retain the discretion to limit (a) the amount by which a minimum acceptable bid for a construction permit may increase compared with the corresponding provisionally winning bid, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable bid amount. For example, the Bureaus could set a $10,000 limit on increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over provisionally winning bids. Thus, if calculating a minimum acceptable bid using the minimum acceptable bid percentage results in a minimum acceptable bid amount that is $12,000 higher than the provisionally winning bid on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount would instead be capped at $10,000 above the provisionally winning bid. The Bureaus seek comment on the circumstances under which the Bureaus should employ such a limit, factors the Bureaus should consider when determining the dollar amount of the limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such a limit or changing other parameters, such as changing the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, or the number of acceptable bid amounts. If the Bureaus exercise this discretion, they will alert bidders by announcement in the FCC Auction System during the auction.

32. Provisionally Winning Bids. Provisionally winning bids are bids that would become final winning bids if the auction were to close in that given round. At the end of a bidding round, the FCC Auction System determines a provisionally winning bid for each construction permit based on the highest bid amount received. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a construction permit in any given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC Auction System will use a random number generator to select a single provisionally winning bid from among the tied bids. (The FCC Auction System assigns a random number to each bid when the bid is entered. The tied bid with the highest random number wins the tiebreaker.) The remaining bidders, as well as the provisionally winning bidder, can submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. However, if the auction were to end with no other bids being placed, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the provisionally winning bid. If the construction permit receives any bids in a subsequent round, the provisionally winning bid again will be determined by the highest bid amount received for the construction permit.

33. A provisionally winning bid will be retained until there is a higher bid on the construction permit at the close of a subsequent round, unless the provisionally winning bid is withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). The Bureaus remind bidders that provisionally winning bids count toward a bidder's activity level for purposes of the activity rule.

34. Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal. For Auction 98, the Bureaus propose the following bid removal procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bid that bidder placed in that round. By removing a selected bid in the FCC Auction System, a bidder may effectively unsubmit any bid placed within that round. In contrast to the bid withdrawal provisions, a bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. The Bureaus seek comment on this bid removal proposal.

35. The Bureaus also seek comment on whether bid withdrawals should be permitted in Auction 98. When permitted in an auction, bid withdrawals provide a bidder with the option of withdrawing bids placed in prior rounds that have become provisionally winning bids. A bidder may withdraw its provisionally winning bids using the withdraw bids function in the FCC Auction System. A bidder that withdraws its provisionally winning bid(s), if permitted in this auction, is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of 47 CFR 1.2104(g) and 1.2109.

36. Based on guidance provided by the Commission in several competitive bidding rulemaking proceedings and on the experience of the Bureaus with past auctions of FM broadcast construction permits, the Bureaus propose to prohibit bidders from withdrawing any bid after the close of the round in which the bid was placed. The Bureaus make this proposal in light of the site-specific nature and wide geographic dispersion of the permits available in this auction, which suggests that potential applicants for this auction may have fewer incentives to aggregate permits through the auction process (as compared with bidders in many auctions of wireless licenses). Thus, the Bureaus believe that it is unlikely that bidders will have a need to withdraw bids in this auction. Bid withdrawals also could encourage insincere bidding and the use of withdrawals for anti-competitive strategic purposes. The Bureaus also remain mindful that bid withdrawals, particularly those made late in this auction, could result in delays in licensing new FM stations and attendant delays in the offering of new broadcast service to the public. The Bureaus seek comment on their proposal to prohibit bid withdrawals in Auction 98.

37. Interim Withdrawal Payment Percentage. A bidder that withdraws a bid during an auction is subject to a withdrawal payment equal to the difference between the amount of the withdrawn bid and the amount of the winning bid in the same or a subsequent auction. However, if a construction permit for which a bid has been withdrawn does not receive a subsequent higher bid or winning bid in the same auction, the FCC cannot calculate the final withdrawal payment until that construction permit receives a higher bid or winning bid in a subsequent auction. In such cases, when that final withdrawal payment cannot yet be calculated, the FCC imposes on the bidder responsible for the withdrawn bid an interim bid withdrawal payment, which will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that is ultimately assessed.

38. The amount of the interim bid withdrawal payment may range from three percent to twenty percent of the withdrawn bid amount. If bid withdrawals are allowed in Auction 98, the Bureaus propose that the interim bid withdrawal payment be 20 percent of the withdrawn bid, the maximum interim bid withdrawal payment percentage allowed by 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1). The Bureaus request comment on using twenty percent for calculating an interim bid withdrawal payment amount in Auction 98. Commenters advocating the use of bid withdrawals should also address the percentage of the interim bid withdrawal payment.

39. Additional Default Payment Percentage. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of an auction (i.e., fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full and timely final payment, or is otherwise disqualified) is liable for a default payment under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). This default payment consists of a deficiency payment equal to the difference between the amount of the Auction 98 bidder's winning bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time a construction permit covering the same spectrum is won in an auction, plus an additional payment equal to a percentage of the defaulter's bid or of the subsequent winning bid, whichever is less.

40. Defaults weaken the integrity of the auction process and may impede the deployment of service to the public, and an additional twenty percent default payment will be more effective in deterring defaults than the three percent used in some earlier auctions. Moreover, a twenty percent additional default payment amount is consistent with the percentage used in recent auctions of FM permits. Based on the nature of the service and the construction permits being offered, the Bureaus propose for Auction 98 an additional default payment of twenty percent of the relevant bid. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

41. This proceeding has been designated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other provisions pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

42. Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), as well as the Bureaus' obligations to small businesses under 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(B) and 309(j)(4)(D), the Bureaus have prepared this additional analysis to supplement the Commission's Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses completed in the underlying notices of proposed rulemaking and orders, including the Broadcast First Report and Order and associated competitive bidding orders, which are hereby incorporated by reference. This analysis addresses any possible incremental significant economic impact on small entities by the competitive bidding procedures proposed in the Auction 98 Request for Comment implementing such rulemaking orders. The Bureaus request written public comments on this supplemental analysis. Comments must be filed on or before April 1, 2015, and reply comments are due on or before April 8, 2015, and must be identified as responses to this supplemental analysis. The Bureaus will send a copy of the Auction 98 Request for Comment, including this supplemental analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

43. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Competitive Bidding Procedures. The Auction 98 Request for Comment seeks comment on proposed procedures to govern Auction 98, an auction of 131 FM radio station construction permits. This process is intended to implement the Commission's duty under 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(e)(i) to provide notice of and adequate time for potential applicants to comment on proposed auction procedures. The objective is to promote the efficient and fair administration of the competitive bidding process for all Auction 98 participants, including small businesses.

44. The Auction 98 Request for Comment seeks comment on proposed procedures for conducting Auction 98, including: (1) Use of a simultaneous multiple-round auction format, consisting of sequential bidding rounds with a simultaneous stopping rule (with discretion to exercise alternative stopping rules under certain circumstances); (2) A specific minimum opening bid amount for each construction permit proposed to be offered in Auction 98; (3) A specific upfront payment amount for each construction permit; (4) Establishment of a bidder's initial bidding eligibility in bidding units based on that bidder's upfront payment through assignment of a specific number of bidding units for each construction permit; (5) Use of an activity rule that would require bidders to bid actively during the auction rather than waiting until late in the auction before participating; (6) Use of different activity requirements in two stages of the auction, with the Bureaus retaining discretion to change the activity requirement during the auction; (7) Provision of three activity rule waivers for each bidder to allow it to preserve bidding eligibility during the course of the auction; (8) Use of minimum acceptable bid amounts and bid increments, along with a proposed methodology for calculating such amounts, with the Bureaus retaining discretion to change their methodology if circumstances dictate; (9) A procedure for breaking ties if identical high bid amounts are submitted on a permit in a given round; (10) Bid removal procedures; (11) Whether to permit bid withdrawals; (12) Establishment of an interim bid withdrawal percentage of 20 percent of the withdrawn bid in the event the Bureaus allow bid withdrawals in Auction 98; and (13) Establishment of an additional default payment of 20 percent under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2) in the event that a winning bidder defaults or is disqualified after the auction.

45. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which Specified Auction 98 Procedures Will Apply. 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 rules proposed in that rulemaking proceeding, 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. Moreover, the SBA has created a small business size standard of $38.5 million or less in annual receipts for establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs. The size data provided by the SBA, however, does not enable the Bureaus to make a meaningful estimate of the number of small entities who may participate in Auction 98.

46. The specific procedures on which comment is sought in the Auction 98 Request for Comment will affect directly all applicants participating in Auction 98. The number of entities that may apply to participate in Auction 98 is unknown. Based on the numbers of applicants in prior FM auctions, the Bureaus estimate that the number of applicants for Auction 98 may range from approximately 175 to 260. This estimate is based on the number of applicants who filed short-form applications to participate in previous auctions of FM radio station construction permits (exclusive of closed auctions). In the eight open FM broadcast auctions held to date, an average of 1.98 short-form applications were filed per construction permit offered, with a median of 1.365 applications per permit. If those figures apply to Auction 98, the number of applicants may range between 179 and 259. The Bureaus recognize, however, that the actual number of applicants for Auction 98 could vary significantly as any individual's or entity's decision to participate may be affected by a number of factors beyond the Commission's control.

47. The Bureaus are unable to accurately develop an estimate based on the number of small entities that applied to participate in prior broadcast auctions because that information is not collected from applicants for broadcast auctions in which bidding credits are not based on an applicant's size (as is the case in auctions of licenses for wireless services). Potential applicants in Auction 98 may include existing holders of broadcast station construction permits or licenses, as well as non-licensees. The Bureaus note, however, that the Commission has recently estimated that 97 percent of radio broadcasters met the SBA's prior definition of small business concern, based on annual revenues of $7 million. Moreover, the SBA has since increased that revenue threshold to $38.5 million. Based on this assessment, the Bureaus conclude that nearly all of Auction 98 applicants will likely meet the SBA's definition of a small business concern.

48. Legal Basis. The Commission has established a framework of competitive bidding rules pursuant to which it has conducted auctions since the inception of the auction program in 1994 and would conduct Auction 98. The basis for those rules is found in various statutory provisions, including 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, 307 and 309(j). The Commission has directed the Bureaus, under delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction.

49. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. In the Auction 98 Request for Comment, the Bureaus do not propose to implement any new reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements or any other compliance requirements. Any individual or entity seeking to participate in an auction must submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175). The information collected on FCC Form 175 is used by the Bureaus to determine if an applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in a Commission auction. Additionally, if an applicant applies for status as a new entrant auction participant pursuant to Commission rules, the Commission uses information collected on FCC Form 175 to determine whether the applicant is eligible for the status requested. If an applicant is a winning bidder, it is required to submit a more detailed long-form application (such as an FCC Form 301 for an FM station), including any showings to demonstrate its eligibility for new entrant status it may have claimed. This two-phased process helps minimize reporting and compliance requirements for auction applicants.

50. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives beneficial to small entities considered in reaching a proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification for small entities of compliance and reporting requirements; (3) use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption for small entities.

51. The Bureaus propose a number of specific procedures to govern an auction of 131 FM radio station construction permits, which are summarized above in this supplemental analysis. Based on experience in conducting numerous auctions since the program's inception in 1994, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the impact of its auction procedures on small businesses. For example, following consideration of any comments submitted in response to the Auction 98 Request for Comment, the Bureaus will release a public notice to provide detailed guidance for potential applicants on how to complete a short-form application, participate in the auction, and comply with the various competitive bidding requirements applicable to all Auction 98 applicants.

52. The Commission designed the auction application process to minimize reporting and compliance requirements for applicants, including small business applicants. In the first part of the Commission's two-phased auction application process, parties desiring to participate in an auction file streamlined, short-form applications in which they certify under penalty of perjury as to their qualifications. Eligibility to participate in bidding is based on an applicant's short-form application and certifications, as well as its upfront payment. In the second phase of the process, winning bidders file a more comprehensive long-form application. Thus, a small business which fails to become a winning bidder does not need to file a long-form application and provide the additional showings and more detailed demonstrations required of a winning bidder.

53. The Commission provides a number of resources through which potential auction participants, including small entities, may seek clarification of or guidance on complying with competitive bidding rules and procedures, reporting requirements, and the FCC's auction system. An FCC Auctions Hotline provides access to Commission staff for information about the auction process and procedures. The FCC Auctions Technical Support Hotline is another resource which provides technical assistance to applicants, including small business entities, on issues such as access to or navigation within the electronic FCC Form 175 and use of the FCC's auction system. These hotlines are generally accessible during regular business hours. Commission staff also produces a web-based, interactive online tutorial for each auction which potential applicants, including small businesses, may access to familiarize themselves with auction procedures, filing requirements and other matters related to an auction. Once posted, the online tutorial remains available for reference and is accessible anytime.

54. The Bureaus also make various databases and other sources of information, including the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System, the Auctions program Web sites, and copies of Commission decisions, available to the public without charge, providing a low-cost mechanism for small businesses to conduct research prior to and throughout the auction. Prior to and at the close of Auction 98, the Bureaus will post public notices on the Auctions Web site, which articulate auction procedures and deadlines. The Bureaus make this information easily accessible and without charge to benefit all Auction 98 applicants, including small businesses, by lowering their administrative costs to comply with the Commission's competitive bidding rules.

55. Prior to the start of bidding in each auction, all auction applicants are given an opportunity to become familiar with auction procedures and the bidding system by participating in a mock auction. Further, the Commission intends to conduct Auction 98 electronically over the Internet using its web-based auction system that eliminates the need for qualified bidders to be physically present in a specific location. Qualified bidders also have an option to place bids by telephone. These mechanisms are made available to facilitate participation in Auction 98 by all applicants, including small business entities. Moreover, the adoption of bidding procedures in advance of the auction, consistent with statutory directive, is designed to ensure that the auction will be administered predictably and fairly for all participants, including small businesses.

56. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Procedures for which Comment is Solicited. None. These proposed procedures for the conduct of Auction 98 constitute the more specific implementation of the competitive bidding rules contemplated by Parts 1 and 73 of the Commission's rules and the underlying rulemaking orders, including the Broadcast First Report and Order and associated competitive bidding orders, and are fully consistent therewith.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15-17, released on February 9, 2015. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs-public/. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WP Docket No. 15-32, the Commission initiates a new proceeding to seek comment on proposals to amend the Commission's rules governing 800 MHz Mid-Band operations (809-817 MHz/854-862 MHz). The Commission seeks comment on whether to create new, full-power 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. The Commission also seeks comment on appropriate interference protection criteria for interstitial channels, including a proposal from the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) to amend the rules to adopt new “Interstitial 800 MHz Coordination Procedures.” Finally, the Commission seeks comment on a number of licensing and eligibility issues, including whether to provide T-Band public safety incumbents priority access to new interstitial channels, as well as technical issues related to authorized bandwidth and emission mask requirements for new interstitial channels.

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). Commenters who file information that they believe should be withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. See Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. See 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or unconditionally. As such, we note that the Commission has the discretion to release information on public interest grounds that does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

This proceeding shall 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 Section 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Section 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

This document contains proposed information collection requirements. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following information collection(s). Public and agency comments are due May 26, 2015.

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; and (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. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form No.: FCC Form 601.

Respondents: Individuals and households; Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 253,320 respondents and 253,320 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement, every ten year reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534, 535 and 554.

Total Annual Burden: 221,955 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $71,306,250.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

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

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form that is used for market-based and site-based licensing for wireless telecommunications services, including public safety licenses, which are filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. This form is used to apply for a new license, to amend or withdraw a pending application, to modify or renew an existing license, cancel a license, request a duplicate license, submit required notifications, request an extension of time to satisfy construction requirements, or request an administrative update to an existing license (such as mailing address change), request a Special Temporary Authority or Developmental License. Respondents are encouraged to submit FCC Form 601 electronically and are required to do so when submitting FCC Form 601 to apply for an authorization for which the applicant was the winning bidder in a spectrum auction.

The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission use an FRN. This document seeks comment on proposals to amend the Commission's rules to promote spectrum efficiency and flexibility in 800 MHz Mid-Band (809-817 MHz/854-862 MHz). To accommodate these proposed changes, the Commission seeks comment on expanding the universe of respondents.

OMB Control No.: NONE.