Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Notices 75429 

refrigerator-freezers that incorporate 

multiple defrost cycles. DOE 

subsequently granted a waiver for the 

products specified in these petitions. 77 

FR 1474 (Jan. 10, 2012). 

Samsung’s petition included an 

alternate test procedure to account for 

the energy consumption of its 

refrigerator-freezer models with 

multiple defrost cycles. The alternate 

test procedure specified by Samsung is 

the same as the test procedure 

published in the interim final rule 

referenced above. DOE recently issued a 

final test procedure for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (77 FR 

3559, Jan. 25, 2012). The final test 

procedure addresses comments received 

on the Samsung petitions that were the 

subject of the previous waiver, as well 

as on the interim final rule. The 

alternate test procedure specified in this 

interim waiver (as well as the previous 

waiver granted to Samsung) is identical 

to the test procedure provisions for 

products with long time or variable 

defrost adopted in the final test 

procedure rule. 

Because the current applicable test 

procedure cannot be used to test the 

basic models at issue or would 

otherwise lead to materially inaccurate 

results, DOE previously granted a 

waiver to Samsung for other basic 

models incorporating multiple defrost 

technology (77 FR 1474, Jan. 10, 2012). 

DOE has determined that it is desirable 

to have similar basic models, such as 

those addressed by this most recent 

Samsung petition, tested in a consistent 

manner and is adopting the same 

approach laid out in its prior decision 

by permitting Samsung to use the 

alternate test procedure specified in this 

Decision and Order. 

III. Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) staff concerning the 

Samsung petition for waiver. The FTC 

staff did not have any objections to 

granting a waiver to Samsung. 

IV. Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

material that was submitted by Samsung 

and consultation with the FTC staff, it 

is ordered that: 

(1) The petitions for waiver submitted 

by the Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc. (Case No. RF–021) are hereby 

granted as set forth in the paragraphs 

below. 

(2) Samsung shall be required to test 

and rate the following Samsung models 

according to the alternate test procedure 

set forth in paragraph (3) of this section. 

PFSS6SMX**** 

PSB42****** 

RF323T*DB** 

RF263B*AE** 

RF263N*AE** 

592 656** 

GSE4820SS 

RF323B*DB** 

RF261B*AE** 

RF263S*AE** 

PSB48****** 

E42BS75E** 

RF263T*AE** 

RF260B*AE** 

(3) Samsung shall be required to test 

the products listed in paragraph (2) of 

this section according to the alternate 

test procedure as adopted in DOE’s final 

rule dated January 25, 2012 (77 FR 

3559). 

(4) Representations. Samsung may 

make representations about the energy 

use of its refrigerator-freezer products 

for compliance, marketing, or other 

purposes only to the extent that such 

products have been tested in accordance 

with the provisions outlined above and 

such representations fairly disclose the 

results of such testing. 

(5) This waiver shall remain in effect 

consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 

430.27(m). 

(6) This waiver is issued on the 

condition that the statements, 

representations, and documentary 

materials provided by the petitioner are 

valid. DOE may revoke or modify this 

waiver at any time if it determines the 

factual basis underlying the petition for 

waiver is incorrect, or the results from 

the alternate test procedure are 

unrepresentative of the basic models’ 

true energy consumption characteristics. 

(7) This waiver applies only to those 

basic models set out in Samsung’s 

December 14, 2011 petition for waiver. 

Grant of this waiver does not release a 

petitioner from the certification 

requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 

429. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30675 Filed 12–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9762–3] 

Notice of Availability of Proposed 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas 

Exploration, Development and 

Production Operations off Southern 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed NPDES general permit 

(reissuance). 

SUMMARY: EPA Region 9 is proposing to 

reissue its general NPDES permit 

(permit No. CAG280000) for discharges 

from offshore oil and gas exploration, 

development and production facilities 

located in Federal waters off the coast 

of Southern California. This permit was 

issued on September 22, 2004, and 

modified on November 30, 2009. 

This notice announces the availability 

of the proposed general permit and fact 

sheet for public comment. For the most 

part, the proposed permit is very similar 

to the 2004 permit. The major changes 

from the 2004 permit include the 

following: (1) Reduced geographic area 

of coverage reflecting a reduction in the 

number of lease blocks considered 

active by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM); (2) revised 

effluent limits and monitoring 

requirements for produced water based 

on an updated reasonable potential 

analysis; (3) revised whole effluent 

toxicity (WET) requirements for 

produced water; (4) study requirement 

for cooling water intake structures; and 

(5) new requirements for an on-line oil 

and grease monitor for produced water. 

These changes are discussed in more 

detail below, and in the fact sheet 

accompanying the proposed general 

permit. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

permit must be received or postmarked 

no later than February 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments on the 

proposed permit may be submitted by 

U.S. Mail to: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, Attn: Eugene 

Bromley, NPDES Permits Office (WTR– 

5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, or by email to: 

bromley.eugene@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eugene Bromley, EPA Region 9, NPDES 

Permits Office (WTR–5), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105– 

3901, or telephone (415) 972–3510. A 

copy of the proposed permit and fact 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Notices 

1U.S. EPA. 2010. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Test of Significant Toxicity 

Implementation Document, EPA 833–R–10–003, 

June 2010. 

sheet will be provided upon request and 

are also available on Region 9’s Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/ 

npdes/pubnotices.html. The 2004 

general permit and fact sheet are 

available on Region 9’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/. 

Administrative Record: The proposed 

permit and other related documents in 

the administrative record are on file and 

may be inspected any time between 8:30 

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the 

following address: U.S. EPA Region 9, 

NPDES Permits Office (WTR–5), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Summary of Proposed Changes From 

the 2004 General Permit 

1. Facility Coverage. Like the 2004 

general permit, the proposed general 

permit would apply to existing 

development and production platforms, 

and new exploratory drilling operations 

in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil 

and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category, located in and discharging to 

specified lease blocks in Federal waters 

on the Pacific Outer-Continental Shelf 

(OCS), offshore Southern California. 

There are currently 23 production 

platforms which are authorized to 

discharge by the 2004 permit, and the 

proposed permit would continue to 

authorize discharges from these 23 

platforms; discharges from any new 

platforms would require separate 

individual permits. The geographic area 

of coverage for the proposed permit 

would be the 49 lease blocks currently 

considered active by the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) off 

Southern California; this would be a 

reduction from the 83 lease blocks 

considered active in 2004 and included 

in the 2004 general permit. 

2. Updated Reasonable Potential 

Analysis for Produced Water 

Discharges. On November 30, 2009 (74 

FR 64074) Region 9 modified the 2004 

general permit to incorporate additional 

effluent limits and monitoring 

requirements based on a study 

submitted in 2006 by permittees of the 

reasonable potential of the discharges to 

cause or contribute to exceedances of 

marine water quality criteria. For the 

new proposed permit, Region 9 reevaluated this matter using monitoring 

data collected in 2009–2012. The new 

analysis showed that many of the 

previous effluent limits in the 2009 

modification are no longer needed and 

would not be included in the 2012 

proposed permit. For such constituents, 

however, Region 9 is proposing an 

annual monitoring requirement to 

ensure no unreasonable degradation of 

the marine environment pursuant to 

section 403 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). 

3. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET). The 

2004 permit required monthly WET 

testing for produced water discharges 

(for the first year of the permit) using 

the red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) 

larval development test, and then 

annual screening with a plant (giant 

kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera), a vertebrate 

(topsmelt, Atherinops affinis) and an 

invertebrate (red abalone). In 2010, EPA 

published a new guidance manual 1

which Region 9 believes improves 

regulatory decision-making with regards 

to WET test results. For the proposed 

2012 general permit, Region 9 is 

proposing WET effluent limits for 

certain platforms based on the WET test 

results collected during the term of the 

2004 permit. Region 9 is also proposing 

continuation of chronic toxicity testing 

for all platforms to ensure no 

unreasonable degradation of the marine 

environment, using the three above 

species, and the 2010 protocol for 

analysis of the results. 

4. Cooling Water Intake Structure 

Requirements. Section 316(b) of the 

CWA requires that the location, design, 

construction and capacity of cooling 

water intake structures (CWISs) reflect 

the application of the best technology 

available to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts. On June 16, 

2006 (71 FR 35006), EPA promulgated 

final regulations for new offshore oil 

and gas facilities. Region 9 believes that 

all facilities potentially covered by the 

proposed permit (including new 

exploratory operations) would not be 

considered ‘‘new facilities’’ as defined 

in the 2006 regulations and therefore are 

not categorically subject to the 2006 

regulations. 

Although the 2006 regulations did not 

include specific requirements for 

existing offshore oil and gas facilities, 

the preamble notes that requirements for 

existing facilities may be developed on 

a case-by-case basis using best 

professional judgment (71 FR 35006). 

Region 9 is proposing a study 

requirement (due within one year) for 

the 2012 general permit which would 

require the following for all platforms 

with cooling water discharges: (1) 

Description of current CWIS and 

existing measures to minimize 

entrainment/impingement; (2) 

assessment of the environmental 

impacts from entrainment/impingement 

given current practices; and (3) 

practicality of additional measures to 

reduce environmental impacts from 

entrainment/impingement. 

5. On-Line Oil and Grease Monitors. 

The 2004 general permit required each 

permittee (jointly or separately) to 

investigate and submit a report 

evaluating the availability and 

practicality of on-line monitoring 

devices for oil and grease in produced 

water discharges. The practicality of 

such devices for produced water was 

unclear at the time of the 2004 general 

permit issuance, but it was Region 9’s 

intent to re-evaluate this matter when 

the permit was reissued. These devices 

have the potential to provide more 

timely information concerning upset 

conditions and potential exceedances of 

permit limits, and thereby provide 

improved protection of the marine 

environment. 

The permittees submitted three 

different reports evaluating this matter, 

and Region 9 believes they show the 

technology is now available and 

practical for use at California offshore 

platforms. Furthermore, in discussions 

with operators and as noted in the 

reports, some platforms have already 

installed devices of this nature. As such, 

the proposed 2012 general permit would 

require within one year of the permit’s 

effective date that operators do either of 

the following: (1) Install on-line 

monitoring equipment capable of 

providing the operator with rapid 

information concerning potential 

noncompliance with the effluent limits 

for oil and grease for produced water in 

the permit, or (2) provide information to 

Region 9 demonstrating that the 

operator has already installed 

monitoring equipment which meets the 

above objective. 

B. Ocean Discharge Criteria 

Section 403 of the CWA requires that 

an NPDES permit for a discharge into 

marine waters located seaward of the 

inner boundary of the territorial seas be 

issued in accordance with guidelines for 

determining the potential degradation of 

the marine environment. These 

guidelines, referred to as the Ocean 

Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part 125, 

subpart M) and section 403 of the CWA 

are intended to ‘‘prevent unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment 

and to authorize imposition of effluent 

limitations, including a prohibition of 

discharge, if necessary, to ensure this 

goal’’ (45 FR 65942, October 3, 1980). 

To support the issuance of the 2004 

general permit, Region 9 prepared an 

Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Notices 75431 

2Science Applications International Corporation. 

2000. Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation South 

and Central California for NPDES Permit No. 

CAG28000, Submitted to U.S. EPA Region 9, 

September 29, 2000. 

3Science Applications International Corporation. 

2000. Biological Assessment for Endangered 

Species in Outer Continental Shelf Waters of South 

and Central California for Consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Submitted to 

EPA, February 10, 2000. 

4Science Applications International Corporation. 

2000. Biological Assessment for Endangered 

Species in Outer Continental Shelf Waters of South 

and Central California for Consultation with the 

Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, Submitted 

to EPA, February 10, 2000. 

5 In letters dated August 29, 2012, Region 9 also 

requested species lists from the Services to ensure 

that appropriate species are considered for 

reissuance of the final general permit. 

6Science Applications International Corporation. 

2000. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for NPDES 

Permit No. CAG280000, Submitted to EPA Region 

9. October 2, 2000. 

7Western States Petroleum Association. 2005. 

The Effects of Produced Water Discharges on 

Federally Managed Fish Species along the 

California Outer Continental Shelf, Submitted to 

EPA Region 9, June 2005. 

(ODCE) 2 which evaluated the proposed 

discharges in relation to the 

requirements of the Ocean Discharge 

Criteria regulations. After review of the 

ODCE, and numerous other studies and 

data in the administrative record for the 

2004 permit, Region 9 concluded that 

the discharges authorized by the permit 

would not cause unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment. 

For the proposed 2012 permit 

reissuance, Region 9 re-evaluated this 

conclusion through a review of new 

study results that have become available 

subsequent to the 2004 permit issuance, 

such as new reports from the 

environmental studies program 

conducted by the Pacific OCS Office of 

BOEM. After considering such new 

information, Region 9 again concludes 

that the proposed discharges from the 

platforms would not cause unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment. 

As stated above, the proposed permit 

has water quality and toxicity 

monitoring to ensure compliance with 

CWA Section 403. 

C. Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

allocates authority to and administers 

requirements upon Federal agencies 

regarding threatened or endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, or plants and 

habitat of such species that have been 

designated as critical. Its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR part 402) require 

EPA to ensure, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, 

that any action authorized, funded or 

carried out by EPA is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species or 

adversely affect its critical habitat (40 

CFR 122.49(c)). Implementing 

regulations for the ESA establish a 

process by which Federal agencies 

consult with one another to ensure that 

the concerns of both the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) (collectively ‘‘Services’’) are 

addressed. EPA prepared separate 

biological assessments (BAs) 3 4 to assess 

the potential impacts of the 2004 permit 

issuance on listed species under the 

jurisdiction of the USFWS and NMFS. 

Both BAs concluded that there would be 

no effect on listed species. The BAs 

were provided to the Services for review 

but no comments were received. 

For the 2012 general permit 

reissuance, Region 9 reconsidered the 

potential effects of the discharges on 

listed species and critical habitat. Both 

NMFS and the USFWS maintain current 

information and lists of threatened and 

endangered species and critical habitat 

for these species at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ and 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/. After 

reconsidering this matter, Region 9 

believes the proposed discharges would 

not affect these species.5 However, we 

will forward the draft permit and fact 

sheet to the Services to solicit comments 

on this tentative conclusion. 

D. Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) provides that a Federal license 

or permit for activities affecting the 

coastal zone of a state may not be 

granted until a state with an approved 

Coastal Management Plan (CMP) 

concurs that the activities authorized by 

the permit are consistent with the CMP 

(CZMA section 307(c)(3)(A)). In 

California, the CZMA authority is the 

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 

Since Region 9 issued the general 

permit in 2004, the CZMA regulations 

specifying Federal agencies’ obligations 

under CZMA sections (c)(1) and (c)(3) 

have been revised. In accordance with 

the revised regulations (71 FR 788, 

January 5, 2006), the issuance of a 

general NPDES permit by EPA is 

considered a ‘‘Federal agency activity’’ 

subject to the consistency determination 

requirements of CZMA section 

307(c)(1). 15 CFR 930.31(d). Region 9 

believes the permit would be consistent 

with the CMP, and will be submitting 

the required determination to the CCC 

pursuant to CZMA section 307(c)(1) 

prior to final permit issuance. If the 

relevant state agency’s conditions are 

not incorporated into the general permit 

or the state agency objects to the general 

permit, then the general permit is not 

available for use in that state unless the 

applicant or person who wants to use 

the general permit provides the state 

agency with a consistency 

determination and the state agency 

concurs. Essentially, if EPA does not 

include a state agency’s conditions or if 

the state agency objects, then the 

applicable CZMA consistency 

determination requirements shift from 

those in CZMA section 307(c)(1) into 

those in CZMA section 307(c)(3). 

E. Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act 

The Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary was designated in 1980 and 

encompasses approximately 4,296 km2

in the Southern California Bight. 

Sanctuary regulations (15 CFR 922.71) 

provide a list of activities that are 

prohibited and thus unlawful for any 

person to conduct or to cause to be 

conducted within the Sanctuary. No 

operations authorized by this proposed 

permit are within the Sanctuary 

boundaries. 

F. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

The 1996 amendments to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act set 

forth a number of new mandates for 

NMFS, regional fishery management 

councils, and Federal agencies to 

identify and protect important marine 

and anadromous fish habitat. Regional 

fishery management councils, with 

assistance from NMFS, are required to 

delineate essential fish habitat (EFH). 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

that Federal agencies consult with 

NMFS on all actions undertaken by the 

agency which may adversely affect EFH. 

In accordance with these requirements, 

for the 2004 general permit, EPA 

prepared an assessment 6 of the effects 

of the proposed discharges on EFH in 

the area covered by the permit. The 

assessment concluded that while there 

may be effects on EFH from certain 

discharges near an outfall, these effects 

should be minor overall. Region 9 also 

initiated a consultation with NMFS in 

2000 which led to a requirement for a 

2005 study 7 to address certain concerns 

which NMFS raised regarding produced 

water discharges. 

For the 2012 permit reissuance, 

Region 9 reconsidered the effects of the 

discharges on EFH. NMFS provides 

updated information concerning EFH in 

Southern California ocean waters on its 

Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

hcd/HCD_webContent/EFH/ 

index_EFH.htm. After review of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Notices 

information on the NMFS Web site, 

Region 9 believes the previous 

conclusion is still valid that the 

discharges would not have a significant 

adverse effect on EFH. However, Region 

9 will forward the draft permit and fact 

sheet to NMFS for any comments on 

Region 9’s tentative conclusion 

concerning the potential effects on EFH. 

G. Permit Appeal Procedures 

Within 120 days following notice of 

EPA’s final decision for the general 

permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any 

interested person may appeal the permit 

decision in the Federal Court of Appeals 

in accordance with Section 509(b)(1) of 

the CWA. Persons affected by a general 

permit may not challenge the conditions 

of a general permit as a right in further 

Agency proceedings. They may instead 

either challenge the general permit in 

court, or apply for an individual permit 

as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 (and 

authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then 

petition the Environmental Appeals 

Board to review any condition of the 

individual permit (40 CFR 124.19). 

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that EPA 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for regulations that have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The permit renewal proposed 

today is not a ‘‘rule’’ subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA 

prepared a regulatory flexibility 

analysis, however, on the promulgation 

of the Offshore Subcategory guidelines 

on which many of the permit’s effluent 

limitations are based. That analysis has 

shown that issuance of this permit 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection required 

by this proposed permit has been 

approved by Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., in submissions made for 

the NPDES permit program and 

assigned OMB control numbers 2040– 

0086 (NPDES permit application) and 

2040–0004 (discharge monitoring 

reports). 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq. 

Dated: December 6, 2012. 

John Kemmerer, 

Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 

9. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30696 Filed 12–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission Under Delegated 

Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are 

requested concerning whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and ways to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before February 19, 

2013. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0009. 

Title: Application for Consent to 

Assignment of Broadcast Station 

Construction Permit or License or 

Transfer of Control of Corporation 

Holding Broadcast Station Construction 

Permit or License, FCC Form 316. 

Form Number: FCC Form 316. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, local or tribal 

government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 750 respondents, 750 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5–4.5 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain benefits. Statutory authority for 

this collection of information is 

contained in Sections 154(i) and 310(d) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 1,231 hours. 

Total Annual Costs: $711,150. 

Privacy Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Confidentiality is not required with this 

collection of information. 

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 316 is 

required when applying for authority for 

assignment of a broadcast station 

construction permit or license, or for 

consent to transfer control of a 

corporation holding a broadcast station 

construction permit or license where 

there is little change in the relative 

interest or disposition of its interests; 

where transfer of interest is not a 

controlling one; there is no substantial 

change in the beneficial ownership of 

the corporation; where the assignment is 

less than a controlling interest in a 

partnership; where there is an 

appointment of an entity qualified to 

succeed to the interest of a deceased or 

legally incapacitated individual 

permittee, licensee or controlling 

stockholder; and, in the case of LPFM 

stations, where there is a voluntary 

transfer of a controlling interest in the 

licensee or permittee entity. In addition, 

the applicant must notify the 

Commission when an approved transfer 

of control of a broadcast station 

construction permit or license has been 

consummated. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1053. 

Title: 47 CFR 64.604— 

Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities; IP Captioned Telephone 

Service, Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket 

No. 03–123. 

Form Number: N/A. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with