        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0550; FRL-9718-2]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego County, Antelope Valley and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Agencies

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coating of metal containers, closures and coils and from graphic arts operations and the provision of sampling and testing facilities required for permitting and from adhesives and sealant applications. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by October 22, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2012-0550, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Andy Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4115, Steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the following local rules: SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure and Metal Coil Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule 67.16, Metal Container, Graphic Arts Operations; MBUAPCD Rule 205, Provision of Sampling and Testing Facilities and AVAQMD 1168, Adhesive and Sealant Applications. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: August 3, 2012.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2012-21226 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 06-121, 02-277, 04-228; MM Docket Nos. 01-235, 01-317, 00-244; FCC 09-92]
        Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          The Commission seeks comment on whether to collect information from holders of equity interests in a licensee that would be attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and from holders of interests that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds adopted in the Diversity Order, published May 16, 2008, for purposes of determining attribution of certain interests in eligible entities.

          DATES:
          The Commission must receive written comments on or before February 14, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 1, 2013. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management (OMB) and other interested parties on or before March 18, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket. No. 07-294, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • 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:

          For additional information on this proceeding, contact Judith Herman of the Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, at (202) 418-2330. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 07-294 is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) and may be purchased from the Commissions copy contractor, BCPI, Inc. at their Web site http://www.bcpi.com or call 1-800 378-3160.
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
        This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may result in a new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the commission seeks further comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
        I. Introduction

        1. The Commission seeks comment on whether to collect information from holders of equity interests in a licensee that would be attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and from holders of interests that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds adopted in the Diversity Order, published May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28361, for purposes of determining attribution of certain interests in eligible entities. In the 323 Order, 74 FR 25163 (2009), the Commission determined that, in order to measure the extent of minority and female ownership of broadcast outlets and assess the need for and effectiveness of any policies designed to promote minority and female ownership, it is important to obtain information on holders of certain nonattributable interests, as well as on holders of attributable interests. The Commission concluded that while it considers only attributable interest holders in determining whether licensees are in compliance with our media ownership rules, the balance struck in defining what interests should be counted for purposes of implementing our ownership rules may not be appropriate for collecting data on interests held by minorities and women. As noted above, we did not receive comments on this issue prior to adopting these conclusions. Therefore, in order to obtain a complete record on this question, we are commencing a Further Rulemaking on whether to expand the reporting requirements to include certain nonattributable entities. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to collect information from holders of equity interests in a licensee that would be attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and from holders of interests that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds adopted in the Diversity Order for purposes of determining attribution of certain interests in eligible entities.

        2. The single majority shareholder exemption provides that a minority shareholder's voting interests will not be attributed where a single shareholder holds more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock of the corporation in question. In the 323 Order, the Commission explained why reporting of information about minority shareholders in a corporation with a single majority shareholder is important: “For purposes of assessing levels of minority ownership * * *  we believe that we should err on the side of comprehensiveness based on criticisms of the current collection scheme. The minority interests that are exempt from attribution under the single majority shareholder exemption can be quite substantial—nearly 50%. Including these interest holders would make the data set more complete and help determine whether nonattributable interests could be a source of attributable minority and female owners in the future. Thus, collection of this information will be useful in assessing whether we need to take additional measures to increase minority ownership and in justifying any measures that we decide to take.” The FCC proposes to require that voting stock interests that would be attributable but for the single majority stockholder exemption be reported on the biennial Form 323.
        3. As is the case now, whether the holders of these direct or indirect interests in licensees that are held in vertical ownership chains will have to file a Form 323 themselves or will simply have their interest reported on a Form 323 filed by another entity would depend on the nature of the shareholder. Individuals holding such interests in licensees or in entities that hold interests in licensees would be reported on the Form 323 filed by the entity in which they hold the interest and would not have to file a form themselves. Corporations, partnerships, or other entities holding such interests in licensees or in entities that directly or indirectly hold interests in licensees, however, would both be reported on the Form 323 filed by the entity in which they hold the interest and would be required to file a Form 323 on their own behalf, using the same biennial Form 323 as all other filers would use and following the same format and instructions. The distinction made here between individuals and entities for purposes of the Form 323 filing obligation is the same distinction that applies under the current rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

        4. Under the Commission's EDP standard, an interest is deemed attributable if, aggregating both equity and debt, the interest exceeds 33 percent of the total asset value (all equity plus all debt) of a broadcast station licensee, cable television system, daily newspaper or other media outlet subject to the Commission's broadcast multiple ownership or cross-ownership rules—and the interest holder also: (1) Holds an attributable interest in another media outlet in the same market that is subject to the multiple or cross-ownership rules; or (2) supplies over 15 percent of the total weekly broadcast programming hours of the station in which the interest is held. In the Diversity Order, the Commission adopted a mechanism to allow an interest holder to exceed the 33 percent threshold without triggering attribution if the investment would enable an “eligible entity” (as that term is defined in the Diversity Order) to acquire a broadcast station, provided that: (1) The combined equity and debt of the interest holder in the eligible entity is less than 50 percent; or (2) the total debt of the interest holder in the eligible entity does not exceed 80 percent of the asset value of the station being acquired by the eligible entity and the interest holder does not hold any equity interest, option or promise to acquire an equity interest, option or promise to acquire an entity interest in the eligible entity or any related entity.

        5. In order to obtain more complete ownership data, the Commission proposes that interest that would be attributable but for the recently adopted EDP exemption for certain investments in eligible entities be reported on the biennial Form 323. In the 323 Order, the Commission noted that it “did not premise its relaxation of the EDP attribution rule on a finding that such an interest holder is unable to exert significant influence in the licensee but rather on a policy decision that relaxing the EDP rule is necessary to facilitate access to capital by eligible entities, including minority- and female-owned businesses.” The Commission also noted that it already has determined that interests that exceed 33 percent EDP threshold confer on the interest holder an ability to influence a licensee's operations. While we do not believe there are many ownership interests held pursuant to this exemption, they are clearly interests within the scope of our concern in this proceeding. For this reason, we propose to require that they be reported. With respect to which interest holders will be report and which will also file Form 323, we propose to apply the same distinction discussed in paragraph 18 of the 5th FNPRM. Thus, individuals holding these interests would have to be reported by the entity in which the interest is directly held but would not themselves have to file the separate ownership reports and be reported by the entity in which the interest is directly held.
        6. Will collection of race, ethnicity, and gender data on the holders of these two nonattributable interests further the Commission's goals to obtain reliable data on the precise status of minority and female ownership? NAB suggests that information from nonattributable entities will not provide the Commission with any useful information on the current status of minority and female ownership of broadcast stations. We seek comment on this view. NAB states that by excluding these interests from its attribution rules, the Commission has already determined that such interests fail to confer sufficient influence over a licensee's operations. Therefore, NAB questions how the ownership information will further the Commission's stated goals. We seek comment on NAB's position and on all aspects of our proposals.

        7. We also seek comment on any adverse consequences of requiring reporting of individuals holding these nonattributable interests and of requiring entities holding these nonattributable interests to file separate Form 323s. We seek comment specifically on NAB's concern that the reporting requirement will deter investment in the broadcast industry by increasing investors' administrative and financial burdens and by requiring disclosure of information that they would otherwise consider private. CBS argues that the potential costs and other burdens of compliance with these reporting requirements could persuade nonattributable investors to invest elsewhere or even divest their existing ownership interests. We seek comment on these contentions. In the 323 Order, the Commission explained that our attribution rules seek to identify financial interests in licensees that convey the potential and incentive to exert significant influence over core licensee functions, and thus should be counted under the multiple ownership rules. At the same time, however, the Commission noted that it has sought to target the attribution rules precisely so as to avoid impeding capital flow to broadcasters. The Commission concluded that, in this instance, the concern about impeding capital flow does not apply, and noted that the Commission's goal is to collect information so that we can accurately assess and effectively promote diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry. We seek comment on whether a reporting requirement of non-attributable interests would adversely affect capital investment in broadcasting.

        8. We seek comment on whether expanding the reporting requirements to include the two non-attributable interests we have identified will result in undue burdens on licensees, and in particular, small entities. The Commission recognized that it must balance the goal of collecting more comprehensive and more accurate data with the goal of minimizing burdens on respondents. In the 323 Order, the Commission explained that broadcasters are familiar with and accustomed to keeping records in accordance with the Commission's existing attribution rules, which provide useful, fairly bright-line criteria to determine which interests must be reported and which interests do not need to be reported. CBS suggests that broadcasters often do not possess the reportable information because publicly traded companies may have limited knowledge of the demographic information of a majority of shareholders, and may not know the underlying beneficial owners when the stocks are held by banks or other financial institutions. We seek comment on whether licensees or other entities required to file revised Form 323 currently possess information on minority shareholders of single majority shareholder corporations. If not, what is the burden of collecting this information? Will licensees, parent corporations, or other entity filers have to obtain specialized counsel and conduct additional surveys to comply with the reporting requirement, as suggested by CBS? We seek comment on whether the benefits of obtaining comprehensive minority and female ownership data outweigh the increased burden on respondents. Are alternatives available to reduce the filing burden without reducing the accuracy or completeness of the data?
        9. We also seek comment on NAB's suggestion that, if the Commission adopts the reporting requirement discussed above, it should limit the reportable information to race, gender, and ownership percentage of the nonattributable investors, rather than full reporting of their names, addresses, familial relationships, and other media holdings. Would data thus limited provide the Commission and outside researchers with sufficient information to conduct studies? If information on nonattributable media holdings is omitted, as suggested by NAB, would the Commission lack sufficient information to accurately determine the universe of minority and female ownership in broadcasting?
        II. Procedural Matters
        10. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this 5th Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates 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.
        11. Comments and Reply Comments. 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 Street 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 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
         U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        12. 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 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Fifth FNPRM. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 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 on the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).
        14. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The Fifth FNPRM invites comment on proposed revisions to FCC Form 323 that would require entities that hold financial interests that would constitute attributable interests in the licensee (1) but for the single majority shareholder attribution exemption or (2) the higher Equity/Debt Plus threshold adopted in the Diversity Order for purposes of attributing certain interests in eligible entities to file ownership reports biennially and would require reporting in biennial ownership reports of individuals that hold such interests. Consistent with current filing requirements, an individual holding an ownership interest is not required to file Form 323. The objective of the information collection is to obtain comprehensive ownership data to further the Commission's goal to design policies to advance diversity in the broadcast industry.
        15. Legal Basis. This Fifth FNPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 3, 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 153, 154(i, j), 257, 303.
        16. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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 defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definition of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 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.
        17. Television Broadcasting. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $14 million in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” This category description states: “These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” In the Fifth NPRM, the Commission noted that upon review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database, as of August 14, 2009 there were about 923 (72 percent) of the 1,289 commercial television stations in the United States with revenues of $14 million or less. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. “[Businesses] are affiliates of each other when one [business] controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the filing requirements for FCC Form 323, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
        18. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
        19. Radio Broadcasting. The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $7 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of August 14, 2009, there were about 10,660 (96 percent) of 11,100 commercial radio stations in the United States with revenues of $7 million or less. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. “[Businesses] are affiliates of each other when one [business] controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the ownership rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
        20. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The FCC is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
        21. Class A TV and LPTV stations. The rules and policies adopted herein apply to licensees of Class A TV stations and low power television (“LPTV”) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $14.0 million in annual receipts. As of June 30, 2009, there were approximately 553 licensed Class A stations and 2,386 licensed LPTV stations. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. The Commission's estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies.
        22. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. The Commission anticipates that changes in recording or recordkeeping requirements for commercial broadcast entities would result from the changes in the Commission's Form 323 necessary to implement the proposal to collect additional investor information. Entities holding two types of nonattributable interests, as described in the Fifth FNPRM, would be required to file Form 323, and individuals holding these interests would have to be reported on Form 323.
        23. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        24. As noted, the Commission is directed under law to describe any such alternatives it considers, including alternatives not explicitly listed above. The Fifth FNPRM seeks comment on the tentative conclusion that obtaining certain nonattributable financial interests would further its goal to design policies to advance diversity in the broadcast industry. In the alternative, the Commission could defer until a later time collection of such information or not require reporting of such information. The Fifth FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the proposed data collection would impose a significant reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burden on commercial broadcast entities, especially smaller entities, and whether there are alternative ways to minimize burdens from this proposed reporting requirement.
        25. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

        None.
        III. Ordering Clauses
        26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), the Fifth FNPRM is adopted.

        27. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i, j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, j), 257, 303(r), notice is hereby given of the proposals described in this Fifth FNPRM.

        28. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Fifth FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        29. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the Fifth FNPRM in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Cecilia Sigmund,
          Associate Secretary (Acting).

      [FR Doc. 2013-00574 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BD68
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper commercial and recreational sector allocations of the stock annual catch limit (ACL). If Amendment 28 is approved and implemented, it would result in changes to the red snapper commercial and recreational quotas and the recreational annual catch target (ACT). Additionally, the Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component ACLs and ACTs, which are based on the recreational sector's ACL and ACT, would also be revised. The intent of Amendment 28 is to reallocate the Gulf red snapper harvest consistent with the 2014 red snapper update assessment while ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors to achieve optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 28, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0146” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0146, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 28, which includes an environmental impact statement, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 28 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, OY from federally managed fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that in allocating fishing privileges among fishermen, such allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. For stocks like red snapper, which are subject to a rebuilding plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that harvest restrictions and recovery benefits are fairly and equitably allocated among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. Amendment 28 would reallocate red snapper harvest from the commercial sector to the recreational sector. The reallocation would reduce the current commercial allocation from 51 percent to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL and the recreational allocation would increase from 49 percent to 51.5 percent of the stock ACL. All weights described in this notice are in round (whole) weight.
        Management Measures Contained in Amendment 28

        The initial Gulf red snapper allocation was set in Reef Fish Amendment 1 to the FMP and was based on the percentage of total landings during the base period of 1979-1987 (55 FR 2078, January 22, 1990). In Amendment 28, the Council evaluated several different Gulf red snapper allocation alternatives. These alternatives included straightforward allocation percentage changes, changes based on the red snapper stock ACL increases, and changes in the recreational catch information used in the 2014 update assessment to the 2013 Gulf red snapper Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 31 benchmark assessment. The Council initially considered alternatives that would increase the commercial sector's red snapper allocation. At that time, analyses from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) suggested that shifting red snapper allocation from the commercial to the recreational sector would increase net economic benefits. Thus, the Council determined that reallocating red snapper to the commercial sector would not achieve the purpose of the amendment at that time, which was to increase the net benefits from red snapper fishing and increase the stability of the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery, particularly for the recreational sector. Therefore, the Council removed these alternatives from the amendment. After the 2014 update assessment, the purpose and need statement of the amendment was revised to reallocating the red snapper harvest consistent with the assessment update to ensure the allowable catch and recovery benefits are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors. When the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was published for comment, it included this revised purpose and need statement and two new alternatives added by the Council to address the new information and the revised purpose and need. The draft EIS did not include alternatives that would increase the commercial sector's allocation because the new scientific information did not change any previous understanding of commercial landings. More information about the Council's decision not to include these alternatives and an analysis of the environmental consequences of increasing the commercial allocation are provided in the response to comments section (Appendix D) of Amendment 28 and integrated final EIS.
        The preferred alternative in Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf red snapper allocation to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL to the commercial sector and 51.5 percent of the stock ACL to the recreational sector. This results in proposed commercial quotas (48.5 percent of the stock ACL) of 6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg) and 6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, respectively. The recreational quota (51.5 percent of the stock ACL) would be 7.192 million lb (3.262 million kg) and 7.076 million lb (3.210 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, respectively. For the recreational sector, the ACT would be set 20 percent less than the recreational quotas and, as described in Amendment 40 to the FMP, the recreational quota and ACT would be further divided into Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015).

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 28 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 28 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the preliminary determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council submitted Amendment 28 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by February 22, 2016, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 28. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: December 21, 2015.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-32445 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 100
        [Docket Number USCG-2017-0993]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Special Local Regulation: Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to establish a recurring special local regulation for navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the general public, spectators, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers conducted by high-speed, low-flying airplanes and any high speed vessels performing inside of the regulated area during the Fort Lauderdale Air Show. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 26, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0993 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email Mara.J.Brown@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        The City of Fort Lauderdale notified the Coast Guard that it will be hosting the Fort Lauderdale Air Show annually on one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet and continues north for approximately six miles. The regulated area is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers by high speed, low flying airplanes and high speed vessels during the air show. Over the years, there have been unfortunate instances of aircraft mishaps during performances at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing the air shows. The Captain of the Port Miami has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with aerial flight demonstrations.
        The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

        This rule establishes a special local regulation on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet and continuing north for approximately six miles. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of the public during the aerial flight demonstrations and high speed boat races. Non participant vessels are not permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
        This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which would impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually, or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated area that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting the regulated area during the air and sea show. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be available once we receive public comment for this rule and will be located in the docket indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
          Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

          PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

        1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

        2. Add § 100.726 to read as follows:

          §  100.726
           Special Local Regulation; Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
          (a) Regulated area. The following area is a regulated area located on the Atlantic Ocean in Fort Lauderdale, FL. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26°11′01″ N, 080°05′42″ W; thence due east to Point 2 in position 26°11′01″ N, 080°05′00″ W; thence south west to Point 3 in position 26°05′42″ N, 080°05′35″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 26°05′42″ N, 080°06′17″ W; thence following the shoreline north back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983.
          (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
          (c) Regulations.

          (1) All non participant vessels or persons are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
          (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
          (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced annually on one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May. The exact dates and times will be published annually in the Federal Register through a Notice of Enforcement. Also, the Coast Guard may use Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or on-scene oral notice to notify the public of the exact dates and time of enforcement.

          Dated: January 4, 2018.
          M.M. Dean,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.

      [FR Doc. 2018-01275 Filed 1-24-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P