Federal Register Vol. 82, No.163,

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the AWA to the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations and standards established under the AWA are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as the regulations). Part 1 contains definitions for terms used in parts 2 and 3. Part 2 provides administrative requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties, including licensing requirements for dealers, operators of auction sales, and exhibitors. Dealers, exhibitors, and operators of auction sales are required to comply in all respects with the regulations and standards, pursuant to 9 CFR 2.100(a).

Under the current regulations, an applicant for an initial license is required to submit an application form, an application fee, and an annual license fee to APHIS-Animal Care (9 CFR 2.1(c)), acknowledge receipt of a copy of the regulations and agree to comply with them by signing the application form (9 CFR 2.2(a)), and demonstrate compliance with the AWA regulations and standards before APHIS can issue a license (9 CFR 2.3(a)). Once a licensee receives a license, a licensee renews his or her license by submitting an annual renewal form and license fee (9 CFR 2.1(d)(1)).

Although an applicant for renewal certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that he or she is in compliance with all regulations and standards, the current regulations do not require the applicant to demonstrate compliance before APHIS renews his or her license. The current regulations also do not require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when the licensee makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or facilities, including noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in regulated activity.

In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, we are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements to better promote sustained compliance with the AWA, reduce licensing fees and burdens, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent individuals and businesses who are unfit to hold a license (such as any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked or who has a history of noncompliance) from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. Potential regulatory changes we are considering include:

• Establishing a firm expiration date for licenses (e.g., after a 3-5 year period), after which the licensee would once again be required to affirmatively demonstrate compliance before obtaining another license;

• Specifying procedures to ensure licensees have ample time to apply for licenses and demonstrate compliance prior to the expiration of an existing license, and issuing conditional licenses to licensees with histories of compliance should they be in jeopardy of an inadvertent lapse in licensure during the license application process;

• Requiring licensees to affirmatively demonstrate compliance when making noteworthy changes subsequent to the issuance of a license in regard to the number, type, or location of animals used in regulated activities;

• Eliminating the application fee and annual license fee and assessing reasonable fees only for licenses issued (as in the example above, such as every 3-5 years);

• Requiring license applicants to disclose any animal cruelty convictions or other violations of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animals;

• With respect to pre-licensing inspections to assess compliance, reducing from three to two the number of opportunities an applicant has to correct deficiencies and take corrective measures before the applicant forfeits his or her application and fee and must reapply for a license;

• Closing a loophole in the current regulations that allows individuals and businesses, although they do not operate as bona fide exhibitors, to become licensed as such in order to circumvent State laws restricting ownership of exotic and wild animals to AWA-licensed exhibitors;

• Strengthening existing prohibitions to expressly restrict individuals and businesses whose licenses have been suspended or revoked from working for other regulated entities, and prevent individuals with histories of noncompliance (or orders suspending or revoking a license) from applying for new licenses through different individuals or business names; and

• Streamlining the procedures for denying a license application, terminating a license, and summarily suspending a license.

To aid in the development of those potential regulatory changes, we invite data and information from the public regarding potential economic effects, including benefits and costs, on dealers, operators of auction sales, and exhibitors, and potential alternatives to reduce regulatory burdens and more efficiently and consistently ensure sustained compliance of licensees with the AWA. In addition, we invite comments from the public on the following questions:

1. Should we propose to establish a firm expiration date for licenses (such as 3-5 years) and if so, what should that date be and why? Please provide supporting data.

2. What fees would be reasonable to assess for licenses issued? Are the existing license fees (9 CFR 2.6) reasonable, or should they be adjusted to take additional factors into consideration, such as the type of animals used in regulated activities? Please provide data in support of any proposed adjustments to the license fees.

3. In addition to the existing prohibitions on any person whose license has been suspended or revoked from buying, selling, transporting, exhibiting, or delivering for transportation animals during the period of suspension or revocation (9 CFR 2.10(c)), should such persons be prohibited from engaging in other activities involving animals regulated under the AWA, such as working for other AWA-regulated entities or using other individual names or business entities to apply for a license? Please suggest specific activities that should be covered and provide supporting data and information.

4. Do you have any other specific concerns or recommendations for reducing regulatory burdens involving the licensing process or otherwise improving the licensing requirements under the AWA?

This action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal Airport, Clinton, OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City, OK, to enhance the safety and support the management of IFR operations at these airports.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0618; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:

Establish Class D airspace within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, to replace the airspace designation of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK, and bring the airspace descriptions in line with the requirements of FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;

Remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and Modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface as follows:

Within a 7.2-mile radius (reduced from an 8.2-mile radius) of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, and remove the Burns Flat VORTAC and extensions to the south and north of the airport from the airspace description;

Correcting the airspace header to Clinton, OK, (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport, OK) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, remove the extension south of Clinton Regional Airport (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport), add an extension 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport, and update the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and

Within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Elk City Regional Business Airport (formerly Elk City Municipal Airport), Elk City, OK, remove the extension to the northeast of the airport, remove the Elk City RBN from the airspace description, and update the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Sayre VORTAC as part of the VOR MON Program, and to bring the airspace and airspace descriptions into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Background

The request to decommission the Burbun VOR was requested by the Plans and Program office in the FAA's Central Service Center. The Burbun VOR was one of the VORs on the list to be decommissioned within the VOR Minimum Operating Network published in the Federal Register (81 FR 48694, July 26, 2016). As part of NextGen, the number of conventional navaids would be reduced while more efficient area navigation (RNAV) routes and procedures are implemented throughout the National Airspace System.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017- 0145/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VOR, cancellation of the VOR approach and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for (RNAV) IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 1 that proposed to modify the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.2 As modified, the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA would require all new large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of providing primary frequency response as a condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposed certain operating requirements, including minimum requirements for droop and deadband parameters, and requirements to ensure the timely and sustained response to frequency deviations in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities.

2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-Power System,3 the Commission issued the NOPR at issue in this proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its proposals address concerns that the existing pro forma LGIA contains only limited primary frequency response requirements, and those requirements only apply to large synchronous generating facilities, and do not reflect recent technological advancements enabling new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install the capability to provide primary frequency response.4 Further, the Commission stated that to avoid establishing new requirements that could be unduly discriminatory or preferential, the proposed reforms would impose comparable primary frequency response requirements on both new large and small generating facilities.5 In addition, the Commission did not propose to: (1) Apply these requirements to generating facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) impose a headroom requirement; or (3) mandate that new generating facilities receive compensation for complying with the proposed requirements, noting that a public utility is not prohibited from filing a proposal for primary frequency response compensation under FPA section 205,6 if it so chooses.7

3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations under NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1.8

4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by failing to address electric storage resources' unique technical attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association (ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique, adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (i.e., they have no minimum set point) will require storage to provide a “greater magnitude of [primary frequency response] service than traditional generating facilities.” 9 ESA also explains that while traditional generating facilities would have no primary frequency response obligations while offline, electric storage resources are always online, even when not charging or discharging, and under the requirements proposed in the NOPR, they would therefore be required to provide primary frequency response on a more frequent basis than generating facilities that can go offline.10 Further, ESA explains that the optimal depth of discharge differs among various electric storage technologies, and exceeding the optimal depth of discharge accelerates the degradation of the facility and increases operations and maintenance costs.11

5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1) Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources from the sustained response requirement.12 In the absence of these changes, ESA requests an exemption from the proposed primary frequency response requirements.13 In its comments, AES Companies (AES) seeks a complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric storage resources.14 AES also asserts that a droop requirement of five percent would needlessly limit the contribution that electric storage resources that are specifically designed for primary frequency response can make to grid stability.15

6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional information to better understand the performance characteristics and limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:

1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of the proposed settings related to droop (e.g., basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity) and the requirement for timely and sustained response to frequency deviations.

a. Are there challenges or operational implications (e.g., unusual or excessive wear and tear) of requiring electric storage resources to implement the proposed operating settings for droop (including basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity), deadband, and timely and sustained response? If so, please provide an explanation, and explain how these challenges are different than those faced by other synchronous and non-synchronous generating facilities.

b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the proposed requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the type of electric storage technology, please elaborate.

c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique to electric storage resources that would justify different operating settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than those discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop, deadband) that are more applicable to electric storage resources that could be used to accomplish effective timely and sustained primary frequency response? If so, what would those parameters be?

2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an electric storage resource's ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g., providing energy or other ancillary services)?

3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response.

a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (i.e., go offline)? If so, please elaborate on possible operational or other impacts, if any, that the proposed requirements may have on generating facilities that are always online, as compared to generating facilities that go offline.

b. Please discuss whether it is possible to “turn off” an electric storage resource's primary frequency response capability (i.e., disable the ability to respond to frequency deviations without physically disconnecting from the grid) when the electric storage resource is neither charging nor discharging and not providing other services (e.g., energy or other ancillary services) to the power system. To the extent possible, please explain if this ability would vary by the type of electric storage technology.

4. Please explain what is meant by “minimum set point” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.

a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate.

b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide an explanation as to why this is or is not the case.

c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum set point change an electric storage resource's response to frequency deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1) Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage resources to a megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a minimum value and the nameplate capacity of the electric storage resource); (2) be used in lieu of nameplate capacity as the basis of the droop curve (i.e., reduce the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations below that of other generating facilities of equivalent nameplate capacity for a given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent droop)); or (3) be used in some other way.

d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response:

i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical characteristics or economic factors should be considered in establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric storage resources?

ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.

iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of the minimum set point and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority?

5. Please explain what is meant by “inadequate state of charge” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.

a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing sustained response when in that “inadequate” state? If so, please elaborate.

b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint for electric storage resources:

i. How would they determine what level of charge is “inadequate” thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained primary frequency response output?

ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.

iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for “inadequate state of charge” and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority?

6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a specified range of state of charge?

a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse impacts?

b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources, or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric storage resource and/or the duration that the resource could sustain its output?

c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (e.g., five percent remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98 percent remaining charge)? If so, please elaborate.

d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for different electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate.

7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint, could owners/operators of all or certain types of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating range 16 outside of which electric storage resources would not be required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response to prevent adverse impacts on the electric storage resources?

a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse impacts?

b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the time of interconnection and include the operating range in the interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be communicated to the relevant balancing authority?

8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint; or (2) establishing an operating range as described above.

7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in the pro forma SGIA. The Commission stated that the record indicates that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.17

8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response capability.18 For example, the Public Interest Organizations state that the Commission's discussion of the economic impact on small generating facilities of installing primary frequency response capability is limited, and claims the information in the NOPR does not directly support the Commission's conclusion that “small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.” 19 Public Interest Organizations encourage the Commission to further investigate the cost for small renewable energy generating facilities to install frequency response capability before making the proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIA.20 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) asserts that the record is insufficient to conclude that the proposed primary frequency response capability requirement will not pose an undue burden on smaller generating facilities.21

9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.22

10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:

1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general differences in these costs between small and large generating facilities.

2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent technological advances in primary frequency response capability minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur, please discuss means by which the Commission could potentially mitigate or eliminate them?

3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case.

4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary frequency response.

5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM's) recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response capability,23 address concerns regarding possible disproportionate costs or barriers resulting from applying the NOPR proposals to the entire set of small generating facilities. If yes, please discuss the viability of applying PJM's approach in other regions.

11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-6-000, 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC'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 FERC'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 FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC 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 response to requests from multiple parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments to November 16, 2017. The date listed in the DATES section by which comments must be received is changed from August 18, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the portion of Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision addressing the State's PSD program as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule and incorporated herein by reference. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all adverse comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” and “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the Muscatine area in the State of Iowa. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective October 4, 2013. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015. These SIPs must demonstrate that the respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018.

On March 18, 2016, the EPA published an action that the State of Iowa failed to submit the required SO2 nonattainment plan for the Muscatine area by the SIP submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Iowa's submittal of May 26, 2016, and the SIP becoming complete by operation of law on November 26, 2016, the sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggers a requirement that the EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years of the finding unless, by that time (a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action proposed here by March 18, 2018.

The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that nonattainment SIPs must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides a review of the state's plan with respect to these requirements, and describes the EPA's proposed action on the plan.

Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,” (April 2014 guidance) available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance the EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area SIP, which includes: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of RFP; implementation of RACM (including RACT); new source review (NSR) and, adequate contingency measures for the affected area.

In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. General Preamble, at 13567-68. SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measureable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

The EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014 guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states and sources utilize longer averaging times—the longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of the EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, the EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C, and D.

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single exceedance does not create a violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set longer term average could cause exceedances, and if so the resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular whether the EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term average limit will provide that the average fourth highest daily maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA judges whether such plans “provide for attainment,” based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS' form for determining attainment at monitoring sites, follows.

For plans for SO2 based on 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment (i.e., in an “average year” 1 shows three, not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the “critical emission value.” The modeling process for identifying this critical emissions value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limit at this critical emission value.

The EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. The EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the “critical emissions value,” which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several reasons, the EPA believes that the approach recommended in its April 2014 guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical perspective, the EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. The EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the critical emissions value) and that takes the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, the EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

Second, from a more theoretical perspective, the EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.

As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily average 1-hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of EPA's April 2014 SO2 nonattainment planning guidance, the EPA found that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of its April 2014 guidance, the EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, the EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for the EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with the EPA's April 2014 guidance, will result in attainment, the EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.2 The April 2014 guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.

Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W (appendix W)). In 2005, the EPA promulgated the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the April 2014 guidance. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment (i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, the EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.

The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (U. S. EPA, 2010a) (August 2010 1-hour SO2 clarification memo).

The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Iowa used in its attainment demonstration.

Iowa's attainment demonstration used the most current version of AERMOD available during each phase of its analysis (i.e., the determining sources culpable to nonattainment phase and the control strategy phase). As previously stated, AERMOD is the preferred model for this application. The final control strategy modeling analysis utilized version 15181. The state asserts that all analyses were conducted with EPA's regulatory default options and considering EPA's guidance documents including the August 2010 1-hour SO2 clarification memo; the “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” memo (March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo); and the December 2013 SO2 Modeling Technical Assistance Document (TAD).3 The receptor grid was centered on the Musser Park monitor, and extended out to the edges of the nonattainment area.4 Those portions of the fence lines of the facilities being evaluated that fell outside of the nonattainment area were omitted from the analysis. Finer grid spacing of 50 meters was used to resolve modeled impacts around other nearby individual facilities included in the analyses, but finer grid spacing was applied only around sources within the confines of the nonattainment area. Receptors were excluded from areas within the property boundaries of each facility in the analysis. The most recent version of AERMAP (11103) was used to import terrain and source elevations from the National Elevation Dataset (NED). All building downwash analyses were conducted using the most recent version (04274) of EPA's Building Profile Input Program with Plume Rise Enhancements (BPIP-Prime). EPA finds the selection and use of these inputs to AERMOD, AERMAP and BPIP-Prime to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and applicable EPA guidance, such as the TAD.5

Modeling for the Muscatine 1-hr SO2 nonattainment SIP was conducted using the surface station and upper air data from the Davenport airport, and used consecutive years from 2008-2012.6 This represents the most recent, readily available 5-year period at the time of the initial analysis per section 8.3.1.2 of 40 CFR part 51 appendix W. The most current version of AERMET available during each phase of the analysis was used. The final control strategy analysis utilized data processed with AERMET version 14134. The state utilized AERMINUTE to process 1-minute ASOS wind data to generate hourly average winds for input to AERMET. EPA finds the selection and use of these inputs to AERMET to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and applicable EPA guidance, such as the TAD.

The state utilized information from the technical support document (TSD) it submitted to EPA during the nonattainment boundary recommendations to inform which sources needed to be included in its nonattainment SIP modeling.7 The nonattainment boundary analysis demonstrated that industrial sources along the Mississippi River have a role in causing or contributing to monitored exceedances at the Musser Park monitor. Based on this analysis, all major sources of SO2 emissions within the nonattainment area- Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), and Monsanto- were included in the nonattainment SIP control strategy analysis.

As described in the state's nonattainment SIP, GPC is the largest source of SO2 within the nonattainment area. GPC is a corn wet milling facility that processes grain into industrial, beverage, and fuel-grade ethanol, as well as a variety of grain based food products, industrial products, and animal feeds. Early in the corn wet milling process the grain is soaked (steeped) in large tanks where sulfur containing compounds are added to the steep water to reduce bacterial growth and help break down the kernels. The sulfur content in the steep water is generally low but does lead to SO2 emissions from a variety of downstream processes. The state asserts that 96 percent of the SO2 emissions at GPC is generated by six coal-fired boilers.

MPW is a municipal electric generating station. MPW produces steam through the combustion of fossil fuels, generally coal, and uses the steam to produce electricity. The largest sources of SO2 operated at MPW are three coal-fired boilers, Units 7, 8, and 9, serving generators with nameplate capacities of 25, 937, and 175.5 megawatts (MW), respectively. An auxiliary boiler operated at MPW is not capable of burning coal but has the potential to emit SO2 when firing on distillate fuel oil.

Monsanto is a manufacturer and formulator of herbicides for agricultural use and also produces intermediates for herbicide manufacturing and formulation. A coal-fired boiler (Boiler #8) used for the production of on-site heat and power is the largest SO2 source at Monsanto.

The state excluded four facilities located within the nonattainment area from the its nonattainment SIP modeling analysis: HNI Corporation—North Campus (HNI North); H.J. Heinz, L.P. (H.J. Heinz); Union Tank Car Co. (Union Tank); and HNI Corporation—Central Campus (HNI Central). As shown in the state's nonattainment SIP, the cumulative actual emissions from these sources is relatively low; the sources emitted a combined 0.14 tons of SO2 per year (tpy) in 2011. See section V.A. Emissions Inventory in this preamble for the 2011 emissions data from these sources. Additionally, if the state were to consider the maximum fuel capacity of a source like Heinz that has two boilers that burn natural gas, it is unlikely that the SO2 emissions would be sufficient enough to cause a significant concentration gradient. The TAD indicates that “other” sources in the area not causing significant concentration gradients in the vicinity of the source(s) of interest, should be included in the modeling via monitored background concentrations. The EPA agrees with the state's recommendation that these facilities do not need to be explicitly modeled and that they are adequately characterized in the background SO2 concentrations. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations in this preamble for more detailed information regarding the determination of the background concentration.

The state also evaluated several major sources of SO2 emissions located outside of the nonattainment area boundary- MidAmerican Energy Louisa Generating Station (LGS), Gerdau Ameristeel (Gerdau), SSAB and Linwood and Lafarge. Linwood and Lafarge, located in Scott County, are approximately 20 km away from the nonattainment area. The selection of the Davenport monitor to represent background likely accounts for the emissions from Linwood and Lafarge.8 As such, Linwood and Lafarge were excluded from further consideration. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations in this preamble for additional information.

All included emission units were modeled using their actual stack parameters and site layout. There were no stacks above formula GEP (good engineering practice) height. There were stacks greater than 65 meters at GPC, MPW, and LGS and each of those stacks were adjacent to tall buildings making the formula height taller than the actual stack height. Therefore, each of those stacks were modeled at their actual stack heights.

Per EPA's April 2014 guidance, the use of allowable emissions and the modeling of intermittent emissions (for sources such as emergency generators and startup/shutdown emissions), for the purpose of modeling for SO2 attainment demonstrations, should follow the recommendations in EPA's March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo (even though it was specific to NO2). The state's nonattainment SIP indicates that it addressed modeling intermittent sources in according with EPA's March 2011 1-hour NO2 clarification memo, and as such all emission units that operate intermittently (e.g., emergency engines and fire pumps) were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, emission units that were limited to burning a specific fuel occasionally were modeled at emission rates that represent the fuel that is burned during normal operations. For example, the two auxiliary boilers (EP2 and EP3) operated by LGS are limited to burning fuel oil for no more than 48 hours per year. EP2 and EP3 burn natural gas during normal operations therefore, EP2 and EP3 were modeled at emission rates associated with burning natural gas. EPA agrees with the state that it is appropriate to exclude these intermittent emissions (e.g., emergency engines and fire pumps) in the analysis and modeling the fuel burned during normal operations, as it is consistent with appendix W and the TAD.

The state's nonattainment SIP acknowledges that, although SO2 emissions in and near the nonattainment area are principally attributable to point sources, a comprehensive emissions inventory should include an assessment of the other source sectors. The state asserted that it accomplished this by using estimates of air emissions for the onroad, nonroad, and nonpoint (area) sources from EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) datasets. According to the state's sector summary analyses using EPA's SCC (source classification code) full detail data files from the 2011 NEI (version 2, dated March 4, 2015), approximately 2.64 tons of SO2 were emitted by onroad mobile sources in all of Muscatine County (this includes areas within and outside of the nonattainment area). Nonroad mobile sources (which include non-road equipment, locomotives, commercial marine vessels, and aircraft) contributed approximately 1.99 tpy of SO2. Again, that estimate includes nonroad mobile sources across all of Muscatine County.

The state asserts that nonpoint (area) SO2 emissions were also relatively low, at approximately 18.73 tpy. Of that total, roughly half (8.92 tons) was associated with emissions mostly from prescribed fires. As with the mobile sectors, the nonpoint totals also represent sums across all of Muscatine County. The EPA agrees with the state's proposal that onroad, nonroad, and nonpoint sources in and near the Muscatine nonattainment area are adequately represented by background concentrations included in modeling analysis and that further consideration of these sectors is unnecessary. See section IV.E. Background Concentrations and section V. A. Emissions Inventory in this preamble for more detailed information.

Section 172(c)(6) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date. See General Preamble at 13567-68.

Part of the review of state's attainment plan must address the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(6) with respect to whether the particular limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses in the limits in particular the longer term average limits (i.e., the 21-day average limit for MPW).

As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and 75 FR 35520, emission limitations, control measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the state and EPA. Working with GPC, MPW, and Monsanto the state developed an implementable control strategy designed to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. The control strategy establishes source-specific control measures that include more stringent SO2 emissions limits, new control devices, and process changes. The state's nonattainment SIP includes these control measures with specific timetables for implementation, establishes minimum performance criteria, and provides schedules for completing verification processes. See section V. B. RACM/RACT in this preamble for additional information. New air construction permits issued to GPC, MPW, and Monsanto include emissions limits, timetables for compliance, and enforcement criteria and are the enforceable documents included in the state's nonattainment SIP that EPA is proposing to approve. As noted in the nonattainment SIP, the state has the authority to implement each of the permits. Each permit includes notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The facilities must, for example, notify the state when they initiate and when they complete construction. Each permit also contains performance testing (emissions testing) obligations with specific schedules, methods, and frequencies for compliance. Each performance test must be approved by the state and a testing protocol must be submitted to the state in advance of the compliance demonstration. Results of the tests must be submitted in writing to the state in the form of a comprehensive report within six weeks of the completion of any testing. Additionally, GPC, MPW, and Monsanto are major sources under the Title V operating permit program and must submit semi-annual monitoring reports by September 30 and March 31, and an annual compliance certification by March 31, of each year. The state also inspects Title V sources at a minimum of every two years. In summary, the state has a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations and to undertake follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

As noted in the state's May 26, 2016, submittal letter, Iowa was included in the agency's Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM SIP call) published June 12, 2015, (80 FR 33839). In the SSM SIP call, subrule 567—Iowa Administrate Code (IAC) 24.1(1) was found to be “substantially inadequate” because it provides that excess emissions during periods of startup and shutdown are not a violation of an emission standard if good practices for minimizing emissions are followed. Each construction permit the state requested be included in the SIP apart if its control strategy contains SSM language from the subrule that is subject to the SIP call (Condition 6 of each permit). As such the state is requested that EPA not act on permit Condition 6 of the included permits. EPA agrees that it would not be appropriate to approve Condition 6 of each permit into the SIP and propose the condition's exclusion.

EPA is proposing to determine that these control measures, and the permits that contain them, satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) requirements and 75 FR 35520. It should be noted that the emission limit established for MPW in the control strategy of the state's nonattainment plan relies on a pound/hour (lb/hr) limit expressed an averaging time (e.g. as 21-day average) across multiple units.9 In accordance with EPA policy, the 21-day average limit is set at a lower level than the emission rate used in the attainment demonstration; the relationship between these two values is discussed in more detail in the following section.

As discussed in the April 2014 guidance, and in section III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging in this preamble, EPA has recommended that averaging times in SIP emission limits should not exceed the applicable NAAQS averaging time, in this case 1-hour, however, EPA has acknowledged that a 1-hr emission rate limit may be difficult to achieve at some facilities. As such EPA provided guidance for establishing longer term averaging limits based on a supportable downward adjustment of the critical emissions value. The critical emissions value is the 1-hr averaged emission rate that dispersion modeling predicts would attain the NAAQS.

The control strategy included in the state's nonattainment SIP allows MPW to meet a compliance formula based on a 21-day averaging period across multiple units running alone or in combination. The formula incorporates a weighting function derived from the modeling results of the individual units (Units 7, 8 and 9), and downward adjustments of the critical emissions values. A separate downward adjustment was calculated for each unit using five years of unit-specific CEMS data, 2010-2014; the state considered this data to be representative of the boilers' operations into the future, and reflect the fact that each unit is emitting from a separate stack. The 1-hour emissions value of 1,153 lbs/hr used in the formula incorporates the adjustment to a longer term limit according to the ratio of the 99th percentile 21-day average emission rate to the 99th percentile 1-hr emission rates from the CEMS data. Because the 1,153 lbs/hr value was derived from all 3 units operating together additional model runs were needed to ensure the formula was protective under other operating scenarios, with combinations of one or two units operating. The formula provides flexibility for MPW to run their three coal units alone or in combination in such a way that the NAAQS will be protected at all times. Because the units have different dispersion characteristics, the formula weighs each unit's individual emissions such that the critical modeled value in the formula is always protected.

To determine the longer term average limit, the state determined the individual variability of each unit from the 2010-2014 CEMS data as described above. The variability value ratios of the 99th percentile 21-day average and 99th percentile hourly values were 0.71, 0.90, 0.63 for the three units respectively. The state determined a critical value for each of these units individually using their respective variability and stack characteristics. In the first modeling scenario (the “All” run) the state determined the hourly critical values for Units 7,8,9 as 250 lbs/hr, 1000 lbs/hr, and 120 lbs/hr respectively, so 1,370 lbs/hr total from the 3 units. Applying the individual unit variability, the equivalent 21 day limits would be 177.5 lbs/hr, 900.0 lbs/hr, and 75.6 lbs/hr respectively which when added together is 1,153 lbs/hr, the value that becomes the basis of the compliance formula. The state then modeled 7 combinations of emissions scenarios using the individual unit stack characteristics that all demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS and accounted for individual variability of each unit. These scenarios consisted of 3 model runs where the individual units were operating alone and 4 model runs with various combinations of units operating. Each run had its own hourly critical modeled value demonstrating compliance and these 7 runs formed the basis for the weights in the formula to ensure 1,153 lbs/hr was always protective of all the individual critical values modeled. This provided modeled emission rates such that a weighted formula could be derived such that any combination of emissions from the three individual units would always be at or below the value of 1,153 lbs/hr as expressed in the formula. Because the stacks have different dispersion characteristics and the modeled scenarios have different critical emission values, the formula derived contains different weights or multipliers for each unit's actual hourly emissions, but the weights are such that no individual unit operating alone or a combination of units will cause a NAAQS violation as long as the formula criteria as expressed in the permit are met.10 Table 1 shows that during each operational scenario at MPW, combined with the control strategies for GPC and Monsanto, the current maximum allowable permitted emission rates from LGS, and background concentrations, will result in attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the 21-day average limit for MPW provides a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The state has used a suitable data base in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit formula that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 21-day average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. For reasons described above and explained in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance, EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as the particular information in state's plan, the EPA finds that the 21-day average limit formula for MPW in combination with other limitations in the state's plan, will provide for attainment of the NAAQS.

The state reviewed its statewide SO2 monitoring network to determine an appropriate background monitoring location- the Davenport SO2 monitoring site. As noted by the state, the ideal background location chosen represents the contributions from all sources not explicitly modeled. Because the monitoring locations in Muscatine, IA are impacted significantly by sources that were included in the modeling analysis, those monitors were eliminated as an option to represent the background concentrations in the area. Of the remaining monitor locations, two are situated adjacent to industrialized areas (Cedar Rapids and Clinton), and, as such, would likely be an overestimate of the concentrations caused by background sources. The state determined that the Des Moines and Lake Sugema monitors were impacted by less SO2 emissions than what would be represented by the background for the Muscatine nonattainment area—and, as such, would likely be an underestimation of the concentrations of SO2 caused by background sources.11

The state determined that the Davenport SO2 monitoring location was appropriate for estimating background concentrations for the following reasons: (1) The Davenport monitor is the nearest location to the nonattainment area (other than those monitors located in Muscatine already excluded); (2) the Davenport monitor is near a moderately industrialized area, but is not situated adjacent to those sources of emissions; (3) the Davenport monitor is in a county with a moderate amount of SO2 emissions; and (4) using the Davenport monitor is consistent with the meteorological data used for the analysis. For these reasons the state believed that the Davenport monitoring location could account for the sources screened out of the control strategy such as emissions from natural sources, major and minor point sources not included in the analysis, mobile (onroad and nonroad) sources, and nonpoint sources.

The state utilized temporally varying background concentrations by hour and season from the Davenport SO2 monitoring location to account for contributions to the predicted impacts from background SO2 sources. To account for seasonal and diurnal variations in the background levels, the state based the background concentration on the average diurnal and seasonal concentration pattern observed at the Davenport monitor during the years 2011-2013. For the years 2011-2013, the 99th percentile monitor concentration was calculated for each hour of the day by season and then averaged across the three years.12

The state also averaged the 2011-2013 design values for Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Des Moines, and Lake Sugema to determine if that number, 10.5 ppb, would be appropriate as background. The state called this the Tier 1 value. The Tier 1 value of 10.5 ppb is higher than all but one of the seasonal/diurnal concentrations. This shows that the use of the Tier 1 value for all hours and seasons would have been too high to represent the variable background concentrations. The EPA agrees with the state's proposal that the method of using temporally varying background monitor concentrations by hour and season from the Davenport monitoring location, as it is calculated from the 99th percentile, is appropriate.

The modeling analysis was conducted in two phases. The first phase (Phase 1) of the analysis was a screening analysis to determine the sources that needed to be included in the control strategy analysis. The second phase (Phase 2) of the analysis was used to develop the control strategy and included all significant sources identified in Phase 1.

This phase was accomplished by modeling actual emissions from GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS and allowable emissions from SSAB and Gerdau and then determining the percentage of predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area to which each facility significantly contributed. In this way, the state determined that GPC contributed to 100 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, MPW contributed to approximately 25 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, Monsanto contributed to approximately 1 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, and LGS contributed to approximately 5 percent of the NAAQS exceedances. Both SSAB and Gerdau each modeled less than a 1 percent contribution to the NAAQS exceedance days within the nonattainment area. Therefore, only GPC, MPW, Monsanto and LGS were determined to have enough potential contribution to NAAQS exceedances to be evaluated further.13

The state then further subdivided the sources by classifying the significant contributors as either a primary or a secondary contributor. If the facility's significant contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was greater than or equal to half of the total concentration (minus background) it was considered a primary contributor. If the facility's contribution was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than the Significant Impact Level (SIL) it was considered a secondary contributor.14

GPC was identified as a primary contributor to all predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area. GPC's max potential contribution was estimated as 3,180 µg/m3 (or approximately 1,223 ppb).15 GPC's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was greater than or equal to half of the total concentration (minus background) 100 percent of the time.

MPW, Monsanto and LGS were identified as secondary contributors. MPW's max potential contribution was estimated as 107 µg/m3 (or approximately 41 ppb). MPW's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) 26 percent of the time. Monsanto's max potential contribution was estimated as 28 µg/m3 (or approximately 11 ppb). Monsanto's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) less than 1 percent of the time. LGS's maximum potential contribution was estimated as 59 µg/m3 (or approximately 22.7 ppb). LGS's contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than SIL (minus background) 2 percent of the time. As such, only GPC, MPW, Monsanto and LGS were included in the second phase of the analysis.

Sources identified in Phase 1 (GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) as being significant contributors were modeled at their maximum permitted allowable emission rates. Using the process summarized below, more restrictive maximum permitted emission rates were developed where necessary to ensure modeled attainment.

To start its Phase 2 analysis, the state provided GPC with a model input file that included its emission units as well as the exceedance receptors to which it contributed. The state's nonattainment SIP submittal indicates that GPC reviewed the input data for accuracy and then mitigated all modeled exceedances caused by the GPC facility alone.

The remaining facilities (MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) were then added to the analysis with their maximum permitted allowable emission rates and the cumulative impacts were determined across the entire nonattainment area. According to the state's nonattainment SIP submittal, the remaining predicted exceedances were then discussed with Monsanto and MPW. As a result of those discussions, additional control measures were developed for those facilities and are incorporated in construction permits submitted as part of the SIP revision. See section V.B. in this preamble for more information regarding the control measures.

Monsanto proposed to decrease the emission rate for Boiler 8 at its facility to mitigate exceedances just north of its property. MPW proposed multiple model scenarios with combined operation of Units 7, 8, and 9. Regardless of the operational scenario, the unit/units were modeled at an equation cap of 1,153 lb/hr SO2. The model results varied depending on which combination of boilers was running. Each of the modeling scenarios (with background included) resulted in concentrations below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The highest modeled SO2 concentration was 187.87 ug/m3 which included the operation of just Unit 9 at MPW. See section IV.D.2. Longer Term Averaging limits, in this preamble, for more discussion of the equation used to determine compliance with the NAAQS for each MPW modeling scenario.

These results indicate that the controls established in the construction permits for MPW, GPC and Monsanto result in attainment of the NAAQS, and as such, additional controls were not necessary for LGS in order for the area to attain. EPA agrees with the state's determination that its control strategy analysis results in modeled concentrations throughout the nonattainment area that are at or below 75 ppb/196.4 ug/m3. Based upon monitoring data discussed in section V.B. RACM/RACT in this preamble, EPA expects that the Muscatine area will attain by the attainment date, August 5, 2018.

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements of this part are met. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan expressly identify and quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants which will be allowed, in accordance with section 703(a)(1)(B) of the CAA, from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in each such area. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for this purpose will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard by the applicable attainment date.

The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See the April 2014 guidance. Additional emission inventory information was discussed in section IV.C Emissions Data in this preamble. A brief summary is provided later in this action.

The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to evaluate emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy and to assess reasonable further progress requirements. The state's nonattainment SIP noted that, at the time, the most recent and available triennial inventory year was 2011 and the stated found that it served as a suitable base year. Table 2 provides the 2011 SO2 emissions inventory data for sources within and outside of the nonattainment the area (data have been rounded to the nearest whole number).

Although not part of the state's discussion of its 2011 baseline emissions inventory, the state's nonattainment SIP also provides 2013 SO2 data for Gerdau and SSAB in Muscatine County and Linwood and Lafarge in Scott County. However, the state provided this as a sum for the sources by county (e.g., the sum of Gerdau and SSAB was 254 tpy and the sum of Linwood and Lafarge was 1,539 tpy). Gerdau and SSAB are approximately 8-9 km away from the nonattainment boundary and Linwood and Lafarge are approximately 20 km away from the nonattainment area boundary.

As already noted, the state's nonattainment SIP must identify and quantify the emissions which will be allowed from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in the area (see CAA § 172(c)(4)). The state must demonstrate that such emissions will be consistent with RFP requirements and will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS. These requirements are met by the states preconstruction permitting program and implementation of the Nonattainment New Source Review Rules (NNSR). See section C. Nonattainment New Source Review in this preamble for more information.

According to EPA's April 2014 SO2 guidance, the SIP should also include a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO2 that were determined to have an impact on the affected nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain the standard, consistent with the attainment demonstration. The inventory should reflect projected emissions for the attainment year for all SO2 sources in the nonattainment area. The state's nonattainment SIP provided a projected inventory only for the controlled sources, as provided in table 3. The inventory was developed assuming each SO2 source operates 8,760 hours per year at its permitted maximum allowable emission rate.16

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 2.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any electronic storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. Multiple acronyms and terms are used in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 of subpart OOO. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of this proposal at this same Web site. Other key technical documents related to this proposal will be available in the docket when the Federal Register version of the proposal is posted to the docket. Only the version as published in the Federal Register will represent the official EPA proposal.

On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. That action also amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production source category and the Polycarbonate Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 2014 final rule established MACT standards for the first time for CPVs at existing affected sources in the APR Production source category. The 2014 final rule also removed exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; clarified provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and lines; added monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs); and added requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results.

The October 2014 amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, promulgated emissions limits for previously unregulated HAP emissions from CPVs at existing affected sources, without distinguishing between back-end and front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 kilograms of organic HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per ton) of resin produced is codified at 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently applies to existing affected source back-end and front-end CPVs.

Following promulgation of the October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions were submitted by the Sierra Club, Tembec BTLSR (“Tembec”), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Georgia-Pacific”). The petitions are available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0077, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0076, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0072, respectively). On March 27, 2015, the EPA issued letters to the petitioners granting reconsideration of the final rule to address at least the following petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis, supporting data and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and that the requirements associated with emissions from PRDs should be reconsidered.1 These letters are also available in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0075, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0073, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0074, respectively).

The Agency is now proposing revised emissions standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources and is proposing alternative work practice standards for storage vessels during periods of planned routine maintenance of emission control systems on fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR production sources. The EPA is requesting public comments on these proposed standards. The EPA is also asking for comments on whether it is necessary to establish a new compliance date for the proposed revised back-end CPV limits at existing sources (if they are promulgated), and on whether revisions are needed to the existing source CPV limits as they apply to front-end CPVs. At this time, the EPA is not proposing any actions pertaining to its grant of reconsideration on the PRD issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. The EPA intends to address those issues separately in a future action and is not requesting or accepting comment on issues related to PRDs.

During the review of the APR NESHAP, the EPA determined that there were no applicable MACT standards for CPVs located at existing affected sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR proposal for the category, the EPA proposed first-time MACT standards, based on the MACT floor, for those CPVs as follows:

• Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent or more; or

• Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) when using a combustion control device; or

• Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 50 ppmv when using a non-combustion control device.

During the comment period on the proposal, commenters provided the EPA with information showing that, rather than the two existing affected sources in the category with CPVs (specifically, CPVs on resin spray dryers) that the EPA had identified at proposal, there are four existing affected sources with a total of six CPVs (all on resin spray dryers). In addition, commenters stated that the EPA should calculate uncontrolled production-based emission rates based on 5 years of production, taking variability in emissions between resin types into account. Commenters provided the EPA with HAP emissions data and resin production data for the previous 5 years during the comment period.

The EPA considered the additional data submitted during the comment period in calculating the MACT floor, and determined that it was appropriate to finalize a production-based limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA discussed the determination of the MACT floor in a memorandum available in the rulemaking docket (Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0053). The final rule was promulgated on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60898).

Petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific each own resin spray dryers (back-end CPVs) regulated by the NESHAP for existing affected sources. The back-end CPVs are currently subject to the finalized limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. Tembec's and Georgia-Pacific's petitions claim they did not have an opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis and emissions standard in the final rule. While they stated in the petitions that they believe a production-based limit is appropriate, they claimed they did not get an opportunity to comment on how the EPA would use the data they provided in analyses conducted to determine the MACT floor level of control.

The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific petitions stated that the production-based emissions limit in the 2014 final rule of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced was not achievable for back-end CPVs, and they expressed concern over the data and calculation methodology used to set the HAP emissions standard for CPVs at existing affected sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that even though its back-end CPVs are identified as the best-performing units, these units do not meet the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced standard for existing source CPVs.

Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further stated that the emissions data the EPA used to represent Tembec's back-end CPVs were incomplete. According to Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec's back-end CPV HAP emissions data used in the final rule MACT floor analysis do not account for all HAP emitted, including methanol and formaldehyde. Therefore, petitioners stated that the EPA underestimated the total HAP emissions from these back-end CPVs, resulting in an unreasonably stringent production-based total HAP emissions standard for existing affected sources.

Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition that the EPA made three errors in calculating the production-based HAP limits for CPVs at existing affected sources. First, the petitioner claimed that the promulgated emissions standard does not adequately account for variability in emissions from back-end CPVs. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the emission rate for each CPV by dividing the 5-year total emissions by the 5-year total amount of resin produced by the corresponding resin unit. The petitioner stated that to account for short-term variability, the EPA should have based the standard on the maximum 1-year production-based HAP emissions rate for each CPV. Georgia-Pacific also stated that another approach the EPA could have used to account for variability in the data when calculating the production-based HAP emissions limit is the application of a 99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL). Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of “average” as the median rather than the arithmetic mean of the production-based HAP emissions, although it acknowledged the EPA's long-standing interpretation that “average” could mean arithmetic mean, median, or mode. The petitioner stated that using the arithmetic mean would better reflect the performance of Georgia-Pacific's back-end CPVs, whereas the median produced an emissions limit that is not representative of two of the five best-performing back-end CPVs (with the noted two being Georgia-Pacific CPVs). Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the EPA's emissions calculations do not account for a change in particulate control technology for one of Tembec's back-end CPVs that occurred prior to the 2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific asserted that HAP emissions from this CPV are now higher with the change in particulate control technology, and the EPA should not have used data from a period with the previous control technology in place when determining production-based HAP emissions from the five best-performing CPVs at existing affected sources.

Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its petition for reconsideration that the EPA should explore subcategorizing the existing source CPVs between those at Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to account for fundamental differences in equipment and processes, including dryer size and/or type of resin produced. Georgia-Pacific's resin spray dryers are substantially larger than Tembec's resin spray dryers. Also, Tembec produces urea-formaldehyde resins, whereas Georgia-Pacific produces phenolic resins.

Tembec stated in its petition that the EPA did not consider information Tembec submitted to the EPA in the development of the MACT standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that 2006 engineering test data for one of its CPVs were submitted to the EPA and could have been used to better estimate the HAP emissions from its three CPVs. Tembec also stated that it supports the Georgia-Pacific petition.

In a comment letter from Georgia-Pacific dated March 10, 2014 (Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0046), on the January 9, 2014, proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an additional CPV at its Crossett, Arkansas, facility. This newly identified CPV is not on the resin spray dryers. Whereas the resin spray dryers are on the back-end of the resin manufacturing process, this additional CPV is associated with a reactor used to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate (UFC), which is located in the front-end of the resin manufacturing process, ahead of the resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of reliable emissions data for this CPV at the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA did not include emissions from this CPV when it set the MACT floor for CPVs. The Sierra Club raised concerns in its petition for reconsideration regarding the exclusion of HAP emissions data from that front-end CPV, stating that the EPA did not adequately explain why the UFC CPV HAP emissions data were not included in the analysis to calculate the MACT floor for CPVs and asserting that the EPA must include all existing sources in the MACT floor analysis. Sierra Club argued that if the EPA had included Georgia-Pacific's UFC front-end CPV, the HAP emissions standard for CPVs would have been more stringent.

Sierra Club asserted in its petition that all the CPVs are in the same source category and that the EPA cannot subcategorize based on the controls that are in place. Sierra Club further noted that although the EPA stated that the HAP emissions data from this front-end CPV were not reliable, such a statement is insufficient to explain ignoring the HAP emissions from this CPV when setting the MACT standard for CPVs. Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding the UFC front-end CPV in the MACT floor analysis because its HAP emissions are not responsible for driving risks is not a relevant reason for such an exclusion.

Following the EPA's issuance of the March 27, 2015, letters granting reconsideration on petitioners' issues pertaining to CPVs, petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP emissions testing on the back-end CPVs located on their resin dryers at their four existing affected sources. The data from that testing are discussed in section III.A of this preamble.

Georgia-Pacific and Tembec conducted HAP emissions testing in April 2015 and June 2015 on all six back-end CPVs located on their resin spray dryers, and they submitted the results of that testing to the EPA. Georgia-Pacific separately tested emissions during production of three types of resins at its Conway, North Carolina, facility; two types of resins at the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; and one type of resin at the Crossett, Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested emissions from one spray dryer CPV while producing one type of resin and tested emissions during production of two types of resins from the other two resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies followed a testing protocol approved in advance by the EPA, and both companies conducted six 1-hour runs of the back-end CPVs on each resin spray dryer, where possible, yielding a total of 64 runs. The test data indicate that the major HAP present were methanol and formaldehyde. Complete information on the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust emission testing, including process and operation information, testing protocol and methodology, quality assurance/quality control, and detailed test results are available in the rulemaking docket.

We performed a MACT floor analysis for back-end CPVs using the 2015 test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) specifies that the emissions limits cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Since we have identified six existing source dryers in the APR source category, we determined the MACT floor-level of control based on the best-performing five sources. The MACT floor analysis involved determining the UPL emission rate for each dryer CPV, based on the emissions test results for the resin type generating the highest HAP emissions (where multiple resin types were tested). This UPL value takes into account production variability and estimates the upper bound of future values, based on present or past samples. The resulting UPL emission rate values for the six dryers were ranked, and the five lowest values were averaged to produce the MACT floor value.

The EPA considered the petitioner's claim that the arithmetic average rather than the median value should be used in determining the MACT floor. Given the distribution of the data from these sources, the EPA interprets the arithmetic mean to be the better interpretation of “average” for this set of data. If the distribution of the emission rates from each of the dryers had extreme variation or extreme skewness, then the median might be a better indicator of the central tendency or average of the data set. However, given that the data set consists of only five values (i.e., the UPL of the performance testing results for each of the five best-performing dryers 2 ) and given that there is only a slight positive skew of this dataset, there is not enough skewness or variation in this dataset to conclude the median would be a better description of the average over the arithmetic mean.

The EPA also considered how to best account for variability in emissions rates in the MACT floor determination. As each of these sources may produce multiple types (or recipes) of APR (without restriction and without needing any physical modification to the sources), to establish a standard that represents the emissions limit achieved in practice by the best-performing sources, our calculations of the MACT floor are based on the resin resulting in the highest HAP emissions at each of the best-performing sources and the calculated UPL emission rate for production of that highest-HAP emission generating resin at each dryer. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, the EPA may exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of performance that has been achieved by the average of the best-performing sources (in this case, five sources) under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that the EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions reduction achieved by the best-performing sources and in setting MACT floors, holding the EPA may consider emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set the floor at a level that best-performing sources can expect to meet “every day and under all operating conditions.” 3 As a result of its analysis, the EPA has determined that an appropriate MACT floor for back-end CPVs s 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. See the memorandum titled “Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” for more details on this analysis.

The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific's request in its petition regarding subcategorizing the dryer standards based on dryer size and/or type of resin produced. However, we found no compelling dryer size threshold nor resin type attribution that would provide a suitable rationale for subcategorization of a MACT floor for a back-end CPV standard.

When establishing an emission standard pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, the EPA also determines whether to control emissions to a more stringent level “beyond-the-floor,” after considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements of such more stringent control. As part of the beyond-the-floor analysis for existing source back-end CPVs, control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor were considered. We identified one such option for back-end CPVs at existing sources, a 98-percent emissions reduction requirement. For this option, we assumed that regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used to achieve this control level at all existing APR sources with back-end CPVs. While we project that two facilities would already need to install RTOs on their back-end CPVs to meet the proposed revised MACT floor emissions limit, for this beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the potential additional installation of RTOs at the other two facilities—one facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPV on one resin spray dryer and the other facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPVs on three resin spray dryers.

Table 1 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor options evaluated. Since we are not aware that any of the four facilities have installed controls to comply with the CPV requirements in the 2014 final rule, and since we are aware that at least three of the facilities have obtained an additional year to comply from their permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is appropriate to compare the impacts of the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor option identified to the 2000 rule compliance baseline. In addition, as explained previously, because the data used to set the production-based HAP emissions limit in the 2014 final rule did not account for all HAP, the cost and emissions impacts determined at the time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule would not be an appropriate basis of comparison. However, we note that using the more complete HAP emissions data now available, the cost and emissions impacts of the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs would be approximately the same as the cost and emissions impacts of the beyond-the-floor option for back-end CPVs presented in Table 1 because we now project that all four facilities would need to install RTOs to comply with the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs. More information on how the capital and annualized costs and costs per ton were calculated is available in the memorandum titled “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Existing Source Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” available in the rulemaking docket.

Essentially, the beyond-the-floor option reflects a doubling of capital and annualized costs compared to the MACT floor option, while obtaining an additional HAP reduction of only 31-percent beyond the MACT floor option. Based on this analysis, we do not consider the beyond-the-floor option to be cost effective. Therefore, we are not proposing any beyond-the-floor standards. Instead, we are proposing to establish production-based HAP emission limits for back-end CPVs at existing APR production sources, at the level we have now determined is the correct MACT floor (i.e., 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced).

Facilities in the APR Production source category produce a wide variety of resin recipes as needed to meet the specifications of various products in which these resins are used. As a result, the characteristics of the resins passing through the dryers where the back-end CPVs are located can vary at a facility. In order to ensure that APR sources monitor operating parameters at a level that ensures continuous compliance with the proposed MACT standards for back-end CPVs under any and all operating conditions, we are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to require sources to conduct the performance testing using the resin recipes anticipated to have the highest HAP content in the liquid resin.

In the risk assessment for the 2014 final rule, we determined that the APR MACT standards promulgated in January 2000 provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (including the then-uncontrolled emissions from CPVs at existing sources). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Category, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0065. Although the data set used to establish the MACT production-based emission limits for CPVs at existing sources in the 2014 final rule did not include data on all HAP, the risk assessment modeling input files for the 2014 final rule show that emissions of all HAP, including methanol and formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the existing sources were accounted for, except for the non-reactor front-end CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility. At the INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk modeling estimates a maximum individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million attributable to the APR source at the INEOS facility, with the risk driver identified as formaldehyde, and the risk modeling input files include 0.375 tons per year of formaldehyde emissions. The information collected from INEOS regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV indicates annual emissions of formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per year. Given the low risk estimate for the facility, we consider this small increase in emissions to be insignificant, and the estimated facility risk would be about the same (less than 1-in-1 million). Thus, we would not anticipate the inclusion of a revised emissions estimate for the INEOS facility would change the 2014 risk assessment results for the facility or the APR Production source category, and we have determined that additional quantitative risk analyses are not necessary.

We are soliciting comments on whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards, if the revisions to those standards are promulgated. The current compliance date in the 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017. The APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request an extension from their permitting authorities for up to 1 additional year to comply, if necessary, to install controls to meet a standard. We anticipate that two existing facilities would need to install control devices to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV emissions standards. Industry has indicated that at least 18 months would be needed to install controls, once the proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year extension of the October 9, 2017, compliance date, if granted, would require compliance in less than 18 months from any promulgation date of the revised back-end CPV standards (given the date of this proposal). We are soliciting comments on whether to maintain the current compliance date, anticipating that case-by-case extension requests may be made, or if the compliance date should be established for another date. If it is appropriate to establish a different compliance date, we are soliciting comments on an appropriate date, such as a date 18 months after promulgation of the revised standards, the date 18 months beyond the original October 9, 2017, compliance date, or some other date.

In the APR Production source category, CPVs are found in both the back-end and front-end of the resins production process. Back-end CPVs are associated with APR production operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Front-end CPVs are associated with the part of an APR process unit related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping, and filtering operations. Front-end CPVs can be further distinguished as being reactor CPVs or non-reactor CPVs. A reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a reactor, whereas a non-reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor front-end CPV unit operations include filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding tanks, and distillation systems.

The EPA has identified two APR Production existing sources that have front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific's facility in Crossett, Arkansas, and the other is an INEOS Melamines facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. Georgia-Pacific has a front-end reactor CPV that handles air streams originating from the reactor associated with the manufacture of UFC. This front-end CPV is controlled with an RTO that achieves a HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or more and also controls HAP emissions from other processes at the facility. The EPA became aware of this front-end CPV through comments on the 2014 proposed rulemaking, but had limited information about this front-end CPV at the time of the final rule. INEOS Melamines has a front-end non-reactor CPV that handles air streams from the formaldehyde recovery process associated with their amino resins production process. This front-end CPV is routed to a scrubber, which was installed primarily for control of particulate matter emissions. The EPA was not aware of this front-end CPV unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but learned of it in 2015 from communications with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. We are not aware of any other front-end CPVs at any of the other existing sources in the APR Production source category.

Since the air emission streams from these two front-end CPVs have different characteristics, such as different flow rates and HAP concentrations, and are vents for dissimilar types of equipment and would likely require different control approaches, we are soliciting comments on, but not yet proposing, whether standards for these front-end CPVs should be revised from the currently applicable CPV standard of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and subcategorized into two types—reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs. Separate standards for the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor and non-reactor vents have been regulated by the EPA for batch processes for the APR Production source category—see 40 CFR 63.1406 Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions. We are not proposing separate standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and non-reactors at this time because we are uncertain as to whether we have identified the only two front-end CPVs in the source category or whether the data for these two CPVs would be appropriate to revise the currently applicable CPV standards and establish front-end CPV standards for the source category if there are other front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether there are other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. For any such front-end CPVs, we are further seeking information regarding current HAP emissions, emissions controls, and control costs. If there are no other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources or if no additional data are provided for any such CPVs, it is possible that the EPA would consider, in lieu of leaving front-end CPVs at existing sources subject to the currently applicable CPV standards, adopting final revised standards that could apply to front-end CPVs at existing sources, as discussed below.

Based on the analyses presented below, we could establish separate existing APR Production source standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, based on the MACT floor. We are soliciting comments on whether the EPA should maintain the 2014 final rule CPV emissions standards that currently apply to front-end CPVs (1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced), whether the EPA should replace these standards for front-end CPVs with standards specific to front-end CPVs as discussed in this section, or whether the EPA should set different revised front-end CPV standards based on additional information about additional front-end CPVs that the EPA has not yet obtained.

On November 30, 2015, the EPA requested process information and emissions data for front-end CPVs at Georgia-Pacific's Crossett and INEOS Melamines' resin production facilities via a CAA section 114 survey. Georgia-Pacific has another formaldehyde and resin manufacturing facility located in Columbus, Ohio, for which Georgia-Pacific also provided information in their survey submittal. Although the Columbus facility is an area source not subject to the APR MACT standards, Georgia-Pacific provided the data to help clarify emissions that would be expected from the front-end CPV due to APR production at the Georgia-Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the front-end CPV at this facility handles streams from both APR and non-APR production sources, since the Columbus and Crossett resin manufacturing operations are similar. The EPA received responses from Georgia-Pacific on February 9, 2016, and responses from INEOS Melamines on January 11, 2016, with additional information on May 23, 2016. The CAA section 114 survey and the survey responses received from Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines can be found in the rulemaking docket.

We performed separate MACT floor analyses for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines.

For front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas. Georgia-Pacific also submitted data for a facility in Columbus, Ohio, which is a synthetic area source and is not subject to the APR NESHAP. Consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy and with prior rulemakings where the EPA has included data from synthetic area sources in MACT floor calculations,5 data for the front-end CPVs at both the synthetic area source and the major source were included in the MACT floor calculations for reactor front-end CPVs. Based on our analysis of the data provided by Georgia Pacific for these facilities, we have determined that the MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.61 lb of HAP per hour.6

For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end non-reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in Springfield, Massachusetts. As there is only one front-end CPV in this subcategory, the emissions level currently being achieved by this CPV represents the MACT floor for the subcategory. Based on our analysis of the data provided by INEOS Melamines for this front-end CPV, we have determined that the MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.022 lb of HAP per hour.7

We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data. For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP emissions from the CPVs at both facilities are controlled with RTOs, and we have not identified any other technology that would perform better. Therefore, there is no beyond-the-floor option to evaluate.

For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, the CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility is currently controlled with a scrubber, and we assumed carbon adsorption would be a technically feasible control technology that would reduce HAP emissions. We estimated the total annualized costs of adding carbon adsorption to be approximately $9,000 per year and the control would achieve an additional reduction of 0.04 tons of HAP per year, resulting in a cost of approximately $225,000 per ton of HAP removed beyond the MACT floor level of control. Based on the high costs and low additional emissions reduction possible with this control, we have determined that this beyond-the-floor option is not reasonable. More information on these MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analyses are available in the memorandum titled “MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Front-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” in the rulemaking docket.

In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemption from emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in accordance with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This decision stated that the EPA must have standards in place at all times, even during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As a result, the storage vessel provisions in the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1404 apply at all times. In their petition for reconsideration, Georgia-Pacific requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of the storage vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for planned routine maintenance.

In the 2014 final rule, we established storage vessel capacity and vapor pressure applicability thresholds for storage vessels at new and existing sources, consistent with the thresholds established for the chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON). Georgia Pacific stated in its petition for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule that to meet the goal of being wholly consistent with the HON storage vessel standards, the EPA also should include the HON storage vessel allowance for routine maintenance of an emission control system in the rule. The HON includes provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3) and (f)(3) that allow an affected source to bypass the storage vessel emission control system for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of the emission control system. The emission control system could be an emission control device, fuel gas system, or process. The petitioner stated that these provisions would ensure consistency and are needed because the effort to empty and degas a tank to perform this maintenance could result in greater HAP emissions than would occur if a limited allowance or exception were provided.

To determine whether separate MACT standards should be established for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source, we reviewed the title V permits for each facility subject to the APR NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had storage vessels subject to the emissions standards of the APR NESHAP and for any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of a control device for a storage vessel. From the review, several facilities were found to have storage vessels subject to the APR NESHAP emission standards, and two facilities had permit conditions for periods of time when the storage vessel control device was not operating. One facility had requirements that emissions be routed to a different control device, which normally operates at the facility for other processes, during planned outages of the primary control device for the storage vessel. At this facility, when both control devices are not operating, there are requirements that the storage vessels not be filled during these times, eliminating working loss emissions. The other facility had requirements for one storage vessel that specify it could not be filled when its emission control system was not operating. The reviewed title V permits also indicate that some APR facilities are co-located with storage vessels subject to the HON (or have storage vessels that serve both APR and HON operations, but are subject to the HON due to predominant use).

We also reviewed other chemical production NESHAP to determine requirements that apply to similar storage vessels. From the review of these NESHAP, we found that the HON and several other NESHAP, including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins, Group IV Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities had provisions that minimized HAP emissions during periods of planned routine maintenance. Provisions minimized HAP emissions by limiting the duration of the planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional 120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the tank during such requested extension period. Based on our review of these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that a separate work practice standard that allows owners/operators up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the vessel, represents the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at new and existing APR sources.

We evaluated the 2014 final rule's requirement that the storage vessel work practice standard at new and existing APR sources apply at all times (with no separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system) as a beyond-the-floor control option. To comply with this option (i.e., the current rule's storage tank requirements), we anticipate that backup controls would likely be installed to ensure compliance with the storage vessel requirements during periods of planned routine maintenance of the primary emission control system. We estimate that there are one to 15 sources in the category that would need to control one or more storage vessels during periods when the primary emission control system is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We estimate that carbon canisters would be the emission control devices used for two storage vessels at each facility. We estimate these control devices would have an annualized cost of $830 per year per facility and would reduce 240 hours of breathing losses of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility, at a cost of $62,400 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. We view the costs of this beyond-the-floor option as not being cost effective.

Based on this analysis, we are proposing amendments to the currently applicable storage vessel work practice standard provisions for new and existing affected sources that would establish separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with HAP emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. The proposed amendments would permit owners and operators of fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the fixed roof tank. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners/operators would not be permitted to add material to the tank during these planned routine maintenance periods. Under this provision, the storage vessel would emit HAP to the atmosphere for a limited amount of time due to breathing losses only, which we expect to be a much lower HAP emission rate than if there were also working losses resulting from filling the vessel. The proposed separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system would result in slightly higher HAP emissions (approximately 0.013 tons per year per facility) than would occur under the current work practice standards for storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and would reduce annualized costs of approximately $830 per year per facility.

We are soliciting comments on these proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and whether they represent practices by the best-performing sources in the APR Production source category. We are soliciting comments on whether there are other practices that should be considered in establishing the work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for storage vessels at existing and new APR sources. We are also soliciting comments on whether we have accurately estimated the HAP emissions and costs compared to the work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources in the 2014 final rule.

We estimate that four to 15 existing sources would be affected by one or more of the revised requirements being proposed in this action. We expect four existing sources to be affected by the proposed revised back-end CPV requirements. We expect one to 15 existing affected sources to be affected by the proposed work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. We anticipate that some of these existing affected sources could be affected by more than one of the proposed requirements.

We are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project that the proposed standard would result in an estimated reduction of 207 tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000, APR MACT standards. As discussed previously in section III.B.2 of this preamble, the production-based emissions limit for existing source CPVs in the 2014 final rule was established based on incomplete HAP emissions data. However, if facilities were to comply with that 2014 final rule, we estimate a reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP emissions using the revised HAP emissions estimates based upon the 2015 test data.

In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemptions from standards that applied during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In the absence of separate work practice standards that would apply during these times, affected sources are now required to meet the storage vessel work practice standards during periods when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage tank is shut down for planned routine maintenance by routing storage vessel vents to a back-up control device, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. The proposed work practice standards we are proposing in this action would preclude the need to install back-up controls for these vessels. We anticipate that the proposed revised work practice standards would reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT standards as a result of preventing working losses by not filling the tank during planned routine maintenance of the control device and as a result of limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period; however, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.

For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources would require emissions controls to meet the proposed revised standard. For cost purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These costs are additional to the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of $4.2 million,8 the proposed revised standard represents an approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs.

We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated with the proposed work practice standard for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,9 the proposed storage vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost reduction for each facility of $830 per year, which includes capital cost reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15 facilities.

We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production facilities affected by this proposed rule. We anticipate that two existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this proposed rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per year compared to the 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. Accordingly, we do not project that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on the affected entities.

The estimated total annualized cost of this proposal can also be compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with the 2014 final rule. Based on information received since the 2014 rule was finalized, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of complying with the 2014 final rule to be $4.2 million per year.10 Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the 2014 final rule, this proposal would provide regulatory relief by reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million.

More information and details of this analysis, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, “Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

We estimate that this proposed rule would result in an annual reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre-2014 baseline. These avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions; however, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. See section V.B of this preamble for discussion of existing source CPV HAP emissions under this proposed rule compared to the 2014 final rule.

The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this proposed rule, as described in this notice. We are soliciting comments on the proposed emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to extend the compliance date for the proposed revised emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to promulgate separate emissions standards for reactor front-end CPVs and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources in lieu of leaving them subject to the current CPV standards, and on the information available to the EPA to establish emission standards for front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. We also request comments on the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources during periods when an emission control system for a fixed roof tank vent is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We are not soliciting and will not respond to comments addressing any other issues or other provisions of the 2014 final rule or any other rule, including other issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule. Those issues will be addressed, as appropriate, in a separate, future action.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

This proposed rule would require recordkeeping and reporting of occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage tank provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such occurrences would be required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.

Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO include, but are not limited to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211 are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 and 114 of the CAA.

Estimated number of respondents: 15.

Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.

Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,600 (per year).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than September 25, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA has identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's risk assessments for the 2014 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed action would not alter those conclusions.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In the 2014 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed action would not alter the conclusions made in the 2014 final rule regarding these analyses.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, Chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The additions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice) in WC Docket No. 11-10; FCC 17-103, adopted on August 3, 2017 and released on August 4, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-improvements-broadbandvoice-services-data-collection.

1. The Commission initiates a further proceeding to take a focused look at the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. The Commission's goal in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is two-pronged: To examine its experience based its current data collection in order to collect better and more accurate information on Form 477; and, to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts to improve the value of the data the Commission continues to collect, while also identifying and eliminating unnecessary or overly burdensome filing requirements.

2. Accurate and reliable data on fixed and mobile broadband and voice services are critical to the Commission's ability to meet its goal of decision-making based on sound and rigorous data analysis. Others, including Congressional and state and Tribal policymakers, researchers, and consumers, also rely on the data the Commission collects for a variety of purposes. In support of these efforts, the Commission seeks comment first on ways in which it might change aspects of the Form 477 to increase the quality and accuracy of the information the Commission will continue to collect. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current Form 477 requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The Commission begins below with its proposals for improving and streamlining the Form 477 data collection for mobile services, before turning to a discussion of fixed services.

3. In undertaking this examination of the Form 477 data collection, one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the data the Commission collects are closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, both by the Commission and by outside stakeholders. As a preliminary issue, the Commission seeks comment on those uses to inform its analysis. For each of the issues considered below, the Commission asks for comment on the relationship between potential changes to the collection and the current or expected need for, and use of, the data. Specifically, the Commission asks for comment on whether and how revisions to the collection would better support an existing or expected use of data. In addition to the Commission's many uses for the data, the Commission understands that external stakeholder uses of the data include state public utility commission regulatory and program analysis, academic research, and state and local broadband deployment and adoption analysis. Are there other external uses of the data for which the Commission should account if the Commission makes changes to the collection? Is the existing data collection well designed for Commission and stakeholder use? Will the revisions under consideration in the FNPRM better align the data the Commission collects with the use of those data? Are there elements of the collection not discussed below that should be considered for elimination because of redundancy or insufficient usefulness?

4. Having accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data is critical to policymakers as well as to consumers. However, obtaining meaningful data in the mobile context is challenging. A user's mobile service experience is inherently variable and is affected by various factors, such as terrain, location (e.g., whether the user is indoors or outdoors or distance from a tower), weather, congestion, and the type of connected device. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the tradeoffs among the following possible approaches for improving the mobile broadband deployment data the Commission collects. The Commission also seeks input on whether the characteristics or properties of next generation mobile technologies such as 5G may require modifications to the current Form 477 requirements.

5. The current Form 477 data on deployment of mobile broadband services represents a significant improvement over the data that were previously available from earlier data sources. The 2013 Form 477 Order, 78 FR 49126, August 13, 2013, which provides the framework for the current collection, required for the first time that facilities-based mobile broadband providers directly submit deployment data, representing nationwide coverage areas, as well as required minimum advertised or expected speeds for those coverage areas. Coverage areas are broken down by technology and spectrum band. The current data collection is intended to represent where consumers should expect to receive mobile broadband services at the minimum speeds set by the providers in their marketplace, and it was designed to minimize burdens and allow flexibility for providers. Providers, and not the Commission, decide the speeds of service they offer and may choose among different reasonable bases for substantiating their Form 477 filings.

6. The Commission experience in analyzing and working with the Form 477 data has shown, however, that the Form 477 data could be improved further to better understand the mobile broadband service that consumers actually experience. As noted above, service providers are required to file, and certify the accuracy of, shapefiles representing those areas where, for a specified technology, “users should expect the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds associated with that network technology.” Questions have arisen in various contexts regarding the bases for certain filings and the extent to which those filings reflect actual user experience. The Commission to date has not systematically examined the precise underlying methodologies that are used by service providers in generating their data nor has it investigated whether actual consumer experience has diverged substantially from the Form 477 filings. Moreover, providers' minimum advertised or expected speeds have, to date, been treated as confidential, limiting the ability of policymakers and consumers to compare offerings among service providers from this data collection. Also, because service providers select their own methodologies for determining the coverage and speeds provided, these methodologies tend to vary among providers. These varying methodologies make it difficult for the Commission to compare coverage areas and minimum reported speeds, as the underlying meanings of what the coverage and speed information depict may differ among service providers. Also, current Form 477 filings typically do not include meaningful information about the methodologies by which service providers are generating their coverage contours.

7. Enhancing the Current Data Collection. The Commission seeks comment on the most appropriate way to retain the benefits of the current Form 477 data collection while introducing certain improvements. Is there a way by which the Commission can improve its current data collection to better understand and evaluate the actual consumer experience? As part of this approach, the Commission proposes to make service providers' minimum advertised or expected speeds publicly available (as described below in Section II.C.1.a.). Should the Commission require that filers submit their mobile deployment files as rasters (raster datasets “are commonly used for representing and managing imagery, digital elevation models,” or “as a way to represent point, line, and polygon features.”), as well as, or instead of, shapefiles? Would the publication of the minimum advertised speed plus a more meaningful disclosure of the methodologies used by individual service providers allow a better reflection of actual consumer experience, and enhance the ability of policymakers and consumers to compare across service providers?

8. Standardized Predictive Propagation Model. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on requiring the submission of standardized propagation models for 4G LTE and later-generational technologies. Should the Commission require filers to use predictive propagation models to prepare their Form 477 deployment filings? If so, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which it should take additional steps to specify possible eligible models for this purpose, and to standardize to some extent the output of those models as well as certain input parameters, with the goal of allowing more meaningful comparisons among service providers' mobile broadband deployment. For instance, should the Commission require that deployment shapefiles represent coverage at median speeds as well as speeds at the cell edge? If so, how should the Commission decide the specified speeds? Or, for instance, the Commission could specify a median download speed of 10 Mbps with an edge speed of 3 Mbps. Would this be appropriate, and if not, why not? Should the Commission also consider setting a cell edge upload speed such as a voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) requirement or an upload speed of 1 Mbps, or would an upload speed lower than 1 Mbps be appropriate, and if so, why?

9. What input parameters would the Commission need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparison among providers' LTE data submissions? As examples, should the Commission standardize, or specify reasonable ranges for, any of the following parameters, and, if so, why: (1) Location of cells in decimal latitude and longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in MHz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell loading factors; or (6) terrain provided at a minimum resolution of three arc-seconds? What is the minimum set of parameters the Commission would need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparisons among service providers? To what extent should the providers be free to determine their speeds? To what extent would these predictive models provide the most accurate predictions of actual consumer experience? Would submissions of standardized predictive propagation models with prescribed parameters be too burdensome on smaller service providers? If so, how could the Commission ensure it receives standardized submissions from all providers without unduly burdening small service providers?

10. Supplement Data Collections with On-The-Ground Data. To better evaluate the actual consumer experience under the approaches above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should require some “on-the-ground” data as part of any Form 477 data collection. The previously discussed data collections would be based on the coverage and speeds that theoretically should be achieved based on the service provider's decision on its own submitted propagation model, or some other reasonable methodology of its choosing, or a propagation model with standardized parameters as specified by the Commission. The collection of on-the-ground data would supplement the model-based data, improving the understanding of how the theoretical data relates to actual consumer experience. For instance, comparing results of theoretical propagation models and actual speed test data from Ookla indicate that propagation model parameters such as signal strength and speed may not be as closely correlated to the theoretical prediction when analyzing actual on-the-ground data in a particular geographic area. To more accurately reflect consumer experience, should some actual speed test data, aggregated up to a certain geographic level, be required? How could the Commission impose such a requirement without being unduly burdensome? Are there data of this kind that service providers already generate during the ordinary course of business which would be less burdensome to collect?

11. Incorporation of New Mobile Wireless Technologies. The 2013 Form 477 Order provided for reporting by various existing technologies but did not provide for the reporting of data for new wireless technologies, such as 5G. Should the Commission require separate reporting of 5G mobile broadband deployment? Are there any aspects of 5G mobile broadband services that would suggest a need to represent deployment on Form 477 differently from 4G LTE and other mobile technologies? For instance, what are the specific use cases for mobile 5G service that the Commission should consider when collecting data to accurately represent 5G services being deployed to consumers? Should the Commission define 5G for the purposes of the Form 477 data collection, and, if so, how? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether and, if so, in what circumstances, should the Form 477 take into account the deployment of facilities used in non-traditional ways in offering wireless services to consumers? For example, while Wi-Fi facilities traditionally have provided consumers with portable, not mobile, wireless connectivity, should the Form 477 track deployment of such facilities when offered to consumers in conjunction with resold mobile service? Might there develop other wireless services based exclusively on the integration of numerous unlicensed facilities, such as Wi-Fi routers, that might warrant tracking in Form 477? If so, under what circumstances, and how should any such facilities deployment be reported?

12. Mobile Satellite Broadband Service. Satellite operators today may provide both fixed and mobile broadband service in the same spectrum. Considering the small but growing market for satellite mobile broadband, would it be appropriate to make additional modifications to Form 477 to include satellite broadband data in the mobile broadband data collection, and, if so, how?

13. The 2013 Form 477 Order, while modernizing the data collection generally, also ensured that, for the first time, the Form 477 data collection would require the submission of mobile broadband deployment data. Specifically, the 2013 Form 477 Order required that filers submit their mobile broadband deployment data by unique combinations of technology, spectrum band utilized, and minimum advertised or expected speed.

14. Under the current Form 477 reporting framework, facilities-based providers of mobile wireless broadband service are required to submit shapefiles depicting their broadband network coverage areas for each transmission technology deployed in each frequency band. Although the Commission in the 2013 Form 477 Order concluded that collecting deployment information by spectrum band would enable it “to analyze deployment in different spectrum bands” and “facilitate the formulation of sound and informed spectrum policies,” to date the Commission has not used the spectrum band information from Form 477 in its mobile broadband coverage analysis.

15. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement that mobile broadband providers submit their broadband deployment data by spectrum band. The Commission anticipates that eliminating the requirement to provide spectrum band information would greatly streamline and reduce the burdens on providers by reducing the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) they are required to submit. For example, a provider currently providing LTE in four spectrum bands would only have to submit one shapefile representing its coverage rather than four shapefiles. Moreover, currently the Commission is not aware of any significant purpose for which these data might be used, although the Commission seeks comment on whether to continue to collect these data as they might be helpful for analysis in future proceedings. The Commission also seeks comment on any alternative approaches it should consider in lieu of adopting the streamlining proposal. For example, should the Commission consider adopting an alternative process under which providers might provide a list of bands and the associated amount of spectrum used to provision various mobile technologies by some geography, such as the CMA? Would this approach be less burdensome than the requirement to submit shapefiles for each spectrum band, particularly for smaller providers? Would this approach be beneficial by providing data that would allow the Commission to track more easily new spectrum deployments? Would it, for instance, provide a valuable source of information regarding the timing and provision of LTE on 3.5 GHz spectrum as well as the deployment of 5G services in the various low, mid, and high spectrum bands?

16. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment about whether to eliminate or modify the requirement that mobile broadband providers report coverage information for each technology deployed in their networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should simplify the filing process by requiring that coverage maps be provided for four categories of technology—3G, 4G non-LTE, 4G LTE, and 5G—rather than by each specific broadband technology, and how these categories should be defined. Are these categories defined and distinct enough to ensure accurate and meaningful reporting? Are the distinctions between categories, such as 4G versus 5G, clear enough for the data to be meaningful and for respondents to accurately submit data? Will the Commission need to specify which technologies correspond to which category? Currently, the Form 477 instructions set out specific technology codes for nine different mobile technologies. In the Commission's experience, the separate reporting of coverage information by every one of these nine specific mobile technologies has not added useful information for the purposes of Commission decision-making, and such information is not currently used in its analysis of the data received. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating the requirement or modifying the information required to be reported in this manner would be a significant reduction in the filing burden.

17. The Commission turns next to its consideration of mobile broadband service availability data. Currently, mobile broadband providers are required to submit data where their service is “available.” To comply with this requirement, mobile broadband providers must submit a comma separated values (CSV) file of all census tracts where the provider's mobile wireless broadband service is advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers. This requirement was designed to identify those geographic areas where a service provider has coverage but is not affirmatively offering service to subscribers through a local retail presence.

18. The Commission's experience with the collection of this information, however, has shown that the mobile broadband service availability data that providers submit generally do not reflect their local retail presence. Instead, the Commission has found that filers claim that their service is available beyond where they may have a local retail presence. In view of its experience with these data, the Commission seeks comment about the continued significance of local retail presence information. The Commission proposes eliminating the requirement to submit mobile broadband service availability data, as it is not producing accurate information about where services are affirmatively available to American consumers.

19. Next, the Commission seeks comment about how the Commission might revise its data collection on the deployment of mobile voice services. The 2013 Form 477 Order required filers to submit the voice coverage boundaries “where providers expect to be able to make, maintain, and receive voice calls.” The Order also required that providers submit voice deployment shapefiles representing geographic coverage nationwide for each technology and frequency band. The Commission seeks comment about whether to revise these requirements.

20. The Commission continues to view the collection of mobile voice deployment data as important for tracking changes in the mobile landscape and informing the Commission's analysis of mobile voice services that are available to consumers. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether there are ways that it may refine its collection of this information to reduce burdens for providers. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the requirement to submit voice coverage data by technology and spectrum band. Does the Commission still need these data to accurately evaluate the mobile voice services that are available to subscribers? Is the distinction between voice and broadband coverage significant, or do providers most often include mobile voice coverage wherever they have some form of broadband coverage? If providers include mobile voice coverage wherever they have broadband coverage, should the Commission revise its requirements to allow providers to simply check a box indicating that they provide voice coverage wherever they have a particular mobile broadband technology? How would the Commission account for areas in which a provider provides only mobile voice services?

21. To the extent that the collection of mobile voice deployment data by technology is still necessary, should the Commission continue to collect GSM, CDMA and Analog voice data separately? Should the Commission collect separate voice deployment data for VoLTE and mobile switched voice? The Commission anticipates that revising the data collection in this manner would help the Commission assess where providers claim to have VoLTE coverage and assist efforts in the areas of emergency response. The Commission seeks comment on the importance of collecting information about VoLTE coverage.

22. The Commission seeks comment on how it can improve the data collected on mobile broadband and voice subscription. Form 477 currently requires that mobile voice and broadband subscriber information be submitted at the state level. Given the aggregate nature of the current data collection, the Commission currently uses telephone number-based Number Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data for its subscriber and market share analysis in secondary market transaction review and other proceedings. The NRUF data, however, have certain limitations; for example, NRUF data are more a measure of the number of mobile wireless connections than subscribers. It is increasingly more difficult to determine the number of mobile subscribers through the use of NRUF data because consumers are more likely to use more than one mobile device that have been assigned telephone numbers—particularly non-voice devices, such as Internet access devices (e.g., wireless modem cards and mobile Wi-Fi hotspots), e-readers, tablets, and telematics systems. Also, predicting the number of devices using this dataset is difficult as some mobile devices do not have telephone numbers assigned to them. Moreover, because a subscriber can move and retain the same mobile number, subscribers may not be attributed to the state in which the subscriber receives or pays for service in some cases (someone with an 812 Southern Indiana area code may live in California, for example, but is attributed to Indiana for NRUF purposes.).

23. With respect to the existing Form 477 subscription data, because subscriber data are collected at the state level, they are not sufficiently granular for meaningful evaluation of mobile service subscribership, as noted. Subscription data at a more disaggregated geographic level would significantly improve the Commission's ability to provide more accurate mobile competition analyses, particularly in the secondary market transactions review.

24. While the Commission's 2011 Form 477 NPRM, 76 FR 10827, February 28, 2011, raised the issue of requiring mobile subscribership reporting at a more granular level, the 2013 Form 477 Order did not change the state-level reporting requirement. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes requiring mobile providers to aggregate their subscribership data to the census tract level, based on each subscriber's billing address. This information would be collected as CSV files and would provide a more granular understanding of where consumers are subscribing to service.

25. Would collecting subscribership data at the census-tract level be sufficient to improve the quality of the Commission's data on subscribership? Are subscribers' billing addresses sufficiently correlated with the areas in which subscribers use their mobile wireless devices to be meaningful in the Commission's competitive analyses, and if not, what else should the Commission consider? Does the answer differ for residential and business accounts? Should the Commission consider requiring subscribership data for a different geographic area? For example, while reporting subscribership at the census-tract level would parallel the requirement for fixed service, what are the costs and benefits of reporting at a different geographic level? Whatever the geographic level adopted, the Commission seeks comment on whether using the billing address to assign subscribers to a census tract would be appropriate or, in the alternative, whether using the customer place of primary use address would be preferable as it may be less burdensome for providers. How should filers assign resold lines and broadband-only lines to the more granular geographic level? How should the Commission consider subscribership with respect to 5G services and the IoT? What metrics might the Commission consider in measuring subscribership?

26. For each census block in which providers submit fixed broadband deployment data, providers must report whether they deploy “mass market/consumer” service and/or “business/enterprise/government” service. All facilities-based fixed broadband providers, including cable operators, must report the census blocks where they make fixed broadband services available to residential and business customers at bandwidths exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission currently requires providers offering business/enterprise/government services to report the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (committed information rate (CIR)) available in each reported census block. If, in a particular block, providers offer business/enterprise/government services that do not have a contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (i.e., they are “best efforts” services), then the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates should be reported as “zero.”

27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the separate reporting of available contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates for business/enterprise/government services, while maintaining separate indicators for mass market/consumer service and/or business/enterprise/government deployment. The Commission uses the Form 477 data in connection with many of its proceedings and programs, including the Broadband Progress Report, Universal Service Fund proceedings, the 2017 BDS Order, 82 FR 25660, June 2, 2017, as well as mergers and other transactions. In the Commission's experience, the information collected for consumer/residential/mass market data already provides the necessary bandwidth data in each of these cases. The added CIR data for business/enterprise/government services do not appear to provide additional useful insight, while collecting these data as a separate category imposes an additional burden on filers. The Commission therefore proposes to discontinue the collection of CIR data and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on the best way to collect data reflecting the speeds offered to business/enterprise/government end-users in the absence of CIR data. Will the maximum advertised down- and upload speeds used for mass-market work for business best-efforts data collection? How can the Commission capture speeds for business/enterprise/government end-users that are not best-efforts?

28. In interactions with filers, staff also have found that filers may be reporting CIR data incorrectly in some cases. It is not unusual for filers to report speeds as contractually guaranteed, when in fact they are best-efforts services. As the technology for providing business/enterprise/government services continues to evolve, along with the demand for them, providers increasingly use a variety of technologies in addition to TDM and fiber to serve customers, including mass market service, HFC, UNEs, and Dark Fiber—with and without contractual service level guarantees. If commenters believe that the Commission should continue to separately collect bandwidth information specific to contractually guaranteed business/enterprise/government services, how can the Commission ensure that providers accurately characterize their offerings? Should the Commission require filers to report the maximum bandwidths of business service offered in a given census block and indicate whether the service is best efforts and/or contractually guaranteed? Alternatively, should the Commission require fixed broadband providers to continue to report whether they offer business/enterprise/government services, but no longer report any speed data associated with such services? The Commission notes that this approach would lessen the burden on filers, but would it also help ensure more accurate reporting? Would information about business/enterprise/government services still be valuable in the absence of speed data, or would it be better to remove the requirement to report these data altogether?

29. Facilities-based providers of fixed broadband must provide in their Form 477 submissions a list of all census blocks where they make broadband connections available to end-user premises, along with the last-mile technology or technologies used. These deployment data represent the areas where a provider does, or could, without an extraordinary commitment of resources, provide service. Thus, the meaning of “availability” in each listed census block can be multifaceted, even within the data of a single filer. In a particular listed block, the provider may have subscribers or it may not. At the same time, the provider may be able to take on additional subscribers or it may not. The various combinations have varying implications that make it difficult to understand availability. Specifically, if a block was listed by a provider, it is impossible to tell whether residents of that block seeking service could turn to that provider for service or whether the provider would be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers. This may limit the value of these data to inform policy-making and as a tool for consumers and businesses to determine the universe of potential Internet service providers at their location.

30. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require fixed broadband providers to indicate whether total customers served on a particular technology could be increased in each census block listed when they report deployment data. It seeks comment on whether all fixed broadband providers should be required to identify on Form 477 three categories of service areas for each technology code: (1) Areas where there are both existing customers served by a particular last-mile technology, and total number of customers using that technology can, and would, be readily increased within a standard interval upon request; (2) areas where existing customers are served but no net-additional customers using that technology will be accommodated; and (3) areas where there are no existing customers for a particular technology but new customers will be added within a standard interval upon request. If it determines to add such a requirement, the Commission seeks comment on how providers would identify the relevant geographic units. For example, if a satellite provider could not increase the total number of new subscribers in a spot beam, would they be able to indicate the speed and/or the capacity to increase the total number of subscribers at various locations in the beam at the block or sub-block level? Would this modification to the current requirements elicit data that are more accurate and useful to the Commission, other policymakers, and the public than the deployment data currently collected? These distinctions could help policymakers understand which areas may be limited for service expansion using specific technologies and which areas may be capable of increasing the total number of subscribers using specific technologies. Doing so would offer the Commission, as well as other users of these data, a more nuanced picture of deployment. It would be possible to see, for example, where providers are building capacity, using which technologies, and similarly where they are not.

31. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs for fixed broadband providers to report such data, and how to ensure that reporting the data would be as minimally burdensome on filers as possible. Is it reasonable, for example, to assume that fixed broadband providers are aware of whether they have the capacity in place to make their service available and add new subscribers in a particular location? Do providers routinely maintain information about their service areas that would enable them to provide this information readily, or would this proposal require them to develop new information? The Commission seeks comment on the estimated time required to produce the data and ask commenters to provide the incremental costs of any new software development in addition to the average wage rate estimate. Commenters should also address whether technical or other features of particular transmission technologies would raise issues that would make this information more or less difficult to report.

32. As previously stated, Form 477 collects fixed broadband deployment data on the census-block level. In the 2013 Form 477 Order, the Commission considered and rejected collecting the data on a more granular level. Although recognizing that more granularity may be beneficial in the context of many of its proceedings, the Commission concluded at that time that the administrative and data-quality challenges to collecting data below the census-block level likely would make such an endeavor impractical.

33. More recently, the Commission has requested that specific providers involved in certain of its proceedings provide fixed broadband deployment data on a more granular basis than by census block. For example, the Commission currently collects location-level data from recipients of USF funding to assess whether they are meeting their buildout requirements. The Commission has found this more granular data to be extremely useful in understanding issues surrounding fixed broadband deployment in these contexts and believes that it could be useful if residential deployment data in particular were more generally available to the Commission. The Commission notes that stakeholders have recommended collecting and reporting deployment data at various sub-census block geographies, including at the street-address or parcel level.

34. The Commission seeks comment on giving fixed-broadband providers the option of reporting their deployment data by filing geospatial data showing coverage areas (i.e., polygons of coverage filed via shapefiles or rasters) as providers of mobile broadband and voice service currently are required to do—instead of reporting a list of census blocks. This could reduce the burden on filers. Since the current Form 477 interface can accept geospatial data, accepting similar data from fixed broadband providers should not present a significant technical burden for the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on whether providers of wired, fixed-terrestrial or fixed-satellite broadband routinely store their broadband footprints as geospatial coverage data. To the extent providers do not routinely store data in such a format, or to ensure comparability among different providers' data, the Commission also seeks comment on how to specify a single methodology for determining the coverage area of a network. What burdens would be associated with creating such geospatial data? In addition, since the Commission lacks the locations of individual homes (or businesses), knowing the areas served does not provide information about the location or number of homes that have or lack service (i.e., it provides information on the areas that have or lack service, not the homes that lack service). Should the Commission assume that all homes within a block have service even if only a fraction of a block's area has service? Should the Commission assume that the fraction of a partially served block with the service correlates with a fraction of homes within that block that have service? This would mean determining what fraction of people or homes (e.g., tenths or hundredths) have had broadband deployed. Over larger areas, such fractional people or homes would likely tend to reflect overall coverage; but over smaller areas would reflect a probabilistic estimate of coverage rather than an accurate count of people or homes lacking coverage. The Commission seeks comment about how it could make the best use of such geospatial data to find the number and location of the unserved, and the value of such data compared to the burden of such a filing.

35. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting data at a sub-census-block level. While collection of data by street address, for example, could increase the complexity and burden of the collection for both the Commission and the filers, the Commission seeks comment on the scope of this burden and potential corresponding benefits. For example, having national, granular broadband deployment data could greatly assist with any future disbursement of high-cost funds or universal service reverse auctions, assist consumers with locating broadband competition in their area, and with other broad public policy goals. With more than 130 million housing units in the country, an address-level dataset could have as many as roughly 750 million records for each filing; based on the scale of this dataset, a household-level collection could require significant additional time and other resources to establish and carry out. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a publicly available, nationwide data set containing the address and location (latitude and longitude; and for Multiple Dwelling Units (MDUs), possibly altitude information to distinguish data about units on different floors) for each housing unit in the country, such that filers, or the Commission could geocode street addresses. And, given that the number of housing units changes each year, the Commission is similarly unaware of a means to update such a data set or of publicly available and annually updated source of housing units or population counts in each block that is publicly available and updated annually. The Commission additionally seeks comment on whether the Commission should require providers to submit the service address for every housing unit at which service is available. While this approach would require the Commission to take on the cost of geocoding all the filings, it would potentially relieve burden on the industry. If the Commission requires service address reporting, the Commission seeks comment on ways it could make the reporting less burdensome on providers and the Commission. For example, should the Commission require specific formatting for submission of address-level data? In addition, how could Commission staff find latitude and longitude for addresses that do not provide a full match from a geocoding service?

36. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require providers to geocode all the addresses at which service is available. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits associated with this approach, and on ways that the Commission could ease the burden on filers. For example, should the Commission specify a single geocoding methodology to be used by all providers (e.g., require all providers to use a single geocoding service, and specify how to handle any geocoding partial matches or failures), or require that providers file a latitude and longitude measured in the field? If the Commission accepts multiple geocoding methodologies, or a mix of geocoding and field geolocating, can Commission staff determine when two points filed by different providers represent the same location? Do providers typically know every address to which they could provision service? Are there ways that the Commission could improve its submission portal to make filing this kind of data less burdensome on providers?

37. The Commission also seeks comment on other sub-census block alternatives, such as collecting data about what street segments providers cover. This approach could avoid some of the problems with address-level collections—providers would not need to know every address they cover, only the geographic areas; and there would be no need for geocoding. Such a collection would provide an indication of the road segments where service is available (or, perhaps, road segments along which facilities run), and by extension, road segments along which there is no service or facilities. However, without a data set of housing-unit locations, this method would not yield information on how many homes are along road segments with service and how many are along road segments that lack service. Service might be concentrated in areas where people live in some blocks but not available to all homes in other blocks. A street-segment data collection would not allow the Commission to differentiate those two very different possibilities. In short, lacking a data set with the location of each housing unit, this approach would provide a map of roads that lack fixed-broadband service or facilities, not an indication of the number or location of homes or people that lack service. The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions, and on suggestions for resolving these concerns. What are the costs and benefits of adopting a street segment approach for data collection?

38. The Commission notes that NTIA collected sub-block level data for blocks larger than two square miles for the National Broadband Map, but also that such data did not provide an indication of where homes lacked broadband availability. For such large blocks, some providers filed data indicating road lengths along which they stated their service was available, others provided points where service was available, and fixed wireless providers supplied geospatial data indicating their coverage areas. However, because no database indicated where the housing units were actually located within these large blocks, the number of housing units that could actually receive service could not be determined. In other words, while the data indicated what areas did not have service available, the data did not provide information on whether any homes or people in the areas lacked service, or whether the parts of the census blocks with service available included all homes. The National Broadband Map took different approaches to dealing with this uncertainty over time, for example, treating partially served blocks as being half served plus-or-minus half (i.e., indicating a literal uncertainty); or creating a random distribution of housing units within a block and determining the fraction of those random points that were covered by the reported service (i.e., creating pseudo-data to fill in for what was not known). In short, the sub-block level data provided a statistical estimate, at best, of coverage.

39. Another approach to understanding sub-block coverage would be to require broadband providers to identify blocks that they can fully serve. Under this approach, in addition to filing data on technology and download and upload speed, providers would submit data indicating, for each block, whether they can make service available to all locations (residential and business) within the block. The Commission seeks comment on whether fixed broadband providers, particularly providers of wired broadband services, know whether any locations within each block are beyond the reach of their facilities, such that they could not make service available within a typical service interval. How burdensome would it be for providers to make such a determination for each block in their footprint? Would such data be more useful to the Commission than the fixed deployment data currently collected? If the Commission had information about fully covered blocks, it would also know, for each provider, which blocks are not fully covered. Should the Commission collect geocoded deployment data for blocks that are less-than-fully covered from each provider? Collecting sub-block geocoded data for only a subset of blocks would address some of the challenges outlined above simply by reducing the amount of data to be collected and filed, but would not address other challenges, such as the accuracy of geocoding, or the challenge of determining where locations lie along road segments. The Commission seeks comment on how to overcome the challenges identified in collecting sub-block data, as well as the benefits and burdens of seeking more granular data for a subset of blocks.

40. In sum, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should move to a more granular basis for reporting deployment data and, if so, what basis would be appropriate. For each basis they support, commenters should explain in detail the methodology or approach they propose for capturing the data in a sufficiently uniform format to facilitate processing (e.g., geocoding, latitude/longitude, address). Commenters also should address the expected burden to filers and to the Commission. Commenters should also articulate the relative benefits of each approach. For example, do filers routinely maintain the data needed to comply with the reporting requirements and, if not, what costs will be associated with obtaining them, both at the outset and on an ongoing basis? Are there other methodologies for collecting fixed broadband deployment data that have lower associated costs relative to the expected benefit?

41. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify the Form 477 requirements relating to satellite broadband deployment data to address issues unique to satellite broadband service. Since satellite providers initially reported that they could provide service to millions of census blocks, the Form 477 Instructions were amended to reduce burden on such filers by giving them the opportunity to streamline their data under certain circumstances. Specifically, the Form 477 Instructions state that “[s]atellite providers that believe their deployment footprint can be best represented by every block in a particular state or set of states may abbreviate their upload file by submitting only one block-level record for each state included in the footprint and providing a note in the Explanations and Comments section.” Through the use of that method, one or more satellite providers have indicated on Form 477 that they deploy satellite broadband at certain speeds ubiquitously across the United States. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize burdens for providers with large footprints to report while maintaining variation in the data.

42. The Commission seeks comment specifically on eliminating the option to file abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data for each state. Will removing the option of filing abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data improve the accuracy of the data? Should satellite broadband providers instead report a list of all census blocks, similar to other fixed broadband providers? What if any incremental burden on satellite providers is likely to result from eliminating the abbreviated option? Are there any other options for satellite broadband providers?

43. The Commission notes that satellite-based broadband networks, like all fixed-broadband networks, have capacity limits in some parts of the network, and that networks are not generally capable of serving all potential customers across a large footprint (such as the continental United States) at once. The Commission seeks comment on whether satellite's unique characteristics (e.g., the relatively large area over which satellite providers state they provide coverage, the inherent flexibility of wide-area beams and spot beams, or the difficulty of adding new satellite capacity beyond current space station limits) make satellite coverage, in particular, more difficult for providers to characterize at the census block level. Would revising deployment reporting for all fixed providers, as discussed above, address issues that may affect the accuracy of satellite reporting? If the Commission determines not to revise the deployment reporting obligations for all fixed broadband providers, are there steps it should take to address specific issues relating to satellite deployment, such as capacity constraints in areas in which service is currently reported as “available”? If satellite does face unique challenges, how can the Commission change the data collection to improve data for satellite while maintaining comparability to other fixed-broadband data? In the future, the Commission will also need to account for large Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellite constellations that plan to provide broadband services. The Commission seeks comment on what steps it can take to achieve this.

44. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it does not revise deployment reporting requirements to allow all providers of fixed broadband service to file shapefiles or rasters in lieu of census blocks, it should allow satellite providers to do so. Would satellite providers face lower burdens and/or would the data quality improve if the Commission accepted geospatial data rather than block-level data from satellite providers? The Commission notes, as discussed in the 2013 Form 477 Order, that satellite broadband providers already submit coverage-area information as part of a satellite application or letter of intent. While information submitted at the application phase is extremely useful to that process, the Commission continues to believe that it is essential to gather data regularly via Form 477 to reflect as-built, rather than as-planned, network deployment. Given satellite providers' experience in developing geospatial data, the Commission seeks comment on whether requiring satellite deployment data to be filed in that format would significantly reduce filer burden.

45. Are there other issues unique to satellite that affect the accuracy or utility of the data the Commission collects and, if so, what approaches could it take to address them? What are the costs and benefits of these approaches?

46. Rate-of-return carriers currently submit their fixed voice subscription (FVS) counts by study area to USAC on an annual basis, and the FCC publishes those data. The Commission believes these data provide useful information to the public about the extent of voice subscriptions in each carrier's study area. However, under a rule recently adopted in the CAF proceeding, rate-of-return carriers switching to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Alaska Plan carriers may no longer report such data to USAC for their legacy study area boundaries. In order to maintain the reporting of this information, the Commission proposes to use the Form 477 FVS data, in conjunction with Study Area Boundary data, to develop and publish aggregated voice line counts for every study area, to mirror the approach used to collect these data from price-cap carriers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on the methodology for generating this metric. While the Commission has generally determined not to routinely release filer-specific data collected on Form 477, in this case, the information, collected via another source, has been routinely publicized. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the value of using the Form 477 data for this purpose outweighs any associated confidentiality interest in the confidentiality of the data. The Commission seeks comment on this and on whether the use of Form 477 data is the most efficient and effective means for collecting data.

47. The Commission proposes that certain collected data that are currently treated as confidential be made public. First, the Commission proposes that minimum advertised or expected speed data for mobile broadband services should not be treated as confidential and it proposes releasing such data for all subsequent Form 477 filings going forward. The Commission notes that, in the context of the Mobility Fund II proceeding, several parties have expressed opposition to a proposal to release minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speed data. Currently, the providers' Form 477 minimum advertised speeds have been treated as confidential and consumers and policy makers have been limited in their ability to compare offerings from this collection. This information, however, is already available from other sources. For example, providers routinely make available on their Web sites information about the typical upload and download speeds their network offers in particular geographic areas. Because speed data information is publicly available, the Commission believes that it is not commercially sensitive, and its release will not cause competitive harm. In addition, the Commission expects that dissemination of minimum advertised or expected speed data to the public would promote a more informed, efficient market by providing information that can aid in independent analyses. Making such data available to the public provides consumers, states, and experts the opportunity to review the data to ensure the accuracy of the information. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. To the extent the Commission collects any other speed data that are currently treated as confidential, it seeks comment on whether such data should also be made available to the public, again to promote a more informed, efficient market and aid in independent competitive analyses.

48. Similarly, the Commission proposes that, if detailed propagation model parameters are submitted in the Form 477 filings, some of these parameters should be treated as public information, as the Commission believes that such parameters are not competitively sensitive. For example, terrain resolution, signal strength, and the loading factor are higher-level aggregate parameters and should not be treated as confidential. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. If filers believe that certain propagation model parameters should be treated as confidential for competitive reasons, then they should provide a list of those parameters, and explain the underlying reasons why.

49. National-Level, Fixed Broadband Subscriber Counts. The Commission has historically determined not to make filer-specific broadband subscription data collected on Form 477 routinely available to the public. Consistent with this determination, the Commission has redacted and aggregated data as necessary to prevent indirect disclosure of filer-specific data. The Commission has noted, however, that increased public access to disaggregated subscription data could have significant benefits. The Commission believes that these benefits may outweigh any confidentiality interests for some disaggregated subscription data. In particular, the Commission believes that making public the number of subscribers at each reported speed on a national level would provide a meaningful metric of the state of broadband adoption in the U.S. Although this change would not involve expressly identifying the specific filers submitting the information, it might be possible to infer with reasonable certainty the provider or providers reporting subscribers at higher speeds, for which fewer providers offer service. The Commission believes however, that any competitive harm to the affected providers is likely to be slight, because the numbers would be aggregated to the national level and similar information is routinely made public by these entities through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other disclosures. The Commission seeks comment on whether disclosure of this information would be beneficial and, if so, whether any measures are necessary to ensure that the interests of the filers are protected.

50. Release of Disaggregated Subscriber Data. As another avenue for realizing the potential benefits of greater public access to subscription data, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain types of disaggregated subscriber data should be made public after a certain period of time has passed. The Commission believes that, over time, the potential for competitive harm from the release of filer-specific subscription data likely diminishes. The Commission seeks comment on whether this is the case in connection with specific types of subscriber information collected on Form 477 and, if so, what period of time provides adequate protection from harm for each. What factors should be weighed in determining which categories of raw data files to release? What would be the public interest and legal justifications for releasing or not releasing different types of raw data files?

51. Other Data. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other Form 477 data that the Commission should consider making public. While the Commission understands confidentiality concerns associated with making aspects of these data public, there are also significant potential benefits to consumers and public policy. The Commission invites comment on what data should be made publicly available, and how to mitigate competitive and other concerns.

52. Form 477 is currently a semi-annual collection. In the 2011 Form 477 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on other time frames, and on different time frames for providers based upon size, but did not address those issues in the 2013 Report and Order. The Commission seeks to refresh the record on whether to shift to an annual collection for all filers, for certain filers (such as smaller filers), or for certain parts of the form. Are there some types of data (e.g., the speed of fixed-broadband-deployment subscriptions, or the coverage of mobile broadband deployment) that change so quickly that an annual filing would obscure significant developments that should be captured by the Commission's reports? The Commission specifically seeks comment on the potential impacts of switching to annual, instead of semi-annual, reporting for all Form 477 filers, both in terms of the utility of the data collected and the burden on filers. While the overall burden associated with Form 477 likely would decrease by switching to annual filing, the Commission seeks comment on whether the per-round burden on an annual basis would increase to some degree and whether this would be manageable. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is more efficient for a filer's employees to undertake this collection once a year given employee turnover and the greater amount of change to the data on an annual basis compared to a more routine semi-annual filing with a smaller amount of change to the data.

53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether collecting on a twelve-month cycle would render the data less useful for its purposes, given the rate of broadband deployment and uptake, particularly at higher speeds, industrywide. For example, how would an annual collection affect Commission policymaking? Would it be more difficult to analyze industry trends—such as competition, entry/expansion, adoption of newer technologies and faster speeds—with only annual data? On a one-year cycle, the most recently filed data available for analysis may be up to six months older than it is now. Would the lack of more recent data unduly impair the Commission's ability to carry out transaction review effectively or generate comprehensive and up-to-date Broadband Progress reports?

54. As part of its examination of the Form 477 collection, the Commission also seeks input on how it make the Form 477 data available to the public and stakeholders. How would the proposals described in this FNPRM affect the Commission's ability to process the data and make them available? Given current data and the proposals above, what approach should the Commission take with regard to the National Broadband Map (NBM) (www.broadbandmap.gov)? The Commission currently maintains access to the NBM, which relies on data collected by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration via the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) for data as of June, 2014. In addition, the Commission makes a number of maps available to help visualize more recent Form 477 data and makes Form 477 data available for download in various formats. The Commission believes that a searchable national map of the most recently available Form 477 broadband deployment data can have significant value for the public, industry, researchers and others. Such a map could also provide significant support for the Commission's own efforts in tracking broadband. The Commission therefore seeks input on whether, and how, it can use the Form 477 data most effectively to update the NBM.

55. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates identified above. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

56. With this FNPRM, the Commission initiates a further proceeding to examine the effectiveness of the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. In establishing Form 477, the Commission envisioned that the data collected would help it better assess the availability of broadband services, such as high-speed Internet access service, and the development of competition for local telephone service, materially improving its policymaking in those areas. From the outset, the Commission sought to minimize the burden the collection requirements would impose on filers. The Commission's goal in this FNPRM is to eliminate the collection of certain information on Form 477 that the Commission believes is not sufficiently useful when compared with the burden imposed on filers in providing it and to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts since the creation of Form 477 to identify and eliminate unnecessary or overly-burdensome filing requirements while improving the value of the data the Commission continues to collect. This FNPRM proposes several ways to streamline the information collected in Form 477 as well as suggests ways to ensure Form 477 data are as accurate and reliable as possible.

57. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332.

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

59. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

60. The potential modifications proposed in this FNPRM if adopted, could, at least initially, impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. In order to evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that may result from the actions proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought input from the parties on various matters. As indicated above, the FNPRM seeks comment on modifications to the Commission's existing Form 477 to minimize burdens on carriers while enhancing the utility of the data the Commission collects. The proposals include removing some previous Form 477 reporting requirements, altering some existing requirements, and supplementing the Form 477 collection with some additional, directed proposals to improve the data collected. For example, the Commission proposes to remove some requirements that do not appear to provide salient data, but the Commission also proposes collecting new or different data to ensure the data capture the most relevant new advances in service offerings and availability. Nevertheless, the Commission anticipates that the removal or modification of some Form 477 reporting requirements will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.

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

62. To evaluate options and alternatives should there be a significant economic impact on small entities as a result of actions that have been proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought comment from the parties. The FNPRM seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on small providers and other filers. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might improve the usefulness of other aspects of the Form 477 to maximize the utility of the information the Commission continues to collect. For example, the Commission asks whether the Commission needs to collect mobile voice deployment data by technology and spectrum band, and whether the Commission should revise mobile voice deployment reporting requirements to allow a simple check instead of detailed information for some existing voice deployment reporting requirements. Steps such as these seek to reduce the types and amount of information the Commission collects, which results in more useful information, and also reduces burdens placed on small entities and others. In addition, other proposals the Commission outlines could, for example, limit the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) providers are required to submit.

63. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this IRFA. In particular, the Commission seeks comment herein on the effect the various proposals described in the FNPRM, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative Form 477 reporting requirements would have on those entities. The Commission also seeks comment from interested parties on any potential additional methods of reducing compliance burdens for small providers and ensuring the most useful information based on the Form 477 collection. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed on these topics as well as on other proposals and questions in the FNPRM that seek to reduce the burdens placed on small providers in both the mobile and fixed contexts will shape the final conclusions the Commission reaches, the final significant alternatives the Commission considers, and the actions the Commission ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.

64. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

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

66. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 214, 218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 214, 218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 1302 this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.