Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 23917 

of the substance of and the 

circumstances attending the 

communication, so that the Commission 

will be able to take appropriate action. 

(4) Commission decision-making 

personnel who receive, or who make or 

knowingly cause to be made, 

communications prohibited by this 

paragraph shall place on the public 

record of the proceeding: 

(i) All such written communications; 

(ii) Memoranda stating the substance 

of all such oral communications; and 

(iii) All written responses, and 

memoranda stating the substance of all 

oral responses, to the materials 

described in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and 

(b)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(5) Requests for an opportunity to 

rebut, on the record, any facts or 

contentions contained in an ex parte 

communication which have been placed 

on the public record of the proceeding 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section may be filed in writing with the 

Commission. The Commission will 

grant such requests only where it 

determines that the dictates of fairness 

so require. Generally, in lieu of actually 

receiving rebuttal material, the 

Commission will direct that the alleged 

factual assertion and the proposed 

rebuttal be disregarded in arriving at a 

decision. 

* * * * * 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09797 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0179; FRL–9910–04– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions From Mondele ̄z Global LLC, 

Inc.—Richmond Bakery Located in 

Henrico County, Virginia 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions consist of a Federally 

enforceable state operating permit 

containing terms and conditions for the 

control of volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from the Mondele ̄z 

Global LLC, Inc. (Mondele ̄z)— 

Richmond Bakery located in Henrico 

County, Virginia. EPA is approving 

these revisions for the purpose of 

meeting the requirements for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) in 

order to implement the maintenance 

plan for the Richmond 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) maintenance area 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 30, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

May 29, 2014. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0179 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0179, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0179. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means 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 EPA without going 

through 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, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 14, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of a Federally 

enforceable state operating permit 

containing terms and conditions for the 

control of VOC emissions from the 

Mondele ̄z—Richmond Bakery located in 

Henrico County, Virginia. The submittal 

is for the purpose of meeting the 

requirements for RACT in order to 

implement the maintenance plan for the 

Richmond 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

maintenance area. 

RACT is the lowest emission limit 

that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available 

with the consideration of technological 

and economic feasibility. The VOC 

RACT regulations that apply to source 

categories of VOCs are generally those 

VOC RACT regulations adopted by a 

state based upon Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents issued by 

EPA. Major sources of VOCs that are 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

subject to RACT, but that are not 

covered by a regulation adopted by a 

state pursuant to a CTG are referred to 

as non-CTG VOC RACT sources. When 

the Richmond area was originally 

designated as an ozone nonattainment 

area under the 1-hour standard, it was 

classified as moderate and thereby had 

to meet the non-CTG RACT 

requirements of section 182 of the CAA. 

As part of the 1-hour ozone attainment 

plan, one of the sources located in the 

area identified as being subject to nonCTG RACT was Kraft Foods (now 

Mondele ̄z). Cookies and crackers are 

produced at this plant. The sources of 

VOC emissions at this plant are ovens 

for baking the dough, and oil treatment 

facilities. 

The Mondele ̄z bakery located in 

Henrico County, Virginia underwent 

RACT analysis, and a Federally 

enforceable state operating permit was 

issued to the facility, which became 

effective on April 24, 1991. The permit 

was then submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision, and approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP on March 6, 1992 

(57 FR 8080). 

On September 22, 2004, under the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 

Richmond area was classified as a 

marginal nonattainment area. On 

September 20, 2006, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) formally submitted a request 

to redesignate the Richmond area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 

September 25, 2006, the VADEQ 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

Richmond area as a SIP revision to 

ensure continued attainment. The 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan were approved on June 1, 2007 (72 

FR 30485). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA stipulates that for an area to be 

redesignated, EPA must approve a 

maintenance plan that meets the 

requirements of section 175A. All 

applicable nonattainment area 

requirements remain in place. The plan 

includes a demonstration that emissions 

will remain within the 2005 levels for 

a 10-year period by keeping in place key 

elements of the current Federal and 

state regulatory programs, including 

case-by-case RACT requirements for the 

area. Because the Richmond area in 

which this facility is located has 

continuously been classified as either a 

nonattainment or a maintenance area, 

the RACT requirements remain in effect. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

In 2012, Mondele ̄z made 

modifications to its process that 

necessitated revisions to its RACT 

permit. The most notable change is in 

the ownership of the company which 

changed from Kraft Food Global Inc. to 

Mondele ̄z Global LLC, Inc. The revised 

permit consists of 20 conditions and 

changes that were made throughout the 

permit. They include the following 

changes: Mondele ̄z needed to update 

the aging VOC emission control 

equipment for Oven 1 from a catalytic 

thermal oxidizer (CTO) to a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer (RTO) which maintains 

the same VOC emissions control 

efficiency of 95 percent (%); propane is 

no longer listed as a fuel option and 

instead natural gas is the only fuel 

option available for Ovens 1 through 9; 

and references to sponge dough and 

straight dough were changed to yeast 

dough and non-yeast dough 

respectively. Also, the criteria for the 

permanent total enclosure (PTE) are 

now in the permit. Previously, the PTE 

provisions were found in the appendix. 

Additionally, certain conditions and 

regulatory references have been 

removed because they are either no 

longer applicable or for purposes of 

providing clarity to the permit. None of 

these revisions result in any changes in 

operations or emissions increases of 

VOCs. A more detailed description of 

the state submittal and EPA’s evaluation 

can be found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) with Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0179 prepared in 

support of this rulemaking action. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code § 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by Federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

Federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

Federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 23919 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP that 

consist of a revised Federally 

enforceable state operating permit 

containing terms and conditions for the 

control of VOC emissions from the 

Mondele ̄z Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery located in Henrico County, 

Virginia. EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on June 30, 2014 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by May 29, 2014. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 30, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

This rulemaking action approving 

Virginia’s SIP revision consisting of a 

Federally enforceable State operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of VOC from the 

Mondele ̄z Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery locates in Henrico County, 

Virginia may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 11, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery and adding an entry for 

Mondele ̄z Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery at the end of the table. The 

added text reads as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure 

Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee 

Public Interest Obligations, Extension of the Filing 

Requirement for Children’s Television Programming 

Report, Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4535 

(2012) (‘‘Second Report and Order’’). 

2All permittees and licensees of a ‘‘TV or Class 

A TV station’’ in the commercial and 

noncommercial educational broadcast services must 

maintain a public inspection file, including a 

political file. See 47 CFR 73.3526(a)(2) and 

73.3527(a)(2). 

3See Second Report and Order, 77 FR at 27632, 

paragraph.3. On August 2, 2012, television stations 

that were not exempt were required to start 

uploading documents to the online file on a goingforward basis. With respect to public file 

documents other than political file material, 

stations were given six months, until February 4, 

2013, to complete the process of uploading their 

existing public file. Id. at 4580–81, paragraph. 98. 

See also Television Broadcast Stations Reminded of 

their Online Public Inspection File Obligations, 

Public Notice, MM Docket Nos. 00–168 and 00–44, 

DA 12–2003, rel. Dec. 11, 2012. Stations are not 

required to upload their political files as they 

existed prior to the relevant deadline to the online 

database; rather, they are required only to upload 

new political file content on a going-forward basis. 

See Second Report and Order, 77 FR at 27632, 

paragraph 2 and at 27637, paragraph 33. Existing 

political file documents not required to be uploaded 

to the online file must continue to be maintained 

at the station, however, until the end of the twoyear retention period. See 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(6) and 

73.3527(e)(5). 

4 In the Second Report and Order, the 

Commission stated that, by July 1, 2013, the Media 

Bureau would issue a Public Notice seeking 

comment on the impact of the online posting 

requirement for the political file so that the 

Commission can consider whether any changes 

should be made to the requirement before it takes 

effect for other stations. See Second Report and 

Order, 77 FR at 27632, paragraph 3. Consistent with 

this commitment, the Media Bureau issued a Public 

Notice on June 25, 2013 seeking comment on, 

among other things, the experience of stations 

currently subject to the online political file 

requirement in posting their political files to the 

Commission-hosted database and the ability of 

stations that are currently exempt from the political 

posting requirement to comply with the July 1, 2014 

deadline. Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Online 

Political File and Petition for Reconsideration Filed 

by the Television Station Group, Public Notice, MM 

Docket No. 00–168, DA 13–1440, 78 FR 41014, rel. 

June 25, 2013. The Media Bureau also sought 

comment on the Petition for Reconsideration filed 

by the Television Station Group which requests that 

the Commission reconsider the online political file 

requirement in the Second Report and Order. The 

Commission has not acted upon that Public Notice, 

or in any way altered the online political file 

requirement or the July 1, 2014 deadline for 

compliance by television stations that are currently 

exempt. Therefore, the requirement as codified—the 

July 1, 2014 compliance deadline for stations not 

subject to the 2012 deadline—still stands. 47 CFR 

73.3526(b)(3). 

5We also remind all television broadcasters 

subject to the political file rules that documents 

must be placed in, or uploaded to, the file as soon 

as possible. Section 73.1943(c) of the Commission’s 

rules provides that records ‘‘shall be placed in the 

political file as soon as possible and shall be 

retained for a period of two years. As soon as 

possible means immediately absent unusual 

circumstances.’’ 47 CFR 73.1943(c). 

6See, supra, note 3. 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name Permit/order or registration No. State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

40 CFR part 52 

citation 

*******

Mondele ̄z Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery.

Registration No. 50703 ............................ 2/14/14 4/29/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

52.2420(d)(13). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–09658 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 00–168; DA 14–464] 

Television Broadcasters; Online 

Political File Deadline 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Compliance date deadline. 

SUMMARY: The Media Bureau reminds 

television stations not affiliated with the 

top four national networks and those 

licensed to markets below the top 50 

that they must begin to comply with the 

online political file rules on July 1, 

2014. 

DATES: Effective April 29, 2014. 

Deadline for compliance is July 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy 

Division, 202–418–2154, or email at 

kim.matthews@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Media Bureau’s 

document in MM Docket No. 00–168, 

DA 14–464, released on April 4, 2014. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format) by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

1. In the Second Report and Order in 

MM Docket Nos. 00–168 and 00–44, 77 

FR 27631 (May 11, 2012),1 the 

Commission required broadcast 

television stations to post their public 

files online in a Commission-hosted 

database rather than maintaining the 

files locally at their main studios.2 With 

respect to political file documents that 

must be maintained in the public file, 

stations affiliated with the top four 

national networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and 

Fox) licensed to serve communities in 

the top 50 Designated Market Areas 

(DMAs) were required to post political 

file documents online beginning August 

2, 2012, but all other stations were 

exempted from posting their political 

file documents to their online public file 

until July 1, 2014.3

2. This document is a reminder to 

television stations not affiliated with the 

top four national networks and those 

licensed to markets below the top 50 

that they must begin to comply on July 

1, 2014.4 As noted above, on that date 

stations that are currently exempt must 

start uploading new political file 

material on a going-forward basis.5

These stations are not required to 

upload political files placed in their 

public file prior to July 1, 2014; 

however, they are required to retain 

those documents at the station until the 

end of the two-year retention period.6

Given that these television stations have 

already been required to use the online 

public file for documents other than the 

political file since August 2, 2012, we 

do not expect them to have difficulty 

determining how to upload new 

political file documents to the online 

file. 

3. Members of the public and 

broadcasters will find answers to 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES