Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78315 

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 the 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the 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 it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

October 18, 2013. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: December 12, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30878 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0002; FRL–9904–53– 

Region 10] 

Revision to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine 

Particulate Matter Control Measures; 

Franklin County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2012, the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) submitted a revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for the Idaho portion 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Franklin 

County’’) of the cross border Logan, 

Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT– 

ID). The EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of PM2.5 control measures 

contained in the December 2012 

submittal because incorporation of these 

measures would strengthen the Idaho 

SIP and reduce sources of PM2.5

emissions in Franklin County that 

contribute to violations of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment area. Consequently, the 

EPA is not acting on the entire contents 

of the December 2012 SIP submission 

revision at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0002, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013– 

0002. The 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 

the disclosure of which 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 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 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 disk or CD–ROM 

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, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information, 

the disclosure of which 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 in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle 

WA, 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 

or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background 

II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5

Control Measures 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Technical Support for State and Tribal Air 

Quality 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

Designations, Sections 4.8.2 and 4.10.2 (Dec. 2008). 

2Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012). 

3Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Withdrawal of Implementation Guidance for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6, 2013). 

I. Background 

The 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), set forth at 

40 CFR 50.13, effective December 18, 

2006, include 24-hour standards of 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations (71 

FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). Effective 

December 14, 2009, the EPA designated 

the Logan UT–ID area (cross state, 

partial county designation) as a 

nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 

2009). The EPA included a portion of 

Franklin County, Idaho within the 

Logan UT–ID nonattainment area 

because emissions from sources in 

Idaho contribute to violations of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Logan, UT–ID area as a whole.1

In March 2012, the EPA issued 

guidance to states for implementation of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (March 2012 

Implementation Guidance).2 In this 

guidance, the EPA recommended that 

states submit SIP revisions to meet the 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements of the CAA within three 

years of the effective date of the 

nonattainment area designation. The 

EPA also recommended in the guidance 

that states make submissions for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the 

substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart Z (Provisions for 

Implementation of PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 

51.1000 et seq.). Accordingly, in 

December 2012, IDEQ submitted a SIP 

revision intended to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements 

for the Franklin County portion of the 

Logan UT–ID nonattainment area (also 

referred to as ‘‘Cache Valley’’). 

On January 4, 2013, however, the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia remanded to the EPA the 

‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ which forms the 

basis of the 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z 

nonattainment planning requirements in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The 

Court concluded that the EPA had 

improperly based the implementation 

rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely 

upon the requirements of part D, 

subpart 1 of the CAA, and had failed to 

address the requirements of part D, 

subpart 4. As a result of the Court’s 

decision with respect to the statutory 

implementation requirements for PM2.5

nonattainment areas the EPA withdrew 

its March 2012 Implementation 

Guidance because it was based largely 

on the remanded rule promulgated to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.3

The EPA is currently engaged in 

rulemaking to address the remand from 

the Court. In the interim, however, the 

EPA believes that it may still be 

appropriate to take certain actions on 

SIP submissions from states intended to 

address nonattainment planning 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IDEQ’s December 2012 SIP 

submission presented the state’s 

evaluation of the PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem in the area. IDEQ explained 

that the Franklin County portion of the 

overall Logan UT–ID nonattainment 

area is rural and sparsely populated, 

containing only 10% of the overall 

Logan UT–ID nonattainment population 

base. Franklin County contains no major 

point sources of PM2.5 or PM2.5

precursors, defined by IDEQ for 

purposes of this SIP revision as a facility 

with the potential to emit annual 

emissions of 100 tons or more. 

Additionally, IDEQ stated that Franklin 

County accounts for roughly one-tenth 

of the overall mobile source emissions 

from cars and trucks and generally small 

area source contributions in the Logan 

UT–ID nonattainment area. Because the 

majority of emission sources impacting 

the nonattainment area are located 

outside Franklin County, IDEQ’s 

December 2012 SIP submittal 

acknowledged that control measures 

either already promulgated or required 

as part of the Utah SIP are necessary to 

demonstrate attainment for the entire 

Logan UT–ID area. 

As part of its December 2012 

submission, IDEQ included a modeled 

attainment test conducted by the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). This 

modeled attainment test predicted the 

Logan UT–ID area would attain by the 

end of 2014 based solely on control 

measures adopted in the Utah portion of 

the area, with the Idaho controls 

providing additional reductions. 

Because the Idaho submission relies on 

the Utah control measures in 

demonstrating attainment, however, the 

EPA must also complete a 

comprehensive review of Utah’s SIP 

submission for the Logan UT–ID area 

before the EPA can act on the entire SIP 

submission for the Franklin County 

portion of the area. Moreover, the EPA’s 

evaluation of the SIP submissions from 

both states would need to include the 

emissions inventory, approach to PM2.5

precursors, analysis and adoption of 

reasonably available control measures 

and reasonably available control 

technology (RACM and RACT), 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

quantitative milestones, contingency 

measures, and the attainment 

demonstration. The EPA will need to 

evaluate these submissions against the 

statutory requirements of part D, subpart 

4. 

In light of the court’s decision in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, and the need to evaluate the IDEQ 

submission in conjunction with the SIP 

submission for the Utah portion of the 

Logan UT–ID nonattainment area, the 

EPA is not at this time making a 

determination whether IDEQ’s 

December 2012 SIP submission satisfies 

all of the statutory nonattainment 

planning requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, the EPA’s 

proposed action on IDEQ’s December 

2012 SIP revision is limited to 

approving specific control measures 

included in the submission that are 

expected to strengthen the SIP. These 

measures independently meet 

requirements for control measures in 

attainment plans and the emissions 

reductions they achieve will contribute 

to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the Logan UT–ID area. Despite the 

limited nature of this proposed 

approval, the EPA believes that 

approval and incorporation of the 

control measures in the December 2012 

SIP submission strengthen the Idaho SIP 

and provide important PM2.5 emission 

reductions. 

II. Description of the Franklin County 

PM2.5 Control Measures 

IDEQ, in close coordination with 

UDAQ, completed an emissions 

inventory for directly emitted PM2.5

(primary PM2.5) and the PM2.5

precursors sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), and ammonia. An 

analysis of the baseline year emissions 

inventory indicated that sources in 

Franklin County contribute about onefifth of the overall area primary PM2.5

emissions during wintertime episodes 

when the area is most likely to violate 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

important source categories identified 

for this contribution of primary PM2.5

consist of 70% reintrained dust from 

winter road sanding, 14% residential 

wood burning emissions, and 6% 

mobile source primary PM2.5 emissions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78317 

4 Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

in a State Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004). 

It is important to note that the EPA is 

not in this action evaluating whether 

IDEQ’s or UDAQ’s evaluation of which 

PM2.5 precursors should be controlled 

within Franklin County, or within the 

entire Logan UT–ID area, is correct and 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements of part D, subpart 4. 

Nevertheless, the EPA agrees with 

IDEQ’s determination that control of 

direct PM2.5 emissions in this area is a 

necessary and appropriate step that will 

contribute to attainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in this area. 

To reduce the contribution of primary 

PM2.5 from reentrained dust on paved 

roads, IDEQ entered into road sanding 

agreements with Franklin County Road 

and Bridge and the Idaho 

Transportation Department as part of 

the SIP. The Franklin County Road and 

Bridge agreement reduces the amount of 

sand used on paved roads by 

substituting a brine solution when 

appropriate. For those times when 

antiskid treatment is required, Franklin 

County Road and Bridge agreed to use 

a 4-to-1 sand to salt ratio instead of the 

10-to-1 ratio used in past years. 

Similarly, the Idaho Transportation 

Department agreed to use straight salt 

and liquid salt brine throughout 

Franklin County, except for occasional 

extenuating circumstances that warrant 

additional anti-skid materials. IDEQ 

used the EPA’s AP–42 road dust 

emission estimation methodology in 

calculating future PM2.5 reductions and 

found that the road sanding agreements 

would reduce primary PM2.5 emissions 

from 0.47 tons per day in an 

uncontrolled scenario to 0.37 tons per 

day by 2014, for a typical winter 

weekday. Although the road sanding 

agreements are expected to reduce 

emissions of PM2.5, they are not directly 

enforceable. However, the road sanding 

agreements are similar to agreements 

previously approved by the EPA as 

voluntary measures in the Idaho SIP (70 

FR 29247), and consistently 

implemented by the relevant state, 

county and municipal governments. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the road sanding agreements as 

voluntary measures in accordance with 

existing guidance.4

IDEQ also worked with local 

jurisdictions in Franklin County to 

establish residential woodstove 

ordinances to control primary PM2.5 and 

VOC emissions from non-EPA certified 

devices during mandatory burn ban 

days. IDEQ’s Air Quality Index (AQI) 

program supports the local jurisdictions 

by calling mandatory burn bans for 

uncertified woodstoves when PM2.5

concentration levels are at or forecasted 

to reach 25.4 mg/m3. The ordinances 

also ban open burning of any kind 

during burn ban days. Lastly, the 

ordinances prohibit the sale or 

installation of non-EPA certified devices 

in new or existing buildings, and 

prohibit the construction of any 

building for which a solid fuel burning 

device is the sole source of heat. 

Because the residential woodstove burn 

ban program for Franklin County was 

newly launched in the 2012–2013 

heating season, to estimate the PM2.5

reductions are difficult and were not 

included in the emission reduction 

modeling runs. Lastly, IDEQ conducted 

two woodstove change-out programs in 

2006 and 2011 replacing a total of 152 

uncertified residential wood 

combustion devices in Franklin County. 

In developing the emissions inventory 

for Franklin County, IDEQ calculated an 

estimated 5.78 tons per year of primary 

PM2.5 emissions reductions from these 

change-out programs. The recently 

enacted woodstove ordinances prohibit 

the sale or installation of uncertified 

devices which will help to assure that 

the 2006, 2011, and any future changeout programs will continue to provide 

lasting emissions reductions benefits 

over time. 

TABLE 1—FRANKLIN COUNTY PM2.5 CONTROL MEASURES

Title State or local effective 

date 

Letter of Intent PM2.5 Reduction, Franklin County Road Department to Department of Environmental Quality (Voluntary Measure).July 16, 2012. 

Road Sanding Agreement, Idaho Transportation Department to Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Voluntary 

Measure).

October 25, 2012. 

Ordinance No. 120, City of Clifton, Idaho ........................................................................................................................... August 11, 2012. 

Ordinance No. 287, City of Dayton, Idaho ......................................................................................................................... August 8, 2012. 

Franklin City Ordinance, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012–9–12 ......................................................................... September 12, 2012. 

Franklin County Ordinance, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012–6–25 .................................................................... June 25, 2012. 

Memorandum of Understanding, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, City of Oxford, Idaho ................................................... October 22, 2012. 

Ordinance No. 2012–1, City of Preston, Idaho .................................................................................................................. June 11, 2012. 

Ordinance No. 2012–01, City of Weston, Idaho ................................................................................................................. August 1, 2012. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes to approve and 

incorporate into the SIP the specific 

control measures submitted by IDEQ on 

December 14, 2012. These control 

measures are listed in Table 1 and full 

copies are included in Appendix E of 

Idaho’s SIP revision and in the docket 

for this proposed action. If finally 

approved by the EPA, these specific 

control measures will become part of 

the Idaho SIP for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As described above, at 

this time the EPA is not making a 

determination that these control 

measures satisfy RACM or any other 

statutory nonattainment area planning 

requirements under part D, subpart 4. 

However, the control measures adopted 

by IDEQ in the Franklin County portion 

of the Logan UT–ID area provide 

important PM2.5 reductions that 

strengthen the existing Idaho SIP. Due 

to the cross-state nature of the Logan 

UT–ID nonattainment area, the EPA will 

act on the remainder of Idaho’s 

December 2012 SIP submission 

following a complete review of the 

corresponding Utah SIP submission. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the 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 the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 13, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Adminstrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30857 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 13–302, RM–11709; DA 13– 

2391] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by 

Family Broadcasting Group, Inc. 

(‘‘Family Broadcasting’’), the licensee of 

station KSBI(TV), channel 51, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, requesting the 

substitution of channel 23 for channel 

51 at Oklahoma City. While the 

Commission instituted a freeze on the 

acceptance of full power television 

rulemaking petitions requesting channel 

substitutions in May 2011, it 

subsequently announced that it would 

lift the freeze to accept such petitions 

for rulemaking seeking to relocate from 

channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary 

relocation agreement with Lower 700 

MHz A Block licensees. Family 

Broadcasting has entered into such a 

voluntary relocation agreement with 

U.S. Cellular Corporation and states that 

operation on channel 23 would 

eliminate potential interference to and 

from wireless operations in the adjacent 

Lower 700 MHZ A Block. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 10, 2014, and reply 

comments on or before January 27, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

John W. Bagwell, Esq., Lerman Senter 

PLLC, 2000 K Street NW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Joyce.Bernstein@

fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

13–302, adopted December 16, 2013, 

and released December 16, 2013. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via email 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). This document does 

not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts (other than 

ex parte presentations exempt under 47 

CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing 

restricted proceedings. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 

§§ 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS