Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below.

Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased 9.0 percent (from $5,770 billion to $6,289 billion) between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the reserve requirement exemption amount for 2014 at $13.3 million, an increase of $0.9 million from its level in 2013. 1

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions increased 14.9 percent (from $1,371 billion to $1,575 billion) between June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $9.5 million, from $79.5 million for 2013 to $89.0 million for 2014.

The new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for all depository institutions for the fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 23, 2014. For depository institutions that report deposit data weekly, this maintenance period corresponds to the fourteen-day computation period that begins December 24, 2013. For depository institutions that report deposit data quarterly, this maintenance period corresponds to the seven-day computation period that begins December 17, 2013.

Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year.

In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. Depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to the nonexempt deposit cutoff are required to report deposit data weekly. The Board requires certain large depository institutions to report weekly regardless of the level of their net transaction accounts if the depository institution's total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits exceeds or is equal to a specified level (the “reduced reporting limit”). The nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit are adjusted annually, by an amount equal to 80 percent of the increase, if any, in total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

From June 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 7.0 percent (from $8,890 billion to $9,508 billion). Accordingly, the Board is increasing the nonexempt deposit cutoff level by $16.2 million to $306.7 million in 2014 (from $290.5 million for 2013). The Board is also increasing the reduced reporting limit by $91 million to $1.719 billion for 2014 (from $1.628 billion in 2013). 2

Beginning in 2014, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $13.3 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.719 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $306.7 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $306.7 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $13.3 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.719 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $13.3 million (but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.719 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $13.3 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel.

Notice and Regulatory Flexibility Act. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

The Bureau published its remittance rule on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 6194) implementing section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The remittance rule, which includes several additional revisions and amendments published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40459), August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50244), May 22, 2013 (78 FR 30662), and August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49365) (collectively the Final Rule), takes effect on October 28, 2013. Pursuant to the Final Rule, the Bureau determined it would publish a safe harbor list of countries that qualify for an exception in the rule.

That exception permits estimates of certain disclosures in lieu of exact amounts, unless the provider has information that a country's laws, or the method by which transactions are conducted in that country, permits a determination of the exact disclosure amount. The Final Rule, which goes into effect on October 28, 2013, generally requires remittance transfer providers to give consumers sending remittance transfers certain specified disclosures. Among other requirements, a provider generally must disclose the applicable exchange rate, any fees imposed and taxes collected by the provider, and covered third-party fees. 1 In particular circumstances, the Final Rule permits providers to estimate certain amounts that the rule requires them to disclose.

As it relates to this notice, a permanent exception in the Final Rule permits estimates of certain disclosures when, among other circumstances, a remittance transfer provider cannot determine the exact amounts it must disclose at the time the disclosures are required because the laws of the recipient country do not permit such determinations. See 12 CFR 1005.32(b)(1)(i)(A). 2 The Bureau stated in the Federal Register notice published on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 6194) that it would provide a list of countries that qualify for this permanent exception to facilitate providers' compliance with the rule. The Bureau issued this list on its Web site on September 26, 2012. 3

The Bureau is now publishing the list in the Federal Register . The list is unchanged from the list first released in September 2012.

The current list of countries and other areas contains: Aruba, Brazil, China, Ethiopia and Libya. This list is current as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register .

As noted in the Final Rule, the list contains countries and other areas whose laws the Bureau believes, based on its interpretation of the permanent exception and relevant countries' laws, prevent providers from determining, at the time the required disclosures must be provided, the exact exchange rate on the date of availability for a transfer involving a currency exchange.

The Final Rule explains that a remittance transfer provider may rely on this list, unless the provider has information that a country's laws or the method by which transactions are conducted in that country permits a determination of the exact disclosure amount. See 12 CFR 1005.32(b)(1)(ii) and comment 32(b)(1)-2 (containing examples of when this exception does and does not apply). For example, for transfers to Aruba and Brazil, the Bureau believes that a remittance transfer provider can only rely on the list when the sender funds a transfer in a currency other than the local currency ( i.e., not the Aruban florin and the Brazilian real, respectively), and the transfer is exchanged into the local currency in the foreign country as opposed to being exchanged in the United States. The Bureau believes that exception is limited to such scenarios because under Brazil's and Aruba's laws the exchange rate is set when a transfer is picked up only where the transfer is funded in a foreign currency and is then exchanged into the local currency in Brazil or Aruba, respectively. In addition to the Bureau's list, the Final Rule permits providers to make their own determinations that the laws of other recipient countries or the method of sending transfers to recipient countries, which are not on the list, do not permit a determination of exact amounts. See 12 CFR 1005.32(b)(1)(i).

This list is subject to change. As applicable, the Bureau will publish revisions to the list on its Web site and in the Federal Register . To facilitate compliance when the Final Rule goes into effect, the Bureau will not remove any countries on this version of the list before July 1, 2014. Furthermore, if the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to remove a country or area from the list, the Bureau will provide 90-days advance notice.

The Bureau will next review the list in spring 2014. To have your suggestions or input considered for the Bureau's next review, please send your feedback on whether the Bureau should make changes to the list and any supporting materials (in English) on or before March 17, 2014 to:

To receive an alert when the Bureau releases a revised countries list, please sign up for email updates at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/remittances-transfer-rule-amendment-to-regulation-e/ .

Discussion

On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34280, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 206B helicopters, serial number (S/N) 004 through 4675, including helicopters converted from Model 206A and Model 206L helicopters, S/N 45001 through 45153, and 46601 through 46617. The NPRM proposed to require installing a placard on the instrument panel below the NR/N2 dual tachometer and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 206B RFM and 206L RFM to limit steady-state operation between speeds of 75% and 88%. The proposed requirements were intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF-2007-13R2, dated November 10, 2009, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada. TCCA issued AD No. CF-2007-13R2 to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model 206B (including those converted from Model 206A) and 206L helicopters. TCCA advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C20. According to TCCA, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the RFM and has provided a corresponding decal to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 75% and 88% turbine speeds.

The TCCA AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206-07-115, Revision C, dated February 4, 2009, for Model 206B helicopters (ASB 206-07-115) and Bell ASB No. 206L-07-146, Revision B, dated March 3, 2009, for Model 206L helicopters (ASB 206L-07-146).

After our NPRM (78 FR 34280, June 7, 2013) was published, we received comments from one commenter.

Rolls-Royce Corporation requested that in addition to requiring the placard on the instrument panel, we allow operators the option to temporarily mark the N r /N p gauge with colored tape, to provide a more visual aide to the pilot for the speed avoidance zone.

We disagree. Marking the glass surface of the gauge can create parallax issues when viewing the avoidance ranges on the gauge, resulting in erroneous readings.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The TCCA AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, while this AD requires compliance within 30 days.

Bell has issued ASB 206-07-115 and ASB 206L-07-146, which contain procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (N2) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.

We estimate that this AD will affect 970 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM will require about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $41,710. Installing the decal will require about 0.2 work-hour and required parts will cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $35,890. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD is $80 per helicopter and $77,600 for the U.S. operator fleet.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-10-06, Amendment 39-15901 (74 FR 22424, May 13, 2009). AD 2009-10-06 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22435). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the floor panel attachment fastener holes of the Section 41 upper deck floor beam upper chords, and corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive post-repair and post-modification inspections, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to add repetitive inspections of Section 44 upper deck floor beam upper chords, and corrective actions if necessary; repetitive post-repair and post-modification inspections, and corrective actions if necessary; and replacement of the upper deck floor beam upper chords.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that we delete the reference to post-repair and post-modification repetitive inspections from paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013). Boeing stated that the post-repair and post-modification inspections are required by paragraph (i) of the NPRM, and need to be deleted from paragraph (g) of the NPRM to avoid confusion.

We agree to remove the duplicate reference to post-repair and post-modification repetitive inspections from paragraph (g) of this final rule. We have changed paragraph (g) of this final rule accordingly.

Boeing requested that we revise the heading of paragraph (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) to clarify that the modification specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012, is not new and is not fully terminating. Boeing also requested that we add text concerning terminating inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (j) of the NPRM, and also for the resumption of inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (l) of the NPRM.

We agree with the request. We have revised the heading of paragraph (k) of this final rule to “New Terminating Action for Certain Conditions.” We also agree with adding text to paragraph (k) of this final rule to clarify which modifications or repairs as modifications terminate which inspections required by this final rule. We have revised paragraph (k) of this final rule to add new paragraph (k)(1) to this final rule to specify that, for Section 41, doing a hole modification or repair as a hole modification, in accordance with “Part 2—Section 41—Repair,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this final rule. We have also included clarification in paragraph (k)(1) of this final rule to indicate that the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (i) of this final rule must be done.

We have also moved the content of paragraph (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) to new paragraph (k)(2) of this final rule to specify that, for Section 44, doing a hole modification or repair as a hole modification, in accordance with “Part 5—Section 44—Repair,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (j) of this final rule. We have also included clarification in paragraph (k)(2) of this final rule to indicate that the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (l) of this final rule must be done.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (m) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) to add a note concerning the new inspection threshold, equal to the original threshold, to restart inspections after replacement of the upper deck floor beam upper chords. Boeing stated that paragraph (m) of the NPRM requires the replacement of upper deck floor beam upper chords in Sections 41 and 44, as given in Table 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012. Boeing stated that the new inspection threshold needs to be provided in paragraph (m) of this NPRM.

We agree with the request to include a relieving compliance time for the inspections required by this final rule for airplanes on which the upper deck floor beam upper chords are replaced. Paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (l) of this final rule require repetitive inspections at the applicable times specified in Tables 1 through 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012. However, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012, does not specify that accomplishing the replacement terminates the repetitive inspections, nor does it provide a longer compliance time for the next inspection done after accomplishing the replacement. We also agree that the next inspection after accomplishing the replacement may be done within 20,000 flight cycles. We have determined that this compliance time will provide an adequate level of safety. We have revised paragraph (m) of this final rule to add the first interval for the repetitive inspections required by this final rule for airplanes on which a replacement required by paragraph (m) of this final rule is done.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (n)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) to refer to paragraphs (j) and (l) of the NPRM. Boeing stated that since paragraph (n) of the NPRM is referring to new exceptions, it should refer to cracks found as part of the new inspections specified in paragraph (i), (j), or (l) of the NPRM (reference Compliance Tables 2, 3, or 4 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2688, Revision 1, dated September 19, 2012).

We partially agree with the request. We have added a reference to paragraph (j) of this final rule in paragraph (n)(1) of this final rule. Paragraph (j) of this final rule already references paragraph (n)(1) of this final rule as an exception. However, we do not agree to add a reference to paragraph (l) of this final rule in paragraph (n)(1) of this final rule, because paragraph (l) of this final rule does not include a reference to the service information for the corrective action. Paragraph (l) of this final rule specifies to refer to the procedures in paragraph (p) of this final rule for airplanes on which any cracking is found.

Boeing requested we revise paragraph (n)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) to allow the full provisions of Boeing ODA approval. Boeing stated that alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval provisions allowed in paragraph (p) of the NPRM should apply to all sections of the NPRM.

We disagree. Paragraph (p)(3) of this final rule already allows for ODA approval of repairs. We have not changed this final rule in this regard. However, we have revised paragraph (n)(3) of this final rule to clarify where the service information specifies to contact the FAA, operators must contact the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22435, April 16, 2013).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 84 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the repair or modification specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-10-01, effective October 3, 2013 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The purpose of the flight review is to provide for a regular assessment of pilot skills and aeronautical knowledge. When the requirement was first introduced, the FAA stated that the flight review would assure that every pilot would have a qualified individual comment on his or her competency at least once every two years, as discussed in 38 FR 3156 (February 1, 1973).

Section 61.56 sets forth certain exceptions to the requirement for a pilot to accomplish a flight review. Among these exceptions, a person who has, within the prescribed 24-month period, “passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an FAA examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege,” need not accomplish the required flight review required by § 61.56(d). In addition, pilots employed by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 and part 135 receive recurring training and proficiency checks, conducted by an FAA examiner or approved pilot check airman provided by their employer, which exceed the requirements of a flight review.

Industry advocacy groups indicated they believed that the flight instructor certification covers much more than the regulatory requirements of a flight review. These groups indicated support for amendment of the regulations to allow for a flight instructor practical test to be included as an exception to completing a flight review. As discussed further in the direct final rule, the FAA agreed with this view. The direct final rule published September 16, 2013, modified § 61.56(d) to allow an airman who passes a practical test for issuance of a flight instructor certificate, a practical test for the addition of a rating to a flight instructor certificate, a practical test for renewal of a flight instructor certificate, or a practical test for the reinstatement of a flight instructor certificate to meet the flight review requirements of 14 CFR part 61.

Section 61.57 sets forth the recent flight experience requirements to act as pilot in command of an aircraft. Section 61.57(e)(2) states that this section does not apply “to a pilot in command who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 121 or 135 and is engaged in a flight operation under part 91, 121, or 135 for that air carrier if the pilot is in compliance with” the pilot-in-command requirements in § 121.435 or § 121.436, as applicable, and § 121.439 or §§ 135.243 and 135.247, as appropriate. The FAA received several requests for clarification of whether, under the specific language of § 61.57(e)(2), the exception applies only to a pilot in command employed by the holder of a part 119 air carrier certificate or whether it also extends to a pilot in command employed by the holder of a part 119 operating certificate.

When the FAA first proposed this exception to the recent flight experience requirements in § 61.57, it stated that the intention was to provide relief from “essentially redundant recency requirements” for part 121 and part 135 operators and their pilots in command (59 FR 56385, November 14, 1994). In that final rule, then-§ 61.57(f) stated that the recent flight experience requirements in part 61 did not apply “to a pilot in command, employed by a 14 CFR part 121 or part 135 operator, engaged in flight operations under 14 CFR part 91, 121, or 135 for that operator.” The FAA refined the language in a 1997 final rule and, in doing so, introduced the term “air carrier” in place of the term “operator” (62 FR 16220, April 7, 1997).

The FAA did not intend to limit the exception to pilots employed by air carriers operating in parts 121 and 135. The FAA intended to include any pilot in command who is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or part 135 when the pilot is engaged in operations under parts 91, 121, or 135 for that certificate holder if the pilot in command is in compliance with §§ 121.435 or 121.436, as applicable, and § 121.439 or §§ 135.243 and 135.247, as appropriate.

Consequently, in the direct final rule published September 16, 2013, the FAA amended the language in § 61.57(e) to make clear that the recent flight experience requirements of that section do not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by the holder of an operating certificate that is conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 if the pilot in command is also in compliance with § 121.435 or § 121.436, as applicable, and § 121.439, or §§ 135.243 and 135.247, as appropriate.

In the case of a lost or destroyed airman or medical certificate, § 61.29(a) and (b) permit a pilot to request the replacement of a lost or destroyed airman certificate issued under part 61. Replacement airman certificates may be requested by letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Airmen Certification Branch, and replacement medical certificates may be requested by letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Aerospace Medical Certification Division.

Although current regulations recognize requests for replacement certificates only by letter, the FAA has established Airmen Online Services through which a pilot can request a replacement airman certificate or obtain a document that provides temporary authority to exercise the privileges of an airman certificate by facsimile or through internet download at the FAA Web site: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/certificate_replacement/ . The use of Airmen Online Services is not addressed or recognized in § 61.29. Therefore, in the direct final rule published September 16, 2013, the FAA amended the language in § 61.29 to reflect the use of Airmen Online Services or any method acceptable to the FAA for the purpose of obtaining a replacement certificate or 60-day authority to exercise the privileges of a lost or stolen certificate.

The FAA also revised § 61.3 to clarify that temporary documents issued under § 61.29(e) are acceptable for meeting the § 61.3 requirement that a pilot have his or her pilot certificate and medical certificate in the person's physical possession when serving as a required flightcrew member.

The FAA received 7 comments to the direct final rule. All commenters supported the rule as published. Commenters supported the regulatory changes, noting that they would relieve burdens for the regulated community, and would potentially reduce costs for certified flight instructors.

After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the direct final rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is necessary. Therefore, the direct final rule published September 16, 2013 at 78 FR 56822, Amendment No. 61-131, will become effective November 15, 2013.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using the Internet—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov ;

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ .

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/ .

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during September 2013, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the Center for Veterinary Medicine FOIA Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm.

In addition, Piedmont Animal Health, 204 Muirs Chapel Rd., suite 200, Greensboro, NC 27410 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200-555 for LIBREVIA (carprofen) Soft Chewable Tablets to Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations to reflect this change of sponsorship.

Following this change of sponsorship, Piedmont Animal Health is no longer a sponsor of an approved NADA. Accordingly, FDA is amending 21 CFR 510.600 to remove the entries for this firm.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, and 558 are amended as follows:

The Atlantic Beach Bridge, across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e).

A temporary deviation for the drawbridge operations (78 FR 56610) is currently in effect. During ongoing rehabilitation of the bridge the contractor discovered more severe damage than originally anticipated, resulting from Super Storm Sandy in 2012. The owner of the bridge, Nassau County Bridge Authority, is requesting additional bridge closures in order to complete the bridge rehabilitation.

The waterway has commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

Under this temporary deviation the draw of the Atlantic Beach Bridge at mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel shall operate as follows:

From December 2, 2013 through December 31, 2013, the bridge shall operate a single span on signal at 6 a.m., 12 p.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m. and at any time between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. The draw shall open both spans at all times for commercial vessel traffic after at least a 48 hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. The draw may remain in the closed position between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m. on December 3, and December 4, 2013.

The Coast Guard contacted all known commercial waterway users regarding this deviation and no objections were received.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Norfolk Southern Corporation, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.5 to facilitate thermite welding on the rails.

Under the regular operating schedule, the Norfolk Southern #5 Railroad Bridge, mile 1.1, in Norfolk, VA, the draw must open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given. The draw normally is open and only closes for train crossings or periodic maintenance. The Norfolk Southern #5 railroad Bridge, at mile 1.1, across the Elizabeth River (Eastern Branch) in Norfolk, VA, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 6 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position each day, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., on November 4, 2013 until December 8, 2013 the bridge will operate under normal operating schedule at all other times. The bridge normally is maintained in the open-to-navigation position with several vessels transiting a week and only closes when trains transit. Emergency openings cannot be provided. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Elizabeth River Eastern Branch but vessels may pass before 7 a.m. and after 5 p.m.

The Elizabeth River Eastern Branch is used by a variety of vessels including military, tug, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and are advised to proceed with caution.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e), to facilitate maintenance of the moveable spans on the structure.

The current operating schedule for the drawbridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e) which requires the drawbridge open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. The I64 Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 65 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed to navigation from 7 a.m., on Friday, November 15, 2013 to 12 p.m., on Sunday, November 17, 2013.

Vessels able to pass under the drawbridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. The drawbridge will not be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the drawbridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Path railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water, and 45 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.5.

The bridge owner, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH), requested a bridge closure for 26 consecutive weekends to facilitate replacement of rails and ties at the lift span.

Under this temporary deviation, the Path Railroad Bridge may remain in the closed position for 26 consecutive weekends from 12:01 a.m. Saturdays to 12:01 a.m. Mondays effective November 23, 2013 through May 19, 2014.

Vessels that can pass under the closed draw may do so at all times.

The Hackensack River in the vicinity of the Path Railroad Bridge is transited primarily by commercial vessels. Most vessels that habitually transit under the bridge do not require bridge openings.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated repair period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable. Logistical details did not present the Coast Guard enough time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the swimmers from the dangers associated with transiting vessels.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest, because immediate action is necessary to protect the swimmers from the dangers associated with transiting vessels.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. The HITS Inc. is sponsoring the HITS Triathlon Series, which will involve 1,200 swimmers transiting North Thompson Bay in Lake Havasu, AZ.

The safety zone will encompass the waters in the northern portion of Thompson Bay, within the following coordinates:

This temporary safety zone is necessary to prevent vessels from transiting the area and to protect the swimmers from potential damage and injury.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on November 9, 2013 and 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on November 10, 2013. The limits of the safety zone will include the waters of the northern portion of Thompson Bay. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM).

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of Lake Havasu from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on November 9, 2013 and 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on November 10, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced only ten hours early in the day when vessel traffic is low. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM).

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 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 , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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.

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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves establishing a safety zone, upon the navigable waters of Lake Havasu. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the logistical details of the fireworks event were not finalized nor presented to the Coast Guard in enough time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because it is impractical and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard did not have the necessary event information in time to provide both a comment period and allow for a 30 day delayed effective date. Immediate action is required to ensure the safety zone is in place to protect participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway during the event.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Mission Bay, south of Fiesta Island, for a firework event that is part of Sea World Christmas festivities. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on November 15 and 16, 2013. The safety zone includes the waters of Mission Bay within 600 feet of the fireworks barge, located in approximate position 32°46′03″ N, 117°13′11″ W.

This safety zone is necessary to ensure personnel and vessels not associated with the marine event remain safe by keeping away from the fireworks barge located on the navigable waters of Mission Bay, south of Fiesta Island. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Coast Guard District Eleven Local Notice to Mariners information on the event and associated safety zone. Immediately before and during the fireworks, Coast Guard Sector San Diego Joint Harbor Operations Center will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners on the location and enforcement of the safety zone.

Vessels will be able to transit the surrounding area and may be authorized to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port of the designated representative. Before activating the safety zone, the Coast Guard will notify mariners by appropriate means including but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

We developed this 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.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is based on the size, duration and location of the safety zone. The safety zone is relatively small in size, 1,200 foot diameter, short in duration, and traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing in the impacted portion of Mission Bay on the evenings of November 15 and 16, 2013.

(2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone will only be in effect for thirty minutes in the evening when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic can safely transit around the safety zone area through alternate routes while the zone is in effect.

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 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 , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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.

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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Purpose of Program: The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program provides financial assistance for—

(1) Projects that provide basic or advanced training leading to an academic degree in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary;

(2) Projects that provide a specified series of courses or program of study leading to the award of a certificate in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary; and

(3) Projects that provide support for medical residents enrolled in residency training programs in the specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(b).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 385 and 386.

We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in the Federal Register on June 14, 2013 (78 FR 35808). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing this particular priority. There are significant differences between the proposed priority and the final priority, and we fully explain these differences in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this notice.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, 31 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed priority follows.

Comment: A number of commenters proposed that, rather than funding solely master's degree programs in VR counseling, the Department instead fund programs in specialty areas.

For example, almost half of the commenters requested that the Department develop a priority to fund programs leading to a master's degree or a certificate in vocational evaluation. They explained that an individual able to conduct a thorough vocational assessment that truly captures the strengths, abilities, and capabilities of an individual with a disability is critical to the rehabilitation process. They also stated that a competent vocational evaluator is familiar with what is required to obtain employment in today's economy and that such information is invaluable in assisting individuals with disabilities to achieve quality employment outcomes. The commenters also noted that relying on the knowledge and expertise of rehabilitation personnel, such as vocational evaluators, rehabilitation technologists, and customized employment specialists, helps to ease growing workloads and large caseload burdens for VR counselors. Similarly, one commenter expressed concern that the proposed priority focused only on a master's degree in VR counseling and failed to acknowledge the specialty of job placement and job development. This commenter asserted that individuals skilled in this specialty area would gain knowledge critical in assisting individuals to achieve employment in today's economy.

In addition, one commenter expressed concern about the priority's focus on programs that lead to a master's degree in VR counseling because there are few programs that focus on the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. This commenter discussed the value that a certificate program has for rehabilitation professionals focusing on this population.

Discussion: The Department decided to focus this priority solely on master's degree programs in VR counseling, because individuals with this background will gain a breadth of knowledge and experience that will adequately prepare them to meet the employment needs and goals of VR consumers. This focus will also allow scholars to compete for jobs in a variety of employment settings that fulfill the payback obligation and will help to address personnel shortages in the field of vocational rehabilitation. The curriculum leading to this degree covers counseling skills, the medical and psychological aspects of disabilities, and the rehabilitation process from assessment through job placement. These programs also have practicum and internship components. The master's degree in VR counseling is the degree that many State VR agencies require for “qualified rehabilitation counselors.” We recognize that VR professionals with degrees and certificates in other specialty areas (e.g., vocational evaluation, job placement and job development, rehabilitation of the deaf) are an important component in strengthening State VR agencies and the quality of services they provide to their clients. However, we also recognize that grants in one or more of these fields may attract fewer program participants, and the employment opportunities of program graduates in these fields would be more limited than those completing a broader VR counseling program. For these reasons and because there is a significant shortage in qualified VR counselors, for purposes of this grant priority, we believe it is justifiable to maintain a strong focus on programs that lead to a master's degree in VR counseling.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the final priority be expanded to include doctoral programs. One of these commenters indicated that, in order to address the personnel shortage of VR counselors, professors and instructional staff will need the knowledge and skills to train students seeking master's degrees in accordance with the specifications listed in the proposed priority. The commenter asserted that, if one master's degree student receives training grant support, one VR counselor will be produced, whereas if one doctoral student is supported who goes on to a university training program position, he or she will contribute substantially to training many VR counselors, thus making a significant contribution to addressing the shortage of qualified VR counselors.

Discussion: The Department agrees that a key element in addressing the shortage of VR counselors is ensuring that professors and instructional staff have the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively train counselors. However, the increased costs associated with supporting students in doctoral training programs, as opposed to their counterparts in master's programs, would severely limit the Department's ability to address shortages of qualified State VR personnel in the short term. Given that many State VR agencies are currently unable to comply with their Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) requirements, it would not now be appropriate to further restrict the numbers of newly qualified VR counselors entering the field. Some State VR agencies are forced to hire individuals with bachelor's degrees to fill vacant positions and ultimately incur greater costs as these individuals require additional training to meet the CSPD requirements. Therefore, the Department believes that, at this time, supporting doctoral candidates under this priority would only further limit the numbers of newly qualified VR counselors entering the field and increase costs for State VR agencies.

Changes: None.

Comment: A number of commenters suggested that paragraph (b)(1) of the final priority should include an emphasis on essential competencies for today's rehabilitation counselors. Specifically, some of these commenters indicated the importance of competencies such as advanced counseling skills and skills in critical thinking and collaborative relationships.

Discussion: The Department believes that the curriculum should be aligned with competency-based skills in order to prepare counselors to meet the employment needs and goals of VR consumers. The Department agrees that the skills listed by the commenters are important skills for a VR counselor and that the curriculum should help scholars develop those skills. However, advanced counseling skills and skills in critical thinking and collaborative relationships are simply examples of competency-based skills. Applicants are free to propose these and other competency-based skills in the curriculum in order to advance the skill set of prospective counselors.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(1) of the priority to include the skills the commenters suggested as examples of competency-based skills that may be developed through the curriculum.

Comment: A few commenters asked that the Department expand paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed priority to include preparing scholars for the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor certification (CRCC) exam.

Discussion: The Department understands that scholars completing a master's degree in VR counseling may wish to sit for the CRCC exam, as this is a requirement for employment in some State VR agencies and elsewhere. Paragraph (b)(2) of the priority simply reinforces the responsibility of the VR counseling programs to meet all applicable certification standards. Nothing in this priority precludes applicants from adding or enhancing their curriculum to incorporate preparation for the CRCC exam.

Changes: None.

Comment: Nearly one-third of the commenters focused on paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed priority and teaching scholars to address the needs of individuals with a range of disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are from diverse cultural backgrounds. These commenters suggested encouraging a greater emphasis on preparing scholars to manage the unique challenges and aspects of working with specific populations, such as individuals with severe and persistent psychiatric disabilities, individuals with autism spectrum disorders, individuals who are deaf, individuals who are deaf-blind, veterans with disabilities, transition-aged youth, and individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice system.

Discussion: The Department believes that it is important for the curriculum of a VR counseling program to address the unique challenges of working with individuals with a range of disabilities and individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Nothing in this priority precludes applicants from providing training on addressing the needs of the specific populations listed above. However, we are concerned that, by listing certain populations, the priority might give the impression that the applicant should focus only on these populations and not address the needs of others. Therefore, we believe the applicant should develop a curriculum that helps scholars understand the unique needs of individuals representing a wide range of disabilities and cultural backgrounds.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters focused on paragraph (b)(5) of the proposed priority regarding assistive technology. A few of these commenters suggested that the curriculum must train scholars to assess the need for assistive technology throughout the VR process and in order to obtain and maintain competitive employment. One commenter indicated that the priority should recognize that assistive technology is a specialized, ever-changing field, and, as technology continues to expand, scholars will need training by assistive technology specialists.

Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for the curriculum to teach scholars to assess the needs of individuals with disabilities for assistive technology throughout the VR process, with particular emphasis on assessing their needs for assistive technology in helping them obtain and maintain competitive employment. The Department also acknowledges that assistive technology is ever-changing and consequently that ongoing training will be needed.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(5) of the priority to clarify that applicants must demonstrate how the proposed curriculum will expose scholars to the field of assistive technology and include training so that scholars can recognize the needs of individuals with disabilities for assistive technology throughout the rehabilitation process.

Comment: One commenter proposed specific curriculum requirements for paragraph (b) of the priority. This commenter recommended adding requirements relating to: (1) The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification Code of Professional Ethics; (2) VR services to transition-age youth; (3) development of an individualized plan for employment, especially identification of a vocational goal and specific measurable objectives; (4) legislative provisions of the Workforce Investment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and the Social Security Act and their accompanying regulations; (5) basic financial planning, including managing a budget; (6) consumer choice; (7) negotiation skills; (8) use of social and electronic media, especially as it relates to confidentiality and appropriateness of the use of the media; (9) exposure to the business perspective; (10) critical thinking and decision-making skills; and (11) data analysis.

Discussion: The Department agrees that the curriculum requirements suggested by the commenter would support paragraph (b) of the priority. However, this is not an exhaustive list of elements that could be included in the curriculum. We want to be clear that they are simply examples of elements of the curriculum that applicants must describe in their applications. The applicants are free to propose additional curriculum requirements to ensure that scholars are prepared to effectively meet the needs and demands of consumers with disabilities and employers.

Changes: None.

Comment: Almost half of the commenters expressed concern about the requirement in paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed priority that applicants must ensure that scholars complete an internship in a State VR agency as a requirement for program completion. A number of these commenters were concerned that State VR agencies would not be able to make a sufficient number of internships available for scholars funded through this program. Several of the commenters stated that restricting internships to State VR agencies, as opposed to related, community-based agencies, unnecessarily limits the experiences scholars can gain. A few of these commenters were also concerned that individuals in the program who are employed full-time would find it difficult to fulfill the requirement to participate in an internship.

Discussion: The Department believes that a required internship at a State VR agency or a related agency serves as a valuable learning experience for scholars so that they can apply classroom knowledge in a work-related setting, identify their strengths and weaknesses as prospective rehabilitation counselors, and learn skills that cannot be taught in the classroom, such as interpersonal or communication skills. Further, as the need for qualified VR counselors in the State-Federal VR program is critical, we encourage internships in such settings, to the extent practicable; we recognize that in some circumstances such internships may be unavailable. With regard to the concern that individuals who are employed full-time while they are scholars in a Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program may have difficulty completing a full-time internship, our intention is that applicants for funding will work creatively to make such internships available to scholars, perhaps on a part-time basis. Such scholars may require more time to complete the program or may need other accommodations to complete their internship requirement.

Changes: We have maintained the requirement that all scholars must complete an internship in a State VR agency but revised paragraph (c)(5) to permit an applicant to provide written justification that it is not feasible for all scholars to complete an internship in a State VR agency. If the justification is sufficient, a project funded under this priority may require all scholars to complete an internship in either a State VR agency or in a related agency, as defined in 34 CFR 386.4. Sufficient justification for proposing that scholars complete internships in settings other than a State VR agency could include concerns about the capacity at the State VR agency to provide adequate supervision of scholars or the physical distance between scholars and the nearest office of the State VR agency (e.g., for scholars enrolled in distance-learning programs or at rural institutions).

Comment: One commenter suggested that in paragraph (d)(1) of the priority we require a course or curriculum segment on how to develop and maintain relationships with potential employers, make initial contacts, assess the needs of employers, and present job-ready clients to employers.

Discussion: The Department agrees with this comment, although the additional suggestions do not comprise an exhaustive list of the employer-related course content that could be offered. This comment is more applicable to paragraph (b)(6) of the priority, which focuses on the course curriculum.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(6) of the priority to provide as examples the specific employer-related curriculum content the commenter suggested.

Comment: One commenter proposed that paragraph (d)(3) of the priority be expanded to require the grantee to provide the worksite supervisor with an assessment tool and offer technical assistance to the supervisor in order to complete the assessment.

Discussion: The Department agrees that an assessment tool is necessary to evaluate the value of a worksite experience at building the knowledge and skills necessary to becoming an effective vocational rehabilitation counselor. We also recognize the value of an assessment tool that both reduces burden on the worksite supervisors and grantees and allows a consistent approach to the evaluation of scholars in a particular program. We strongly encourage grantees and worksite supervisors to work together to ensure the assessment tool accurately reflects the work duties of the scholar during their internship. This may involve the joint development of an assessment tool, or a portion thereof as they see fit. In addition, we agree that it would be appropriate for grantees to offer technical assistance to supervisors as they complete the assessments.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (d)(3) of the priority to require that an assessment tool accurately reflects the specific job duties of a scholar in their internship experience, potentially involving the joint development of that tool between the grantee and the worksite supervisor. In addition, paragraph (d) (3) of the priority will require that the results of the assessment be provided to the grantee and to the scholar.

Comment: One commenter suggested including a plan to routinely gather feedback from consumers and employers to be used to improve VR counseling programs. This commenter also suggested incorporating existing data that the Department, the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration, and other agencies and organizations collect from the State VR agencies and using it to improve the curriculum and training programs that support the development of VR professionals.

Discussion: The Department agrees that data from these sources could be beneficial in evaluating the relative success of a training program. We believe that VR counseling programs should consult with as many sources of information as possible when evaluating the impact that they are having on the supply of qualified VR personnel. However, we are also mindful of the potential burden a requirement to collect these data on a regular basis may place on grantees with limited funding.

Changes: We have redrafted the requirement to allow for a broader array of data sources to be included in the evaluation of the program in paragraph (f).

Final Priority:

Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority to fund programs leading to a master's degree in vocational rehabilitation (VR) counseling. The goal of this priority is to increase the skills of VR counseling scholars so that upon successful completion they are prepared to effectively meet the needs and demands of consumers with disabilities and employers.

Under this priority, applicants must:

(a) Provide data on the current and projected employment needs and personnel shortages in State VR agencies and other related agencies as defined in 34 CFR 386.4 in their local area, region, and State, and describe how the proposed program will address those employment needs and personnel shortages.

(b) Describe how the VR counseling program will provide rehabilitation counselors the skills and knowledge that will help ensure that the individuals with disabilities that they serve can meet current demands and emerging trends in the labor market, including how:

(1) The curriculum provides a breadth of knowledge, experience, and rigor that will adequately prepare scholars to meet the employment needs and goals of VR consumers and aligns with evidence-based practices and with competency-based skills (e.g., advanced counseling skills, critical thinking skills, and skills in building collaborative relationships) in the field of VR counseling;

(2) The curriculum prepares scholars to meet all applicable certification standards;

(3) The curriculum addresses new or emerging consumer employment needs or trends at the national, State, and regional levels;

(4) The curriculum teaches scholars to address the needs of individuals with a range of disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are from diverse cultural backgrounds;

(5) The curriculum will train scholars to recognize the assistive technology needs of consumers throughout the rehabilitation process so that they will be better able to coordinate the provision of appropriate assistive technology services and devices in order to assist the consumer to obtain and retain employment;

(6) The curriculum will teach scholars to work effectively with employers in today's economy, including by teaching strategies for developing relationships with employers in their State and local areas, identifying employer needs and skill demands, making initial employer contacts, presenting job-ready clients to potential employers, and conducting follow-up with employers; and

(7) The latest technology is incorporated into the methods of instruction (e.g., the use of distance education to reach scholars who live far from the university and the use of technology to acquire labor market information).

(c) Describe their methods to:

(1) Recruit highly capable prospective scholars who have the potential to successfully complete the academic program, all required practicum and internship experiences, and the required service obligation;

(2) Educate potential scholars about the terms and conditions of the service obligation under 34 CFR 386.4, 386.34, and 386.40 through 386.43 so that they will be fully informed before accepting a scholarship;

(3) Maintain a system that ensures that scholars sign a payback agreement and an exit form when they exit the program, regardless of whether they drop out, are removed, or successfully complete the program;

(4) Provide academic support and counseling to scholars throughout the course of the academic program to ensure successful completion;

(5) Ensure that all scholars complete an internship in a State VR agency as a requirement for program completion. In such cases where an applicant can provide sufficient justification that it is not feasible for all students receiving scholarships to meet this requirement, the applicant may require scholars to complete an internship in a State VR agency or a related agency, as defined in 34 CFR 386.4. Circumstances that would constitute sufficient justification may include, but are not limited to, a lack of capacity at the State VR agency to provide adequate supervision of scholars during their internship experience or the physical distance between scholars and the nearest office of the State VR agency (e.g., for scholars enrolled in distance-learning programs or at rural institutions). Applicants should include written justification in the application or provide it to Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) for review and approval by the appropriate RSA Project Officer no later than 30 days prior to a scholar beginning an internship in a related agency;

(6) Provide career counseling, including informing scholars of professional contacts and networks, job leads, and other necessary resources and information to support scholars in successfully obtaining and retaining qualifying employment;

(7) Maintain regular contact with scholars upon successful program completion (e.g., matching scholars with mentors in the field), to ensure that they have support during their search for qualifying employment as well as support during the initial months of their employment;

(8) Maintain regular communication with scholars after program exit to ensure that scholar contact information is up-to-date and that documentation of employment is accurate and meets the regulatory requirements for qualifying employment; and

(9) Maintain accurate information on, while safeguarding the privacy of, current and former scholars from the time they are enrolled in the program until they successfully meet their service obligation.

(d) Describe a plan for developing and maintaining partnerships with State VR Agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that includes:

(1) Coordination between the grantee and the State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that will promote qualifying employment opportunities for scholars and formalized on-boarding and induction experiences for new hires;

(2) Formal opportunities for scholars to obtain work experiences through internships, practicum agreements, job shadowing, and mentoring opportunities; and

(3) A scholar internship assessment tool that is developed to ensure a consistent approach to the evaluation of scholars in a particular program. The tool should reflect the specific responsibilities of the scholar during the internship. The grantee and worksite supervisor are encouraged to work together as they see fit to develop the assessment tool. Supervisors at the internship site will complete the assessment detailing the scholar's strengths and areas for improvement that must be addressed and provide the results of the assessment to the grantee. The grantee should ensure that (A) scholars are provided with a copy of the assessment and all relevant rubrics prior to beginning their internship, (B) supervisors have sufficient technical support to accurately complete the assessment, and (C) scholars receive a copy of the results of the assessment within 90 days of the end of their internship.

(e) Describe how scholars will be evaluated throughout the entire program to ensure that they are proficient in meeting the needs and demands of today's consumers and employers, including the steps that will be taken to provide assistance to a scholar who is not meeting academic standards or who is performing poorly in a practicum or internship setting.

(f) Describe how the program will be evaluated. Such a description must include:

(1) How the program will determine its effect over a period of time on filling vacancies in the State VR agency with qualified counselors capable of providing quality services to consumers;

(2) How input from State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers will be included in the evaluation;

(3) How feedback from consumers of VR services and employers (including the assessments described in paragraph (d)(3)) will be included in the evaluation;

(4) How data from other sources, such as those from the Department, on the State VR program will be included in the evaluation; and

(5) How the data and results from the evaluation will be used to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the program.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act, Public Law 104-39, which created an exclusive right for copyright owners of sound recordings, subject to certain limitations, to perform publicly sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions. Among the limitations on the performance right was the creation of a statutory license for nonexempt, noninteractive digital subscription transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(d).

Congress expanded the scope of the section 114 statutory license in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), Public Law 105-34. The DMCA authorizes the public performance of a sound recording when the sound recording is made by a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service or as part of an eligible nonsubscription transmission in accordance with the terms and rates of the statutory license. See 17 U.S.C. 114(d). The DMCA also created a statutory license for the making of an “ephemeral recording” of a sound recording by certain transmitting organizations. 17 U.S.C. 112(e). This license allows entities that transmit performances of sound recordings to business establishments, pursuant to the limitations set forth in section 114(d)(1)(C)(iv), to make an ephemeral recording to facilitate transmission of a public performance of a sound recording. Id. The license also provides a means by which a transmitting entity with a statutory license under section 114(f) can make more than one phonorecord permitted under the exemption set forth in section 112(a). Id.

The Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for “the activities described in section 112(e)(1) relating to the limitation on exclusive rights specified by section 114(d)(1)(C)(iv).” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(2). 1 Thus, the Judges, in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(2), published a notice in the Federal Register commencing the current proceeding to set rates and terms for the section 112(e) license and requesting interested parties to submit their petitions to participate. 77 FR 133 (Jan. 3, 2012). In response to the notice, the Judges received petitions to participate from: Pandora Media, Inc.; Music Choice; DMX, Inc.; Muzak, LLC; Music Reports, Inc.; Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.; SoundExchange, Inc.; and Sirius XM Radio, Inc. The Judges set the timetable for the three-month negotiation period, see 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3), as well as a deadline of November 16, 2012, for the participants' submission of written direct statements. Subsequently, the Judges granted the participants' request to extend the deadline to November 29, 2012, in order to allow the participants to finalize a settlement agreement. See Order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Written Direct Statements, Docket No. 2012-1 CRB Business Establishments II (Nov. 14, 2012). On November 29, 2012, the Judges received a Motion to Adopt Settlement stating that all participants had reached a settlement obviating the need for a hearing.

Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. This section provides in part that the Judges must provide to both non-participants and participants to the rate proceeding who “would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by any agreement * * * an opportunity to comment on the agreement.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). Participants to the proceeding may also “object to [the agreement's] adoption as a basis for statutory terms and rates.” Id.

The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [to the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). Accordingly, on July 19, 2013, the Judges published a notice requesting comment on the proposed rates and terms. 78 FR 43094. The Judges received no comments or objections in response to the July 19 notice.

Having received no comments or objections to the proposal, the Judges, by this notice, are adopting as final regulations the rates and terms for the making of an ephemeral recording by a business establishment service for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend Part 384 of Chapter III of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051) (FRL-9393-4). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051), EPA issued several direct final SNURs, including SNURs for the chemical substances that are the subject of this removal. These direct final rules were issued pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. In accordance with § 721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is removing the rules issued for chemical substances identified as alkanes, C21-34—branched and linear, chloro; alkanes, C22-30—branched and linear, chloro; and alkanes, C24-28, chloro, which were the subject of PMNs P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109, respectively, because the Agency received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments. EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for these chemical substances under separate notice and comment procedures.

For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721, subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The record for the direct final SNUR for the chemical substances that are being removed was established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399. That record includes information considered by the Agency in developing this rule and the notice of intent to submit adverse comments.

This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this removal will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were discussed in the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051). Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a removal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

EPA is taking final action to determine that the Bellefontaine area (comprised of the portions of Logan County that are bounded by: Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 of Lake Township) has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2010-2012 monitoring period showing that the area has monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Further, with the finalization of this determination of attainment, the requirements for the Bellefontaine area to submit an attainment demonstration together with RACM, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines would be suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As discussed below, this action is consistent with EPA's regulations and with its longstanding interpretation of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA.

If the area violates the 2008 Pb NAAQS after this action, the basis for the suspension of these attainment planning requirements would no longer exist for the Bellefontaine area, and the area would thereafter have to address such requirements.

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary Pb NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) based on a maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years 2007-2009. These designations became effective on December 31, 2010. 1 The Bellefontaine area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.343.

On April 19, 2013, the Ohio EPA, submitted a request to EPA to make a determination that the Bellefontaine area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, quality-controlled monitoring data from 2010 through 2012.

Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the (fine particulates) PM 2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (December 14, 2004).

Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment. EPA recently applied this policy to the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the Bristol, Tennessee nonattainment area (77 FR 52232). For a full discussion on EPA's application of this policy, see section III of the Bristol, Tennessee Determination of Attainment for the 2008 Pb Standards (77 FR 35653).

Today's rulemaking assesses whether the Bellefontaine area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of quality-assured data. The Bellefontaine area comprises the portion of Logan County bounded by sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 of Lake Township, which surrounds the Daido Facility. The Daido Facility manufactured metal parts for automobiles.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and secondary Pb standards are met when the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m 3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Bellefontaine area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. This review addresses air quality data collected in the 2010-2012 period which are the most recent quality-assured data available.

40 CFR Part 58, appendix D, Section 4.5, states that “At a minimum, there must be one source-oriented State and Local Air Monitoring Station site located to measure the maximum Pb concentration in ambient air resulting from each non-airport Pb source which emits 0.50 or more tons per year . . .” In June of 2009, operation of the Daido Facility permanently shut down. A contractor for the Daido Facility ran a Pb monitor at site 39-091-0006 through 2009. The Ohio EPA took responsibility for the site on January 1, 2010. During the last two months of the site being operated by the industry contractor, November and December of 2009, data were not collected.

This absence of data for November and December of 2009 raised a potential question about whether sufficient data are available to determine that the Bellefontaine area is attaining the Pb standard. For sites that began operation many years ago, EPA would examine air quality for the most recent 36 3-calendar month periods, which for 2010-2012 would include 3-month averages based in part on data for November and December 2009. On the other hand, according to 40 CFR Part 50, appendix R Section 4(a), “For sites that begin monitoring Pb after [January 12, 2009] but before January 15, 2010 (or January 15, 2011), a 2010-2012 (or 2011-2013) Pb design value that meets the NAAQS will be considered valid if it encompasses at least 34 consecutive valid 3-month means (specifically encompassing only the 3-year calendar period).”

For the Bellefontaine area, EPA believes it is appropriate to consider site 39-091-0006 a new site as of January 1, 2010. The contractor that was responsible for the operation of this site through the end of 2009, failed to operate the monitor after October 2009. On January 1, 2010, the Ohio EPA Southwest District Office began operation of a new monitor at the site. Ohio EPA demonstrated that the changes to the monitoring network were appropriate and the data is valid for attainment determinations. EPA finds it appropriate to consider this a new site as of January 1, 2010, such that attainment may be judged based on 34 consecutive valid 3-month averages. For the information leading EPA to this conclusion, see the October 2013 Technical Support Document available in the docket for this rulemaking.

The 39-091-0006 site is a Federal reference method (FRM) source-oriented monitor which meets the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. The three-month rolling averages at this site have not exceeded the standard since 2007. After the permanent shutdown of the Daido Facility in June of 2009, the Pb values have been well below the standard.

Table 1 shows the 2010-2012 three-month rolling averages for the Bellefontaine area.

The data shown in Table 1 are complete, quality-assured, and certified. Data in February and March of 2012 were not 75 percent complete, but were more than 50 percent complete making them eligible for the “below NAAQS level test” in 40 CFR Part 50, appendix R (4)(c)(ii)(B). Ohio accurately applied this test and the data were sufficient to be considered complete.

The Daido Facility's NEI emissions in 2005 were 0.121 tons per year (tpy), more than half of the lead emissions in the county. The next three largest contributors in the county have emissions of 0.035 tpy, 0.0075 tpy, and 0.0075 tpy. Production at the Daido Facility started to decrease in 2008 as the automobile industry declined, and the ambient air Pb levels reflect this. Concurrent with the shutdown of the largest source, the ambient air lead values have been cut by more than half.

EPA's review of these data indicates that the Bellefontaine area has attained and continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS, with a design value of 0.006 µg/m 3 for the period of 2010-2012.

EPA is determining that the Bellefontaine area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2010-2012. Also, the requirements for the Ohio EPA to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the Bellefontaine area are suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA rulemaking is consistent and in keeping with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone ( see 40 CFR 51.918) and PM 2.5 ( see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)).

This action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. This action does not involve approving a maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the area has met all other requirements for redesignation. The Bellefontaine area remains designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the area.

We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective January 6, 2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by December 5, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective January 6, 2014.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 2013. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the state of South Carolina prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register .

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Post and Courier. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

The Geiger (C&M Oil) Site (EPA CERCLIS Identification Number SCD980711279) is located approximately 10 miles west of the city of Charleston, South Carolina, along Highway 162. The town of Hollywood is located approximately 4 miles west of the site. The Site consist of an affected area that is approximately 1.5 acres in size, triangular in shape and is bound on two sides by ponds, and on the third side by a small rise. The area around the Site is sparsely populated with approximately ten residences located west and southwest of the site. Another 10 residences are located to the east and north east with several small businesses within (0.5) miles of the site along Highway 162. Between 1969 and 1971, eight unlined lagoons, each approximately 1 foot deep for a combined area of 1.5 acres were constructed for the purpose of holding waste oil in connection with an incineration process.

In late 1971, in response to complaints from area residents, South Carolina Pollution Control Agency (SCPCA) ordered the stoppage of all incineration and waste deposition activities at the Site and the owner was directed to take action to prevent the spillage, leakage, or seepage of oil from the Site. In April 1974, a complaint was filed by a nearby property owner with the Charleston County Health Department (CCHD) about oil overflowing from the lagoons on the Site. CCHD investigated the Site and ordered the Site closed because of evidence of oil dumping and overflowing oil. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. then purchased all reclaimable oil on the Site and submitted recovery plans to SCDHEC, formerly SCPCA, but reportedly received no response to their plans. In December 1979, SCDHEC requested that the company provide information on their intentions to clean up the Site. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. stated in January 1980 that they were unable to recover the waste oil and were not obligated to clean up the Site. Investigations of Site activities revealed evidence of oil dumping and oil overflowing from lagoons on site. The facility was ordered to stop all incineration and waste disposition activities at the site and action be taken to prevent spillage, leakage, and seepage of oil from the Site.

Samples collected during the remedial investigation provide sufficient data to characterize the Site. Results of laboratory analysis revealed the presence of inorganic contaminants (chromium, mercury and lead) in the soil in concentrations exceeding the common ranges for these metals in soils. The highest concentrations were found in the oil stained area confirming that this area is the contaminant source. The laboratory found no organic contaminants in the soil samples taken from the oil stained area. The laboratory found several organics in the shallow and medium on site monitor well samples. Elevated levels of metals and organics were found in samples taken from the oil stained area and analyzed by the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) . Some of these same organics were found in the shallow on-site monitor well. The laboratory samples of the surface waters were free of any organic contamination. Evidence of polychlorinated biphenyl-1242 (PCB-1242) and petroleum products was found in several surface water samples by the CLP laboratory. Private wells to the north, east and southwest of the site were found to be free of contamination. Ground water contamination appears to be limited to the oil stained area. Based on the local laboratory results, ground water contamination has not moved from the Site. The results from the CLP sample analysis support these conclusions. Based on air monitoring during the RI, organic air contamination was not found to be a problem. The final feasibility study dated July 1987 provided an in-depth summary and discussion of site sampling activities, and an analysis of remedial alternatives. The feasibility study provided an analysis of extraction (soil) flushing, solidification/stabilization, attenuation, immobilization, incineration, capping, vegetative cover, excavation and offsite disposal, partial excavation with onsite disposal, onsite containment/encapsulation and no action remedial alternatives.

A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in June 1987, and two ROD amendments (AROD) were signed; one in July 1993 and the second in September 1998. The purpose of the remedial action at the Site was to mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water and to reduce potential risks to human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives were determined based on regulatory requirements and levels of contamination found at the Site:

• Recovering contaminated ground water with on-site treatment and discharge to an off-site stream;

• protecting public health and the environment from exposure to contaminated on-site soils through inhalation, direct contact, and erosion of soils into surface waters and wetlands;

• preventing off-site movement of contaminated ground water; and

• restoring contaminated ground water to levels protective of human health and the environment.

The 1987 ROD selected a remedial alternative to prevent direct contact exposure and inhalation of contaminants in the soil, potential ingestion of contaminated ground water by on-site workers and potential future residents; further leaching of contaminants to ground water above drinking water standards; and potential direct contact exposure to environmental receptors. The selected remedy included:

• Recovery of contaminated ground water with on-site treatment and discharge to an off-site stream;

• on-site thermal treatment of excavated soils to remove organic contaminants;

• solidification/stabilization (S/S) of thermally-treated soil to reduce mobility of metals;

• review of S/S, during the remedial design, to determine if S/S alone would achieve remedial action goals; and

• development of soil cleanup goals during the remedial design.

Treatability studies conducted during the remedial design determined that S/S alone would remediate contaminated soils. Based on these studies, the ROD was amended on July 13, 1993 to state that only S/S would be conducted, thermal treatment would not be needed. EPA issued another ROD amendment on September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and treat to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and revising the ground water COCs to only include cadmium and lead, with respective cleanup goals of 5µg/L and 15µg/L. Soil leachate criteria were established in the 1993 AROD to protect the ground water.

In February 1992, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA). After the final design was completed, USACE awarded the RA contract to McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation (McLaren/Hart) for solidification/stabilization of Site soils. McLaren/Hart mobilized to the field for full-scale soil treatment on January 16, 1994. Soil treatment was completed on April 23, 1994 followed by placement of a gravel cap over the treated soil, which was completed on August 5, 1994. The pre-final inspection, conducted on August 9, 1994, did not discover any significant outstanding items and therefore served as the final inspection. Both the site's Final Construction Report and the Interim Remedial Action Report were approved by EPA and SCDHEC on September 29, 1997. Quality control analytical sampling of the treated soil was conducted throughout the solidification activities. The quality assurance/quality control program was in conformance with EPA and State standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and are consistent with the ROD and the RD plans and specifications.

Site soils have been treated to prevent further leaching of contamination into the ground water. Additional sampling conducted by EPA showed only one remaining ground water COC that was consistently detected above drinking water standards in two small, localized areas, one of which was near drinking water standards. As a result of these soil and ground water findings, EPA issued an additional AROD on September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and treat, which was never implemented, to MNA. The Preliminary Close-out Report (September 14, 1998), and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan (September 1998) were approved by EPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary Close-out Report found that there was no definable contaminant plume on site. In January of 2013, the EPA conducted a scientific evaluation of the durability and leachability of the monolith at the Site. The objective of the report was to determine the durability of the S/S wastes (the monolith) based on physical measurements (moisture content, bulk and dry density, permeability, wet/dry durability). The evaluation indicates that the monolith has remained stable in the environment during the 20 year period since completion of the remedial action. No evidence indicating any adverse change in physical condition was observed. Some evidence of the capacity for leaching of cement binder and COCs from the monolith was indicated; however, the leaching would be expected to be very minor and not likely indicative of a possibly adverse condition, either presently or long-term, or with regard to groundwater contamination. Testing and analyses supports the conclusion that COCs remain highly bound within the monolith and that leaching of these COCs is unlikely to adversely impact the surrounding soil and/or groundwater environment under current site conditions.

The 1998 AROD reported that long-term O&M of the remedy was not required. There were no O&M costs associated with the Site since the 2004 FYR. The declaration of covenants and restrictions on the property was made and entered into on October 11, 2001, by Pile Drivers, Inc, a South Carolina Corporation. Pile Drivers is the owner of the property in Charleston County, South Carolina, more specifically described in the Title of Real Estate record in the book W127 at page 390 in the Charleston County RMC Office. The declaration of covenants and restrictions to restrict use of the site soils and ground water states the following: “Pile Drivers hereby covenants for itself, its successors and assigns, that the Soil Treatment Area shall not be used for residential or agricultural purposes; prohibit activities, include but are not limited to: Filling; drilling; excavation; anchoring; removal of top soil, rock, or minerals; plowing; planting; cultivation (other than maintenance of the ground cover); and change of the topography in any manner.”

The remedy at the Geiger (C & M Oil) Site currently protects human health and the environment because exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Soils have been cleaned up to industrial standards using S/S, the property is currently being used for industrial purposes, and ground water sampling results over multiple years led to decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. Five-year reviews (FYR) are statutorily required as long as waste is left on site that does not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Three FYRs have already been completed and the next FYR is planned for FY 2014.

On August 15, 2008, a public notice was published in the Post and Courier Announcing the commencement of the third FYR process for the Geiger site, providing contact information for EPA site staff, and inviting community participation. Copies of this document are available in the Site's public repository: St. Paul's Parish Library, 5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, SC 29449, where additional information about the Site can be found in CD format. Community involvement activities associated with the deletion will consist of issuing a deletion fact sheet, publishing a public notice in the local newspaper, updating the information repository, and providing the public an opportunity to comment.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD Amendments for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. EPA, in consultation with the State of South Carolina, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate.

The EPA, with concurrence of the State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 2013 . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct Final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on September 17, 2013, OMB approved, in response to an emergency request, for a period of six months, a revision to the previously-approved information collection on FCC Form 175 to implement new section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), adopted in the Report and Order, FCC 13-88, 78 FR 50214, August 16, 2013. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0600. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of § 1.2105(a)(2)(xii).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on September 17, 2013, for the revised information collection required by a modification to 47 CFR 1.2105 (a)(2).

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0600. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0600.

OMB Approval Date: September 17, 2013.

OMB Expiration Date: March 14, 2014.

Title: Application to Participate in an FCC Auction, FCC Form 175.

Form Number: FCC Form 175.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 500 per year (estimated average for 3 years for all respondents under the previously-approved collection on FCC Form 175), with an estimated 350 of such respondents required to respond to the revised collection.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden: 750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection and the Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information on FCC Form 175. However, to the extent that a respondent seeks to have certain information collected on FCC Form 175 withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 175 is used by the public to apply to participate in competitive bidding (auctions) for Commission licenses and permits. The information collected on FCC Form 175 is used by the Commission to determine if an applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in a Commission auction. Commission staff reviews the information collected on FCC Form 175 for a particular auction as part of the pre-auction process, prior to the auction being held, to determine whether each applicant satisfies the Commission's requirements to participate in the auction and, if applicable, is eligible for the status as the particular type of auction participant it requested. The Commission has revised the information collection on FCC Form 175 to add an additional certification required by new section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), which was adopted by the Commission in the Report and Order to implement Section 6004 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, sec. 6004, 125 Stat. 156, 222-223, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1404 (2012) (2012 Spectrum Act). New section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) requires a party seeking to participate in any auction conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act to certify in its application, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant and all of the related individuals and entities required to be disclosed on its application are not person(s) who have been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant and thus statutorily prohibited from participating in such a Commission auction. The revised collection will enable the Commission to comply with Section 6004 and determine whether an applicant's participation in an auction conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act is consistent with Section 6004.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Third Report and Order (Third R&O), FCC 13-115, adopted August 14, 2013, and released August 16, 2013. The full text of the Third R&O is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

This Third R&O adopts new and revised information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)). These information collection requirements will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting comment on the new and revised information collection requirements adopted in this document. The requirements will not go into effect until OMB has approved them and the Commission has published a notice announcing the effective date of the information collection requirements. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

1. In the Third R&O, the Commission furthered the initiative to simplify the Media Bureau's licensing procedures. This Order harmonizes and streamlines the Commission's rules regarding tower construction near AM stations in two respects. First, the Order establishes a single protection scheme for tower construction and modification near AM tower arrays. Second, the Order designates “moment method” computer modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM radiation pattern. These actions take another step in the Commission's modernization by replacing time-consuming direct measurement procedures with an efficient computer modeling methodology that is reflective of current practice.

2. In AM radio, the tower itself functions as the antenna. Consequently, a nearby tower may become an unintended part of the AM antenna system, reradiating the AM signal and distorting the authorized AM radiation pattern. The Commission's rules contain several sections concerning tower construction near AM antennas that are intended to protect AM stations from the effects of such tower construction, specifically, 47 CFR 73.1692, 22.371, and 27.63. These existing rule sections impose differing requirements on the broadcast and wireless entities, although the issue is the same regardless of the types of antennas mounted on a tower. Other rule parts, such as part 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services) and part 24 (Personal Communications Services), entirely lack provisions for protecting AM stations from possible effects of nearby tower construction.

3. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) in this proceeding (73 FR 75376), tentatively concluded that the issue of tower construction or modification near AM stations should be addressed by a single set of rules applying to all tower construction and sought comment on proposed new rules which would appear in part 1 of the Commission's rules. The new rules are based on proposals by an ad hoc technical group of radio broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, and broadcast consulting engineers, acting collectively as the AM Directional Antenna Performance Verification Coalition (Coalition).

4. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission requested comment on the proposal to adopt a uniform set of rules applicable to all services, the use of moment method modeling to assess the effects of tower construction or modification near AM stations, as well as a number of issues that could establish limits on the scope of the new rules and the technical and/or policy grounds for such limits. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on: (1) The proposed exclusion of short towers and antenna structures mounted on buildings from AM proximity analysis; (2) the proper notification procedures to AM stations regarding nearby tower construction; (3) a rule provision to cover circumstances that would be otherwise excluded from the new rules; (4) the structures subject to the new rules; and (5) the proposed application of the new rules to towers constructed or substantially modified after the rules' effective date.

5. Threshold Heights and Exclusion of Building-Mounted Antennas. The proposed rules excluded short towers from AM proximity analysis on the grounds that such towers are inefficient re-radiators that would not generally affect an AM pattern. Most commenters agree with the proposed threshold heights of 36 electrical degrees for a directional antenna and 60 electrical degrees for a non-directional antenna. Two commenters, however, propose lower threshold heights. Greater Media urges the Commission to reduce the non-directional antenna threshold height from 60 to 36 electrical degrees and adopt a more stringent 1 decibel (dB) pattern distortion threshold. Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. (CDE) recommends that a 20 degree electrical height be used in lieu of the 36 electrical degree height proposed for directional antennas. These commenters, however, offer no analytical support for their alternative proposals. In contrast, our threshold height limits are premised on extensive staff modeling studies and modeling studies previously submitted by the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. The Commission's proposed 2 dB pattern distortion threshold, which was supported by the majority of commenters, is the criterion utilized in assessing the circularity of a nondirectional pattern in other broadcast services. Accordingly, we adopt the 2 dB pattern distortion threshold and the threshold heights of 36 electrical degrees for a directional antenna and 60 electrical degrees for a non-directional antenna, and therefore, exclude shorter towers from consideration.

6. Similarly, the proposed rules excluded all antenna structures mounted on buildings from AM proximity analysis. The Joint Commenters, while agreeing in substance with the exclusion of building-mounted antennas, suggest a modification of the proposed rule. The Joint Commenters warn that, in some cases, buildings may support towers tall enough to be significant re-radiators at an AM frequency. According to the Joint Commenters, “[s]ignificant tower structures can be mounted on buildings, and [we] are aware of several instances where the height of a microwave or other type of tower actually exceeds the height of the building on which the tower is mounted.” Therefore, the Joint Commenters suggest that the new rules should apply to any tower that would increase “the overall physical height of a building by more than 10 electrical degrees.” We acknowledge the Joint Commenters' concern regarding taller towers atop buildings, and we agree that the proposed categorical exemption of all antennas mounted on buildings is overly broad, and therefore, could potentially expose AM stations to adverse pattern distortions. We believe, however, that the criterion of 10 electrical degrees is not a practical solution because: (1) It is difficult, if not infeasible, to predict and accurately measure re-radiation from a building; and (2) it is impossible to detune a building and similarly, impossible to detune the combination of a building and a tower. Accordingly, because it is not feasible to analyze the combined effects of the building and tower, we believe that it is more appropriate to consider the potential effects of a tower separately from any building on which it is mounted. We therefore revise the rule to exclude most antenna structures atop buildings, except where the antenna structure alone would be a significant re-radiator as defined in 47 CFR 1.30002(a) or (b).

7. Notification. Commenters were divided on the provisions of the proposed rules requiring 30 days' prior notice of tower construction, including significant tower modifications, to a nearby AM station. Greater Media considers the proposed 30-day notice period too short, advocating instead for a 120-day notice period. PCIA prefers that the rules require no minimum notice when tower construction is deemed not to affect the AM pattern. Alternatively, PCIA supports procedures for expedited notice to reduce delays. The Joint Commenters support the 30-day notice proposal, but also suggest procedures for expedited notice of tower construction, citing similar provisions in the Commission's rules governing fixed microwave services in Part 101 of the Rules. Further, the Joint Commenters recommend that the rules incorporate a narrow exception to the prior notice requirement to address “urgent but temporary needs in the event of an emergency situation.” Finally, the Joint Commenters propose that the rules include detailed notification procedures, explicitly listing the information to be included in the notice, such as a physical description of the planned construction, and adding a requirement for a response by the affected AM station. We agree with the Joint Commenters' proposals, and accordingly, adopt the 30-day notification period, with the addition of specific notification procedures, requests for expedited notice, and an emergency exception. We believe this represents a reasonable compromise between the competing proposals. A 30-day notification period, in lieu of the 120-day period proposed by Greater Media, will minimize unnecessary deployment delays. The detailed notification procedures will enable AM stations to effectively assess the impact of the proposed construction within the shorter 30-day period. Finally, the expedited notice process we adopt should allay PCIA's concerns and reduce construction delays. We believe these new notification procedures, which are based on existing Commission rules, will reduce the potential for disputes, provide adequate notice to AM licensees, and enable affected AM licensees to more easily verify the proponent's analysis without unnecessary duplication of work.

8. The Commission also sought comment on the point in the AM licensing process at which the notification procedures should apply. Specifically, the Second Further Notice asked whether a tower proponent should be required to notify the permittee of an unconstructed AM station, or whether notification procedures should apply only when the AM station is licensed or operating pursuant to Program Test Authority (PTA) prior to construction of the nearby structure. In the absence of any comments on this issue, we will apply the notification procedures to AM stations that are licensed or operating pursuant to PTA. We will not require a tower proponent to notify the permittee of an unconstructed AM station. Because the facilities authorized by AM station construction permits often remain unconstructed when the permit expires or the permits are modified before the authorized facilities are constructed, we believe it would be unproductive to require tower proponents to analyze and protect unconstructed AM facilities. Moreover, because both the field strength measurements described in 47 CFR 1.30002(f) and the adjustment of a detuning network require the presence of the AM signal, we feel that this interpretation reasonably balances the interests of the AM station with those of the tower proponent.

9. Determination of distance from a directional AM station. A non-directional AM antenna consists of a single tower, the coordinates of which appear in Commission databases. Directional AM antennas, on the other hand, consist of multiple towers, which may be several hundred meters apart. The relatively large spacing between directional AM towers leaves some potential for confusion when determining distances from a directional AM station. The proposed new rules require that proponents of new towers or significant modifications to existing towers examine the potential effects of the proposed construction activity on the nearby AM directional station if the tower is “within the lesser of 10 wavelengths or 3 kilometers of the AM [directional] station.” The proposed rules, however, do not specify the measuring point from which to calculate these critical distances. The Joint Commenters and Waterford each suggest clarifying the determination of distance from a directional AM station by specifying that the array center coordinates now used in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), the Media Bureau's database, should be used for such calculations. We agree, and revise the rule accordingly. This minor clarification is essential to facilitate compliance and mitigate confusion when determining distances, and is therefore a logical and necessary outgrowth of the proposed rules.

10. Towers that are excluded from the pre-construction evaluation. The Second Further Notice sought comment on a rule provision to cover towers that are excluded from the routine pre-construction study and notification to the AM licensee, but that nonetheless affect an AM station's radiation pattern. For example, there may be circumstances in which a tower more than 3 kilometers away may nevertheless affect a directional AM station. Similarly, a short tower or tower modification that would be otherwise excluded from study may affect an AM station if it is very close to the AM antenna. Commenters were divided on this issue. According to Waterford, “the proposed rules leave the tower proponents' responsibilities open-ended” in these situations. Waterford asserts that tower proponents need to have their financial obligations clearly defined from the outset and that mandating “clear documentation at or very near the time of construction about the need to detune” would provide tower proponents with more certainty. Greater Media supports the proposed rule provision, stating that “there are no absolutes in such situations.” The Joint Commenters support the proposed rule provision with modifications. They advocate defining the type of analysis that would constitute a credible showing that the tower construction has affected the AM station. Specifically, the Joint Commenters recommend that the AM station must supply either a moment method analysis or field strength measurements to support its claim. The tower proponent, according to the Joint Commenters, should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the AM station's showing of adverse impact. Finally, the Joint Commenters propose that the rule include a two-year time limit within which the AM station must make a claim of adverse impact.

11. We agree that the proposed rule should be modified. Defining the type of showing required from an AM station when an otherwise excluded tower construction or modification affects the station's radiation pattern and requiring the AM station to share the study with the tower proponent, as the Joint Commenters suggest, will facilitate resolution of possible problems. We also acknowledge the difficulties of potentially open-ended financial obligations, as Waterford notes. A reasonable time limit on claims of adverse impact will encourage AM station licensees to promptly identify potential pattern disruptions and provide tower proponents with greater certainty regarding future potential liabilities. We find, however, that a time limit of less than two years will not allow an AM station licensee sufficient time to ascertain that its pattern has been adversely affected, identify the source of the pattern disruption, and prepare and submit an adverse impact showing. We therefore require that showings of adverse impact under this rule section be made within two years after the date of completion of the tower construction or modification. We find that a two-year time limit fairly balances the interests of AM stations and tower proponents. The two-year time frame will protect the interests of AM stations while relieving tower proponents of long-term financial obligations. New 47 CFR 1.30002(g) includes these modifications to the proposed rule.

12. Structures subject to the rules. The Second Further Notice proposed to apply the revised rules to construction of all communications towers falling within established geographic limits and above a specified height, not only to towers requiring notice to the Federal Aviation Administration and registration under part 17 of the rules. The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission may apply the proposed rules to the owners of structures that are not otherwise subject to Commission licensing processes, such as towers that do not require registration and which no Commission licensee, permittee or applicant uses or proposes to use. The Second Further Notice asked whether, alternatively, the Commission should prohibit applicants from proposing and licensees or permittees from using a tower when the owner has not complied with notice and detuning requirements. The Joint Commenters support applying the new rules to either all tower owners or, alternatively, to all Commission licensees proposing to use towers that may fall under the provisions of the new rules. Greater Media and CDE also favor applying the new rules to non-licensee tower owners.

13. Many structures other than communications towers may re-radiate an AM signal, e.g. , water towers, power lines, and buildings. Furthermore, the parties that construct both registered towers and towers that do not require registration may or may not be Commission authorization holders, and a tower may or may not house a Commission licensee at the time of construction. The Second Further Notice sought comment on whether the Commission should assert jurisdiction over non-licensee tower owners and whether the towers, as incidental radiators, would be subject to part 15 restrictions. No party addressed the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction over non-licensees who build towers and other structures near AM stations. Greater Media, the only commenter to address these issues, expressed its belief that “such structures would very likely fall within the restrictions of part 15 in regard to incidental radiators,” but offered no support for its contention. While the Commission's jurisdictional authority over non-licensees is well established for certain purposes, we find it administratively prudent to apply the rules only to applicants, licensees, and permittees. We adopt the Second Further Notice proposal that will bar applicants from proposing and licensees and permittees from using towers that have not completed our revised study and notice process and any necessary detuning. We clarify that under this rule, a licensee or permittee may locate an antenna on a tower that did not complete this process prior to construction if either the tower owner or any collocator completes all the required steps before the licensee's or permittee's collocation. Similarly, we prohibit a licensee or permittee from locating an antenna on a tower that an AM station owner has shown creates a disturbance to its radiation pattern unless appropriate remedial action has been taken. We find this approach promotes the public interest in maximizing collocation opportunities for wireless and broadcast licensees and permittees because it: (1) Provides an incentive for all tower owners to complete the study and notice process before construction in order to make the tower most readily available for collocation; (2) provides an avenue through which towers that do not complete the process before construction may become available for collocation; and (3) avoids interfering with contractual or other business arrangements between Commission authorization holders and non-authorization holder tower owners.

14. Application of the new rules. The Second Further Notice tentatively concluded that any new rules adopted should be applied only to towers constructed or modified after the effective date of the new rules, i.e., where actual construction commences after the effective date. Commenters addressing this issue were divided. Greater Media supports this approach, while Ronald L. Myers suggests “making this rule retroactive.” Crawford recommends that, if the Commission applies the new rules only to towers constructed or modified after the new rules' effective date, the Commission should also: (1) Clarify and identify how it will respond to pending formal tower complaints, and (2) employ language to “deal with existing situations wherein AM stations must operate with STA because of uncoordinated antenna structure construction near their arrays.”

15. We affirm the tentative conclusion to apply the new rules to towers constructed or modified after the effective date of the new rules, an approach supported and/or unopposed by the majority of commenters. In addition, as explained below, we will apply the new rules' remediation requirement to construction commenced before the effective date, except that pending complaints will be resolved in accordance with any pre-existing rules that are applicable to the service in question. New 47 CFR 1.30002(h) includes this modification to the proposed rules. Consistent with the other rules adopted in this proceeding, the rules will only apply to Commission applicants, permittees, and licensees, and, in accordance with the “newcomer” policy, will only apply to construction or modification that has adversely affected preexisting AM stations, i.e., stations that were operating before the tower proponent commenced construction or modification. Although the new rules will not apply to tower owners that are not applicants and do not hold Commission authorizations, this does not mean that a Commission licensee or permittee can locate an antenna on such a tower with no obligations. Rather, we clarify that as of the effective date of the new rules, a Commission applicant may not propose, and a Commission licensee or permittee may not locate, an antenna on an existing tower that is causing a disturbance to the radiation pattern of an AM station, as defined in 47 CFR 1.30002(a) or (b), and that has not previously been studied for AM radiation pattern disturbance, unless the applicant, licensee, permittee or tower owner completes the new study and notification process and takes appropriate ameliorative action to correct any disturbance, such as detuning the tower.

16. We recognize that there may be circumstances in which an AM station has been adversely affected by tower construction or modification authorized and either commenced or completed before or on the effective date of the new rules. The Commission's longstanding “newcomer” policy obligates FCC licensees to remedy interference caused to existing stations. We acknowledge, however, that the current absence of explicit rules across all services with respect to tower construction near AM arrays has led to confusion as to what should be done to protect the AM station, and therefore, inconsistent protection to AM stations. Accordingly, we direct any affected AM station seeking remediation to submit a showing that its operation has been adversely affected by tower construction or modification authorized and either commenced or completed before or on the effective date of the new rules. Such showings must be made within one year after the effective date of the new rules. A one-year time frame will allow a potentially affected AM station sufficient time to identify the source of the pattern disruption and prepare and submit an adverse impact showing. We authorize the Commission staff, if necessary, to direct the tower owner to take appropriate ameliorative action to correct disturbances to the radiation pattern of an AM station caused by the tower construction or modification, such as installing, maintaining, and, if necessary, adjusting any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper operation of the AM antenna. This rule change does not impose any new obligations on licensees or permittees with respect to disturbances caused to AM antenna patterns. It does not alter the tower owner's underlying responsibility to cooperate and remediate interference caused to existing AM stations. Rather, this change simply clarifies and codifies this implicit remediation obligation, or the “newcomer” policy, a mainstay of interference protection.

17. In response to the Second Report and Order in this proceeding, 73 FR 64558, which adopted rules permitting AM radio licensees to use computer modeling techniques to demonstrate that directional AM antennas perform as authorized, CDE filed a timely petition for reconsideration seeking clarification and alteration of the new rules. CDE claims that the new rules adopted in the Second Report and Order do not clearly define what information an AM station should submit with a moment method proof of performance pursuant to 47 CFR 73.151(c), and also do not explain how the Commission will determine whether such a proof of performance is acceptable. CDE urges the Commission to clarify these questions with a Public Notice. Finally, CDE reiterates comments it made earlier in this proceeding, questioning directional AM stations' use of computer modeling techniques, given that such techniques do not account for certain effects of the local environment on the AM antenna pattern.

18. As CDE suggests, the new rules adopted in the Second Report and Order represent a significant departure from long-established procedures in AM radio. In order to assist licensees, on October 29, 2009, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice clarifying certain requirements of the new rules and answering common questions. Accordingly, CDE's request to the same effect is now moot. Moreover, the Media Bureau's experience with the new rules since the Public Notice indicates that most applicants understand the requirements, and the Bureau stands ready to answer additional questions. Finally, regarding CDE's repeated concern about the use of moment method techniques without regard to the local environment, the Commission addressed this matter in the Second Report and Order. It is well established that the Commission does not grant reconsideration for the purpose of debating matters on which it has already deliberated. We therefore dismiss in part as moot and deny in all other respects CDE's Petition for Reconsideration.

19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Second Further Notice to this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Second Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 604.

20. In the Third R&O in this proceeding, the Commission harmonizes and streamlines the Commission's rules regarding tower construction and modification near AM stations, incorporating moment method computer modeling techniques and simplifying the rule provisions. The new procedures were adopted in order to simplify the Media Bureau's licensing procedures.

21. The further rulemaking proceeding leading to the Third R&O was initiated to further reduce the regulatory burden on AM broadcasters by permitting the use of computer modeling techniques to verify AM directional antenna performance. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that the issue of tower construction and modification near AM stations should be addressed by a single rule applying to all tower construction and sought comment on proposed new rules which would appear in part 1 of the Commission's rules.

22. Existing Commission rules require Commission authorization holders to notify AM stations and take appropriate action when a tower is constructed within a fixed distance of an AM station. The new rules define the critical distance for directional AM stations as any distance less than ten wavelengths of the frequency of the AM station up to a maximum distance of three kilometers, as specified in existing rules for certain wireless licensees. The rules designate moment method modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM pattern. The rules also allow traditional partial proof measurements taken before and after tower construction as an alternative procedure when the AM station in question was licensed pursuant to field strength measurements. Lastly, the rules eliminate short towers from consideration and exclude many routine cases in which antennas are added to existing towers.

23. More specifically, the Commission adopted a threshold height for antennas, excluding most antenna structures atop buildings, except where the structure alone would be a significant re-radiator as defined in 47 CFR 1.30002(a) or (b). It also adopted a 30-day period in which those who build or modify a tower can notify an AM station in order to reduce the potential for disputes while providing adequate notice to AM licensees. Per one commenter's suggestion, the Commission added specific procedures including requests for expedited notice. In the absence of comments on the issue of when the notification procedures would apply, the Commission adopted its proposal to apply the notification procedures to AM stations that are licensed or operating pursuant to program test authority. It clarified the determination of distance from a directional AM station by specifying the use of the array center coordinates now used in the consolidated database system. It further adopted the rule provision in 47 CFR 1.30002(g) addressing tower construction otherwise excluded, with certain modifications. In general, the Commission will apply the notification requirements only to Commission applicants, licensees, and permittees prospectively for towers constructed after the effective date of the new rules, but there may be circumstances in which an AM station has been adversely affected by prior tower construction. In such circumstances, the affected AM station may seek relief by filing a showing of adverse impact within two years of the effective date of the new rules, and the Commission may direct the tower owner to install and maintain any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper operation of the AM station.

24. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

25. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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 Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.

26. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

27. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.

28. Non-Licensee Tower Owners. Many communications towers, while used to support multiple antennas for Commission licensees in various services, are owned by entities which are not themselves Commission licensees. Although tower owners that do not hold Commission authorizations are not directly responsible for complying with the new rules, Commission authorization holders cannot lease space and locate an antenna on a non-licensee's tower that is causing a disturbance to the radiation pattern of an AM station, unless the applicant, licensee, or tower owner takes appropriate ameliorative steps to correct the disturbance. Therefore, tower owners that do not hold Commission authorizations may be indirectly affected by the rules adopted in this proceeding. Communications towers fall into two categories: those requiring antenna structure registration, and those exempt from registration. The Commission's rules require that any entity proposing to construct an antenna structure over 200 feet or within the glide slope of an airport must register the antenna structure with the Commission on FCC Form 854. As of September 3, 2008, there were 97,617 registration records in a ‘Constructed' status and 13,047 registration records in a ‘Granted, Not Constructed' status in the Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) database. This includes both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we can easily determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have registered towers. Regarding towers that do not require antenna structure registration, we do not collect information as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners who would be subject to the proposed new rules. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, we are unable to estimate the number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We assume, however, that nearly all non-licensee tower companies are small businesses under the SBA's definition for cellular and other wireless telecommunications services.

29. Radio Broadcasting. The policies adopted in the Third R&O apply to radio broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of radio service. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $7 million in annual receipts. 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 Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on as of January 31, 2011, about 10,820 (97 percent) of 11,100 commercial radio stations) have revenues of $7 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

30. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

31. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. The new rules apply to licensees of FM translator and booster stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $7.0 million in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 6,105 licensed FM translator and booster stations and 824 licensed LPFM stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

32. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more than $14.0 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,995. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) as of January 31, 2011, 1,006 (or about 78 percent) of an estimated 1,298 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $14 million or less and, thus, qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

33. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

34. The Third R&O establishes a single protection scheme for tower construction near AM tower arrays and designates “moment method” computer modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM radiation pattern. Overall, the changes we are adopting are designed to simplify the requirements of the existing rules and reduce the time and expense required to determine the impact of nearby tower construction or significant modification on affected AM stations. Specifically, although the new rules require modest engineering analysis, the use of computer modeling is less onerous, time consuming, and costly than the existing proof of performance requirements. By eliminating short towers from consideration and excluding many routine cases in which antennas are added to existing towers, the new rules reduce the regulatory burdens. The new rules will modify and reduce the overall reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements of tower proponents and AM station licensees and permittees. The requirements, detailed below, will affect small and large companies equally.

35. The new rules require a party proposing to construct a new tower or significantly modify an existing tower within the pertinent critical distance (the “tower proponent”) to provide notice to the AM station at least 30 days prior to the planned commencement of construction. The notification must include the following information: (1) The tower proponent's name and address; (2) coordinates of the tower to be constructed or modified; (3) physical description of the planned construction; and (4) results of the analysis showing the predicted effect on the AM pattern, if performed. Responses to a notification must specify the technical details and be provided to the tower proponent within 30 days.

36. The rules designate moment method modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM pattern. The rules, however, allow traditional “partial proof” measurements taken before and after tower construction as an alternative procedure when the potentially affected AM station was licensed pursuant to field strength measurements, as opposed to computer modeling. The tower proponent is responsible for the installation and maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore the AM station's radiation pattern.

37. The new rules permit AM stations to submit a showing that tower construction not otherwise subject to the notice and remediation requirements has affected the AM station operations. The showing must consist of either a moment method analysis or field strength measurements and be provided to the tower proponent or owner and to the Commission either (1) within two years after the date of completion of the tower construction or modification, or (2) in the case of operation adversely affected by tower construction or alteration that occurred prior to the effective date of the new rules, within one year of the effective date of the new rules. The Commission, if necessary, can direct the tower proponent or owner to install and maintain any detuning apparatus necessary to restore proper operation of the AM antenna.

38. AM station licensees will continue to be required to file FCC Form 302-AM before or simultaneously with any license application associated with installations on the AM antenna or within 30 days after the completion of the installation.

39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant 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 or 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.

40. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly listed above. In the Third R&O, the Commission revised certain provisions of the proposed rules set forth in the Second Further Notice in response to concerns expressed by commenters, several of whom represent small entities. We believe that the new rules will reduce the compliance burden on most Commission licensees, and that this reduction will be particularly beneficial to small entities.

41. Specifically, the Second Further Notice proposed to cover circumstances that would be otherwise excluded from the AM proximity rules. For example, there may be circumstances in which a tower more than 3 kilometers away may affect a directional AM station. Similarly, a short tower that would be otherwise excluded from study may affect an AM station if it is very close, i.e., within the near field of the AM antenna. Commenters, including small entities, were divided on this issue. According to Waterford Consultants, “the proposed rules leave the tower proponents' responsibilities open- ended.” Waterford asserted that tower proponents need to have their financial obligations clearly defined from the outset. Greater Media supported the rule provision, stating that “there are no absolutes in such situations.” The Joint Commenters supported the rule provision with modifications. They advocated defining the type of analysis that would constitute a credible showing that the tower construction has affected the AM station. In particular, the Joint Commenters recommended that the AM station must supply either a moment method analysis or field strength measurements to support its claim. The tower proponent, according to the Joint Commenters, should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the AM station's showing of adverse impact. Finally, the Joint Commenters proposed that the rule include a two-year time limit within which the AM station must make a claim of adverse impact.

42. We adopted the rule provision in 47 CFR 1.30002(g) addressing tower construction otherwise excluded, with certain modifications. We felt that defining the type of showing required from an AM station and requiring the AM station to share the study with the tower proponent, as the Joint Commenters suggest, would facilitate resolution of possible problems. We also acknowledged the burden of potentially open-ended financial obligations, which would affect small entities. We therefore required that showings of adverse impact under this rule section be made within two years of the date of the tower construction or significant modification.

43. We believe that the rule provision discussed above offers significant benefits to small entities. It facilitates conflict resolution between the parties, which allows small entities to resolve issues on a grassroots level. We believe it adopts a more economically advantageous method of conflict resolution because it is likely to be faster, more informal, and may avoid the time and expense of hiring legal or technical counsel. The new rule also limits the time frame in which showings of adverse impact can be made, which benefits small entities because it avoids open-ended financial obligations. Lastly, the rule gives examples of appropriate showings required from an AM station. Such examples give predictability and allow small entities to plan, which can help limit the economic impact of making an adverse impact showing. Accordingly, by adopting policies that are more specific, including examples and a time line, the Commission adopted a rule that imposes a substantially less significant economic impact.

44. The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Third R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register (See 5 U.S.C. 604(b)).

45. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i) 303, 308, 309, 310, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 308, 309, 310, and 319, this Third Report and Order is adopted.

46. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i) 303, 308, 309, 310, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 308, 309, 310, and 319, 47 CFR parts 1, 22, 27, 73, and 74 of the Commission's rules are amended, as set forth herein.

47. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed December 1, 2008, by Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. is dismissed in part as moot and is denied in all other respects.

48. It is further ordered that the rules contained herein shall become effective upon Commission publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing that OMB has approved them.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 27, and 73 to read as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification (R&O and Order), WT Docket Nos. 12-69, 12-332; FCC 13-136, adopted October 25, 2013 and released October 29, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com . Copies of the R&O and Order also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket 12-69. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov .

1. In the R&O and Order, the Commission takes certain steps to implement an industry solution to provide interoperable LTE service in the Lower 700 MHz band in an efficient and effective manner to improve choice and quality for consumers of mobile services. A number of the principal wireless providers licensed in this band, along with the Competitive Carriers Association, have developed a voluntary industry solution that would resolve the lack of interoperability in this band while allowing flexibility in responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and fast-paced technological developments. The amendments to its rules and modifications to licenses proposed herein will serve the public interest by enabling consumers, especially in rural areas, to enjoy the benefits of greater competition and more choices, and by encouraging efficient use of spectrum, investment, job creation, and the development of innovative mobile broadband services and equipment.

2. The steps the Commission takes here will assist consumers and the economies in rural areas, as well as small and regional businesses that operate there. Additional competition in rural areas is likely to result in lower-priced services, or plan options that are tailored to local communities. Small or regional providers serving rural areas drive economic growth in these rural areas, directly, by investing in their networks and creating jobs, and indirectly, by enabling the growth of other small businesses. But in order to promote competition—and enable small business customers of 700 MHz band licensees to operate successfully in the 21st century—these licensees need to be able to offer service choices. Interoperability of LTE service in the Lower 700 MHz band will remove an unnecessary barrier to the successful operation of businesses that can drive economic growth, promote competitive service, and create jobs in rural America, where 1.3 million people (and approximately 13% of rural road miles) still lack any mobile wireless broadband coverage and over one-third of the population still lacks coverage by more than two mobile broadband providers.

3. As described in more detail below, the Commission launched this proceeding last year to promote interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. It sought comment on the core issue of whether providing interoperable LTE service with the use of a unified band class (to achieve interoperability) would result in harmful interference to customers using service on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks and whether, if harmful interference were likely to exist, it reasonably could be mitigated. The Commission expressed its preference for an industry solution for interoperability, but also recognized that, if the industry failed to move in a timely manner toward interoperability, additional regulatory steps might be appropriate to further the public interest. On September 10, 2013, key parties in this proceeding filed letters with the Commission indicating their support for a voluntary industry consensus agreement to resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. In the R&O and Order, the Commission takes the following steps:

• The Commission revises its Part 27 rules to modify the technical requirements for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to eliminate potential harmful interference while continuing to allow high value uses of the D and E Blocks. The Commission establishes a process for higher power uses primarily in rural areas if the D/E Block licensee has the consent of affected 700 MHz licensees, or can show no harmful interference.

• The Commission need take no action to address claims of reverse intermodulation interference from adjacent Channel 51 operations to B and C Block operations, because the Commission concludes based on the record that harmful interference from such reverse intermodulation products is unlikely and therefore is not an impediment to implementation of the voluntary industry solution for achieving interoperability.

• Pursuant to section 316 of the Communications Act, the Commission proposes to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses as outlined herein and in AT&T's commitment letter to effectuate the voluntary industry solution that will resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band in an effective and efficient manner.

• The Commission waives the construction requirements for E Block licensees, extending the interim and final deadlines and permitting a showing of population coverage, rather than geographic coverage.

• The Commission waives the construction requirements for A and B Block licensees, extending the interim deadline to December 13, 2016, and removing the interim deadline for certain A Block licensees adjacent to Channel 51 operations.

4. The 700 MHz Band. As shown in the diagram below, the 700 MHz band (698-806 MHz) is comprised primarily of 70 megahertz of commercial spectrum and 34 megahertz of public safety spectrum. The Commission divided the band into the Lower and Upper 700 MHz bands pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which provided for a transition of this spectrum from broadcast to commercial and public safety wireless use and established a deadline for the auction of the Upper 700 MHz band but not for the auction of the Lower 700 MHz band. That Act also established specific criteria for the mandatory transition to DTV that freed up spectrum for commercial and public safety use.

5. The Lower 700 MHz band spectrum (698-746 MHz), which is the subject of this Report and Order, consists of 48 megahertz of commercial spectrum—three blocks of 12 megahertz each of paired spectrum (Lower A, B, and C Blocks), and two blocks of 6 megahertz each of unpaired spectrum (Lower D and E Blocks). The Lower 700 MHz A Block spectrum is adjacent to Channel 51 (692-698 MHz), which has been allocated for TV broadcast operations at power levels of up to 1000 kW. The Lower 700 MHz A Block is also adjacent to the unpaired Lower 700 MHz E Block, where licensees may operate at power levels up to 50 kW. The Commission first assigned licenses for the Lower 700 MHz band when it auctioned all the licenses in the Lower 700 MHz C and D Blocks in Auction 44 in 2002. Licenses unsold in Auction 44 were subsequently sold in 2003 and 2005 in Auctions 49 and 60.

6. In 2005, the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act (DTV Act) established a nationwide deadline for the DTV transition that would make 700 MHz spectrum available for commercial and public safety use and mandated that the Commission commence an auction for all the remaining recovered spectrum. Following the enactment of the DTV Act, the Commission auctioned licenses in the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and E Blocks in 2008 as part of Auction 73, which garnered over $19 billion in revenues. The relatively few unsold Lower A and B Block licenses were later sold in Auction 92 in 2011.

7. Although U.S. service providers have, in the past, deployed different mobile wireless network technologies, today the evolution of these technologies is converging on LTE. LTE increases the capacity and speed of wireless networks by redesigning and simplifying the network architecture to transition from the existing combination of circuit and packet switching to an all-IP architecture system. All of the major mobile wireless providers (including those with both GSM and CDMA legacy networks) now offer or plan to deploy LTE. By September 2012, for example, AT&T announced that it had LTE coverage in 63 markets, and had plans to deploy LTE to 80 percent of the U.S. population by the end of 2013.

8. Industry standards for LTE are developed by 3GPP, an international partnership of industry-based telecommunications standards bodies that, among other things, establishes standards for different LTE band classes. A specific band class standard allows LTE operations only in its specified range of frequencies, along with other technical specifications and signaling protocol. In November 2007, prior to Auction 73, the Band Class 12 LTE standard was introduced, consistent with its precedent of establishing a unified band class for each spectrum band.

9. After the conclusion in March 2008 of Auction 73, Motorola initiated steps to have 3GPP establish a new industry standard (later designated as Band Class 17) that would be limited to the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. In proposing Band Class 17, Motorola cited the need to address concerns about high power broadcast transmissions in Channel 51 and the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks. As envisioned and ultimately adopted, the Band Class 17 standard allows LTE operations in only the Lower 700 MHz B and C blocks using a specific signaling protocol that would filter out all other frequencies. Although Band Class 17 operates on two of the three blocks common to Band Class 12, Band Class 17 devices use more narrow filters, which have the effect of permitting a smaller range of frequencies to pass through the filter. Such filters provide more attenuation of signals from Lower 700 MHz E Block frequencies, and from Channel 51 television stations, whose frequency band (as depicted above) lies immediately below the Lower 700 MHz A Block. This attenuation is accomplished by using the two paired A Block frequencies as de facto guard bands. By contrast, Band Class 12 devices use A Block frequencies for transmissions as well as the B and C Block frequencies. In addition, Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 signaling protocols are not compatible. Therefore, services provided by stations using these two band classes are not interoperable in the Lower 700 MHz band. 3GPP finalized the initial standards and specifications for Band Class 17 five months after its introduction in September 2008.

10. The creation of two non-interoperable band classes has had numerous effects. For example, customers are unable to switch between a licensee deploying its service using Band Class 17 and a licensee that provides its service using Band Class 12 without purchasing a new device (even when the two operators use the same 2G and 3G technologies and bands), and Band Class 12 devices and Band Class 17 devices cannot roam on each other's networks. In September 2009, four Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to impose for this spectrum block an interoperability mandate similar to that imposed in 1981 for the cellular band. In the Interoperability NPRM, 77 FR 19575, April 2, 2012, the Commission discussed the importance of interoperability in furthering the public interest, and sought comment on whether taking action to ensure reintegration of the three paired Lower 700 MHz blocks into a single band class would cause harmful interference to LTE operations on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees if Band Class 12 devices were used. The Commission noted that entities involved in the creation of Band Class 17 during 3GPP proceedings had claimed that it was necessary to create a separate band class for Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licenses to avoid reverse intermodulation interference issues from DTV stations operating on Channel 51 and blocking from high power operations in the E Block, and sought comment, as described above, on whether reintegration of the band pursuant to an interoperability mandate would result in harmful interference. Interoperability NPRM. The Commission defines harmful interference in accordance with established Commission rules. See 47 CFR 15.3(m). As we discuss below in Sec.III.B.1. with respect to DTV transmissions from Channel 51, an issue concerning reverse intermodulation interference can arise where there is a mix or interaction of Channel 51 transmissions and transmissions from a wireless device in Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. The issue is whether, and the degree to which, the resulting third transmission, or intermodulation product, can occur on frequencies used by the wireless device to receive transmissions. The risk of reverse intermodulation interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees because of the existence of Channel 51 operations is separate and distinct from the limitations placed on Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees to protect Channel 51 operations from adjacent channel interference from Lower 700 MHz A Block operations. See 47 CFR 27.60(a)(2).

11. On September 10, 2013, key stakeholders involved in this proceeding filed letters with the Commission indicating their support for a voluntary industry consensus agreement to resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. In its letter, AT&T outlines its commitments to help achieve Lower 700 MHz interoperability, including its commitment to begin rolling out interoperable devices within 24 months. DISH similarly outlines its commitments to address interference concerns regarding high powered operations in the E Block spectrum. A coalition of Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees also filed a letter indicating their support for the commitments contained in AT&T's letter as a means to ensure restoration of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band.

12. Channel 51 Broadcast Operations. As set out earlier in the 700 MHz band plan, Channel 51 broadcast stations are adjacent to the lower portion of the Lower 700 MHz band. Channel 51 stations give rise to one of the two alleged interference issues potentially affecting interoperability—the possibility of reverse intermodulation interference resulting from the interplay of Channel 51 and Lower 700 MHz B and C Block signals. Separate from this issue, and not relevant to the interoperability of service within the Lower 700 MHz band, are questions of adjacent channel interference between Channel 51 and Lower 700 MHz A Block signals. Because of the potential for such adjacent channel interference, Commission rules establish exclusion zones in which Lower A Block operations are prohibited, which are designed to protect Channel 51 stations from possible interference. There are currently 27 full-power Channel 51 broadcast stations, and 6 Class A low-power television operations on Channel 51 in the U.S., including Puerto Rico. Nearly 190 million American consumers live outside these exclusion zones, including almost 50 million of the 60 million American consumers living in rural areas. More than 3.2 million square miles, or more than 90 percent of the land area in the U.S. is located outside the exclusion zones, including 2.8 million square miles in rural areas.

13. As noted above, on September 10, 2013, parties in this proceeding filed letters with the Commission indicating that they have reached agreement on a voluntary industry solution to resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. Here the Commission takes steps to implement this voluntary industry solution, the substantive terms of which the Commission finds to be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity as well as the record in this proceeding for the reasons set forth below. First, and in accordance with the industry consensus, the Commission addresses interference concerns that have been raised as obstacles to the voluntary adoption of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The Commission finds that the current technical rules governing the D and E Blocks would likely lead to harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees and therefore do constitute a barrier to interoperability. The Commission therefore modifies those rules to eliminate that barrier in a manner consistent with the industry solution. In addition, after review of the extensive record in this proceeding, and based on its technical expertise and predictive judgment, the Commission finds that any harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz mobile devices operating on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks as a result of Channel 51 broadcast operations is unlikely. Having addressed the potential interference issues, the Commission proposes to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses as outlined herein and in AT&T's commitment letter to effectuate the voluntary industry solution and resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band in an effective and efficient manner. Implementing the substantive terms of the industry solution to establish a clear path to interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz spectrum is consistent with the Commission's longstanding interest in promoting the interoperability of wireless mobile services (an objective that has been realized for cellular, PCS, AWS, and public safety broadband, and other services) and furthers important public interests, including promoting the widest possible deployment of mobile broadband services, ensuring the most efficient use of spectrum, promoting competition and enhancing consumer choice of wireless services.

14. Finally, in light of its foregoing actions, the Commission modifies the construction requirements for E Block licensees, extending the interim and final deadlines and license terms and permitting licensees to meet a population-based coverage requirement as an alternative to a geographic-based requirement. The Commission also modifies the construction requirements for A and B Block licensees, extending the interim construction benchmark deadline to December 13, 2016 and removing the interim deadline for certain A Block licensees adjacent to Channel 51 operations.

15. Background. Under § 27.50(c)(7) of the Commission's rules, a licensee authorized to operate in the 710-716, 716-722, or 740-746 MHz bands, or in any unpaired spectrum blocks within the 698-746 MHz band may operate a fixed or base station at an Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of up to 50 kW within its authorized bandwidth. Further, the antenna height for such stations is limited only to the extent required to satisfy the power flux density requirements of § 27.55(b) of the rules, which provide that the power transmitted from a fixed or base station may not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground at any distance within 1 km of the stations. By contrast, other fixed or base stations in the Lower 700 MHz band transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 megahertz, including stations authorized in the Lower 700 MHz A and B Block, are restricted to an ERP of 1,000 to 2,000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m height above average terrain (HAAT).

16. In 2011, the Commission recognized that high-powered operations in the D and E Blocks could be a source of harmful interference, and conditioned the approval of AT&T's acquisition of Qualcomm's Lower 700 MHz D and E Block spectrum on certain technical requirements designed to ensure that AT&T's operations on the Lower 700 MHz spectrum would not limit the potential of third parties to fully utilize other Lower 700 MHz spectrum. The AT&T-Qualcomm Order also prohibited AT&T from using the Qualcomm spectrum for uplink transmissions and imposed a coordination and mitigation condition with respect to possible interference caused by AT&T's use of the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks for supplemental downlink to the uplink operations of other licensees operating in the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Blocks.

17. The 3GPP has adopted certain technical specifications for user equipment operating in different 700 MHz bands. 3GPP's specifications for output power and the out-of-band emission (OOBE) specifications for LTE equipment are the same for all commercial paired frequencies in the Lower 700 MHz band. The 3GPP specifications differ, however, with respect to receiver blocking, which is the required ability of a receiver to tolerate a much stronger (Lower 700 MHz E Block) signal spectrally located near the desired signal. The 3GPP-specified requirements for receiver blocking are the same for Band Class 13 and Band Class 14 equipment, but Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 have distinct blocking requirements, due to differences in each band's relative proximity to neighboring high-powered operations in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks.

18. In the Interoperability NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether potential interference from the 700 MHz Lower E Block might be preventing the voluntary adoption of Band Class 12 by Lower B and C block licensees. The Interoperability NPRM sought comment on whether there are any measures the Commission could take to address such interference concerns, including whether they could be adequately addressed by adopting technical conditions set forth in the AT&T-Qualcomm Order. The Commission sought comment on whether there were changes the Commission could adopt to its rules that would address concerns that Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees might experience harmful interference from Lower 700 MHz D and E Block operations and encourage these licensees to voluntarily adopt interoperable devices. The Commission also sought comment on how such modifications would affect the operations and plans of Lower E Block licensees, other than AT&T.

19. On September 10, 2013, AT&T and DISH made ex parte filings as part of the voluntary industry solution in which they set out certain steps to address potential interference concerns from the Lower 700 MHz E Block to the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. DISH states that it shares the Commission's goals of promoting efficient spectrum use of the Lower 700 MHz band and, as part of an industry consensus on interoperability, it is willing to consent to a reduction in power. Specifically, DISH states that, to support the Commission's efforts and objectives, it will consent to a reduction of the ERP of base stations for its Lower 700 MHz E Block licenses to 1,000 watts/MHz in urban areas and 2,000 watts/MHz in rural areas. DISH further states that it currently plans to deploy an LTE network similar to what Lower 700 MHz A, B, C, and D Block operators have deployed today, and to similarly enhance the network as the LTE technology evolves, which would make the above power levels consistent within the band. Finally, DISH asserts that it should retain a limited right to operate at existing ERP limits pursuant to operator-to-operator agreements with other affected licensees or upon a demonstration to the Commission of no harmful interference to other relevant Lower 700 MHz licensees. According to DISH [t]he need to reserve a limited opportunity for high-power operations is particularly important for rural America and the deployment of high-power services to underserved communities. DISH notes that [t]his rural-focused flexibility—dependent upon actual licensee agreement or further FCC action—will provide DISH with the opportunity to better serve underserved communities without adversely affecting the Commission's objective to better utilize the Lower 700 MHz band. In its filing, AT&T states that its commitments to Lower 700 MHz interoperability are premised on requirements that all Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 megahertz are restricted to an ERP of 1,000 watts to 2,000 watts per megahertz and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT.

20. Discussion. Based on the record, the Commission finds that, under the current rules, there is a significant threat of harmful interference from high power transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to Band Class 12 devices operating on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks that could jeopardize the viability of interoperability in the band. Consistent with the record in this proceeding and the AT&T-Qualcomm Order, the Commission revises the technical rules applicable to the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks by reducing the maximum permissible power levels and antenna heights on these blocks. The Commission also modifies its rules to limit all operations in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to downlink only. The Commission provides that Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may operate particular sites at power levels higher than permitted under the revised rules under certain specified conditions. The Commission finds these changes to be in the public interest because they eliminate likely harmful interference, thereby promoting interoperable LTE operations in the Lower 700 MHz band. Indeed, without these measures, the public would not be able to realize the substantial benefits of mobile broadband deployment and interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The technical changes the Commission adopts today will continue to enable the six megahertz of unpaired Lower 700 MHz E Block spectrum to be put to commercial use while facilitating effective and efficient use of 36 megahertz of the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Blocks for mobile broadband services. Dish's current deployment plans and its agreement to these technical rule changes provide further support for such changes.

21. Specifically, the Commission revises its rules to provide that the Lower 700 MHz D and E Block base station transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less must not exceed 1 kW ERP in non-rural areas or 2 kW ERP in rural areas. In addition, Lower 700 MHz D and E Block base station transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz must not exceed 1 kW ERP per megahertz in non-rural areas or 2 kW ERP per megahertz in rural areas. Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees operating at these maximum permissible ERP are limited to an antenna height of 305 m HAAT. Except pursuant to consent or waiver as described below, the specific revisions to the Commission's rules adopted in this Report and Order that modify the applicable power limits and the antenna height restrictions applicable to Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licenses are consistent with the current rules applicable to the Lower 700 MHz A and B Block licenses and with conditions adopted in the AT&T-Qualcomm Order that were placed on all the Lower 700 MHz D Block licenses and those E Block licenses that are held by AT&T. See also 47 CFR 27.50 (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4). For the reasons set forth in this Report and Order, the Commission's revised rules will apply to all D and E Block licensees, including AT&T, and operate to supersede the conditions adopted in the AT&T Qualcomm Order applicable to AT&T's D and E Block operations. The revised rules will supersede the conditions adopted in the AT&T Qualcomm Order only after they become final and unappealable. The Commission also limits operations in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to downlink only. Finally, the Commission finds that it would serve the public interest to permit a Lower 700 MHz D or E Block licensee to operate particular sites at a higher ERP level up to 50 kW in conjunction with the current power flux density (PFD) limit if the Lower 700 MHz D or E Block licensee enters into operator-to-operator agreements with other affected licensees or, absent agreements with all affected licensees, pursuant to a waiver upon a demonstration to the Commission of no harmful interference to other relevant Lower 700 MHz licensees.

22. As discussed in detail below, the Commission finds that the current technical rules, which permit a 50 kW ERP level in conjunction with a PFD limit, are likely not sufficient to prevent harmful blocking interference into neighboring operations in the Lower 700 MHz bands providing interoperable service. More specifically, based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission concludes first that low-powered two-way mobile broadband LTE service provided on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks using Band Class 12 devices would likely be subject to harmful blocking interference from high-powered Lower 700 MHz D and E Block operations. In evaluating whether a Band Class 12 device is being subjected to harmful interference based on the test data submitted in the record, the Commission assumes 3 dB desense (Receiver desense or desensitization is the amount of receiver sensitivity degradation due to interference relative to the unencumbered receiver sensitivity (the lowest received signal power that a noise limited receiver needs to be functional), measured in dB. For example, a 3 dB desense occurs when the interference power is equal to the receiver's system noise power) as the appropriate threshold, along with considerations of the probability and potential locations of such interference events. In other words, a Band Class 12 device should only be required to receive successfully in the presence of blocking interference, a desired signal 3 dB above the receiver's reference sensitivity (receiver blocking requirements address a receiver's ability to receive at least 95% of the reference throughput at the reference sensitivity, at its assigned channel in the presence of an unwanted interfering signal falling into the device receive band or into the first adjacent 15 megahertz. See Table 7.6.1.1-2, Section 7.6.1 of 3GPP TS 36.104 V9.9.0 (2011-09)). The Commission notes that this approach is consistent with the Commission's analysis in the H Block proceeding. Using 3 dB desense, and based on the test data in the record, the Commission finds that there are likely to be significant areas where a Band Class 12 device would be subjected to harmful blocking interference without a change to its current technical rules. In particular, the Commission finds that the V-COMM Study shows the 3 dB desense of Band Class 12 devices using the Lower 700 MHz B and C Block spectrum occurs when the Lower 700 MHz E Block received signal strength is about -26 dBm. Therefore the Commission concludes that interference to Band Class 12 devices is likely to occur when the interfering signal strengths reach those levels. Moreover, the V-COMM and Hyslop-Kolodzy test data show that received signals of -26 dBm and higher from E Block transmissions are not uncommon. Indeed, the Hyslop-Kolodzy Report shows areas on drive tests where signals were stronger than -16 dBm, which is significantly worse than the -26 dBm threshold. Based on these data and on its technical expertise and predictive judgment, the Commission finds that the current technical rules are not sufficient to protect against harmful interference, because harmful blocking interference is likely to occur in a significant number of instances.

23. The Commission next finds that mitigation techniques for blocking interference from high-powered Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters are not practical to overcome potentially many instances of harmful interference from the Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters, would be costly and difficult and could address only some instances of potential harmful interference. If Lower 700 MHz E Block stations were to commence high-powered operations, Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees using Band Class 12 devices may need to make many RF network design and optimization modifications to mitigate the high-power E Block interference due to a potentially large number of high-power 700 MHz E Block transmitters, including the possible deployment of sites that otherwise would not be needed. In addition, mitigating interference from high-powered Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters by co-locating with lower-powered LTE transmitters does not appear to be an effective option in many cases, given that Lower 700 MHz licensees have already either planned or deployed their LTE networks in many cases and that DISH Network has not deployed the vast majority of its Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters yet. As a practical matter, co-location could be cost effective only with respect to Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters that exist at the time the LTE network is being designed and built. While co-location on subsequently deployed Lower 700 MHz E Block transmitters is possible, newly co-located LTE transmitters could require costly re-engineering for the rest of the LTE network. As a result, the Commission concludes that modification of the maximum permissible ERP level for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks is needed to lower the probability and decrease the potential instances and locations in which the receive signal strengths of Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees could exceed −26 dBm.

24. Similar to other Lower 700 MHz licensees, the Commission further revises its rules to provide that the Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees operating at the maximum permissible ERP are limited to an antenna height of 305 m HAAT. The Commission notes that power levels and antenna heights are closely linked: operating less than the maximum permissible ERP would allow a licensee to have a higher HAAT. Fixed or base stations transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less may operate at antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT if ERP levels are reduced below 1kW for non-rural areas in accordance with Table 1, or below 2kW ERP for rural areas in accordance with Table 2 of the Commission's rules, § 27.50. Fixed or base stations transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz may operate at antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT if ERP levels are reduced below 1kW per megahertz for non-rural areas in accordance with Table 3, or below 2kW per megahertz ERP for rural areas in accordance with Table 4 of the Commission's rules, § 27.50.

25. Finally, consistent with DISH's current plans to deploy an LTE network similar to that deployed by Lower 700 MHz A, B, C, and D Block operators, the Commission finds it in the public interest to modify its rules to impose certain restrictions on all D and E Block operations that are similar to conditions imposed upon AT&T in the AT&T-Qualcomm Order in connection with AT&T's use of its Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licenses. In particular, the Commission revises its rules to provide that Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may not use their licenses for uplink transmission and must instead use this spectrum only for downlink transmissions. This change serves the public interest by preventing harmful interference and facilitating interoperability. Because the surrounding blocks are used for downlink operations, uplink or TDD operations in the E Block will cause harmful interference to mobile receivers in the adjacent bands unless very strict power limits, stringent out of band emission limits, and guard bands are employed on all three blocks.

26. These rule changes reflect the significant developments in the Lower 700 MHz band since the original adoption of the technical rules in 2002. In 2002, the Commission recognized that high power transmissions could cause interference to adjacent channels, especially those that operate at low power levels, but found that the risk of harmful interference from power levels up to 50 kW could be mitigated by limiting permissible power flux density levels for base stations operating in excess of 1kW ERP. At that time, however, the Commission's expectation was that operations at lower power would not be prevalent, and the Commission permitted power levels up to 50 kW in all of the Lower 700 MHz Blocks. Operation at similar power levels would result in signal desired to undesired ratios that would minimize the likelihood of harmful interference. The Lower 700 MHz band was then the home to broadcasters in the midst of a technically complex transition to digital television. In particular, when the Commission adopted these rules in the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order, 67 FR 5491, Feb. 6, 2002, it observed that the Lower 700 MHz band will remain principally a television band until the end of the digital transition pursuant to the requirements of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In light of the uncertainty regarding the availability and future use of this band, and the expectation that much of the band would be occupied by full-power broadcast stations for an indefinite period of time, the Commission adopted a flexible use approach to allow for fixed and mobile services, along with broadcast and other broadband applications that could include two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services.

27. Since 2002, significant developments in the Lower 700 MHz band include the active deployment of mobile broadband services in the Lower 700 MHz Band and the fact that it is no longer a TV band. After the Commission adopted the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order, Congress passed the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (DTV Act), which accelerated the DTV transition by providing a date certain, February 17, 2009, for the end of the transition. The Commission subsequently revised its rules in 2007 pursuant to the DTV Act prior to Auction 73, which included the Lower A, B, and E Blocks. There also have been significant developments since 2007, when, as DISH notes, the Commission declined to adjust the 50 kW power limit applicable to the Lower D and E Blocks. Now six years later, by contrast, the demand for and use of mobile broadband services have grown significantly and continue to increase, and Lower 700 MHz licensees are deploying LTE networks to respond to this demand in spectrum adjacent to the Lower E Block, and there is no longer any high-power broadcast service being provided to consumers on this spectrum. Moreover, the record of this proceeding includes detailed studies of interference effects on the mobile devices now in use in connection with the lower power services that have displaced higher power broadcast operations in the band, which lower power services are more vulnerable to blocking interference from high power E Block transmissions. The Commission has thus changed its position on this matter in light of these intervening developments and the updated information in this record.

28. As indicated above, the Commission also finds that these rule changes are fully consistent with the current plans by the two major licensees of these Blocks and with the voluntary industry solution proposed by stakeholders. Indeed, the Commission finds that these changes to its technical rules also will facilitate the anticipated uses of the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks. As stated in its recent ex parte filing, DISH Network plans to use its unpaired 700 MHz E Block licenses to deploy an LTE network similar to what Lower 700 MHz A, B, C, and D Block operators have deployed today, and to similarly enhance the networks as the LTE technology evolves. AT&T has indicated that its current plans are to use the unpaired 700 MHz Lower D and E Block licenses it acquired from Qualcomm in December 2011 for LTE video services while also looking at pairing this spectrum with other bands, as a supplemental downlink for mobile LTE. These facts strongly support its conclusion that these modifications will further the public interest.

29. In sum, modifying the power limits and the antenna height restrictions for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks, along with limiting these licenses to downlink transmissions, is necessary to enable Lower 700 MHz interoperability by resolving concerns about interference from high-powered transmissions and enable provisioning of mobile broadband LTE services in the adjacent bands. These changes also will facilitate the plans of the Lower D and E Block licensees to utilize this spectrum to provide commercial services to American consumers.

30. The Commission also finds that, in addition to ensuring interoperability and facilitating use of the D and E Blocks, these rule changes also will facilitate Lower 700 MHz A Block operations because LTE service provided on the A Block would otherwise likely be subject to harmful interference from high-power operations in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. In particular, mobile devices operating near a Lower E Block transmitter but far from their serving LTE base stations face a substantial risk of receiving harmful interference from E Block transmitters. The potential for this interference would exist because of vastly different radio propagation characteristics between the high-powered Lower 700 MHz E Block and lower powered A Block LTE systems, and such interference would result in significant degradation of service to A Block operations in areas close to high-powered E Block transmitters. Accordingly, the harmonized technical rules will facilitate provisioning of mobile broadband LTE services to consumers in all of the paired Lower 700 MHz bands without significant service degradation.

31. The Commission agrees as well with DISH's proposal in its recent ex parte filing that it also would serve the public interest to permit particular Lower 700 MHz D or E Block stations to operate under the existing ERP level of up to 50 kW, in conjunction with the existing power flux density (PFD) limit, so long as the licensee obtains consent of all affected licensees. In taking this action, the Commission finds that this flexibility will provide D and E Block licensees with the opportunity to better serve rural and underserved communities without adversely affecting the Commission's objective to more effectively utilize the Lower 700 MHz band. Specifically, the Commission amends § 27.50 to provide that lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may operate stations at existing power limits if they are able to obtain the written concurrence of all potentially affected licensees. For purposes of this rule, the Commission finds that potentially affected licensees are all A, B, C, D and E Block licensees licensed within 120 km of the proposed higher powered site. This provision is consistent with the Commission's rule requiring coordination when licensees operate at higher power levels in rural areas. 47 CFR 27.50(c)(5). Prior to operation, Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees must obtain written concurrence from each potentially affected licensee and file a copy of each agreement with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau via FCC Form 601. The Commission notes that there are fewer than 10 licensees that will file a copy of the agreement via FCC Form 601, and thus its action here does not trigger the Paperwork Reduction Act, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4). If a licensee is unable to obtain written concurrence from one or more affected licensees, it may seek a waiver of this rule with respect to a particular transmitter. The waiver request must meet the waiver standard articulated in § 1.925 of the Commission's rules. In assessing whether a waiver grant is warranted, the Commission will determine whether the licensee has made reasonable efforts to obtain the written concurrence of all affected licensees and has shown that operation at higher power from the particular transmitter facility will not cause harmful interference to affected licensees' existing operations. The Commission's determination will take into account a number of factors, including the following: the location of the transmitter, the technology, and the relevant technical parameters of the transmitter facility; the location(s) and technical characteristics of the potentially affected licensees' stations; and any engineering studies demonstrating no harmful interference. The nature of the potential harmful interference suggests that it likely will be more difficult to demonstrate no harmful interference to affected licensees in urban areas than in rural areas. Finally, in order to protect future operations of potentially affected licensees, any waiver granted will be conditioned on causing no harmful interference to future deployments by affected licensees (or obtaining their written concurrence).

32. Consistent with the AT&T Qualcomm Order, the Commission also requires that the Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees take steps to mitigate the potential for harmful interference from their downlink operations to uplink operations in the A, B, and C Blocks. In particular, the Commission requires D and E Block licensees to take the following measures: (1) Coordinate with A, B, or C Block licensees to mitigate the potential for harmful interference; (2) mitigate interference to A, B, or C Block operations within 30 days after receiving written notice from the affected A, B, or C Block licensees; and (3) ensure that D or E Block transmissions are filtered at least to the extent that the D or E Block transmissions are filtered in markets where the D or E Block licensee holds an A, B, or C Block license, as applicable. Coordination and mitigation steps should include, but are not limited to, the following measures: If a Lower A, B, or C Block licensee deploys a network after the D or E Block deploys a network on its Lower 700 MHz D or E Block spectrum in the same geographic market, the D or E Block licensee will work with the A, B, or C Block licensee to identify sites that will require additional filtering, and will help the A, B, or C Block licensee to identify proper filters. The D or E Block licensee is also required to permit these licensees to collocate on the towers it owns at prevailing market rates. On the other hand, if a Lower A, B, or C Block licensee deploys a network before a D or E Block licensee deploys a network in the same geographic market, the D or E Block licensee will work with the A, B, or C Block licensee to identify sites that will need additional filtering and will purchase and pay for installation of required filters on such sites. For purposes of this condition, deployment of a network shall be the date upon which the network is able to support a commercial mobile voice or data service.

33. The Commission finds that the Commission has authority to adjust the technical requirements for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks as outlined above. Title III of the Act provides the Commission with broad authority to manage spectrum, including allocating and assigning radio spectrum for spectrum based services and modifying spectrum usage conditions in the public interest. The Commission is charged with maintaining control over all the channels of radio transmission in the United States. Section 301 states that [i]t is the purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. The issuance of a Commission license does not convey any ownership or property interests in the spectrum and does not provide the licensee with any rights that can override the Commission's proper exercise of its regulatory power over the spectrum. As the D.C. Circuit held well before the E Block auction here, Congress specifically applied to licenses acquired by auction this long tradition of Commission authority to change rules governing already-issued licenses.

34. The Commission therefore takes its actions here to revise the technical service rules applicable to the D and E Blocks pursuant to § 303(b) and 303(f) of the Act. Section 316 of the Act grants the Commission broad authority to modify existing licenses if it determines that such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The Commission does not disregard the importance of stability in its rules, but the substantial record evidence now compiled in this proceeding concerning both the likely harmful interference from higher power D and E Block operations to the services actually now deployed in the B and C Blocks and the public interest benefits of securing interoperability outweighs this concern. As the demand for mobile broadband continues to grow, it is critical that there is nationwide mobile broadband coverage, including service in rural and underserved areas, competition within the mobile wireless broadband industry that provides consumers (particularly in these isolated areas) with greater selection from among different service offerings and pricing plans, and choice for consumers so that they can more readily change providers in order to avail themselves of competitive alternatives. Revising the technical requirements for Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licenses is a critical part of allowing interoperability and necessary to eliminate the potential for harmful interference to other 700 MHz bands. These changes are thus strongly in the public interest and authorized by Title III.

35. Background. Channel 51 (692-698 MHz), which has been allocated for TV broadcast operations at power levels up to 1000 kW, lies just below the Lower 700 MHz Band. One of the interference issues raised by some as a possible technical obstacle to interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band is reverse intermodulation interference from DTV Channel 51 broadcast transmissions to the operations of wireless providers in the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. The issue of reverse intermodulation interference could arise when the Channel 51 signals interact, or mix, with transmissions from a wireless device to create a third transmission, or intermodulation product, that falls on a frequency used by the wireless device for receiving operation.

36. In the Interoperability NPRM, the Commission requested that interested parties submit measurements and quantitative analyses regarding the interference risk from adjacent Channel 51 transmissions for Band Class 12 devices operating in the Lower B and C Blocks, asked how the Commission could encourage voluntary industry efforts to find interference solutions, and requested that commenters quantify the costs of implementing any proposed solutions to interference issues.

37. The record includes studies on reverse intermodulation interference to Band Class 12 devices on Lower 700 MHz Blocks B and C from Channel 51 operations. Studies were submitted by a number of Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees (consisting of the V-COMM Study and the Hyslop-Kolodzy Report), to demonstrate that any such interference is unlikely, and if it does occur there are reasonable steps an operator can take to mitigate it. AT&T and Qualcomm filed studies that argue to the contrary (consisting of AT&T submitted studies from Reed and Tripathi, PCTEST, and 7Layers, and Qualcomm's own study. In its recent commitment letter, AT&T states that high power broadcasts currently permitted in Channel 51 and in the Lower 700 MHz E Block create the potential for significant interference problems for LTE deployments.

38. Discussion. Based on the extensive record in this proceeding and on its technical and predictive judgment, the Commission concludes that harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz mobile devices operating on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks as a result of Channel 51 broadcast operations is unlikely for a number of reasons. Moreover, the Commission finds that providers can undertake reasonable steps to mitigate the impacts of any interference that might occur from Channel 51 transmissions to LTE Band Class 12 devices. In addition, any issue is likely to be time-limited, as the number of full-power Channel 51 stations decreases over time. The Commission notes as well that, even though AT&T identifies this issue in its September 10 letter, the proposed conditions in its letter and attachment, upon which its commitment of interoperability is based, address only potential E Block interference, and do not include any provisions relating to potential reverse intermodulation interference from Channel 51 broadcast operations.

39. The Commission finds first that reverse intermodulation interference will occur only in the unlikely event of a coincidence of a number of different factors. For Channel 51 broadcast transmission to cause reverse intermodulation interference, all of the following would have to occur at the same time: the Channel 51 broadcast transmission reaches a very strong signal strength threshold received at the LTE mobile device, the LTE device is transmitting and receiving in certain specific frequencies within that carrier, and the mobile device is transmitting at maximum power. The Commission also notes there is a stable set of no more than 27 full-power, licensed broadcast facilities in the U.S., including Puerto Rico, and over time the number of full-power Channel 51 stations will likely decrease principally as a result of the incentive auction proceeding.

40. The Commission's conclusions rely as well on its evaluation of the evidence in the record. The Commission finds that the tests and analyses of the proponents of an interoperability rule are more convincing than the tests and analyses submitted by opponents because, inter alia, the proponents used more reasonable testing parameters such as the placement of the LTE carrier frequency and the number of resource blocks. The proponents also tested more devices under more possible interference scenarios which give a more comprehensive picture of the overall device performance, in both lab and field tests. Qualcomm used a commercially-available power amplifier that transmitted at 1930 MHz, which is not as representative of operating in the 700 MHz band as the 700 MHz devices that were used in the other tests.

41. The evidence in the record also shows that the high Channel 51 signal levels that raise the risk of interference occur rarely. For instance, V-COMM's testing shows that the level of a Channel 51 signal strength threshold that would likely cause interference is -13 dBm with 1 dB desense. According to the record, only 8 of 26 Channel 51 full-power, licensed broadcast facilities in the continental U.S. could, using the conservative line-of-sight (LOS) propagation model, theoretically exceed the signal strength threshold of -13 dBm, and these areas are limited to 450 meters or less from the Channel 51 broadcast tower. In addition, V-COMM's drive testing results near actual Channel 51 DTV transmitters show that very high Channel 51 signal strengths, e.g. above -13 dBm, are mostly confined to locations near Channel 51 transmitters. However, to be consistent with the Commission's analysis in the H Block proceeding, the Commission finds that using a 3dB desensitization level is more appropriate in this case. According to lab tests in the record, this requires a Channel 51 signal strength of -9 dBm, or 4 dB stronger than the level used by V-COMM. The drive tests in the record demonstrate that a signal level of -9 dBm is very rare in the field.

42. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that interference allegations based on reverse intermodulation products arising from Channel 51 broadcast operations are not an impediment to implementation of the voluntary industry solution for achieving interoperability.

43. While the Commission finds that the presence of Channel 51 broadcast stations is not an impediment to 700 MHz interoperability, the clearing of Channel 51 broadcast stations can lead to other important public interest benefits by removing certain limitations placed on operations in the adjacent Lower A Block. The Commission has taken a number of steps to limit the potential impact of Channel 51 broadcast operations on the use of Lower 700 MHz band spectrum. In August 2011, the Media Bureau adopted a freeze on both the filing of new applications and the processing of pending applications with respect to operations on Channel 51, in order to permit the Commission to evaluate claims of interference for Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees in planning their network deployments. In addition, the Media Bureau lifted the previous freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking by full power television stations seeking to relocate from Channel 51 pursuant to voluntary relocation agreements with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. Media Bureau staff has approved, or has under review, agreements to relocate Channel 51 operations or otherwise modify those operations that reduce the possibility of interference.

44. Moreover, in September 2012, the Commission launched, pursuant to the Spectrum Act, the incentive auction process with the aim of repurposing broadcast television spectrum for mobile broadband use. In the Incentive Auctions NPRM, 77 FR 69933, Nov. 21, 2012, the Commission sought comment on facilitating requests for channel relocation prior to the auction associated with voluntary agreements between the affected parties. In addition, the Commission clarified that any Channel 51 station that relocates pursuant to a private arrangement, and is subsequently required to relocate a second time because its channel assignment is changed during the auction's repacking process, will be eligible for payment of costs and will not be disadvantaged in its ability to claim reimbursement.

45. In April 2012, the Commission adopted rules for the sharing of broadcast channels in connection with the incentive auction. The Commission is interested in possibly authorizing one or more channel sharing pilots in order to demonstrate the technical and legal arrangements necessary to implement a successful channel sharing operation. The Commission encourages Channel 51 broadcasters to consider participating in such a pilot and to bring proposals for channel sharing pilots to the Media Bureau for consideration. Although it is likely that Channel 51 clearing issues in connection with the Incentive Auctions proceeding will not be resolved and fully implemented for several years, the Commission notes that all of the band plans in the Incentive Auctions NPRM and record propose to clear Channel 51, and that the Incentive Auctions NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate length of time for television stations to move channels or cease broadcasting after the completion of the incentive auction.

46. Background. In the Interoperability NPRM, the Commission expressed its preference for an industry solution to the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The Commission stated that an industry solution would be preferable because it would allow the market greater flexibility in responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and fast-paced technological developments. At the same time, the Commission recognized that, if the industry failed to move toward interoperability in a timely manner, additional regulatory steps might be justified.

47. Discussion. As noted above, an industry solution that will resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band has now been developed. In a letter filed on September 10, 2013, AT&T committed to adopting interoperability upon resolution of interference issues associated with high power broadcast transmissions from the Lower 700 MHz E Block. A coalition of Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees, joined by the Competitive Carriers Association, filed a letter supporting AT&T's commitments as a means to ensure restoration of interoperability. Having resolved the potential interference issues as discussed above, the Commission now takes steps to implement AT&T's voluntary commitments and establish a path to interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band.

48. Specifically, pursuant to Section 316, the Commission proposes in the Order of Proposed Modification below to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses to implement its interoperability commitments. AT&T's commitments are premised on final resolution of the E Block interference issues, in accordance with the power and height limitations adopted above. AT&T Sept. 10, 2013 Ex Parte at 6. These commitments relate both to AT&T's deployment of a Multi-Frequency Band Indicator (MFBI) software feature (a network technology that enables interoperability by permitting simultaneous support of both Band Class 12 and Band Class17 devices) and to AT&T's transition to Band Class 12 capable devices. As set out in AT&T's letter:

(1) AT&T commits to moving forward expeditiously with testing the 3GPP Multi-Frequency Band Indicator software feature as soon as it is made available to AT&T by its RAN vendors. AT&T further agrees to fully deploy the new MFBI software feature in its 700 MHz network within 24 months of September 30, 2013. The end of the 24-month period will also commence the beginning of the device roll-out period.

(2) If AT&T concludes that, despite its best efforts, implementation of the MFBI feature within 24 months as committed to herein will result in significant negative customer impact, AT&T will file a certification, consistent with Commission rules (including but not limited to §§ 1.16, 1.17 and 1.65), so asserting and outlining in specific detail the commercially reasonable steps taken to meet the deadline and the reason for the delay. Any such filing must be made on or before August 31, 2015. With the filing of such a certification, the 24-month deadline for MFBI implementation and the start of the Band 12 capable device roll-out period shall be extended by the period requested in the certification, up to an additional 6 months.

(3) Once MFBI has been fully implemented by AT&T consistent with paragraph 2, AT&T shall provide LTE roaming to carriers with compatible Band 12 devices, consistent with the Commission's rules on roaming.

(4) Band 12 capable device shall mean any device that is capable of supporting 3GPP Band Class 12. At this time, AT&T is exploring various Band 12 implementation approaches with its chipset and OEM partners and AT&T reserves the right to pursue the most efficient solutions available based on evolving network and device capabilities on a technology neutral basis.

(5) During the first year of the device roll-out period, 50% of all new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands, as identified by unique SKU numbers, introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. Memory or color finish variations on a single device shall not be considered separate unique SKUs. Machine-to-Machine (M-to-M) devices shall not be counted as new unique devices for purposes of this commitment.

(6) During the second year of the device roll-out period, 75% of new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands, as identified by unique SKU numbers, introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. Memory or color finish variations on a single device shall not be considered separate unique SKUs. M-to-M devices shall not be counted as new unique devices for purposes of this commitment.

(7) Commencing at the conclusion of the second year of the device roll-out period, all new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. In addition, from that time forward, AT&T will agree that its specifications for all new devices that are designed to operate in the paired Lower 700 MHz frequencies, including M-to-M devices, will call for Band 12 capability. However, M-to-M devices shall not be counted as new unique devices for purposes of this commitment.

(8) The commitments outlined above apply to all new unique data-capable devices that connect to or provide connectivity on AT&T's paired Lower 700 MHz FDD network. AT&T's commitment shall not extend to any devices that are uniquely designed to operate on spectrum bands owned and operated by AT&T that are not in the paired Lower 700 MHz bands. AT&T reserves the express right to support devices that do not operate in the paired Lower 700 MHz bands.

(9) To demonstrate progress on its commitments, AT&T shall submit comprehensive written reports and meet with the Commission staff at each of 12 months, 18 months and 24 months from the date of its September 10, 2013 commitment letter that will provide information on AT&T's progress toward meeting these commitments. Additionally, AT&T shall provide comprehensive written reports at 28 months, 40 months and 46 months to report on progress during the device roll-out period, and it shall file a certification to the Commission at the end of the device roll-out period to certify final completion of these commitments within 30 days.

(10) Fulfillment of these commitments will require the implementation of new functionality in AT&T's paired Lower 700 MHz network as well as collaboration with AT&T's chipset and OEM partners and vendors. AT&T will use its best efforts to proceed diligently to complete the activities necessary to fulfill its commitments. However, if at any time, AT&T encounters obstacles beyond its control that threaten its ability to meet these commitments, or undermine the quality of the service it is providing on its network, AT&T reserves the right to so inform the Commission and seek an extension of time or a waiver as appropriate.

(11) Consistent with these commitments, AT&T anticipates that its focus and advocacy within the 3GPP standards setting process will shift to Band 12 related projects and work streams. More specifically, upon adoption of this commitment, AT&T commits to placing priority within the 3GPP RAN committee on the development of various Band 12 carrier aggregation scenarios. Upon completing implementation of the MFBI feature, AT&T anticipates that its focus on new standards related to the paired Lower 700 MHz spectrum will be almost exclusively on Band 12 configurations, features and capabilities. AT&T reserves the right to seek revisions and updates to Band 17 standards to the extent necessary to support legacy Band 17 devices and continuing Band 17 functionality on its network.

(12) AT&T's commitments to Lower 700 MHz interoperability outlined in its letter are premised on final resolution of the E Block interference issues, which requires the Commission to adopt an Order requiring that all E Block licensees transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 megahertz are restricted to an ERP of 1,000 to 2,000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m above average terrain. AT&T anticipates that the Commission will adopt such an Order no later than December 31, 2013. If such an Order is not adopted by the Commission, or if it is adopted but subject to appellate review, AT&T reserves the right to declare these commitments null and void.

49. The Commission finds that implementing the voluntary industry solution for interoperability by adopting AT&T's commitments as modifications would promote the public interest, convenience and necessity. These modifications would establish a clear path toward interoperability for the Lower 700 MHz band. In doing so, they would promote the efficient use of spectrum, the availability of higher quality and lower priced offerings and enhanced choices for customers of all wireless broadband providers, overall timely deployment of nationwide wireless broadband coverage, and the delivery of such service to rural and underserved areas. Its actions in proposing these modifications here are consistent with the Commission's longstanding interest in promoting the interoperability of mobile services (an objective that has been realized for cellular, PCS, AWS, and public safety broadband service), and allow the market greater flexibility in responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and fast-paced technological developments. By ensuring that AT&T, the largest license holder of spectrum in the B and C Blocks, transitions to interoperability, the Commission concludes that the steps it takes today will be enough to ensure that the public interest benefits of interoperability are realized while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens.

50. The record demonstrates that the existence of two incompatible band classes is a substantial obstacle to the ability of subscribers to switch their service provider to take advantage of higher quality or lower cost service. Conversely, as the Commission has recognized, interoperability directly promotes the ability of consumers to switch * * * at low cost. Accordingly, by establishing a clear path to interoperability, the Commission promotes consumers' ability to choose the higher quality service at affordable prices and thus increased competition.

51. In addition, adopting the industry plan for achieving interoperability will help promote deployment of mobile broadband services and the full and efficient use of Lower 700 MHz spectrum. The record shows that the absence of interoperability has delayed deployment of networks in Lower 700 MHz band spectrum. U.S. Cellular, for example, asserts that, except for its own deployment, “there has been no comparable deployment of advanced 4G LTE services by Band 12 licensees, including Cavalier Wireless, LLC, Continuum 700 LLC, C Spire Wireless, Vulcan Wireless LLC and others, despite significant efforts to overcome the lack of a Band 12 device ecosystem. Cox TMI Wireless LLC even was forced to abandon its original plans to launch 4G LTE services. Likewise, Cellular South, Inc. d/b/a C Spire Wireless (Cellular South) asserts that the lack of available Band Class 12 devices and the inability of such devices to roam nationwide render the current environment inadequate “to support commercial deployment of a LTE network on Band 12.” Cavalier Wireless argues that the lack of interoperability has delayed new wireless broadband deployments, services, and competition in Mississippi, Arkansas, and in rural states across the country.

52. The record indicates that interoperability will promote further build out and deployment of Lower 700 MHz spectrum, with the resulting benefits of competitive mobile broadband service available to consumers. Cellular South, for example, asserts that, upon adoption of an interoperability requirement, it would begin network design, site acquisition, and engaging equipment and device vendors to support the deployment of 4G LTE services. Other parties likewise assert that resolving interoperability would facilitate their deployment of advanced wireless services. The Commission finds that the lack of interoperability and of the development of a Band Class 12 ecosystem has seriously limited development of the Lower 700 MHz band and that 700 MHz interoperability will encourage and enable Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees to further invest in and build out advanced broadband networks. The difficulties of obtaining prompt delivery from vendors of the choices of 4G devices at affordable prices necessary to attract and retain subscribers have discouraged LTE network deployments for smaller new market entrants. The Commission concludes that, by promoting deployment of advanced mobile broadband networks, AT&T's interoperability commitments would serve the public interest by encouraging licensees to deploy networks in the Lower 700 MHz band using the most efficient wireless technology available today.

53. The Commission's actions today also further its statutory mandate to promote nationwide service. Most A Block licensees are small or regional businesses, many of which provide or would be able to provide wireless broadband service to nearly 50 million people in rural areas, where 1.3 million people (and approximately 13% of rural road miles) still lack any such service at all. More than one-third of the population in rural areas still lacks coverage from more than two mobile broadband service providers. Rural low density areas are often low income areas (per capita income less than $30,000 per year.) Evidence in the record shows that the absence of interoperability has affected these licensees' ability to deploy broadband services in the Lower 700 MHz bands. By eliminating barriers to deployment by small and rural providers, the Commission takes another important step toward fulfilling its mandate to bring these advanced services, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.

54. In addition, the AT&T license modifications the Commission proposes today in the Order of Proposed Modification below also will help promote reasonable roaming arrangements among 700 MHz providers. As noted above, AT&T commits to providing LTE roaming to carriers with compatible Band 12 devices once AT&T has implemented the MFBI software feature in its network. As a result, the number of technically compatible providers for nationwide LTE roaming partnerships would increase.

55. Background. Section 27.14(g) of the Commission's rules requires EA licensees holding authorizations for Block E in the 722-728 MHz bands to provide signal coverage and offer service over at least 35 percent of the geographic area of their license no later than June 13, 2013, or within four years of initial license grant, if the initial authorization is granted after June 13, 2009. Certain E Block licensees in the band, including DISH, have requested a waiver of § 27.14(g) seeking an extension of the interim construction benchmark deadline to at least two years from the current deadline, stating they have faced challenges related to equipment availability and uncertainty created by the Interoperability NPRM, including the possibility that the Commission may “dramatically reduce maximum operation power in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. As discussed above, DISH outlined its proposal to address interference concerns regarding high-powered operations in the E Block spectrum, contingent on certain Commission actions, including extending relief regarding its Lower 700 MHz E Block buildout requirements.

56. Discussion. Today the Commission adopts technical rule changes affecting all Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees to reduce potential interference and facilitate interoperability in the 700 MHz band, and in order to more fully implement the voluntary industry solution, including DISH's commitment, the Commission finds it is in the public interest to provide the same regulatory flexibility to all E Block licensees to promote rapid deployment of mobile broadband services. Accordingly, the Commission takes various actions discussed below. The Commission grants the requests for extension of time or waiver regarding 700 MHz E Block licenses filed by DISH and Kurian only to the extent discussed herein and extend relief to all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees regarding certain buildout requirements. The Commission also provides additional relief on its own motion to all active Lower E Block licensees as discussed below to facilitate implementation of the industry solution. Specifically, for all active Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees, the Commission extends the interim construction benchmark deadline in § 27.14(g) until March 7, 2017 and the end-of-term construction benchmark deadline in § 27.14(g) until March 7, 2021. This additional time will afford licensees a sufficient opportunity to adjust their business plans in light of the technical changes to the band and also provide valuable services to the public in the near term. The Commission also waives the ten-year license period set forth in § 27.13(b) and extends the license term for all active Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees until March 7, 2021.

57. The Commission waives § 27.14(g) for all active Lower E Block licensees in order to permit them to meet a population-based coverage requirement as an alternative to the geographic-based requirement in § 27.14(g). Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement that Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees must provide signal coverage and offer service over at least 35 percent of the geographic area to meet the interim construction benchmark deadline and provide signal coverage and provide service over at least 70 percent of the geographic area to meet the end-of-term construction benchmark deadline. Under this waiver, all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees may meet their interim construction benchmark deadline by providing signal coverage and offering service to at least 40 percent of its total E Block population, and a licensee's total E Block population shall be calculated by summing the population of each of its license areas in the E Block. Under this waiver, all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees may meet their end-of-the term construction benchmark deadline by providing signal coverage to at least 70 percent of the population in each of its license areas. When filing a notification of construction pursuant to § 1.946(d), licensees must state whether they are using the population-based performance benchmark or the geographic-based performance benchmark to meet the respective interim and end-of-term requirements.

58. The Commission also waives § 27.14(g)(1) to the extent necessary and, accordingly provides that in the event a Lower 700 MHz E Block licensee fails to either provide signal coverage and offer service to either 40 percent of its total E Block population or provide signal coverage or offer service over at least 35 percent of the geographic area by March 7, 2017, the term of that license authorization will be reduced by one year.

59. Finally, the Commission grants a limited waiver of § 27.14(l) to extend the deadline until March 7, 2019, for the filing of the required second status report regarding the licensees' efforts to meet the performance requirements applicable to their authorizations in their respective spectrum bands and the manner in which that spectrum is being utilized.

60. Background. As noted above, the Commission adopted performance requirements for the 700 MHz band to promote commercial access to the spectrum that require licensees to provide specified levels of service and certain consequences for failing to meet those requirements within prescribed timeframes. For licensees that fail to meet the applicable interim benchmark, the license term is reduced by two years, which would require that the end-of-term benchmark be met within eight years, and the Commission may take other enforcement action. At the end of the license term, licensees that fail to meet the end-of-term benchmark are subject to a keep what you use rule, which will make unused spectrum available to other potential users.

61. The Commission takes the opportunity in the R&O and Order to address the requests for waiver and extension of the interim construction benchmark deadline filed individually by Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees, which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau placed on public notice in a separate docket. The Commission also recognizes that the issues raised in this proceeding may substantially affect Lower 700 MHz band licensees that have not specifically sought an extension of the interim construction benchmark deadline. In light of today's action reducing permissible ERP levels for D and E Blocks and voluntary industry commitments on the record to promote interoperability, the Commission extends the interim construction benchmark deadline for all active 700 MHz band Lower A and B Block licensees until December 13, 2016, and issue a waiver of the interim construction benchmark deadline for certain Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees as described below.

62. Specifically, as their interim construction benchmark deadlines approached, a number of Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees requested a waiver of § 27.14(g) of the rules to provide for an extension of at least two years from the applicable interim construction deadlines. These licensees generally claimed that an extension or a waiver is warranted for reasons including a lack of interoperability in the 700 MHz band. Some of the licensees claimed an extension was warranted because of issues regarding protection of TV Channel 51 stations, and some licensees claimed that high power Lower 700 MHz band E Block operations have affected their ability to meet the deadline.

63. As discussed above, on September 10, 2013, DISH filed a letter stating that it will consent to an ERP reduction of its base stations for its Lower 700 MHz band E Block licenses. AT&T also filed a letter on September 10, 2013, stating that it is committed to supporting interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band, conditioned on final resolution of the E Block interference issue. As outlined above, AT&T provided a number of commitments to achieve this goal including a staggered rollout period during which AT&T will introduce Band Class 12 capable devices into its device portfolio.

64. Discussion. In the extension requests, licensees claim that, due to a lack of available devices, they are unable to offer compelling or competitive advanced mobile services to potential customers and therefore building out such a network by the current interim deadline is not economically viable. Further, licensees state that the fragmentation of the Lower 700 MHz band was unforeseen, making the situation unique and unusual. The Commission finds that today's decision, in conjunction with the voluntary industry commitments on the record, addresses these concerns and will facilitate interoperability and promote rapid deployment of advanced mobile services for consumers. The vast majority of licensees seek an extension of the interim construction benchmark deadline until two years after the Commission concludes the interoperability rulemaking proceeding. Taking into account today's action and the timeline specified by AT&T for roll-out of Band Class 12 capable devices, the Commission finds that an extension until December 13, 2016 will allow licensees to make appropriate business decisions regarding build-out and to meet the interim construction benchmark deadline. The Commission therefore extends the interim construction benchmark deadline in § 27.14(g) until December 13, 2016 for all active Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees, with certain exceptions described below.

65. The Commission finds it in the public interest to waive the interim construction benchmark deadline for certain Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees that must limit their deployments in order to protect incumbent Channel 51 operations. Pursuant to § 27.60, Lower 700 MHz band A Block licensees must provide interference protection to existing U.S. full power DTV and Class A stations operating in the adjacent Channel 51 by maintaining a minimum distance separation (from base station to TV transmitter) of as much as 108 km. Further, § 27.60 specifies a minimum distance separation of 96.5 km between mobile units operating on the A Block adjacent to Channel 51 broadcast stations. A substantial number of Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees argue in requests for extension of the interim construction benchmark deadline that Channel 51 broadcasters have been unwilling to negotiate consent or relocation agreements in advance of the impending incentive auction, leaving affected licensees with no reasonable alternative for providing service to certain areas of their markets before the interim deadline. Based on the record, the Commission finds that, although interoperability is likely to facilitate the provision of service by many licensees with Channel 51 broadcast stations in their license areas, relief from the particular interim construction benchmark deadline is warranted in certain circumstances. The Commission therefore waives, on its own motion, the interim construction benchmark deadline of § 27.14(g) for each Lower 700 MHz band A Block licensee where a 108 km radius around a Channel 51 transmitter overlaps at least a portion of the license's market area (overlap) and either: (1) 30 percent or more of the geographic license area is within that overlap; or (2) less than 30 percent of the geographic license area is within that overlap but more than two-thirds of the population is within that overlap. The Commission finds that such relief is necessary because these licensees either face siting restrictions in a substantial portion of their license areas, or a majority of the market's population is in an area of overlap. Accordingly, these licensees will only be subject to the end-of-term construction benchmark requirement and other status reporting requirements. The Commission expects that many Lower 700 MHz band A Block licensees will provide service in areas unaffected by the existence of Channel 51 and that others will take meaningful steps toward constructing their systems even while broadcasters remain on Channel 51—such as procuring equipment, designing their networks, and securing transmitter sites—so that installation, testing, and deployment can occur rapidly upon relocation of the broadcasters. The Commission notes that 700 MHz band licensees are free to negotiate early relocation agreements with Channel 51 broadcasters to further speed deployment.

66. Finally, for all active Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees, other than licensees subject to a waiver of the interim construction benchmark deadline due to Channel 51 interference protection requirements, as described above, the Commission waive the requirements in § 27.14(l) of the Commission's rules that these licensees file a second status report regarding the licensees' efforts to meet the performance requirements applicable to their authorizations in their respective spectrum bands and the manner in which that spectrum is being utilized. The Commission adopted reporting requirements “to monitor whether further assessment of the rules or other actions are necessary in the event spectrum is being stockpiled or warehoused, or if it is otherwise not being made available despite existing demand.” Due to the extended interim construction benchmark deadline, licensees will now file similar information in their notifications of construction in December 2016, shortly after the existing deadlines for the second status report. Therefore, the Commission finds it is in the public interest to reduce filing burdens on the industry and waive the requirement that Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees file a second status report. However, because A Block licensees sufficiently affected by Channel 51 interference protection requirements to warrant a waiver of the interim construction benchmark deadline will not file interim notifications of construction, the Commission does not waive the § 27.14(l) requirement and these licensees are still required to file a second status report on June 13, 2016, so that the Commission can monitor their buildout progress.

67. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses pursuant to § 316 to implement the commitments contained in AT&T's letter of September 10, 2013 and effectuate the voluntary industry solution that will resolve the lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band in an effective and efficient manner. Specifically, pursuant to Section 316, the Commission proposes to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses to implement the following interoperability commitments. These commitments relate both to AT&T's deployment of a Multi-Frequency Band Indicator (MFBI) software feature and to AT&T's transition to Band Class 12 capable devices. For the reasons discussed throughout the R&O and Order, the Commission concludes that it is in the public interest, convenience, and necessity to propose to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses as follows:

• AT&T must move forward expeditiously with testing the 3GPP Multi-Frequency Band Indicator software feature as soon as it is made available to AT&T by its RAN vendors. AT&T must fully deploy the new MFBI software feature in its 700 MHz network within 24 months of September 30, 2013. The end of the 24-month period will also commence the beginning of the Band 12 capable device roll-out period.

• If AT&T concludes that, despite its best efforts, implementation of the MFBI feature within 24 months will result in significant negative customer impact, AT&T will file a certification, consistent with Commission rules (including but not limited to §§ 1.16, 1.17 and 1.65), so asserting and outlining in specific detail the commercially reasonable steps taken to meet the deadline and the reason for the delay. Any such filing must be made on or before August 31, 2015. With the filing of such a certification, the 24-month deadline for MFBI implementation and the start of the Band 12 capable device roll-out period shall be extended by the period requested in the certification, up to an additional 6 months.

• Once MFBI has been fully implemented by AT&T, AT&T shall provide LTE roaming to carriers with compatible Band 12 devices, consistent with the Commission's rules on roaming.

• Band 12 capable device shall mean any device that is capable of supporting 3GPP Band Class 12. At this time, AT&T is exploring various Band 12 implementation approaches with its chipset and OEM partners and AT&T may pursue the most efficient solutions available based on evolving network and device capabilities on a technology neutral basis.

• During the first year of the device roll-out period, 50% of all new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands, as identified by unique SKU numbers, introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. Memory or color finish variations on a single device shall not be considered separate unique SKUs. Machine-to-Machine (M-to-M) devices shall not be counted as “new unique devices” for purposes of this commitment.

• During the second year of the device roll-out period, 75% of new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands, as identified by unique SKU numbers, introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. Memory or color finish variations on a single device shall not be considered separate unique SKUs. M-to-M devices shall not be counted as new unique devices for purposes of this commitment.

• Commencing at the conclusion of the second year of the device roll-out period, all new unique devices that operate on the paired Lower 700 MHz bands introduced by AT&T into its device portfolio will be Band 12 capable devices. In addition, from that time forward, AT&T must ensure that its specifications for all new devices that are designed to operate in the paired Lower 700 MHz frequencies, including M-to-M devices, will call for Band 12 capability. However, M-to-M devices shall not be counted as new unique devices for purposes of this commitment.

• The commitments outlined above apply to all new unique data-capable devices that connect to or provide connectivity on AT&T's paired Lower 700 MHz FDD network. AT&T's commitment shall not extend to any devices that are uniquely designed to operate on spectrum bands licensed for use by AT&T that are not in the paired Lower 700 MHz bands. AT&T reserves the express right to support devices that do not operate in the paired Lower 700 MHz bands.

• To demonstrate progress on its commitments, AT&T shall submit comprehensive written reports and meet with the Commission staff at each of 12 months, 18 months and 24 months from the date of its September 10, 2013 commitment letter that will provide information on AT&T's progress toward meeting these commitments. Additionally, AT&T shall provide comprehensive written reports at 28 months, 40 months and 46 months to report on progress during the device roll-out period, and it shall file a certification to the Commission at the end of the device roll-out period to certify final completion of these commitments within 30 days.

• Fulfillment of these commitments will require the implementation of new functionality in AT&T's paired Lower 700 MHz network as well as collaboration with AT&T's chipset and OEM partners and vendors. AT&T will use its best efforts to proceed diligently to complete the activities necessary to fulfill its commitments. However, if at any time, AT&T encounters obstacles beyond its control that threaten its ability to meet these commitments, or undermine the quality of the service it is providing on its network, AT&T may so inform the Commission and seek an extension of time or a waiver as appropriate.

• Consistent with these commitments, AT&T anticipates that its focus and advocacy within the 3GPP standards setting process will shift to Band 12 related projects and work streams. AT&T must place priority within the 3GPP RAN committee on the development of various Band 12 carrier aggregation scenarios. Upon completing implementation of the MFBI feature, AT&T anticipates that its focus on new standards related to the paired Lower 700 MHz spectrum will be almost exclusively on Band 12 configurations, features and capabilities. AT&T may seek revisions and updates to Band 17 standards to the extent necessary to support legacy Band 17 devices and continuing Band 17 functionality on its network. As discussed above, AT&T's commitments were premised on final resolution of the E Block interference issues. By this Order, the Commission modifies the E Block technical rules to address the E Block interference issues. AT&T has reserved the right to declare its commitments null and void if those modifications are not adopted by December 31, 2013, or if adopted but subject to appellate review. Because resolution of the E Block interference issue has always been essential to a resolution of the interoperability issue, any order of modification of AT&T's licenses pursuant to the terms of the foregoing proposal shall become effective only at such time as the changes adopted today to the technical rules applicable to E Block operations become final and unappealable. In the event that AT&T elects to declare its commitments null and void, the Commission continues to retain all its authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to adopt any rules or further orders in this proceeding necessary or appropriate to promote interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band.

68. The Commission finds that the proposed license modifications will serve the public interest by establishing a clear path toward interoperability for the Lower 700 MHz band. Resolving the lack of interoperability is an important objective for the Commission and the Commission intends to remain vigilant to ensure that AT&T follows through with its commitments and transitions to interoperability in an efficient manner.

69. The Commission finds that it has the legal authority to adopt these proposed modifications to AT&T's licenses. Section 316 of the Act authorizes the Commission to “modif[y]” existing licenses when taking such action will “promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Title III provides the Commission with broad authority to manage spectrum and endows the Commission with “expansive powers” and a “comprehensive mandate to ‘encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.' ” Section 303 of the Act, authorizes the Commission to exercise its authority as “the public interest, convenience, and necessity requires” to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any class.”

70. The Commission finds that these provisions give it ample authority to adopt the proposed modifications to AT&T's B and C Block licenses, which track AT&T's commitments and which the Commission finds to be in the public interest. Specifically, the Commission finds that, pursuant to its authority under Title III, the proposed modifications described above will “promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity” by promoting competition and consumer choice among mobile broadband service providers for innovative services (both initially and in switching to higher quality or lower cost offerings), promoting the widespread deployment of 4G networks (particularly in rural and unserved areas), and strengthening the ability of providers to offer consumers nationwide coverage. Establishing interoperability will remove barriers to infrastructure investment for mobile broadband services and increase spectrum utilization among Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees.

71. In accordance with section 316(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, and § 1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, the Commission will not issue a modification order(s) until AT&T has received notice of the Commission's proposed action and has had an opportunity to protest. The Commission directs the staff to send the R&O and Order by certified mail, return receipt requested to AT&T. Pursuant to section 316(a)(1) of the Act and § 1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, receipt of the R&O and Order by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of its Order of Proposed Modification proposing to modify AT&T's B and C Block licenses and of the grounds and reasons therefor. AT&T shall have until January 15, 2014 to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. For the reasons discussed throughout the R&O and Order, the Commission finds that it will serve the public interest to adopt the voluntary industry solution that will provide interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. To effectuate the terms of the industry agreement, the Commission concludes that it is reasonable to allow AT&T until January 15, 2014 to protest the proposed license modifications. To protest the proposed modifications, AT&T must, by January 15, 2014 submit a written statement with sufficient evidence to show that the modification would not be in the public interest. The protest must be filed in the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) under WT Docket No. 12-69 or with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Room TW-A235, Washington, DC 20554; and the protesting party must send a copy of the protest via electronic mail to Jennifer Salhus of the Spectrum Competition and Policy Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at Jennifer.Salhus@fcc.gov. Once the protest period has lapsed, AT&T's right to file a protest expires, and the Commission may modify the licenses as noticed.

72. The Commission delegates to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau the authority to issue a license modification order for AT&T's B and C Block licenses, but the Bureau's delegation of authority does not extend to any modification of AT&T's B and C Block licenses that is materially different from the provisions in paragraphs 67 through 70 above.

73. Ex Parte Status. Unless otherwise provided by the Commission or its staff pursuant to § 1.1200(a), a license modification proceeding under Title III of the Communications Act is treated as a restricted proceeding for ex parte purposes under § 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. In this case, the license modification proceedings are related to the above-captioned rulemaking proceeding, WT Docket No. 12-69, which is designated as a permit but disclose proceeding under the ex parte rules. Due to the interrelated nature of these proceedings, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to treat the license modification proceedings as permit but disclose proceedings under § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, any ex parte presentations that are made with respect to the issues involved in the subject license modification proceedings subsequent to the release of this Order of Proposed Modification will be permissible but must be disclosed in accordance with the requirements of § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's 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 the Commission, 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). For administrative convenience only, any filings related to this Order of Proposed Modification must be filed in WT Docket No. 12-69 and may be filed using the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/2d. 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.

74. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Interoperability NPRM. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

75. The Commission finds that it would serve the public interest to analyze the possible significant economic impact of the policy and rule changes in the 700 MHz band on small entities. Accordingly, this FRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with the technical rule changes that fall within the scope of the Report and Order.

76. The R&O and Order takes steps to implement an industry solution to provide interoperable long term evolution (LTE) service in the Lower 700 MHz band in an efficient and effective manner to improve choice and quality for consumers of mobile services. The public interest benefits of the steps taken in the Report and Order will assist consumers and the economies in rural areas, as well as for small and regional businesses that operate there. Small or regional providers serving rural areas drive economic growth in these rural areas, directly, by investing in their networks and creating jobs, and indirectly, by enabling the growth of other small businesses. But in order to promote competition—and enable small business customers of 700 MHz band licensees to operate successfully in the 21st century—these licensees need to be able to offer service choices, including the potential for nationwide coverage through roaming, comparable to those offered by the national providers. Interoperability of LTE service in the Lower 700 MHz band will remove an unnecessary barrier to the successful operation of businesses that can drive economic growth, promote competitive service, and create jobs in rural America.

77. To effectuate the industry solution, the Report and Order addresses interference concerns that have been raised as possible obstacles to interoperability. It finds that, under the current rules, there is a significant threat of harmful interference from high power transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to Band Class 12 devices operating on the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks that could jeopardize the viability of interoperability in the band. The Report and Order therefore revises the technical rules applicable to the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks by reducing the maximum permissible power levels and antenna heights on these blocks. It also modifies the rules to limit all operations in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to downlink only. The Report and Order also provides that Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may operate particular sites at power levels higher than permitted under the revised rules under certain specified conditions. The Report and Order finds these changes to be in the public interest because, without them, the public would not be able to realize the substantial benefits of mobile broadband deployment and interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The technical changes the Report and Order adopts will continue to enable the six megahertz of unpaired Lower 700 MHz E Block spectrum to be put to commercial use while facilitating effective and efficient use of 36 megahertz of the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Blocks for mobile broadband services.

78. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

79. 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 rules adopted herein. 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 Small Business Administration (SBA).

80. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration. As of 2009, small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA. Additionally, a small organization is generally any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term small governmental jurisdiction is defined generally as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as small governmental jurisdictions. Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

81. Wireless Telecommunications Carrier (Except Satellite) This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it had 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 11,163 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 10,791 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Services (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

82. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. The Commission defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses—entrepreneur—which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was conducted in 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.

83. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and E block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008. Twenty winning bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years).

84. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as an industry that comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had fewer than 500 employees and 27 had more than 500 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

85. The Report and Order will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small entities. As described in Section A of this FRFA, to minimize interference and enable interoperability, the Report and Order revises the technical rules applicable to the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks by reducing the maximum permissible power levels and antenna heights on these blocks. It also modifies the rules to limit all operations in the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks to downlink only. The Report and Order also provides that Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may operate particular sites at power levels higher than permitted under the revised rules under certain specified conditions.

86. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in developing its 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.

87. The changes to the rules will benefit small or regional wireless providers serving rural areas by facilitating Lower 700 MHz A Block operations because LTE service provided on the A Block would otherwise likely be subject to harmful interference from high-power operations in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. In particular, mobile devices operating near a Lower E Block transmitter but far from their serving LTE base stations face a substantial risk of receiving harmful interference from E Block transmitters. The potential for this interference would exist because of vastly different radio propagation characteristics between the high-powered Lower 700 MHz E Block and lower powered A Block LTE systems, and such interference would result in significant degradation of service to A Block operations in areas close to high-powered E Block transmitters. Accordingly, the changes to the technical rules will facilitate Lower A Block licensees' ability to provision mobile broadband LTE services to consumers in all of the paired Lower 700 MHz bands without significant service degradation.

88. In revising the technical rules for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks, the Commission carefully considered the various benefits identified in the record, and the costs for Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees that would be associated with a new rule. The Commission considered alternative actions, including maintaining the current technical rules, but determined that modifying the power limits and antenna height restrictions for the Lower 700 MHz D and E Blocks would enable Lower 700 MHz interoperability by resolving concerns about interference from high-powered transmissions. The Report and Order provides flexibility for licensees by indicating that Lower 700 MHz D and E Block licensees may operate particular sites at power levels higher than permitted under the revised rules under certain specified conditions.

89. In addition, to minimize the impact of the changes in the technical rules, the Report and Order waives the construction requirements, extending the construction benchmark deadlines for Lower 700 MHz A, B, and E Block licensees. The Report and Order concludes that waiving the construction requirements will allow licensees to make appropriate business decisions regarding build-out and to meet the construction benchmark deadlines.

90. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

91. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

92. It is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1), and §§ 1.87 and 1.401 et seq. of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.87, 1.401 et seq., the R&O and Order is adopted.

93. It is further proposed, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 316, and § 1.87 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.87, that AT&T's 700 MHz B and C Blocks licenses be modified consistent with Section IV (Order of Proposed Modification) of the R&O and Order. Pursuant to section 316(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1), and § 1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.87(a), receipt of the R&O and Order by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of our Order of Proposed Modification that proposes to modify AT&T's Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licenses and of the grounds and reasons therefor, and AT&T shall have until January 15, 2014 to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is delegated authority to issue an order of modification if no protests are filed.

94. It is further ordered that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau shall send the R&O and Order by certified mail, return receipt requested to AT&T.

95. It is further ordered that the license modification proceeding commenced by the Order of Proposed Modification shall be treated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding under the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.

96. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g), the Commission grants a limited waiver of § 24.14(g) and extends the interim construction benchmark deadline until December 13, 2016, for all active Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees. Accordingly, the pending requests for extension and waiver of § 27.14(g) of the Commission's rules filed by Lower 700 MHz A and B Block are granted to the extent described herein and are otherwise denied.

97. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g), the Commission waives, on its motion, the interim construction benchmark deadline in § 27.14(g) of the Commission's rules for each active Lower 700 MHz A Block licensee where a 108 km radius around a Channel 51 transmitter overlaps at least a portion of the license's market area (overlap) and either: (1) 30 percent or more of the geographic license area is within that overlap; or (2) less than 30 percent of the geographic license area is within that overlap but more than two-thirds of the population is within that overlap.

98. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(l) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(l), the Commission grants, on its own motion, a waiver of the requirement in § 24.14(l) for all active Lower 700 MHz band A and B Block licensees subject to the extended interim construction benchmark deadline to file a second status report regarding the licensees' efforts to meet the performance requirements applicable to their spectrum authorizations, except that Lower 700 MHz band A block licensees subject to a waiver of the interim construction benchmark deadline because of Channel 51 interference protection requirements shall remain subject to the § 27.14(l) requirement to file a second status report no later than June 13, 2016.

99. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g), the Commission grants a limited waiver of § 24.14(g) to extend the interim construction benchmark deadline until March 7, 2017, for all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees and, on its motion, extend the end-of-term construction benchmark deadline until March 7, 2021, for all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees. Accordingly, the pending requests for extension and waiver of § 27.14(g) of the Commission's rules filed by Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees are granted to the extent described herein and are otherwise denied.

100. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.13(b) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.13(b), the Commission grants, on its own motion, a waiver of § 24.13(b) and waive the ten year license period and extend the license term until March 7, 2021, for all active Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees.

101. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g), the Commission grants, on its own motion, a limited waiver of § 24.14(g) to allow all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees to meet their interim construction benchmark deadline by providing signal coverage and offering service to at least 40 percent of its total E Block population (where a licensee's total E Block population shall by calculated by summing the population of each its license areas in the E Block), and to meet their end-of-term construction benchmark by providing signal coverage to at least 70 percent of the population in each of its license areas, as an alternative to meeting geographic-based performance requirements.

102. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(g), the Commission grants, on its own motion, a limited waiver of § 24.14(g) so that all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees that fail to meet the interim construction benchmark deadline will have the term of that license authorization reduced by one year.

103. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(l) of Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.925, and 27.14(l), the Commission grants, on its own motion, a limited waiver of the filing requirement in § 27.14(l), to extend the deadline until March 7, 2019, for all active Lower 700 MHz band E Block licensees to file a second status report regarding the licensees' efforts to meet the performance requirements applicable to their spectrum authorizations.

104. It is further ordered that part 27 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth, effective December 5, 2013, except as otherwise provided herein.

105. It is further ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis hereto IS ADOPTED.

106. It is further ordered that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

107. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 27 as follows: