Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41311 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule as meeting Federal 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 9, 

2013. 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 action 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: June 20, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.332 is amended by 

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows: 

§ 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(q) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised 

Maintenance Plan for Can ̃ on City, as 

adopted by the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission on November 20, 

2008, State effective on December 30, 

2008, and submitted by the Governor’s 

designee on June 18, 2009. The revised 

maintenance plan satisfies all applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16506 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9832–4] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Indiana; Approval of 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP With Respect to 

Source Impact Analysis Provisions for 

the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

taking final action to approve portions 

of submissions made by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) to address the 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of 

the CAA, often referred to as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ state implementation 

plan (SIP). Specifically, we are 

finalizing the approval of portions of 

IDEM’s submissions intended to meet 

certain requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA with respect to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient 

air quality standards (2006 PM2.5

NAAQS). Among other provisions, these 

sections of the CAA require states to 

perform source impact analyses as part 

of their prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) programs. EPA is 

finalizing approval of Indiana’s 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41312 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA addressed the remainder of the comment 

letters in a separate rulemaking (see 77 FR 65478). 

submissions intended to satisfy this 

requirement. The proposed rule 

associated with this final action was 

published on August 2, 2012. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805. 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., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly-available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Andy Chang at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is the result of IDEM’s SIPapproved update to the definition of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, and implementing EPA policy, 

states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for particulate matter 

already met those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued additional guidance pertaining to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo). The SIP 

submissions referenced in this 

rulemaking pertain to the applicable 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA. Indiana made its 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 20, 

2009, and provided supplemental 

submissions to EPA on June 25, 2012, 

and July 12, 2012. 

On August 2, 2012, EPA published its 

proposed action on Region 5 states’ 

submissions (see 77 FR 45992). Notably, 

we proposed to find that Indiana had 

met the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) 

concerning state PSD programs 

generally, thereby satisfying the 

requirement that the State has an 

adequate PSD program pursuant to these 

section for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

During the comment period for the 

August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking, 

EPA received five comment letters, one 

of which observed that the Indiana SIP 

was insufficient for purposes of the 

State’s PSD program for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.1 The commenter noted that 

326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 

2–2–5(a)(1) requires an analysis of a 

new or modified source’s emissions 

demonstrating that the emissions will 

not cause or contribute to air pollution 

in violation of any ambient air quality 

standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1–3. 

The language contained in 326 IAC 1– 

3 explicitly referenced only the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 micrograms per cubic 

meter. Therefore, a literal read of 

Indiana’s PSD regulations at the time of 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

indicated that a source impact analysis 

would only need to comply with the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter did 

note that 326 IAC 2–1.1–5 contains 

language that would prohibit issuance 

of a registration, permit, modification 

approval, or operating permit revision if 

issuance would allow a source to cause 

or contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS. However, 326 IAC 2–1.1–5 is 

currently not in the SIP, and the 

language contained therein had not been 

submitted by Indiana for incorporation 

into the SIP. 

As a result of this comment received 

in response to our August 2, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking, we did not 

promulgate final action on this limited 

aspect of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP in 

our October 29, 2012, final rulemaking 

(see 77 FR 65478). We did, however, 

promulgate final action on the majority 

of all other applicable elements of 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP. In the 

October 29, 2012, rulemaking, we 

committed to address the source impact 

analysis requirements of Indiana’s PSD 

program in a separate action; this final 

rulemaking serves as that action. 

II. What is the result of IDEM’s SIPapproved update to the definition of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

Integral to the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for 

IDEM’s PSD program with respect to the 

source impact analysis requirements for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS was the need for 

the state to update its definitions 

contained in 326 IAC 1–3 to reflect the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and submit these 

revisions for incorporation into the SIP. 

On April 19, 2013, EPA published its 

direct final approval of revisions to 

IDEM’s SIP at 326 IAC 1–3–4(b)(8) that 

among other things, contained the 

Federally promulgated 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS codified at 40 CFR 50.13 (see 

78 FR 23492). Notably, the revisions 

aligned the state and Federal ambient 

air quality standards, calculations for 

compliance, and ambient concentration 

collection methods for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. No adverse comments were 

received on this notice, and the SIP 

revisions became effective on June 18, 

2013. 

As a result of EPA’s April 19, 2013, 

action, the requirements contained in 

326 IAC 2–2–5(a)(1), i.e., the 

requirement for an analysis of a new or 

modified source’s emissions 

demonstrating that the emissions will 

not cause or contribute to air pollution 

in violation of any ambient air quality 

standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1–3, 

now also apply to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, as codified in 40 CFR 50.13. 

Therefore, Indiana has met the PSD 

program source impact analysis 

requirements for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the 

CAA with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is taking final action to approve portions 

of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41313 

submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the 

CAA. Specifically, we are finalizing 

approval of the relevant portions of 

Indiana’s submissions because the 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program now 

requires a source impact analysis for the 

Federally promulgated 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS codified at 40 CFR 50.13. 

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, 

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. 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 September 9, 2013. 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 action 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 25, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

10/20/2009, 6/25/2012, 7/ 

12/2012.

7/10/2013 [INSERT PAGE 

NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are finalizing approval 

of the PSD source impact analysis requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), but are not finalizing action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the state board requirements 

of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a 

separate action. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued 

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

[FR Doc. 2013–16512 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 25 

[IB Docket No. 11–133; FCC 13–50] 

Review of Foreign Ownership Policies 

for Common Carrier and Aeronautical 

Radio Licensees 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) modifies the policies and 

procedures that apply to foreign 

ownership of common carrier, 

aeronautical en route and aeronautical 

fixed radio station licensees. The 

Commission found that the new 

measures will reduce regulatory costs 

and burdens imposed on wireless 

common carrier and aeronautical 

applicants, licensees and spectrum 

lessees, provide greater transparency 

and more predictability with respect to 

the Commission’s foreign ownership 

filing requirements and review process, 

facilitate investment in U.S. 

telecommunications infrastructure and 

capacity, while continuing to protect 

important interests related to national 

security, law enforcement, foreign 

policy, and trade policy. 

DATES: Effective August 9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan O’Connell or James Ball, Policy 

Division, International Bureau, FCC, 

(202) 418–1460 or via the Internet at 

Susan.OConnell@fcc.gov and 

James.Ball@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order, IB Docket No. 11– 

133, FCC 13–50, adopted April 18, 2013, 

and released April 18, 2013. The full 

text of the Second Report and Order is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

document also is available for download 

over the Internet at http:// 

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2013/db0418/FCC–13– 

50A1.pdf. The complete text also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc. (BCPI), located in Room CY–B402, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. Customers may contact BCPI at 

its Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

call 1–800–378–3160. 

Summary of Second Report and Order 

1. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) revises its 

regulatory framework for authorizing 

foreign ownership of common carrier 

radio station licensees—i.e., companies 

that provide fixed or mobile 

telecommunications service over 

networks that employ spectrum-based 

technologies, either in whole or in 

part—pursuant to sections 310(b)(3) and 

310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 

310(b)(3), (4). These new measures will 

also apply to foreign ownership of 

aeronautical en route and aeronautical 

fixed (hereinafter, ‘‘aeronautical’’) radio 

station licensees pursuant to section 

310(b)(4). The new rules will be 

codified in 47 CFR 1.907, 1.990–1.994 

and 25.105. For ease of reference, the 

Second Report and Order refers to 

common carrier and aeronautical radio 

station applicants, licensees, and 

spectrum lessees collectively as 

‘‘licensees’’ unless the context warrants 

otherwise. ‘‘Spectrum lessees’’ are 

defined in 47 CFR 1.9003. The Second 

Report and Order does not address 

Commission policies with respect to the 

application of section 310(b)(4) to 

broadcast licensees. 

2. Section 310(b)(4) of the Act 

establishes a 25 percent benchmark for 

investment by foreign individuals, 

governments, and corporations in U.S.- 

organized entities that directly or 

indirectly control a U.S. broadcast, 

common carrier, or aeronautical radio 

station licensee. This section also grants 

the Commission discretion to allow 

higher levels of foreign ownership of a 

controlling U.S.-organized parent 

company—up to and including 100 

percent of its equity and voting 

interests—unless the Commission finds 

that such ownership is inconsistent 

with the public interest. Section 

310(b)(3) of the Act prohibits foreign 

individuals, governments, and 

corporations from owning more than 20 

percent of the capital stock of a 

broadcast, common carrier, or 

aeronautical radio station licensee. In 

the First Report and Order in this docket 

(77 FR 50628, August 22, 2012) the 

Commission determined to forbear, 

under section 10 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 

160, from applying the 20 percent 

foreign ownership limit in section 

310(b)(3) to the class of common carrier 

licensees in which the foreign 

investment is held through U.S.- 

organized entities that do not control 

the licensee, to the extent the 

Commission determines such foreign 

ownership is consistent with the public 

interest under the policies and 

procedures the Commission uses for 

assessing foreign ownership under 

section 310(b)(4). The Commission 

deferred to this second phase of the 

proceeding a decision whether to apply 

any changes it adopts to the section 

310(b)(4) regulatory framework to its 

analysis of petitions for declaratory 

ruling or similar filings under the 

Commission’s section 310(b)(3) 

forbearance approach. The 

Commission’s forbearance authority 

under 47 U.S.C. 160 does not extend to 

broadcast or aeronautical radio stations 

licensees. 

3. The Second Report and Order 

adopts a comprehensive set of rules that 

will apply to common carrier and 

aeronautical radio station licensees that 

seek approval for the foreign ownership 

of their controlling U.S.-organized 

parent companies to exceed the 25 

percent foreign ownership benchmark 

in section 310(b)(4) and to common 

carrier radio station licensees subject to 

the section 310(b)(3) forbearance 

approach that seek Commission 

approval to exceed the 20 percent 

foreign ownership limit in section 

310(b)(3). The Commission estimates 

that the new rules will reduce the 

number of section 310(b) petitions for 

declaratory ruling filed with the 

Commission annually in the range of 40 

to 70 percent as compared to the current 

regulatory framework. The Commission 

also concludes that the new rules will 

reduce substantially the number of 

hours that licensees will have to spend 

in preparing and submitting the 

petitions that they will need to file 

under the new rules. 

4. The Second Report and Order 

adopts several of the proposals set forth 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES