This rulemaking is issued under Marketing Order No. 905, amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Florida citrus handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable citrus beginning on August 1, 2012, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0072 to $0.008 per4/5bushel carton of citrus.

The Florida citrus marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Florida citrus. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2007-08 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on July 17, 2012, and unanimously recommended 2012-13 expenditures of $223,500 and an assessment rate of $0.008 per4/5bushel carton of citrus. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were also $223,500. The assessment rate of $0.008 is $0.0008 higher than the rate currently in effect.

The Committee estimates 2012-2013 production to be approximately 27.3 million4/5bushel cartons, down from the 29.5 million4/5bushel cartons estimated for last year. At the currentassessment rate, assessment income would equal only $196,560, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. The assessment rate increase would generate additional revenue and would help offset the amount of reserves needed to fund the budget. Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2012-13 year include $116,200 for salaries, $25,000 for Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) manifesting, and $18,250 for a retirement plan. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2011-12 were the same as recommended for 2012-13 budgeted expenditures, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by reviewing anticipated expenses, expected shipments of Florida citrus, interest income, and available reserves. Citrus shipments for the year are estimated at 27.3 million4/5bushel cartons which should provide $218,400 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (approximately $34,000) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of not to exceed one half of one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 905.42.

The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2012-13 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 45 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 8,000 producers of citrus in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual f.o.b. price for fresh Florida citrus during the 2010-11 season was approximately $12.16 per4/5bushel carton, and total fresh shipments were approximately 30.4 million cartons. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, about 55 percent of the Florida citrus handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Florida citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers and producers of Florida citrus may be classified as small entities.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0072 to $0.008 per4/5bushel carton of citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2012-13 expenditures of $223,500 and an assessment rate of $0.008 per4/5bushel carton of citrus. The proposed assessment rate of $0.008 is $0.0008 higher than the 2011-12 rate. The quantity of assessable citrus for the 2012-13 season is estimated at 27.3 million cartons. Thus, the $0.008 rate should provide $218,400 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve fund, would be adequate to meet this year's anticipated expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2012-13 year include $116,200 for salaries, $25,000 for Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) manifesting, and $18,250 for a retirement plan. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2011-12 were the same as recommended for 2012-13 budgeted expenditures, respectively.

As previously stated, the Committee estimates the 2012-2013 production to be approximately 27.3 million4/5bushel cartons, down from the 29.5 million4/5bushel cartons estimated for last year. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal only $196,560, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. The assessment rate increase would generate additional revenue and would help offset the amount of reserves needed to fund the budget. Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate.

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2012-13 expenditures of $223,500. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from the Committee's Executive Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by this group. The assessment rate of $0.008 per4/5bushel carton of citrus was then determined by reviewing anticipated expenses, total expected shipments of citrus, interest income, and the available reserves. The increased assessment rate should provide $218,400 in assessment income. This is approximately $5,100 below the anticipated expenses, which the Committee determined to be acceptable.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2012-13 season could range between $3.83 and $10.13 per4/5bushel carton of citrus. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2012-13 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between .08 and .2 percent.

This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation ofthe marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 17, 2012, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously-mentioned address in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

A 10-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Ten days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2012-13 fiscal period began on August 1, 2012, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable citrus handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to be amended as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your commentsto an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0013; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-046-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2012-0155, dated August 20, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Grob Aircraft has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-186/3, dated August 3, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 0 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $372 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $627 per product.

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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security, and 49 U.S.C. 44732(d), which requires the Administrator to issue a final rule to carry out the prohibition of personal use of electronic devices on the flight deck by flightcrew members.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was enacted on February 14, 2012. Section 307 of the Act, Prohibition on Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck, makes it “unlawful for a flight crewmember of an aircraft used to provide air transportation under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to use a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer while at the flight crewmember's duty station on the flight deck of such an aircraft while the aircraft is being operated.” The legislation also states that this prohibition does not apply to the use of a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer for a purpose directly related to operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, or employment-related communications, in accordance with procedures established by the air carrier and the FAA. The FAA is proposing to amend part 121 to conform to this legislation. The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR 121.542 to add language to prohibit flightcrew members operating under part 121 from using a personal wireless communications device or a laptop computer for personal use while at their duty station on the flight deck while the aircraft is being operated. The amended regulatory language will clarify that the prohibition on use of a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer does not apply to the use of a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer for a purpose directly related to the operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, or employment-related communications, in accordance with procedures established by the air carrier and approved by the FAA.

In 1981, the FAA published the Elimination of Duties and Activities of Flightcrew Members Not Required for the Safe Operation of Aircraft Final Rule.1 This rule, better known as the “Sterile Cockpit” rule, required air carriers operating under parts 121 and 135, as well as flightcrew members in those operations, to ensure that the environment on the flight deck was free from potentially dangerous distractions. The final rule states that air carriers shall not require their flightcrew members to perform non-safety related duties during critical phases of flight and that flightcrew members shall not conduct non-safety related activities which could cause distractions on the flight deck during critical phases of flight. In addition, the rule further states that the pilot-in-command shall not permit any activity during a critical phase of flight which would distract flightcrew members from the performance of their duties which, in effect, extends the sterile cockpit provisions to other crewmembers, such as flight attendants.

The 1981 rule defines the critical phases of flight as all ground operations involving taxi, take-off and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight.

The personal use of personal wireless communications devices and laptop computers for non-safety related activities is prohibited by the broad restrictions in the current “Sterile Cockpit” rule during ground operations involving taxi, take-off and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet. The proposed requirements in this NPRM would extend the prohibition on personal use of personal wireless communications devices and laptop computers to all phases of flight.

Several recent incidents involving a breakdown of sterile cockpit discipline have prompted Congress to address this issue in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. In one instance, two pilots were using their personal laptop computers during cruise flight and lost situational awareness, leading to a 150 mile fly-by of their destination. In another instance, a pilot sent a text message on her personal cell phone during the taxi phase of the flight, after the aircraft pushed back from the gate and before the take-off sequence. These incidents illustrate the potential for such devices to create a hazardous distraction during critical phases of flight.

This rule is intended to ensure that certain non-essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck and do not contribute to a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non-essential activities, as the previously discussed incidents highlight. Situational awareness is an attention based phenomenon that reflects the flightcrew's knowledge of where the aircraft is in regard to location, air traffic control, weather, regulations, aircraft status, and other factors. A lack of situational awareness can affect a pilot's ability to perform effectively regarding aircraft handling, aircraft systems, aircraft mode awareness, environmental hazards, standard operating procedures, and attention to required tasks. When loss of situational awareness occurs, there can be critical consequences, such as missing information from one source when concentrating on another source, altitude or course deviations, dominance of visual cues to the extent that pilots may not hear certain aural warnings, misinterpreting ATC instructions, or experiencing task overload.

An individual can lose situational awareness due to attentional tunneling and attention to non-essential activities. Attentional tunneling is becoming absorbed in a task to the exclusion of other visual and aural inputs, and is also a factor in the breakdown of task management. This is operationallydescribed as “the allocation of attention to a particular channel of information, diagnostic hypothesis, or task goal, for a duration that is longer than optimal, given the expected cost of neglecting events on other channels, failing to consider other hypotheses, or failing to perform other tasks.”2

The “party” situation, when a person at a loud crowded party usually listens to one conversation and can easily ignore all others, is a commonplace example of attentional tunneling.3 In some ways, attentional tunneling helps people handle a situation with a high number of visual and aural inputs. However, it can also block important visual and aural information. Because flightcrew members must attend to many safety-related tasks during aircraft operations and must manage those tasks effectively, attentional tunneling can introduce risks into the system.

Additionally, flightcrew members could lose situational awareness when a personal electronic device used on the flight deck is inconsistent with the type certified flight deck design philosophy. The inconsistency could provide distraction, confusion, and ultimately contribute to a loss of situational awareness.4

In its recommendations to the FAA regarding the Colgan accident in 2009, the NTSB concluded that because of the continuing number of accidents involving a breakdown in sterile cockpit discipline, collaborative action by the FAA and the aviation industry to promptly address this issue was warranted.

Therefore, the NTSB recommended (A-10-30) that the FAA require all part 121, 135, and 91K operators to incorporate explicit guidance to pilots, including checklist reminders as appropriate, prohibiting the use of personal portable electronic devices on the flight deck.5

In response to NTSB recommendation A-10-30, the FAA issued Information for Operators (InFO) 10003, Cockpit Distractions, on April 26, 2010. The NTSB responded that this action did not fully address the recommendation because the InFO was advisory only.6 With this proposed rulemaking, the FAA will amend current regulations to prohibit the use of personal wireless communications devices and laptop computers by flightcrew members during all aircraft operations to address this type of distraction on the flight deck.

The proposed requirements would prohibit the personal use of a personal wireless communications device or laptop computer while a flightcrew member is at his or her duty station during all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations. The proposed rule does not prohibit the use of personal wireless communications devices or laptop computers if the purpose is directly related to operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, or employment-related communications and the use is in accordance with air carrier procedures approved by the Administrator.

The FAA clarifies that “emergency” communications are those related to the safe operation of the aircraft and its occupants, not a flightcrew member's personal emergency. Additionally, the FAA clarifies that “employment-related” communications are not at the discretion of the pilot but are part of FAA approved operational procedures regarding the use of personal wireless communications devices or laptop computers. For example, in the previously noted situation with pilots who became distracted when using a personal laptop while discussing the air carrier's flight scheduling software, the flight schedules may have been “employment-related,” but the personal use of laptop computers during the discussion was not part of FAA approved operational procedures and would be prohibited by the proposed rule.

Several air carriers currently have FAA approved programs or are in the process of developing programs for FAA approval where laptop computers and personal wireless communications devices, such as tablets, are used by flightcrew members for work related activities during flight operations. In some cases, air carriers own the laptop computers and/or personal wireless communications devices used by flightcrew members. In other cases, flightcrew members own the laptop computer and/or personal wireless communications devices.

The FAA clarifies that the provisions of the proposed rule do not require an “ownership” test regarding the laptop computer or personal wireless communications device. These devices can be owned by the air carrier or the flightcrew member. The provisions of the proposed rule require a “use” test. These devices (regardless of who owns them) may not be used for personal use (e.g. personal communications, personal emails, leisure activities, etc) while the flightcrew member is at his or her duty station while the aircraft is being operated.

Section 307 of the Act states that it is unlawful to use a device for personal use “while the aircraft is being operated”. The meaning of an “aircraft being operated” as it pertains to some FAA regulations is very broad, to include being parked at the gate while passengers are boarding. The FAA clarifies that for the purposes of this rule, the meaning of an “aircraft being operated” mirrors the definition of “flight time” in 14 CFR 1.1. Therefore, the prohibition on the personal use of laptop computers and personal wireless devices commences at taxi (movement of the aircraft under its own power) and ends when the aircraft is parked at the gate at the end of the flight segment.

Section 307 of the Act defines “personal wireless communications device” as a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934) are transmitted.7 The Communications Act of 1934 states that personal wireless services means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access service.

In general, wireless telecommunications is the transfer of information between two or more points that are not physically connected. In the proposed rule, the FAA retains the same broad category because a list of specific devices would ignore the reality of evolving technology. This broad category of devices includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cell phones,smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, gaming systems, netbook computers, and notebook computers.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.

The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, enacted on February 14, 2012, includes Section 307, Prohibition on Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck. The FAA is proposing to amend part 121 to conform to this legislation. The proposed rule would prohibit flightcrew members in operations under part 121 from using a wireless communications device or laptop computer for personal use while at their duty station on the flight deck while the aircraft is being operated. This proposed rule is intended to ensure that certain non-essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck and do not contribute to a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non-essential activities. The FAA expects that this proposed rule reflects current sterile cockpit operating procedures and therefore does not impose more than a minimum cost on any regulated entity.

The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was enacted on February 14, 2012. Section 307 of the Act, Prohibition on Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck, the FAA is proposing to amend part 121 to conform to this legislation. The proposed rule would prohibit flightcrew members in operations under part 121 from using a wireless communications device or laptop computer for personal use while at their duty station on the flight deck while the aircraft is being operated. This rule is intended to ensure that certain non-essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck and do not contribute to a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non-essential activities. While this proposed rule affects small entities, it merely revises existing FAA rules and does not impose any cost on any regulated entity.

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no affect on international trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

See the “Regulatory Evaluation” discussion in the “Regulatory Notices and Analyses” section elsewhere in this preamble.

The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenter's should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policiesor

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page athttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

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

All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online athttp://www.regulations.gov,or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number USCG-2012-0552 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,type the docket number USCG-2012-0552 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our 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.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before January 20, 2012 using one of the methods specified underADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship.

On June 1, 2013, Game One Sports Marketing Group is hosting the West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship. The races will be held on the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway, in West Palm Beach, Florida. Approximately 1,500 participants are anticipated to participate in the triathlons. No spectator vessels are anticipated to be present during the races.

The special local regulation encompasses certain navigable waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in West Palm Beach, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on June 1, 2013. All persons and vessels, except those participating in the races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,and on-scene designated representatives.

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

This proposed 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.

The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced for a maximum of two hours; (2) non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas during the respective enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; (3) non-participant persons and vessels not authorized to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas may operate in the surrounding areas during the respective enforcement period; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the special local regulation from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on June 1, 2013. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed 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 proposed 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 theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a marine event. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

This proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was published in theFederal Registeron February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site:www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.

Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training methods to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2013 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award using this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

Invitation to Comment:We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing thenotice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record:On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program:The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, are to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.

An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at:www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.

Program Authority:29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).

Applicable Program Regulations:34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority:

This notice contains one proposed priority.

DRRP on Inclusive Cloud and Web Computing.

Background:

The World Wide Web (Web) has become a fundamental tool for employment, education, civic participation, entertainment, and purchase of goods and services. However, participation in such activities on the Web for people with disabilities lags behind that for the general population. For example, Web use often requires broadband access, but the National Broadband Plan states that only 42 percent of people with disabilities use broadband at home, compared to 65 percent of people nationwide (Federal Communications Commission, 2010).

One reason for this disparity is that the Web infrastructure is not set up to address disability access issues seamlessly across all of its functions (Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure, n.d.). Additionally, software and devices (e.g., computer, smart phone, tablet) used to access the Web are often inaccessible for people with disabilities, and individuals with disabilities have limited access to technical assistance with selecting, setting up, and using appropriate technologies. Furthermore, people with disabilities often are required to purchase separate accessibility software and assistive devices for each device they use to access the Web, which adds to the economic burden of Web use by people with disabilities (Lyle, 2010).

Cloud computing, a technology used to store, access, and process information on the Web, has the potential to enhance Web participation by people with disabilities by providing an infrastructure that better supports accessibility for this population. International efforts are underway to develop a cloud-based infrastructure for the Web that includes options for disability access within its general structure—a change from the current, more inaccessible structure, where individuals with disabilities must set up their personal Web-enabled devices (e.g., smartphones) to meet their specific needs. The goal of this effort is to enable individuals with disabilities to log onto any Web-enabled device and have their user profiles and accessibility needs automatically recognized and appropriate tools activated, which would reduce the need for individuals to set up assistive technologies on each Web-enabled device they use. Three international projects addressing this need are described at Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (n.d.), Cloud4all (n.d.), and Fluid (n.d.).

In order to support this effort, NIDRR has identified some (but not all) of the research questions that must be answered (see Table 1), together with possible computer science approaches to addressing them. Answering these and other relevant questions successfully will require collaboration between people with disabilities and experts in both disability and computer science fields relevant to cloud and Web accessibility and structure.

Proposed Priority:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) on Inclusive Cloud and Web computing. The DRRP must contribute to the development of an inclusive cloud and Web infrastructure that incorporates options for disability access within its general structure.

To contribute to this initiative, the DRRP must—

(1) Identify, design, prototype, and assess promising methods and systems for, and technical approaches to designing, a cloud and Web infrastructure that addresses the needs of individuals with disabilities. The DRRP must address at least one of the research questions outlined in Table 1 above. Applicants may also choose to address additional research questions not reflected in Table 1. In that case, the application must fully explain how work on the additional topic or topics proposed by the applicant will advance disability access in cloud and Web infrastructure design.

(2) Conduct knowledge translation activities (e.g., training, technical assistance, dissemination, collaboration) in order to facilitate use of the research results by key stakeholders (e.g., individuals with disabilities, computer scientists, other researchers and software developers working on accessibility technology, policy makers, international partners).

(3) Demonstrate meaningful involvement by key stakeholder groups (e.g., individuals with disabilities, computer scientists, software developers and researchers working on accessibility technology, policy makers, international partners) in order to maximize the relevance and usability of the research conducted under this priority. Involvement may include, but is not limited to, participation in a multidisciplinary research team, advisory board, focus group, or other participatory action research method.

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 theFederal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority:Under an absolute priority, we consider only applicationsthat 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)).

Final Priority:

We will announce the final priority in a notice in theFederal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program have been well established over the years, as projects similar to the one envisioned by the proposed priority have been completed successfully. Establishing a new DRRP based on the proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and development and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new DRRP would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Intergovernmental Review:This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format:Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document:The official version of this document is the document published in theFederal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of theFederal Registerand the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at:www.gpo.gov/fdsys.At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in theFederal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:www.federalregister.gov.Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved Long-Range Plan (Plan). The currently approved Plan, which was published in theFederal Registeron February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8166), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site:http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-1/021506d.pdf.

Through the implementation of the currently approved Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a DRRP competition in FY 2013 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award using this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

Invitation to Comment:We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5133, 550 12th Street, SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record:On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program:The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, and to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, are to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance.

Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at:www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.

Program Authority:29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).

Applicable Program Regulations:34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority:

This notice contains one proposed priority.

DRRP to Serve as the Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer (Center).

Background:

Knowledge translation (KT) is a process to ensure that new knowledge and products gained through research and development will ultimately be used to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and further their participation in society. Technology transfer is a subset of knowledge translation that focuses on ensuring thattechnology-based knowledge and products will be transferred into tangible benefits for individuals with disabilities through commercialization, engineering standards, freeware, and other tangible applications.

Under section 200(3) of the Rehabilitation Act, NIDRR is charged with promoting the transfer of rehabilitation technology to individuals with disabilities. NIDRR carries out this responsibility through the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs. NIDRR has long required RERCs to develop technology transfer plans. In analyzing grantee performance information, NIDRR determined that it would be useful to provide technical assistance to grantees to improve the rates of technology transfer. NIDRR's concerns were supported by findings from a recent retrospective case study analysis indicating that, while a majority of development projects supported by RERC grants result in prototypes, only a quarter of those projects have evidence of transfer into broader uses (Lane, 2008). More information on technology research funded by NIDRR can be found at:www.naric.com/research/pd/results.cfm?type=priority&display=detailed&criteria=Technology for Access and Function.

Transfer of rehabilitation technology products is often difficult because of the small market for each product. Often, the broader technology transfer field does not provide guidance that is directly applicable to technology transfer in the rehabilitation technology area. Thus, there is a need to continue to build a body of knowledge that will advance understanding and practices of technology transfer for rehabilitation technology products.

To support, promote, and improve the technology transfer of its RERC, SBIR, and other technology grantees, NIDRR will fund a Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.

References:

Proposed Priority:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services establishes a priority for a Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project to serve as the Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer (Center). The Center must conduct rigorous research, development, technical assistance, dissemination, and utilization activities to increase successful technology transfer of rehabilitation technology products and devices developed by NIDRR-funded technology grantees.

In planning and conducting all activities, the Center must partner with relevant stakeholders such as NIDRR's technology grantees, trade and professional associations, industry representatives, individuals with disabilities, and others.

Under this priority, the Center must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) Increased rate of successful technology transfer of rehabilitation technology products developed by NIDRR-funded technology grantees to the marketplace, into engineering standards, or into other intended applications;

(b) Increased understanding among rehabilitation engineers and others engaged in disability research and development of technology transfer processes and practices that lead to successful transfer of rehabilitation technology products to the marketplace, into engineering standards, or into other intended applications;

(c) Increased capacity of NIDRR's technology grantees to plan and to engage in technology transfer activities.

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 theFederal 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)).

Final Priority:

We will announce the final priority in a notice in theFederal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives andtaking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed priority would generate new knowledge through research and development. Another benefit of this proposed priority is that the establishment of new DRRPs would improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new DRRP would generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

Intergovernmental Review:This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format:Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document:The official version of this document is the document published in theFederal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of theFederal Registerand the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at:www.gpo.gov/fdsys.At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in theFederal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in theFederal Registerby using the article search feature at:www.federalregister.gov.Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 07-294, FCC 12-166, adopted December 21, 2012, and released January 3, 2013. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) and may be purchased from the Commissions copy contractor, BCPI, Inc. at their Web sitehttp://www.bcpi.comor call 1-800 378-3160.

ThisNotice of Proposed Rulemakingmay result in a new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in theFederal Registerinviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the commission seeks further comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

1. In thisSixth FNPRM,we seek further comment on the Commission's requirement that licensees and other entities filing the FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Station, provide an FCC Registration Number (FRN) generated by the Commission's Registration System (CORES) (CORES FRN) for attributable individuals reported on Form 323. Obtaining a CORES FRN requires users to identify themselves uniquely. This unique identification is achieved by requiring users to submit their taxpayer identification number (TIN), which for entities is generally their employer identification number (EIN) and for individuals is generally their social security number (SSN). As discussed below, unique identification of entities and individuals filing and being reported on Form 323 is crucial to ensuring the accuracy and reliability of Form 323 data and the usefulness of those data to the Commission and other researchers.

2. We seek comment herein also on eliminating the interim, “Special Use” FRN alternative to obtaining a CORES FRN for individuals reported on Form 323. The Commission has long required licensees and other entities filing Form 323 to obtain and provide a CORES FRN. The revised Form 323, adopted in 2009 pursuant to the323 Order,74 FR 25163 (2009), and the323 MO&O,74 FR 56131 (2009) in this proceeding, requires filers to obtain and include a CORES FRN not only for themselves but also for entities and individuals whose attributable interests are reported on the form. Two parties sought reconsideration of the requirement to obtain CORES FRNs for individuals holding attributable interests, arguing that the CORES FRN requirement for individuals is overly burdensome and raises privacy and data security issues and that the Commission provided inadequate notice of this requirement. To address the concerns of the petitioners and others who raised this issue in comments, the Media Bureau implemented a “Special Use” FRN as an alternative, temporary measure to obtaining a CORES FRN for individuals holding attributable interests reported on the form. The Special Use FRN allows Form 323 filers to obtain an FRN for use with Form 323 for such individuals without submitting a TIN through CORES. As a rule, all filers must provide an FRN for all persons and entities reported on Form 323. If, after using diligent and good-faith efforts, a filer is unable to obtain or does not have permission to use an SSN in order to generate an FRN for an individual holding an attributable interest in the licensee, the filer may use the Special Use FRN. Filers who use a non-SSN based Special Use FRN will be deemed fully compliant with the Form 323 filing obligation for purposes of the 323 filing, and the lack of SSN-based FRNs in response to Section II, Question 3(a) and will not subject Respondents to enforcement action. We now seek comment on eliminating this temporary measure. We also seek comment on our proposal to permit filers to use a Special Use FRN solely in instances where the filer is unable to obtain a CORES FRN from an individual with reportable interests.

3. In addition, we seek comment on our proposal to amend the Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station, to require filers to report a CORES FRN for individuals with attributable interests in licensees reported on this form. Further, we seek comment on whether we should extend the CORES FRN requirements, as they apply to entities and individuals, to any non-attributable interest holders that we might ultimately conclude should be reported on Form 323, as proposed in theFifth FNPRM.Finally, we seek comment on our proposal to extend the biennial ownership report filing period and on the proposed revisions to Form 323 submitted in comments in theReview of Media Bureau Data Practicesproceeding.

4. It has been a longstanding goal of the Commission to promote diverse ownership of broadcast stations, including ownership by women and minorities. In order to gather accurate and usable data about these and other ownership categories, the Commission substantially revised its biennial ownership reporting form in 2009. As the Commission previously has stated, the changes to the filing requirements and the modifications to the form are intended to facilitate long-term comparative studies of broadcast station ownership. In addition, the changes address flaws in the data collection process identified by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) and by researchers who have attempted to use the data submitted on previous versions of Form 323. In 2008, GAO cited several shortcomings with the Commission's data collection process: (1) Exemptions from the biennial filing requirement for certain types of broadcast stations; (2) inadequate data quality procedures; and (3) problems with data storage and retrieval. To address GAO's concerns and to improve the quality and suitability of the data for the Commission's use, the Commission adopted several significant changes. First, it set a uniform “as of” date of October 1 for the ownership data being reported in the biennial filing and established a uniform filing deadline for the data of November 1. Thus, all filers must report their ownership interests as they exist on the “as of” date of the filing year and submit their reports no later than one month thereafter. These uniform dates make it possible to discern statistically valid trends in minority and female ownership over time, which was not possible using the previous rolling filing procedures, and ensure timely collection of the data. Second, the Commission also expandedthe class of licensees that must file the report biennially to include sole proprietors and partnerships of natural persons as well as low-power television and Class A licensees.

5. Third, the Commission delegated to the Media Bureau authority to (1) Revise Form 323's electronic interface so that the ownership data incorporated into the database are searchable, and can be aggregated and cross-referenced; (2) build additional checks into Form 323 to perform verification and review functions; and (3) conduct audits to ensure the accuracy of the Form 323 reports. The Commission also stated that “to further improve the ability of researchers and other users of the data to cross-reference information and construct complete ownership structures, we will require each attributable entity above the licensee in the ownership chain to list on Form 323, the [CORES] FRN of the entity in which it holds an attributable interest.” This requirement to reference the next layer down in an ownership chain by using a unique identifier, the FRN, fulfills a need for unmistakable identity in the face of often complex ownership structures involving numerous parties and multiple layers or links in the ownership chain, a need which cannot be fulfilled by identification based entirely on names and addresses. In other words, the Commission concluded that without a single, unique identifier, researchers could not confirm the accuracy of aggregated records. While the Commission believed that these measures would resolve concerns regarding the usefulness of the data, it nevertheless delegated authority to the Media Bureau staff to revisit the CORES FRN issue if it determined that additional changes were necessary. In response, the Media Bureau revised and improved the instructions and questions in all sections of the form in order to (1) Clarify the information sought in the form, (2) ensure that the data are collected in machine-readable formats that can be incorporated in database programs used to prepare economic and policy studies, and (3) simplify completion of the form by giving respondents menu-style or checkbox-style options to enter data. The Bureau also included built-in edit checks and pre-fill capabilities to assure greater accuracy and ease of completion.

6. On August 11, 2009, the Commission submitted the revised Form 323 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements and published theFederal Registernotice initiating a 60-day comment period. Among other things, the revised form required each filer to include a CORES FRN of entities one step above and one step below it in the ownership chain and to identify the CORES FRNs of its attributable officers, directors, and shareholders reported on the form. Many of the commenters in their comments to OMB objected to having to report CORES FRNs for individuals holding attributable interests, arguing that in order to obtain a CORES FRN from these individuals, they would need to provide SSNs to the Commission, a requirement that they claimed triggers privacy, data security, and identity theft concerns. Commenters also suggested that obtaining and reporting CORES FRNs for these individuals would be onerous and would present a hardship to filers, and that in some cases, filers might be unable to obtain a CORES FRN for all individual attributable interest holders because the individuals are unwilling to either obtain the FRN themselves or provide their SSN to the filer for the purpose of obtaining an FRN. Additionally, commenters criticized the Commission for failing to seek comment on requiring these individuals to obtain CORES FRNs prior to including this requirement on the revised form submitted for OMB approval. They also claimed that the decision was inconsistent with the CORES FRN requirement applicable to wireless licensees, who, they alleged, are not required to provide CORES FRNs or other similar information for officers, directors, and board members. Two Petitions for Writs of Mandamus were filed with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stay the FCC from implementing revisions to the form. Both were denied.

7. On October 6, 2009, the Commission submitted a letter to OMB in response to the comments. The FCC's response explained that requiring CORES FRNs on Form 323 is an integral part of the Commission's effort to “improve the quality, reliability, and usability of the collected data by eliminating inconsistencies and inadequacies in the data submitted.” The Reply Letter identified the CORES FRN as a key tool for ensuring that the ownership data is matched with specific owners. Also, without the CORES FRNs, the Commission explained that it would be unable to accurately determine the identity of a person when variations of a single name or other spelling irregularities appear from form to form. The Reply Letter also noted that the FRN has been used as a unique identifier for reports that collect data on individuals and entities that hold attributable interests in wireless services and concluded that requiring filers to provide a CORES FRN for individual attributable interest holders on the Form 323 “will allow the Commission to harmonize its processes between different licensing divisions and directly improve the quality and usefulness of the collected data * * *.” The Reply Letter rejected allegations that the Commission failed to comply with the notice requirements of the PRA. After the Commission submitted the revised form to OMB, the Commission issued a further order, the323 MO&O,and explained that each filer was required to identify the CORES FRNs of its attributable officers, directors, and shareholders, explaining “[i]n the process of modifying Form 323 on delegated authority, the Bureau determined that it was necessary to expand the class of [CORES] FRNs to be included to ensure the usefulness of the data.”

8. On October 19, 2009, OMB approved the revised Form 323, including the requirement that filers identify the CORES FRN for individuals holding an attributable interest in the licensee. After several delayed filing deadlines, the Commission set July 8, 2010, as the first biennial filing deadline using the revised form. Generally, the Bureau's experience during the filing process was that most filers complied with the CORES FRN requirement. Nevertheless, in response to industry concerns about filers' ability to obtain FRNs from all individuals holding attributable interests due to individuals' concerns about privacy, security, and identify theft, the Bureau allowed filers, as an interim measure, to obtain a Special Use FRN for individuals reported on the form in lieu of obtaining a CORES FRN. Individuals do not need to provide an SSN in order to generate the Special Use FRN.

9. In December 2010, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in which it proposes to update CORES in an effort to enhance the Commission's data collection efforts and to improve customer interface with CORES. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission noted that, “[s]ince the creation of CORES, entities have been able to obtain multiple FRNs in order to permit different members of their corporate family to obtain their own individual FRNs, regardless of whether those entities have different taxpayer identification numbers * * *” The Commission stated that it has had difficulty using CORES to identify all FRNs held by the same entity when entities have not provided TINs or have provided inconsistent TINs. It alsoobserved that some filers erroneously invoked exceptions to the general requirement to provide a TIN and that these entities or individuals also would be difficult to track. The Commission has proposed several options to resolve these issues. In addition, the Commission has asked whether it should expand the availability of “special use” FRNs for purposes other than the filing of Form 323.

10. In July 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as part of its review of the Commission's media ownership rules, vacated and remanded certain aspects of theDiversity Order.The court concluded that the Commission's decision to adopt a revenue-based eligible entity definition to facilitate ownership diversity was arbitrary and capricious because the Commission did not show how such a definition specifically would assist minorities and women, who were among the intended beneficiaries of this action. The court also remanded each of the measures adopted in theDiversity Orderthat relied on the revenue-based definition. The court found that the eligible entity definition was not supported by “data attempting to show a connection between the definition chosen and the goal of the measures adopted—increasing ownership of minorities and women,” stressing that regulations seeking to increase female and minority ownership must be based upon reliable data. The court stated, “At a minimum, in adopting or modifying its rules the FCC must `examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' ” The court also made plain that “[i]f the Commission requires more and better data * * * it must get the data.” The court stated that the actions taken in theOrder and Fourth FNPRMto reliably analyze minority and female ownership “will, however, lay necessary groundwork for the Commission's actions on remand.”

11. By thisFNPRM,we seek to supplement the record regarding the use of CORES FRNs. First, we tentatively affirm the Commission's prior determination that the use of CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is necessary in order to improve the quality of the data collected on Form 323, and we propose to discontinue the Special Use FRN for Form 323. We propose to require all individual attributable interest holders to obtain a CORES FRN and to require all Form 323 filers to provide the CORES FRN for these individuals. Second, we seek comment on whether we should require the individual and entities holding non-attributable interests that would be reportable on the Form 323 under the proposal set forth in theFifth FNPRMto obtain a CORES FRN and require all Form 323 filers to report these CORES FRNs. Third, we seek comment on revising Form 323-E to include the same CORES FRN and attributable interest reporting obligations as those applicable to Form 323. Finally, we seek comment on proposed revisions to the Form 323 submitted in comments in theReview of Media Bureau Data Practicesproceeding.

12.Elimination of Special Use FRN for Form 323.Special Use FRNs do not afford the Commission a reliable means of tracing a reported interest holder to a unique individual and their use therefore undermines the purpose of our data collection effort, which seeks to accurately ascertain the nature and extent of minority and female ownership of broadcast properties. Without the ability to track an FRN to a unique individual, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to accurately cross-reference broadcast ownership interests. The Third Circuit has highlighted the importance of collecting reliable data to support the Commission's rulemaking initiatives.

We seek comment on the use of the CORES FRN as a means of associating non-unique information (names, addresses, race, gender, and ethnicity) with a unique identifier for data quality, searchability, cross-referencing, and aggregation purposes solely for use with FCC Form 323 as a means of identifying attributable interests. How effective, relatively speaking, is the CORES FRN as a unique identifier for the Commission's purposes? If no unique numeric or other identifier is associated with an ownership record, how can researchers and other members of the public adequately verify and/or make use of the collected data? How can complete ownership structures be compiled reliably? What alternatives are there to the use of the CORES FRN as a unique identifier? We invite comment on other measures the Commission could use as a unique identifier in lieu of the CORES FRN and its underlying TIN basis.

13. We tentatively affirm the Commission's prior determination that the use of CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is necessary in order to improve the quality of the data collected on Form 323, and we propose to eliminate the availability of Special Use FRNs and require the universal use of CORES FRNs for all biennial and non-biennial Form 323s. We tentatively conclude that such unique identification is essential to providing the kind of searchable and manipulable database needed to support accurate and reliable studies of ownership trends. We also tentatively conclude that the reporting of CORES FRNs on Form 323 that are obtained after supplying the Commission with a TIN is superior to reporting the Special Use FRNs now permitted for individuals. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and particularly encourage those who may have used the dataset created from the first set of Form 323 biennial filings that were required to include FRNs for attributable entities and individuals to address these issues. Furthermore, the use of CORES FRNs is consistent with Commission precedent in the wireless services context, as applicable to attributable interest holders. We seek comment on any justifications to treat broadcasters differently with respect to CORES FRN requirements.

14. We note that other government agencies also use SSNs when necessary to ensure program integrity and for statistical and research purposes. For example, the Census Bureau uses SSNs reported on income tax returns in order to prepare annual population estimates for states and counties to determine immigration rates between localities. The Department of Agriculture has statutory authority to collect the SSNs of both food stamp recipients and officers and owners of retail and wholesale food concerns that accept and redeem food stamps. The Small Business Administration (SBA) requires that applicants for SBA-backed loans provide their past business and personal income tax returns, which contain their SSNs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires SSNs as a condition of eligibility for participation in HUD programs involving loans, grants and other assistance. The Veterans Administration requires individuals to provide their SSNs to be eligible for compensation or pension benefits programs. The Treasury collects the SSNs of all savings bond purchasers. The Department of Labor requires all workers compensation claimants to provide an SSN. The Department of Homeland Security uses SSNs in its E-Verify database as the basis for its employment verification system. Health and Human Services collects SSNs to verify citizenship status. Agencies also collect and share SSNs for purposes of collecting debts owed to the government, as well as using employees'SSNs for activities such as payroll, wage reporting, and providing employee benefits. We seek comment on the use of SSNs as unique identifiers by other governmental agencies as it relates to the Commission's proposed CORES FRN requirement for individuals.

15. Although we are seeking comment in our separate CORES proceeding on measures to improve the CORES FRN system and the possible expansion of special use FRNs, we tentatively conclude that it is not necessary to await the outcome of that proceeding to improve further the Form 323 data collection process by discontinuing the Special Use FRN for Form 323. Unlike many of our filing obligations, the fundamental objective of the biennial Form 323 filing requirement is to track trends in media ownership by individuals with particular racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics. In this context, it is especially critical to ensure that we can identify uniquely each individual reported on the form. As noted above, the Commission cannot ensure that each individual is assigned only one Special Use FRN and that it is used consistently throughout the Form 323 reporting process because no unique identifier is available to track the Special Use FRN back to a single individual. For instance, CDBS does not have any mechanism to prevent a filer from obtaining multiple Special Use FRNs for the same individual. In contrast, even though multiple CORES FRNs can be obtained by the same individual or entity, the SSN or TIN underlying these FRNs generally permits the Commission to identify the specific person or entity using any such FRNs in a Commission report or form. Because CORES FRNs are backed by a TIN whereas Special Use FRNs are not backed by any unique identifier, the CORES FRN offers a superior means of sorting and aggregating Form 323 data. We seek comment on these views.

16. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of eliminating the Special Use FRN for Form 323. Commenters objecting to the CORES FRN requirement for individuals with attributable interests that are reported on the form argue that the requirement would be burdensome. In the Reply Letter, the Commission disagreed that the process is as onerous as commenters describe. Filers must only register one time to obtain a CORES FRN, which can be used for current and all future Form 323 filings and other Commission filings. The CORES database registration process takes only a few moments to complete and users easily can obtain previously-registered CORES FRNs using the search tool in CORES. Moreover, in addition to not being a burdensome requirement, the CORES FRN is an essential part of the Commission's effort to improve the reliability, quality, and usability of the data collected, as the Commission as noted in identifying the CORES FRN as a key tool for ensuring that ownership data are matched with specific owners. Is the requirement to obtain a CORES FRN for individual attributable interest holders onerous on small businesses? On large corporations? On individuals? A small number of commercial broadcast licenses are held by governmental entities, tribal organizations, and not-for-profit groups. Is compliance with the CORES FRN requirement more burdensome for these entities? What factors contribute to any difficulties businesses may have in complying with the CORES FRN requirement? On balance, we believe the benefits of the proposed revisions will outweigh any costs. We seek comment on this analysis. Commenters should describe the benefits and any costs associated with eliminating the Special Use FRN or with any alternative proposal, explain any underlying assumptions, submit all relevant data and, if possible, quantify the potential effects.

17. We also seek comment on whether we should continue to allow filers to obtain a Special Use FRN solely in instances where, after reasonable and good faith efforts, they are unable to obtain a CORES FRN from an individual with reportable interests. We expect that filers will either obtain a CORES FRN for such individuals after obtaining the individuals' SSNs in order to do so, or, if the individuals are reluctant to disclose their SSNs to the filer, to instruct such individuals how to obtain a CORES FRN on their own. As we have noted before, this latter approach would avoid the need for individuals to disclose their SSNs to any party other than the Commission. In the event that an individual is unwilling to provide the filer with sufficient information for it to obtain a CORES FRN and is unwilling to obtain and provide a CORES FRN separately, we wish to ensure that a filer will still be able to timely file a Form 323 and to report the recalcitrant attributable interest holder. To permit this and to identify individuals who have failed to provide the required FRN, we seek comment on whether we should reserve the use of special use FRNs solely for those cases in which an individual with a reportable interest has failed to provide a responsible filer with a valid CORES FRN or to provide the filer with the means of obtaining one. We note that in such instances, the Commission can use its enforcement authority to impose a forfeiture against such individuals. In this connection, we also seek comment on whether we should require filers to notify individuals with reportable interests of the Commission's enforcement authority in such instances.

18. We also invite comment on any privacy concerns the CORES FRN requirement may raise as it relates to Form 323 and the identification of attributable interests. CORES FRNs are intended to provide a unique identification system for entities and individuals that does not require the disclosure of a TIN or SSN on Commission applications and forms. TIN data are needed only to obtain a CORES FRN in the first instance and those data are secured by the Commission and not used publicly. Does this requirement raise any potential adverse consequences? We invite comment in particular on the applicability of the Privacy Act to the CORES FRN requirement. The Commission does not consider sole proprietors and officers and directors to be persons who are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, since they are acting in an entrepreneurial capacity. In addition, the Commission already has adopted Privacy Act Systems of Records for the CORES system and for the Form 323 requirement, which apply to any personally identifiable information required by the Form 323 and by CORES in connection with the FRN registration process. We tentatively conclude that the Privacy Act does not bar our adoption of the CORES FRN proposals discussed in this Further Notice. To the extent commenters believe the requirement presents a risk of any adverse consequences affecting individuals' privacy, what is the degree of risk involved and is it outweighed by the benefits of obtaining more accurate and verifiable ownership data?

19. We also invite comment as to whether it is necessary to clarify that any individual with reportable interests must obtain an FRN. Currently, our rules do not explicitly require these individuals to obtain an FRN. Rather, the Form 323 requires licensees and other respondents to report the FRN of individuals holding attributable interests. A requirement for individuals with reportable interests to obtain FRNs would address concerns that filers may be unable to obtain FRNs from unwilling individual attributable interest holders. In this regard, we seek comment on Petitioner Koerner &Olender's request to “redefine or reinterpret” § 1.8002 of our rules, which establishes the Commission's generic FRN requirement, to include within the scope of the rule the holders of interests reportable on Form 323. Section 1.8002 states that persons “doing business” with the Commission must obtain an FRN and lists examples of the types of activities or interests that trigger the requirement. It does not state that the listed categories are the only circumstances under which an entity or individual must obtain an FRN. In the wireless context, the Commission has determined that individuals holding attributable interests in wireless licensees are “doing business with” the Commission and that wireless licensees must provide the FRNs for such individuals on the Form 602, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services. Should we amend § 1.8002 to explicitly include any interests of individuals or entities that are reportable on Form 323, either because the holders of these interests are deemed to be “doing business” with the Commission or because the Commission has, for other reasons, determined that these interest-holders should obtain an FRN? We seek comment on these matters, including comments on the costs and benefits of any rule amendment.

20.Requiring CORES FRNs for additional reportable interests.In theFifth FNPRM,we are concurrently seeking comment on whether to expand the biennial ownership reporting requirement to include interests, entities and individuals that are not attributable because of (a) the single majority shareholder exemption and (b) the exemption for interests held in eligible entities pursuant to the higher EDP threshold. We propose herein that if the Commission requires these interest holders to be reported on the biennial ownership form, they should be required to obtain and provide CORES FRNs. We seek comment on what impact such a requirement would have on these interest holders and whether the benefits of unique identification described above are equally applicable to individuals subject to such a requirement. Would a CORES FRN requirement for these interest holders present different burdens for small businesses, other types of firms, or individuals? Would this requirement present privacy concerns? As requested above, commenters should address in detail the costs and benefits of expanding the existing FRN requirements to the additional interests at issue in theFifth FNPRM.

21.Reporting FRNs on Form 323-E.We also seek comment on our proposal to require that CORES FRNs be provided for all entities and individuals reported on Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. In the323 Fourth FNPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to modify the Form 323-E to include gender, race, or ethnicity data questions, similar to the revisions adopted in the323 Orderin order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry. NPR objects to extending the CORES FRN requirement to Form 323-E, contending that it raises “unique privacy issues and administrative burdens” for the noncommercial sector. In comments submitted in response to the323 Fourth FNPRM,NPR states that in many instances the governing board members are elected officials, or political appointees, who are volunteers that are not compensated for their services. Therefore, NPR argues that none of these board members would hold any equity interest in the station and would not provide meaningful “ownership” information to the Commission. We seek comment on this view. Are there unique attributes of noncommercial broadcasters, or of the ownership structure of noncommercial entities, that would make the application of an FRN requirement for their officers and directors particularly burdensome? Generally, we seek comment on the benefits, potential costs or other effects, and possible alternatives to imposing the same CORES FRN requirements on Form 323-E filers and holders of reportable interests as those applicable to Form 323 filers and attributable interest holders. Are there other advantages or drawbacks to applying these requirements to the Form 323-E? If the Commission elects not to include a CORES FRN requirement for individuals with attributable interests reported on Form 323-E, how can it ensure the accuracy of the data submitted? What alternatives to the CORES FRN, if any, are available that could provide sufficient data verification? We invite comment on these issues. Commenters should describe the benefits and costs of applying the existing FRN requirements to the Form 323-E or any alternative proposal, explain any underlying assumptions, submit all relevant data and, if possible, quantify the potential effects.

22.Due date for Biennial Ownership Reports.Currently, 47 CFR 73.3615(a) requires biennial reports to be filed by November 1 of odd-numbered years and states that each report must be accurate as of October 1 of the year in which it is filed. In order to provide parties with additional time to complete and submit their reports, we propose to move the due date from November 1 to December 1, with the October 1 “as of” date unchanged. We believe that providing filers with an additional 30 days to produce the Form 323 report will lead to more accurate reporting, and will not significantly delay the collection of data. We seek comment on this proposal.

23.Proposals submitted in the Review of Media Bureau Data Practices proceeding.We also are seeking comment on proposals regarding the Form 323 that were submitted in theReview of Media Bureau Data Practicesproceeding, which was initiated “to improve the way the Commission collects, uses and disseminates data.” In that proceeding, the Bureau encouraged commenters to provide recommendations regarding: (1) The use and rationale of its existing data collections, (2) additional data that should be collected, (3) how it can improve the collection and analysis process for its existing collections, and (4) how it may improve the dissemination of its reports and analyses. Based on its experiences completing the revised Form 323, NAB suggests that the Commission modify the electronic version of Form 323 to allow for cross-referencing to information on other reports. Second, NAB suggests that an entity with several wholly-owned licensee subsidiaries should be able to list all of the licensees (and their respective stations) in Section I, Item 7. We seek comment on this proposal and ask whether it should be limited to wholly-owned subsidiary licensees or whether a parent entity instead should be able to list all the licensees in which it has an attributable interest (and their respective stations) in Section I, Item 7. We believe that such a change will significantly reduce the filing burdens on some entities, without compromising the data collected. NAB also proposes that the Bureau consider eliminating Section II-B, Item 3(c) as duplicative. NAB further suggests that the Commission modify the instructions to Form 323 to eliminate inconsistent information, such as the instructions for Section II-B, Items 1, 3(a), and 3(c). MMTC recommends simplifying the public display of Form 323 filings; requiring only one Form 323 filing per station with all the racial/ethnic/gender ownership of the attributable interest holders; creating a separate filingcategory for transfers to bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession or trusts; and changing from a biennial filing to an annual filing requirement. Accordingly, we seek comment on these proposals regarding Form 323, including the costs and benefits of these proposals.

24.Ex Parte Rules.The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission'sex parterules. Persons makingex partepresentations 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 oralex partepresentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which theex partepresentation 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 duringex partemeetings are deemed to be writtenex partepresentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, writtenex partepresentations and memoranda summarizing oralex partepresentations, 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'sex parterules.

25.Comments and Reply Comments.Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed ofbeforeentering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

26.People with Disabilities:To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in thisSixth FNPRM.Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on theFNPRM.The Commission will send a copy of theFNRPM,including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). In addition, theFNPRMand IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in theFederal Register.

28.Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.TheFNPRMinvites comment on the Commission's prior determination that the use of CORES FRNs as unique identifiers is necessary in order to improve the quality of the data collected on the Form 323 and on the proposal to eliminate the “Special Use” FRN feature for the Form 323. TheFNPRMalso seeks comment on the burdens of eliminating the Special Use FRN, of requiring all individual holders of interests reportable on the Form 323 to obtain an FRN through the Commission's Registration System (CORES), and of requiring all filers of Form 323 to report the FRNs for these individuals. TheFNPRMinvites comment on the use of social security numbers as unique identifiers by other governmental agencies as it relates to the Commission's proposed CORES FRN requirement for individuals.

29. The objective of the information collection undertaken to establish a CORES FRN is to obtain a special, unique identifier that will allow the Commission and researchers to cross-reference information and create complete ownership structures in order to promote its long standing goal to promote diverse ownership of broadcast stations, including by women and minorities.

30. TheFNPRMalso notes that the Commission, in theFifth FNPRM,is concurrently seeking comment on whether to expand the biennial ownership reporting requirement to include interests, entities and individuals that are not attributable because of (a) the single majority shareholder exemption and (b) the exemption for interests held in eligible entities pursuant to the higher EDP threshold. If the Commission requires these interest holders to be reported on the biennial ownership form, the Commission proposes, in thisFNPRM,that these interest holders should be required to obtain and provide CORES FRNs. TheFNPRMinvites comment on the impact of this requirement on these interest holders and whether the benefits of unique identification described in theFNPRMare equally applicable to individuals subject to such a requirement. As described at paragraph 13 of theFNPRM,a unique identifier is essential to providing the searchable database necessary to support accurate and reliable studies of ownership trends.

31. TheFNPRMalso seeks comment on the Commission's proposal to requirethat CORES FRNs be provided for all entities and individuals reported on Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Based on potential unique attributes of noncommercial entities, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed data collection imposes a significant burden for such entities, which may be smaller entities by nature. The Commission also seeks comment on the usefulness, potential effects, and possible alternatives to imposing the same CORES FRN requirements on Form 323-E filers and holders of reportable interests as those applicable to Form 323 filers and attributable interest holders.

32. TheFNPRMalso seeks comment on a proposal to amend the Commission's rules to clarify that an individual with reportable interests must obtain a CORES FRN. The Commission also invites comment on whether the Commission should reserve the use of Special Use FRNs solely for cases in which an individual with a reportable interest has failed to provide the filer with sufficient information for it to obtain a CORES FRN and is unwilling to obtain and provide a CORES FRN separately. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require filers to notify individuals with reportable interests of the Commission's enforcement authority to impose a forfeiture against such individuals.

33. The Commission invites comment on its proposal to extend the filing period for the Biennial Ownership Reports by moving the due date from November 1, to December 1, with the October 1 “as of” date unchanged. TheFNPRMalso invites comment on the proposed revisions to Form 323 that were submitted in theReview of Media Bureau Data Practicesproceeding. The Commission also seeks comment on NAB's proposal in that proceeding that an entity with several wholly-owned licensee subsidiaries should be able to list all of the licensees and respective stations in Section I, Item 7 of the Form 323 and asks whether the proposal should be limited to wholly-owned subsidiary licensees or whether a parent entity instead should be able to list all the licensees in which it has an attributable interest in Section I, Item 7.

34.Legal Basis.ThisFNPRMis adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, j), 257, 303(r).

35.Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply.The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

36.Television Broadcasting.In this context, the application of the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $14 million in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of May 2, 2012, 1070 (77 percent) of the 1,399 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $14 million or less. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 396. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for noncommercial stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business entity 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 any changes to the filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or Form 323-E, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

37. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

38.Radio Broadcasting.The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $7 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of May 2, 2012, about 10,750, (97 percent) of 11,093 commercial radio stations in the United States have revenues of $7 million or less. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 3,712. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business entity 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 any changes to filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or Form 323-E, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

39. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. 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 whichthey apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

40.Class A TV and LPTV Stations.The rules and policies adopted herein apply to licensees of low power television (“LPTV”) stations, including Class A TV stations and, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $14 million in annual receipts. As of March 31, 2012, there are approximately 479 licensed Class A stations and 2,001 licensed LPTV stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies.

41.Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.There may be changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements if the Commission eliminates the “Special Use” FRN requirement. We do not anticipate any other changes in recording or recordkeeping requirements for commercial broadcast entities, as we are proposing to maintain the existing requirement. In addition, there may be a change in reporting or recordkeeping compliance for noncommercial entities if a CORES FRN requirement is adopted for the Form 323-E.See,paragraph 21.

42.Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

43. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly listed above. TheNoticeproposes to continue to require individuals reported on a Form 323 to obtain a CORES-registered FRN and to eliminate the “Special Use” FRN. In the alternative, the Commission could decide not to eliminate the Special Use FRN for the Form 323, or it could defer these actions until a later time. While the option to retain the CORES FRN requirement and to eliminate the Special Use FRN might result in an increased burden on those required to obtain and provide a CORES FRN, the benefits of having a unique identifier for data quality, searchability, cross-referencing and aggregation purposes in order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry outweigh the burdens. The CORES FRN as a unique identifier is necessary to improve the quality of the data collected on the Form 323. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Special Use FRN should be available solely in instances where, after reasonable and good faith efforts, filers are unable to obtain a CORES FRN from an individual with reportable interests. This alternative could reduce the burden for those filers who are unable to, after reasonable and good faith efforts, to obtain a CORES FRN from an individual attributable interest holder, while ensuring that the filer will be able to timely submit the Form 323 and allowing the Commission to identify the individual with a reportable interest that has failed to provide a CORES FRN.

44. In theFNPRM,the Commission proposes that CORES FRNs be reported for the two classes of non-attributable interests that would be reportable if the Commission adopts the pending proposal in theFifth FNPRMto make these interests reportable. In the alternative, the Commission could decide not to extend the CORES FRN requirement to these interests if they are deemed reportable, or the Commission could defer these actions until a later time. While the option to extend the CORES FRN to these classes of non-attributable interests might impose an increased burden on those required to obtain and provide a CORES FRN, the benefits of having a unique identifier for data quality, searchability, cross-referencing and aggregation purposes in order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry outweigh the burden of obtaining a CORES FRN.

45. In theFNPRM,the Commission proposes to impose a CORES FRN requirement for all entities and individuals reported on the Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations in order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry. In the alternative, the Commission could decide not to expand the CORES FRN requirement to the holders of attributable interests in non-profit licensees that file Form 323-E, or the Commission could defer this action until a later date. While the option to extend the CORES FRN requirement to entities and individuals reported on the 323-E could impose an increased burden on those required to obtain and provide a CORES FRNs the benefits of having a unique identifier for aggregating data related to non-commercial licensees outweighs the burdens associated with obtaining a CORES FRN.

46. TheFNPRMproposes to amend the Commission's rules to clarify that an individual with reportable interests must obtain a CORES FRN. The Commission seeks comment on how to reduce or eliminate the costs imposed by this proposal to amend the Commission's rules on small businesses. The Commission invites comment on its proposal to extend the filing deadline for the Biennial Ownership Reports. By providing filers with additional time to file the Biennial Ownership Report, this proposal will reduce the burden on filers. The Commission also seeks comment on the recommendations regarding the Form 323 from NAB and other commenters in theMedia Bureau Data Practicesproceeding and the costs and benefits associated with these proposals for small businesses.

47.Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules. None.

48. Accordingly,it is orderedthat, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), thisSixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

49.It is further orderedthat, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i,j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i,j), 257, 303(r),notice is hereby givenof the proposals described in thisSixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

50.It is further orderedthat the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, ReferenceInformation Center,shall senda copy of theSixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

51.It is further ordered,that the Emergency Petition for Immediate Revision of Instructional/Informational Materials Relative to Form 323, filed on September 14, 2011 by Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C.,is dismissed.

This is a summary of the Commission'sFifth Notice of Proposed Rulemakingin MB Docket No. 07-294 is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) and may be purchased from the Commissions copy contractor, BCPI, Inc. at their Web sitehttp://www.bcpi.comor call 1-800 378-3160.

ThisNotice of Proposed Rulemakingmay result in a new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in theFederal Registerinviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the commission seeks further comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

1. The Commission seeks comment on whether to collect information from holders of equity interests in a licensee that would be attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and from holders of interests that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds adopted in theDiversity Order,published May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28361, for purposes of determining attribution of certain interests in eligible entities. In the323 Order,74 FR 25163 (2009), the Commission determined that, in order to measure the extent of minority and female ownership of broadcast outlets and assess the need for and effectiveness of any policies designed to promote minority and female ownership, it is important to obtain information on holders of certain nonattributable interests, as well as on holders of attributable interests. The Commission concluded that while it considers only attributable interest holders in determining whether licensees are in compliance with our media ownership rules, the balance struck in defining what interests should be counted for purposes of implementing our ownership rules may not be appropriate for collecting data on interests held by minorities and women. As noted above, we did not receive comments on this issue prior to adopting these conclusions. Therefore, in order to obtain a complete record on this question, we are commencing a Further Rulemaking on whether to expand the reporting requirements to include certain nonattributable entities. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to collect information from holders of equity interests in a licensee that would be attributable but for the single majority shareholder exemption and from holders of interests that would be attributable but for the higher EDP thresholds adopted in theDiversity Orderfor purposes of determining attribution of certain interests in eligible entities.

2. The single majority shareholder exemption provides that a minority shareholder's voting interests will not be attributed where a single shareholder holds more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock of the corporation in question. In the323 Order,the Commission explained why reporting of information about minority shareholders in a corporation with a single majority shareholder is important: “For purposes of assessing levels of minority ownership * * * we believe that we should err on the side of comprehensiveness based on criticisms of the current collection scheme. The minority interests that are exempt from attribution under the single majority shareholder exemption can be quite substantial—nearly 50%. Including these interest holders would make the data set more complete and help determine whether nonattributable interests could be a source of attributable minority and female owners in the future. Thus, collection of thisinformation will be useful in assessing whether we need to take additional measures to increase minority ownership and in justifying any measures that we decide to take.” The FCC proposes to require that voting stock interests that would be attributable but for the single majority stockholder exemption be reported on the biennial Form 323.

3. As is the case now, whether the holders of these direct or indirect interests in licensees that are held in vertical ownership chains will have to file a Form 323 themselves or will simply have their interest reported on a Form 323 filed by another entity would depend on the nature of the shareholder. Individuals holding such interests in licensees or in entities that hold interests in licensees would be reported on the Form 323 filed by the entity in which they hold the interest and would not have to file a form themselves. Corporations, partnerships, or other entities holding such interests in licensees or in entities that directly or indirectly hold interests in licensees, however, would both be reported on the Form 323 filed by the entity in which they hold the interest and would be required to file a Form 323 on their own behalf, using the same biennial Form 323 as all other filers would use and following the same format and instructions. The distinction made here between individuals and entities for purposes of the Form 323 filing obligation is the same distinction that applies under the current rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

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

5. In order to obtain more complete ownership data, the Commission proposes that interest that would be attributable but for the recently adopted EDP exemption for certain investments in eligible entities be reported on the biennial Form 323. In the323 Order,the Commission noted that it “did not premise its relaxation of the EDP attribution rule on a finding that such an interest holder is unable to exert significant influence in the licensee but rather on a policy decision that relaxing the EDP rule is necessary to facilitate access to capital by eligible entities, including minority- and female-owned businesses.” The Commission also noted that it already has determined that interests that exceed 33 percent EDP threshold confer on the interest holder an ability to influence a licensee's operations. While we do not believe there are many ownership interests held pursuant to this exemption, they are clearly interests within the scope of our concern in this proceeding. For this reason, we propose to require that they be reported. With respect to which interest holders will be report and which will also file Form 323, we propose to apply the same distinction discussed in paragraph 18 of the5th FNPRM.Thus, individuals holding these interests would have to be reported by the entity in which the interest is directly held but would not themselves have to file the separate ownership reports and be reported by the entity in which the interest is directly held.

6. Will collection of race, ethnicity, and gender data on the holders of these two nonattributable interests further the Commission's goals to obtain reliable data on the precise status of minority and female ownership? NAB suggests that information from nonattributable entities will not provide the Commission with any useful information on the current status of minority and female ownership of broadcast stations. We seek comment on this view. NAB states that by excluding these interests from its attribution rules, the Commission has already determined that such interests fail to confer sufficient influence over a licensee's operations. Therefore, NAB questions how the ownership information will further the Commission's stated goals. We seek comment on NAB's position and on all aspects of our proposals.

7. We also seek comment on any adverse consequences of requiring reporting of individuals holding these nonattributable interests and of requiring entities holding these nonattributable interests to file separate Form 323s. We seek comment specifically on NAB's concern that the reporting requirement will deter investment in the broadcast industry by increasing investors' administrative and financial burdens and by requiring disclosure of information that they would otherwise consider private. CBS argues that the potential costs and other burdens of compliance with these reporting requirements could persuade nonattributable investors to invest elsewhere or even divest their existing ownership interests. We seek comment on these contentions. In the323 Order,the Commission explained that our attribution rules seek to identify financial interests in licensees that convey the potential and incentive to exert significant influence over core licensee functions, and thus should be counted under the multiple ownership rules. At the same time, however, the Commission noted that it has sought to target the attribution rules precisely so as to avoid impeding capital flow to broadcasters. The Commission concluded that, in this instance, the concern about impeding capital flow does not apply, and noted that the Commission's goal is to collect information so that we can accurately assess and effectively promote diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry. We seek comment on whether a reporting requirement of non-attributable interests would adversely affect capital investment in broadcasting.

8. We seek comment on whether expanding the reporting requirements to include the two non-attributable interests we have identified will result in undue burdens on licensees, and in particular, small entities. The Commission recognized that it must balance the goal of collecting more comprehensive and more accurate data with the goal of minimizing burdens on respondents. In the323 Order,the Commission explained that broadcasters are familiar with and accustomed to keeping records in accordance with the Commission's existing attribution rules, which provide useful, fairly bright-line criteria to determine which interests must be reported and which interests do not need to be reported. CBS suggests that broadcasters often do not possessthe reportable information because publicly traded companies may have limited knowledge of the demographic information of a majority of shareholders, and may not know the underlying beneficial owners when the stocks are held by banks or other financial institutions. We seek comment on whether licensees or other entities required to file revised Form 323 currently possess information on minority shareholders of single majority shareholder corporations. If not, what is the burden of collecting this information? Will licensees, parent corporations, or other entity filers have to obtain specialized counsel and conduct additional surveys to comply with the reporting requirement, as suggested by CBS? We seek comment on whether the benefits of obtaining comprehensive minority and female ownership data outweigh the increased burden on respondents. Are alternatives available to reduce the filing burden without reducing the accuracy or completeness of the data?

9. We also seek comment on NAB's suggestion that, if the Commission adopts the reporting requirement discussed above, it should limit the reportable information to race, gender, and ownership percentage of the nonattributable investors, rather than full reporting of their names, addresses, familial relationships, and other media holdings. Would data thus limited provide the Commission and outside researchers with sufficient information to conduct studies? If information on nonattributable media holdings is omitted, as suggested by NAB, would the Commission lack sufficient information to accurately determine the universe of minority and female ownership in broadcasting?

10.Ex Parte Rules.The proceeding this5th Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakinginitiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission'sex parterules. Persons makingex partepresentations 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 oralex partepresentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which theex partepresentation 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 duringex partemeetings are deemed to be writtenex partepresentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, writtenex partepresentations and memoranda summarizing oralex partepresentations, 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'sex parterules.

11.Comments and Reply Comments.Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed ofbeforeentering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

12.People with Disabilities:To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in thisFifth FNPRM.The RFA,see5 U.S.C. 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).

14.Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.TheFifth FNPRMinvites comment on proposed revisions to FCC Form 323 that would require entities that hold financial interests that would constitute attributable interests in the licensee (1) but for the single majority shareholder attribution exemption or (2) the higher Equity/Debt Plus threshold adopted in the Diversity Order for purposes of attributing certain interests in eligible entities to file ownership reports biennially and would require reporting in biennial ownership reports of individuals that hold such interests. Consistent with current filing requirements, an individual holding an ownership interest is not required to file Form 323. The objective of the information collection is to obtain comprehensive ownership data to further the Commission's goal to designpolicies to advance diversity in the broadcast industry.

15.Legal Basis.ThisFifth FNPRMis adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 3, 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 153, 154(i, j), 257, 303.

16.Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply.The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definition of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in theFederal Register.” A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

17.Television Broadcasting.In this context, the application of the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $14 million in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” This category description states: “These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” In theFifth NPRM,the Commission noted that upon review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database, as of August 14, 2009 there were about 923 (72 percent) of the 1,289 commercial television stations in the United States with revenues of $14 million or less. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. “[Businesses] are affiliates of each other when one [business] controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the filing requirements for FCC Form 323, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

18. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

19.Radio Broadcasting.The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $7 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of August 14, 2009, there were about 10,660 (96 percent) of 11,100 commercial radio stations in the United States with revenues of $7 million or less. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. “[Businesses] are affiliates of each other when one [business] controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the ownership rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

20. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The FCC is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

21.Class A TV and LPTV stations.The rules and policies adopted herein apply to licensees of Class A TV stations and low power television (“LPTV”) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $14.0 million in annual receipts. As of June 30, 2009, there were approximately 553 licensed Class A stations and 2,386 licensed LPTV stations. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. These statistics will be updated in a subsequent FRFA. The Commission notes, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. The Commission's estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies.

22.Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.The Commission anticipates that changes in recording or recordkeeping requirements for commercial broadcast entities would result from the changes in the Commission's Form 323 necessary to implement the proposal to collect additional investor information. Entities holding two types of nonattributable interests, as described intheFifth FNPRM,would be required to file Form 323, and individuals holding these interests would have to be reported on Form 323.

23.Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

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

25.Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

None.

26. Accordingly,it is orderedthat, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i)-(j), 257, and 303(r), theFifth FNPRM is adopted.

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

28.It is further orderedthat the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,shall senda copy of theFifth FNPRM,including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

29.It is further orderedthat the Commissionshall senda copy of theFifth FNPRMin a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).