        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 82
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130; FRL-8200-1]
        RIN 2060-AL90
        Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Minor Amendments to the Regulations Implementing the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import and Export

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to amend the current regulations governing the production and trade of certain ozone-depleting substances to address issues concerning the export of previously imported material, heels, the exemption allowance petition process for HCFC-141b for military and space vehicle applications, and the definition for “importer.” We are proposing these minor adjustments to our regulations in response to requests from the regulated community, to ensure equitable treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce burden where the integrity of the requirements can still be sufficiently maintained. These proposed amendments appear in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register as a direct final rule.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by August 21, 2006, or by September 5, 2006 if a hearing is requested by July 31, 2006. If requested, a hearing will be held on August 4, 2006 and the comment period will be extended until September 5, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: 202-566-1741.
          • Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130, Air and Radiation Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. 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-HQ-OAR-2003-0130. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Cindy Axinn Newberg, EPA, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 343-9729, newberg.cindy@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        (1) Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol), as amended, the U.S. and other industrialized countries that are Parties to the Protocol have agreed to limit production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and to phase out consumption in a step-wise fashion over time, culminating in a complete phaseout in 2030. Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations to manage the consumption and production of HCFCs until the total phaseout in 2030. EPA promulgated final regulations establishing an allowance tracking system for HCFCs on January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820). These regulations were amended on June 17, 2004 (69 FR 34024) to ensure U.S. compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Today's proposed action would amend aspects of the regulations that relate to exports of previously imported material, the import of HCFC heels, the HCFC-141b exemption allowance petition process, and the definition of “importer.” We are proposing these minor adjustments to our regulations in response to requests from the regulated community, to ensure equitable treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce burden where the integrity of the requirements can still be sufficiently maintained.
        In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are issuing these amendments as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, or particular provisions of the rule, and the rule or the particular provisions will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.
        (2) Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

          Table of Contents
          I. Regulated Entities
          II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
          A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
          B. Paperwork Reduction Act

          C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

          D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
          E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
          F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
          G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks
          H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
          I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        I. Regulated Entities
        These minor amendments to the HCFC allowance allocation system would affect the following categories:

            Category
            NAICS code
            SIC code
            Examples of regulated entities

            Chlorofluorocarbon gas manufacturing
            325120
            2869
            Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturers; Dichlorofluoroethane manufacturers Chlorodifluoroethane manufacturers.

            Chlorofluorocarbon gas importers
            325120
            2869
            Chlorodifluoromethane importers; Dichlorofluoroethane importers; Chlorodifluoroethane importers.

            Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters
            325120
            2869
            Chlorodifluoromethane exporters; Dichlorofluoroethane exporters; Chlorodifluoroethane exporters.

            Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
            326140
            3086
            Plastics foam Products (Polystyrene Foam Products).

            Urethane and Other Foam Product (Except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
            326150
            3086
            Insulation and cushioning, foam plastics (except polystyrene) manufacturing.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business organization, or other entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine these regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant” regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

        It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Instead, this NPRM proposes to decrease the frequency of one specific report and limit the range of types of containers subject to a specific regulatory requirement. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0498 (EPA ICR No. 2014.02). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from the Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the NAICS codes below (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

            Category
            NAICS code
            SIC code
            NAICS small business size standard (in number of employees or millions of
              dollars)

            1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC
            424690
            5169
            100

            2. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters
            325120
            2869
            100

        After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the entities affected by this rule are considered small as defined by the size standards listed above.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal government and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a written statement is required under section 202, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
        Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide input in the development of any proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate.

        EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in any one year. The provisions in this proposed rule fulfill the obligations of the United States under the international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as those requirements set forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act. Viewed as a whole, all of these proposed amendments do not create a Federal mandate resulting in costs of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this proposal contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203. Finally, because this proposal does not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal officials under section 204.

        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”
        Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
        This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposal is expected to primarily affect producers, importers and exporters of HCFCs. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposal does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. It does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

        Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. While this proposal is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, we nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects on children of excessive exposure to UV radiation: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. “At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant melanoma,” Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM Japson J. “Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies,” Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) Armstrong BK, “Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure,” In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. “Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases,” 1st ed. London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whieman D., Green A. “Melanoma and Sunburn,” Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72; (5) Heenan, PJ. “Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,” Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, CD, et al. “Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma.” Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63; (7) Armstrong, DK. “How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an epidemiological perspective,” Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116. The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to UV radiation.
        This proposal concerns minor changes to the existing regulatory regime for the class II controlled substances. Theses minor changes are not expected to increase the impacts on children's health from stratospheric ozone depletion.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 13, 2006.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

       [FR Doc. E6-11531 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 081103D]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public hearings to solicit comments on proposals to be included in Amendment 13 of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposals will be accepted through October 15, 2003.  The public hearings will begin September 9, 2003 and end on September 30, 2003.  See Public Hearings for specific hearing dates.

          ADDRESSES:
          To obtain copies of the public hearing document or to submit comments, contact Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.  Identify correspondence as “Comments on Groundfish Amendment 13.”  Hearings will be held in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone:  (978) 465-0492.  For specific locations, see PUBLIC HEARINGS.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Council proposes to take action to address the revised requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.  The Council will consider comments from fishermen, interested parties, and the general public on the proposals and alternatives described in the public hearing document for the Northeast Multispecies FMP.  Once it has considered public comments, the Council will approve final management measures and prepare a submission package to NMFS.  There will be an additional opportunity for public comment when the proposed rule for this action is published in the Federal Register.
        The primary purpose of this Amendment is to develop a program to rebuild overfished stocks.  Major elements of the proposals in this public hearing document include:   (1) management options to reduce fishing mortality that include reductions in the number of days-at-sea (DAS), additional gear requirements, trip/possession limits, and the use of “hard” Total Allowable Catch systems; (2) options that define and clarify the status determination criteria used to guide management actions; (3) measures designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat; (4) measures to reduce or control excess harvesting capacity in the fishery; (5) measures to address a wide range of administrative issues, including but not limited to the development of special access programs, changes to the fishing year, and a DAS leasing proposal; (6) revisions to the northern shrimp fishery exemption area, restrictions on tuna purse seine vessel access to groundfish closed areas, and a proposal for a general category scallop exemption area in southern New England.  The Council will consider all comments received on these proposals until the end of the comment period on October 15, 2003.
        Public Hearings
        The dates, times, locations, and telephone numbers of the hearings are as follows:
        Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 5 p.m.—Holiday Inn, 290 Highway, 37 East, Tom's River, NJ 08753; telephone:  (732)244-4000;
        Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 5 p.m.—Best Western East End, 1830 Route 25, Riverhead, NY  11901; telephone:  (631) 369-2200;
        Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 4 p.m.—Holiday Inn South Kingston, 3009 Tower Hill Road, South Kingston, RI 02674; telephone:  (401) 789-1051;
        Monday, September 15, 2003, at 2 p.m. (Recreational issues to begin at 7:00 p.m.)—Ramada Inn, 1127 Route 132, Hyannis, MA; telephone:  (508) 775-1153;
        Monday, September 22, 2003, at 4 p.m.—Tavern on the Harbor, 30 Western Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01930; telephone (978) 283-4200;
        Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 2 p.m. (Recreational Issues to begin at 7:00 p.m.)—Yoken's Comfort Inn, 1390 Lafayette Road, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone:  (603) 433-3338;
        Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 5 p.m.—Holiday Inn Ellsworth, 215 High Street, Ellsworth, ME  04505; telephone (207) 667-9341;
        Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 4 p.m.—DoubleTree Hotel, 1230 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102; telephone:  (207) 774-5611;
        Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 4 p.m.—Holiday Inn Express, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone (508) 997-1281.
        Special Accommodations

        These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

          Dated:  August 13, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-21206 Filed 8-18-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 76
        [MB Docket Nos. 18-92 and 17-105; FCC 18-47]
        Channel Lineup Requirements—Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to eliminate the requirement that cable operators maintain at their local office a current listing of the cable television channels that each cable system delivers to its subscribers. In addition, the Commission invites comment on whether we should also eliminate the requirement that certain cable operators make their channel lineup available via their online public inspection file. In response to a Public Notice launching the Commission's Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, commenters asked the Commission to consider eliminating both of these requirements because channel lineup information is available from other sources and the requirements are therefore unnecessary. With this proceeding, the Commission continues its efforts to modernize its rules and eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.

          DATES:
          Comments may be filed on or before May 31, 2018, and reply comments may be filed on or before June 15, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments and reply comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 18-92 and 17-105, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          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 Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket Nos. 18-92 and 17-105; FCC 18-47, adopted and released on April 17, 2018. 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).
        Synopsis
        1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to eliminate the requirement in § 76.1705 of the Commission's rules that cable operators maintain at their local office a current listing of the cable television channels that each cable system delivers to its subscribers. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is unnecessary and outdated. In addition, we invite comment on whether we should also eliminate the requirement in § 76.1700(a)(4) that certain cable operators make their channel lineup available via their online public inspection file. In response to a Public Notice launching the Commission's Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, commenters asked the Commission to consider eliminating both of these requirements because channel lineup information is available from other sources and the requirements are therefore unnecessary. With this proceeding, we continue our efforts to modernize our rules and eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
        2. We propose to eliminate § 76.1705 of our rules, which requires every cable operator “to maintain at its local office a current listing of the cable television channels” delivered by the system to its subscribers. This requirement was originally adopted in 1972 as part of the Commission's technical standard performance rules for cable. Among the Commission's goals in the 1972 Cable Order was to ensure that the “channels delivered to subscribers conform to the capability of the television broadcast receiver.” While the Commission did not explain in its order exactly why it believed it was necessary for a system to maintain at its local office a list of the channels it delivers, it appears that the requirement was designed to help the Commission verify compliance with technical performance standards that applied to certain cable channels at that time.

        3. We tentatively conclude that the requirement to maintain a channel lineup locally is outdated, unnecessary, and inconsistent with the Commission's recent efforts to improve access to information about regulated entities by making this information available online. See Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, Second Report and Order, 77 FR 27631 (May 11, 2012) (Television Online Public File Order); Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees, Report and Order, 81 FR 10105 (Reb. 29, 2016) (“Expanded Online Public File Order”). Regardless of the original purpose of the rule, information about the channel lineups of individual cable operators is now available through other sources, including, in many cases, the websites of the operator, on-screen electronic program guides, paper guides, and the Commission-hosted online public inspection file (OPIF). We therefore believe that few, if any, consumers interested in channel lineup information currently access this information by visiting an operator's local office as other sources of channel lineup information can be viewed far more quickly and easily.
        4. We invite comment on our tentative conclusion. How often do consumers visit a cable operator's local office to view its channel lineup? Is Commission regulation in this area unnecessary because cable operators have the economic incentive to ensure that customers and prospective customers are able to find out which channels they deliver? Is there any benefit to retaining the requirement in § 76.1705 that we should consider? For example, is there any benefit to regulators, including local franchising authorities, to having this information continue to be available locally, or can regulators easily access this information from other sources, including directly from the cable operator, without § 76.1705? Commenters who advocate in favor of or against retaining this rule should discuss whether and how the benefits of doing so outweigh any costs.

        5. We also invite comment on whether we should eliminate the requirement that cable operators make channel lineup information available for public inspection pursuant to § 76.1700(a)(4) through the online public file. In the Expanded Online Public File Order, the Commission expanded to cable operators of systems with at least 1,000 subscribers, as well as broadcast and satellite radio licensees and DBS providers, the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the Commission-hosted online public file database. In that order, the Commission also required cable operators subject to the new online file requirements to comply with § 76.1700(a)(4) either by uploading to the online public file information regarding their current channel lineup, and keeping this information up-to-date, or providing a link in the online file to the channel lineup maintained by the operator at another online location. While the Commission recognized that cable operators may provide channel lineup information to subscribers in other ways, and that they have an incentive to present this information on their own websites, it declined to exclude this information from the list of material cable operators were required to include in the online public file as advocated by cable commenters. In doing so, the Commission noted that its focus in the Expanded Online Public File proceeding was on adapting its existing public file requirements to an online format rather than considering substantive changes to the public file rules.
        6. Several commenters in the Media Modernization proceeding have asked the Commission to eliminate the channel lineup public file requirement on the ground that consumers have multiple other sources of information about a cable system's current channel lineup, including cable operator and third-party websites, on-screen electronic programming guides, and copies of lineups provided by cable operators. NCTA argues that “[t]here is no indication in the record or elsewhere that consumers find the channel lineups in public inspection files to be useful at all, or that they would look to the Commission's website to locate such information.” NCTA also notes that the Commission does not require channel lineup information to be included in the public files of DBS providers, who provide video programming options similar to cable operators.
        7. We seek comment on whether there are sufficient other sources of information, apart from the online public file, available to consumers regarding cable channel lineups. In this regard, we note that § 76.1602(b) of the Commission's rules separately requires cable operators to provide information to subscribers regarding the “channel positions of programming carried on the system” and “products and services offered” at the time of installation, at least annually, and at any time upon request. Is this requirement, combined with other sources of information regarding a cable system's channel lineup, sufficient to ensure that consumers have access to information regarding the programming provided by cable operators? Is there a benefit to having information about cable systems, including channel lineup information, available all in one place in the system's online public file? How frequently do consumers use the online public file to access channel lineup information? How do consumers currently access the channel lineup information of DBS providers who are not subject to this online posting requirement? Is such information easily accessible?
        8. Absent an online public file requirement, would channel lineup information be available to consumers and others who are not subscribers to the cable system, including those interested in comparing channel offerings by competing providers? Is Commission regulation in this area unnecessary because cable operators have the economic incentive to ensure that customers and prospective customers are able to find out which channels they deliver? For example, would this information be posted conspicuously on the website of a cable provider? Should we require operators subject to § 76.1700(a)(4) to instead put channel lineup information on their own website? If we adopt such a website requirement, should operators “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website as our public file rule requires? What is the cost associated with the existing requirement that operators either upload channel lineup information to the online public file and keep this information current or provide a link in the online file to the channel lineup maintained by the operator at another online location? Would regulators benefit from access to channel lineup information via the online public file, particularly if we eliminate 76.1705 as proposed above? If so, how? We request that commenters address how the potential benefits of their proposal would outweigh any potential costs.
        9. Operators of cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from all online public file requirements, including the requirement to make channel lineup information available via the online file, but they must maintain local public inspection files and are subject to the requirement in § 76.1705 that they maintain a copy of their current channel lineup locally. If we eliminate § 76.1705, as proposed above, will there continue to be adequate access to information about the channels delivered by these smaller cable systems? To what extent do small operators make channel lineup information available via the internet or electronic programming guides? How often do consumers visit small operators' local inspection files to view channel lineups? Is Commission regulation in this area unnecessary because operators of small cable systems have the economic incentive to ensure that customers and prospective customers are able to find out which channels they deliver? We note that all cable systems regardless of size are subject to the notification requirements in § 76.1602(b), discussed above. Alternatively, if we eliminate § 76.1705 but retain the requirement that cable systems subject to the online public file make channel lineup information available there, should we require that cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers continue to retain channel lineup information locally, if they do not voluntarily use the online public file? Should we instead require small cable operators to put channel lineup information on their own website? If so, should small cable operators “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website?
        Procedural Matters
        A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) relating to this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
        B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        11. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
        C. Ex Parte Presentations

        12. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        D. Comment Filing Procedures
        13. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
        14. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

        15. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        E. Additional Information

        16. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Kim Matthews of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2154.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

        17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes
        18. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the requirement in § 76.1705 of the Commission's rules that cable operators maintain at their local office a current listing of the cable television channels that each cable system delivers to its subscribers. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is unnecessary, outdated, and inconsistent with our recent efforts to make licensee information available online. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should eliminate the requirement in § 76.1700(a)(4) that cable operators of systems with 1,000 or more subscribers make a current copy of their channel lineup available via their online public inspection file. These operators may either upload information regarding their channel lineup to the online file, and keep that information current, or provide a link in their online file to the channel lineup maintained by the operator at another online location. The NPRM also asks if we should instead require operators subject to § 76.1700(a)(4) to put channel lineup information on their own website and, if so, whether we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website as our public file rules currently require.

        19. Operators of cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from all online public file requirements, including the requirement to make channel lineup information available via the online file, but they must maintain local public inspection files and are subject to the requirement in § 76.1705 that they maintain a copy of their current channel lineup locally. The NPRM asks whether, if we eliminate § 76.1705, there will continue to be adequate access to channel lineup information for systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers, or whether we should instead continue to require these small operators to maintain current channel lineup information in their local public inspection files if they do not voluntarily use the online public file. The NPRM also asks if we should instead require small cable operators to put channel lineup information on their own website and, if so, we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website. Our goal is to ensure that consumers have sufficient access to channel lineup information and to continue our efforts to modernize our rules and reduce regulatory burdens on cable operators by eliminating unnecessary requirements in our rules.
        B. Legal Basis
        20. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 601 and 624(e) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 521 and 624(e).
        C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        21. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
        22. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data indicate that all but nine cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000 subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Of the 4,197 active cable systems nationwide, we estimate that approximately 85 percent have 15,000 or fewer subscribers, and the rest have more than 15,000 subscribers. Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
        23. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable systems operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
        D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        24. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the requirement in § 76.1705 of the Commission's rules that cable operators maintain at their local office a current listing of the cable television channels that each cable system delivers to its subscribers. This rule change would reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for cable operators which are currently required to maintain a current channel lineup for each system in the cable operator's local office. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate the requirement in § 76.1700(a)(4) of the Commission's rules that cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers make a current copy of their channel lineup available via their online public inspection file. If the Commission eliminated this requirement, it would further reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for these cable operators. Alternatively, the NPRM asks whether cable operators subject to § 76.1700(a)(4) should instead be required to put channel lineup information on their own website and, if so, whether we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website as our public file rules currently require.
        25. Operators of cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from all online public file requirements, including the requirement to make channel lineup information available via the online file, but they must maintain local public inspection files and are subject to the requirement in § 76.1705 that they maintain a copy of their current channel lineup locally. The NPRM asks whether, if we eliminate § 76.1705, there will continue to be adequate access to channel lineup information for systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers, or whether we should instead continue to require these small operators to maintain current channel lineup information in their local public inspection files or put this information on their own websites if they do not voluntarily use the online public file. If we adopt a website requirement, the NPRM asks if we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website.
        E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
        26. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        27. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the requirement that cable operators maintain a current channel lineup in the cable operator's local office, and invites comment on this proposal and whether there are reasons why this requirement should be retained. Eliminating this requirement would eliminate the costs of maintaining this information locally and making it available to those asking to view it, including any related managerial, administrative, and operational costs. The Commission considered the alternative of not eliminating this requirement but has tentatively concluded the requirement is unnecessary and outdated and should be eliminated.
        28. In addition, the NPRM invites comment on whether to eliminate the requirement that cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers make a current copy of their channel lineup available via their online public inspection file, or whether this requirement should be retained to ensure that consumers have sufficient access to channel lineup information. Alternatively, the NPRM asks whether cable operators subject to § 76.1700(a)(4) should instead be required to put channel lineup information on their own website and, if so, whether we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website as our public file rules currently require.
        29. Operators of cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers are exempt from all online public file requirements, including the requirement to make channel lineup information available via the online file, but they must maintain local public inspection files and are subject to the requirement in § 76.1705 that they maintain a copy of their current channel lineup locally. The NPRM asks whether, if we eliminate § 76.1705, there will continue to be adequate access to channel lineup information for systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers, or whether we should instead continue to require these small operators to maintain current channel lineup information in their local public inspection files if they do not voluntarily use the online public file. The NPRM also asks if we should instead require small cable operators to put channel lineup information on their own website and, if so, we should require these operators to “maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that systems delivers to its subscribers” on their website.
        F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        30. None.
        Ordering Clauses
        31. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 601, and 624(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 521, and 544(e) this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        32. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
          Cable television operators.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

          PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELVISION SERVICE

        1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.

        2. Section 76.1700 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

          § 76.1700
          Records to be maintained by cable system operators
          (a) * * *
          (4) Channels delivered. The operator of each cable television system shall maintain a current listing of the cable television channels which that system delivers to its subscribers;

          § 76.1705
          [Removed and Reserved]

        3. Section 76.1705 is removed and reserved.

      [FR Doc. 2018-09065 Filed 4-30-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P