Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, 19284-19287 [2012-7601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19284
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
concurrence from NMFS on that
determination by a letter dated January
10, 2007, when EPA reissued the
expiring permit in 2007. Because there
are no changes which make the permit
less stringent through this action, EPA
again finds that its issuance is unlikely
to adversely affect Essential Fish
Habitat. EPA is seeking concurrence
with that decision from NMFS.
F. Historic Preservation Act
Facilities which adversely affect
properties listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historical
Places are not authorized to discharge
under this permit.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection required
by this permit has been approved by
OMB under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., in submission made for the
NPDES permit program and assigned
OMB control numbers 2040–0086
(NPDES permit application) and 2040–
0004 (discharge monitoring reports).
Because this permit authorizes limited
discharges, the reporting time for
discharges is less than that for
permittees discharging under the
Territorial Seas of Texas (TXG260000)
or to Outer Continental Shelf
(GMG290000) permits. Also, this
proposed permit requires electronic
reporting for discharge monitoring
reports, so it will save some reporting
time and paper mailing costs.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 USC
601 et seq, requires that EPA prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for
regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This permit is not a ‘‘rule’’
subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis, however, on the promulgation
of the Coastal Subcategory guidelines on
which many of the permit’s effluent
limitations are based. That analysis
shows that compliance with the permit
requirements will not result in a
significant impact on dischargers,
including small businesses, covered by
this permit. EPA Region 6, therefore,
concludes that the permit being
proposed today will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Dated: March 19, 2012.
William K. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection
Division, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012–7686 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9654–5]
Proposed CERCLA Administrative
Settlement; George L. Gomez and
Patricia A. Gomez.
Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Notice; request for public
comment
AGENCY:
In accordance with Section
122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a
proposed administrative settlement for
the Terrible Mine Site, Isle Mining
District, Custer County, Colorado with
George L. Gomez and Patricia A. Gomez
based upon an inability to pay
settlement. The settlement includes a
covenant not to sue the settling party
pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and provides that the
settling parties will sign and execute an
environmental covenant on the Site. For
thirty (30) days following the date of
publication of this notice, the agency
will receive written comments relating
to the settlement. The agency will
consider all comments received and
may modify or withdraw its consent to
the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which
indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
The agency’s response to any comments
received will be available for public
inspection at the EPA Region 8 Records
Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before April 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is
available for public inspection at the
EPA Region 8 Records Center, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202. A copy of the proposed
settlement may be obtained from John
Works, EPA Technical Enforcement
Officer, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202, 303.312.6196.
Comments should reference the Terrible
Mine Site, Isle Mining District, Custer
County, Colorado and EPA Docket No.
08–2012–0003 and should be addressed
to John Works, EPA Technical
Enforcement Officer, EPA Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO
80202.
SUMMARY:
John
Works, EPA Technical Enforcement
Officer, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Street, Denver, CO 80202, 303–312–
6196.
Dated: March 21, 2012.
Andrew M. Gaydosh,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance and
Environmental Justice, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO.
[FR Doc. 2012–7682 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Information Collection Being Reviewed
by the Federal Communications
Commission
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are
requested concerning (a) whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Commission’s burden estimate; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (e) ways to further reduce the
information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
PRA that does not display a valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
DATES: Written PRA comments should
be submitted on or before May 29, 2012.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the contact listed below as soon
as possible.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
Direct all PRA comments to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information about the
information collection, contact Cathy
Williams at (202) 418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060–1162.
Title: Closed Captioning of Video
Programming Delivered Using Internet
Protocol, and Apparatus Closed Caption
Requirements.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Individuals or
households; Businesses or other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit
institutions.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 1,762 respondents; 4,684
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.084
to 10 hours.
Frequency of Response: One time and
on occasion reporting requirements;
Recordkeeping requirement; Third-party
disclosure requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Mandatory;
Required to obtain or retain benefits.
The statutory authority for this
information collection is contained in
the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law
111–260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections
4(i), 4(j), 303, 330(b), 713, and 716 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,
330(b), 613, and 617.
Total Annual Burden: 11,685 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $307,800.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.
The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
was completed on June 28, 2007. It may
be reviewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/
omd/privacyact/
Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The
Commission is in the process of
updating the PIA to incorporate various
revisions made to the SORN.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
Some assurances of confidentiality are
being provided to the respondents.
Parties filing petitions for exemption
based on economic burden, requests for
Commission determinations of technical
feasibility and achievability, requests for
purpose-based waivers, or responses to
complaints alleging violations of the
Commission’s rules may seek
confidential treatment of information
they provide pursuant to the
Commission’s existing confidentiality
rules. See 47 CFR 0.459.
The Commission is not requesting
that individuals who file complaints
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
alleging violations of the Commission’s
rules (complainants) submit
confidential information (e.g., credit
card numbers, social security numbers,
or personal financial information) to the
Commission. The Commission requests
that complainants submit their names,
addresses, and other contact
information, which Commission staff
needs to process complaints. Any use of
this information is covered under the
routine uses listed in the Commission’s
SORN, FCC/CGB–1, ‘‘Informal
Complaints and Inquiries.’’
The PIA that the FCC completed on
June 28, 2007 gives a full and complete
explanation of how the FCC collects,
stores, maintains, safeguards, and
destroys PII, as required by OMB
regulations and the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a. The PIA may be viewed at:
https://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/
Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.
Also, the Commission will prepare a
revision to the SORN and PIA to cover
the PII collected related to this
information collection, as required by
OMB’s Memorandum M–03–22
(September 26, 2003) and by the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Needs and Uses: On January 13, 2012,
in document FCC 12–9, the Commission
released a Report and Order adopting
final rules to implement sections 303,
330(b), and 713 of the Communications
Act of 1934 (the Act), as amended by the
‘‘Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010’’
(CVAA). See Public Law 111–260,
§§ 202 and 203. The Commission also
released an Erratum thereto on January
30, 2012. Pursuant to Section 202 of the
CVAA, the Report and Order adopts
rules governing the closed captioning
requirements for the owners, providers,
and distributors of video programming
delivered using Internet protocol (IP).
Pursuant to Section 203 of the CVAA,
the Report and Order adopts rules
governing the closed captioning
capabilities of certain apparatus on
which consumers view video
programming.
The following rule sections and other
requirements contain revised
information collection requirements for
which the Commission is seeking
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB):
(a) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii) and 47 CFR
79.4(c)(2)(ii) require video programming
owners (VPOs) and video programming
distributors and providers (VPDs) to
agree upon a mechanism to inform
VPDs on an ongoing basis whether
video programming is subject to the IP
closed captioning requirements. The
Commission considered and rejected
adopting a single specific mechanism
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19285
that could impose greater information
collection burdens on small businesses.
47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(ii) requires VPDs to
make a good faith effort to identify
video programming subject to the IP
closed captioning requirements using
the agreed upon mechanism. A VPD
may rely in good faith on a certification
by a VPO that video programming need
not be captioned if: (A) the certification
includes a clear and concise explanation
of why captioning is not required; and
(B) the VPD is able to produce the
certification to the Commission in the
event of a complaint. VPDs may seek
Commission determinations that other
proposed mechanisms provide adequate
information for them to rely on the
mechanisms in good faith.
(b) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(iii) requires
VPDs to make contact information
available to end users for the receipt and
handling of written IP closed captioning
complaints. The contact information
required for written complaints shall
include the name of a person with
primary responsibility for IP captioning
issues and who can ensure compliance
with the IP closed captioning rules. In
addition, this contact information shall
include the person’s title or office,
telephone number, fax number, postal
mailing address, and email address.
VPDs must keep this information
current and update it within 10 business
days of any change.
(c) 47 CFR 79.4(d)(1) permits VPOs
and VPDs to petition the Commission
for a full or partial exemption from the
IP closed captioning requirements,
which the Commission may grant upon
a finding that the requirements would
be economically burdensome. 47 CFR
79.4(d)(2) requires the petitioner to
support a petition for exemption with
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
compliance with the requirements for
closed captioning of IP-delivered video
programming would be economically
burdensome. The term ‘‘economically
burdensome’’ means imposing
significant difficulty or expense. The
Commission will consider the following
factors when determining whether the
requirements for closed captioning of
IP-delivered video programming would
be economically burdensome: (i) the
nature and cost of the closed captions
for the programming; (ii) the impact on
the operation of the VPD or VPO; (iii)
the financial resources of the VPD or
VPO; and (iv) the type of operations of
the VPD or VPO. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(3)
provides that, in addition to these
factors, the petitioner must describe any
other factors it deems relevant to the
Commission’s final determination and
any available alternatives that might
constitute a reasonable substitute for the
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19286
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
IP closed captioning requirements
including, but not limited to, text or
graphic display of the content of the
audio portion of the programming. The
Commission will evaluate economic
burden with regard to the individual
outlet. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(4) requires the
petitioner to electronically file its
petition for exemption, and all
subsequent pleadings related to the
petition. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits any
interested person to electronically file
comments or oppositions to the petition
within 30 days after release of the
public notice of the petition. Within 20
days after the close of the period for
filing comments or oppositions, the
petitioner may reply to any comments
or oppositions filed. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(7)
requires persons who file comments or
oppositions to the petition to serve the
petitioner with copies of those
comments or oppositions and to include
a certification that the petitioner was
served with a copy. Any petitioner filing
a reply to comments or oppositions
must serve the commenting or opposing
party with a copy of the reply and must
include a certification that the party was
served with a copy.
Comments or oppositions and replies
shall be served upon a party, its
attorney, or its other duly constituted
agent by delivering or mailing a copy to
the party’s last known address or by
sending a copy to the email address last
provided by the party, its attorney, or
other duly constituted agent. 47 CFR
79.4(d)(8) provides that, upon a finding
of good cause, the Commission may
lengthen or shorten any comment
period and waive or establish other
procedural requirements. 47 CFR
79.4(d)(9) requires persons filing
petitions and responsive pleadings to
include a detailed, full showing,
supported by affidavit, of any facts or
considerations relied on. Overall, while
there is some burden associated with
requesting an exemption, when granted,
an exemption will relieve the entity
from complying with the IP closed
captioning requirements.
(d) 47 CFR 79.4(e)(1) provides that
complaints concerning an alleged
violation of the IP closed captioning
requirements shall be filed in writing
with the Commission or with the VPD
responsible for enabling the rendering
or pass through of the closed captions
for the video programming within sixty
(60) days after the date the complainant
experienced a problem with captioning.
A complaint filed with the Commission
must be directed to the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau and
submitted through the Commission’s
online informal complaint filing system,
U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
facsimile. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(2) sets forth
certain information that a complaint
should include. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(3) states
that, if a complaint is filed first with the
Commission, the Commission will
forward complaints satisfying the above
requirements to the named VPD and/or
VPO, as well as to any other VPD and/
or VPO that Commission staff
determines may be involved. The VPD
and/or VPO must respond in writing to
the Commission and the complainant
within 30 days after receipt of the
complaint from the Commission. 47
CFR 79.4(e)(4) states that, if a complaint
is filed first with the VPD, the VPD must
respond in writing to the complainant
within thirty (30) days after receipt of a
closed captioning complaint. If a VPD
fails to respond to the complainant
within thirty (30) days, or the response
does not satisfy the consumer, the
complainant may file the complaint
with the Commission within thirty (30)
days after the time allotted for the VPD
to respond. If a consumer re-files the
complaint with the Commission and the
complaint satisfies the above
requirements, the Commission will
forward the complaint to the named
VPD, as well as to any other VPD and/
or VPO that Commission staff
determines may be involved. The VPD
and/or VPO must then respond in
writing to the Commission and the
complainant within 30 days after receipt
of the complaint from the Commission.
47 CFR 79.4(e)(5) requires VPDs and/or
VPOs, in response to a complaint, to file
with the Commission sufficient records
and documentation to prove that the
responding entity was (and remains) in
compliance with the Commission’s
rules. If the responding entity admits
that it was not or is not in compliance
with the Commission’s rules, it shall file
with the Commission sufficient records
and documentation to explain the
reasons for its noncompliance, show
what remedial steps it has taken or will
take, and show why such steps have
been or will be sufficient to remediate
the problem. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits
the Commission to request additional
information from any relevant entities
when, in the estimation of Commission
staff, such information is needed to
investigate the complaint or adjudicate
potential violation(s) of Commission
rules. When the Commission requests
additional information, parties to which
such requests are addressed must
provide the requested information in the
manner and within the time period the
Commission specifies. Overall, while
the complaint procedures impose an
information collection burden, the
requirement for VPDs to publish contact
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information, described above, and to
respond to consumer complaints
provides an opportunity for VPDs to
resolve complaints without Commission
involvement.
(e) Under the CVAA, the requirements
of Section 203 only apply to the extent
they are ‘‘technically feasible.’’ Parties
may raise technical infeasibility as a
defense to a complaint or, alternatively,
may file a request for a ruling under
Section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules
before manufacturing or importing the
product.
(f) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(3)(i) permits
manufacturers of apparatus that use a
picture screen of less than 13 inches in
size to petition the Commission for a
full or partial exemption from the closed
captioning requirements pursuant to
Section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules,
which the Commission may grant upon
a finding that the requirements are not
achievable. Such manufacturers may
also assert that such apparatus is fully
or partially exempt as a response to a
complaint, which the Commission may
dismiss upon a finding that the
requirements are not achievable. 47 CFR
79.103(b)(3)(ii) requires the petitioner or
respondent to support a petition for
exemption or a response to a complaint
with sufficient evidence to demonstrate
that compliance with the requirements
is not ‘‘achievable’’ where ‘‘achievable’’
means with reasonable effort or
expense. The rule further sets forth
certain factors that the Commission will
consider when determining whether the
requirements are not ‘‘achievable.’’
(g) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(4) permits
manufacturers of apparatus to petition
the Commission for a full or partial
waiver of the closed captioning
requirements, which the Commission
may grant upon a finding that the
apparatus meets one of the following
provisions: (i) The apparatus is
primarily designed for activities other
than receiving or playing back video
programming transmitted
simultaneously with sound; or (ii) The
apparatus is designed for multiple
purposes, capable of receiving or
playing back video programming
transmitted simultaneously with sound
but whose essential utility is derived
from other purposes.
(h) The Report and Order also
established procedures for the filing of
written complaints alleging violations of
the Commission’s rules requiring
apparatus designed to receive, play
back, or record video programming to be
equipped with built-in closed caption
decoder circuitry or capability designed
to display closed captions. The
Commission set forth information that
such complaints should include. A
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
written complaint filed with the
Commission must be transmitted to the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau through the Commission’s
online informal complaint filing system,
U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or
facsimile. The Commission may forward
such complaints to the named
manufacturer or provider, as well as to
any other entity that Commission staff
determines may be involved, and may
request additional information from any
relevant parties when, in the estimation
of Commission staff, such information is
needed to investigate the complaint or
adjudicate potential violations of
Commission rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–7601 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Change in Bank Control Notices;
Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or
Bank Holding Company
The notificants listed below have
applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and
§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank
or bank holding company. The factors
that are considered in acting on the
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of
the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices
also will be available for inspection at
the offices of the Board of Governors.
Interested persons may express their
views in writing to the Reserve Bank
indicated for that notice or to the offices
of the Board of Governors. Comments
must be received not later than April 16,
2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
(Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1. Ander P. and Sandra G. Gibbs,
Dade City, Florida; to acquire
convertible nonvoting preferred shares
of Florida Bancshares, Inc., and thereby
indirectly acquire control of First
National Bank of Pasco, both in Dade
City, Florida.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1. Frank A. Peplinski, David
Peplinski, Jerry Pelinksi, Terry
Peplinski, Lynda Watchowski, Lauren
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
Peplinski, Crystal Stomack, Nicole
Peplinski, Brandon Watchowski, all of
Ubly, Michigan, and certain of their
minor children as a group acting in
concert, to retain voting shares of
Northstar Financial Group, Inc., and
thereby indirectly retain control of
Northstar Bank, both in Bad Axe,
Michigan, and Seaway Community
Bank, St. Clair, Michigan. In addition,
Jerry Peplinski, as trustee of the
Peplinski Family 2012 Trust, and The
Peplinksi Family 2012 Trust will
acquire shares of Northstar Financial
Group, and thereby become a member of
the Peplinski Family Group.
2. Lynette Drake, individually, Maria
Roberts, Maria Roberts, as trustee of the
Ryan J. Roberts Trust, the Ryan J.
Roberts Trust, Jeffrey Roberts, and
Austin Drake, all of Bad Axe, Michigan,
and certain of their minor children as a
group acting in concert, to retain voting
shares of Northstar Financial Group,
Inc., and thereby indirectly retain
control of Northstar Bank, both in Bad
Axe, Michigan, and Seaway Community
Bank, St. Clair, Michigan. In addition,
Lynette Drake, as trustee of the Roberts
Family, 2012 Trust, and the Roberts
Family 2012 Trust, will acquire shares
of Northstar Financial Group, Inc., and
thereby become a member of the Roberts
Family Control Group.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, March 27, 2012.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012–7673 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The applications will also be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than April 26, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
(Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1. Ategra Capital Partners I, LLC,
Vienna, Virginia; to become a bank
holding company by acquiring at least
87 percent of the preferred shares of
Florida Bancshares, Inc., and its
subsidiary, First National Bank of Pasco,
both in Dade City, Florida. The
preferred shares are convertible to
approximately 27.8 percent of the voting
shares.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, March 27, 2012.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012–7674 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
PO 00000
19287
Sfmt 4703
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[OMB Control No. 9000–0010; Docket 2011–
0079; Sequence 24]
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Submission for OMB Review; Progress
Payments (SF–1443)
Department of Defense (DOD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of request for public
comments regarding an extension to an
existing OMB clearance.
AGENCY:
Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Regulatory Secretariat will be
submitting to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) a request to review
and approve an extension of a
previously information collection
requirement concerning progress
payments. A notice was published in
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19284-19287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7601]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal
Communications Commission
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment
on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning (a)
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 29,
2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find
it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice,
you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
[[Page 19285]]
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the
information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060-1162.
Title: Closed Captioning of Video Programming Delivered Using
Internet Protocol, and Apparatus Closed Caption Requirements.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-
profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,762 respondents; 4,684
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.084 to 10 hours.
Frequency of Response: One time and on occasion reporting
requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third-party disclosure
requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Mandatory; Required to obtain or retain
benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is
contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and
Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 330(b), 713, and 716 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 330(b), 613,
and 617.
Total Annual Burden: 11,685 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $307,800.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA) was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html. The
Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various
revisions made to the SORN.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some assurances of
confidentiality are being provided to the respondents.
Parties filing petitions for exemption based on economic burden,
requests for Commission determinations of technical feasibility and
achievability, requests for purpose-based waivers, or responses to
complaints alleging violations of the Commission's rules may seek
confidential treatment of information they provide pursuant to the
Commission's existing confidentiality rules. See 47 CFR 0.459.
The Commission is not requesting that individuals who file
complaints alleging violations of the Commission's rules (complainants)
submit confidential information (e.g., credit card numbers, social
security numbers, or personal financial information) to the Commission.
The Commission requests that complainants submit their names,
addresses, and other contact information, which Commission staff needs
to process complaints. Any use of this information is covered under the
routine uses listed in the Commission's SORN, FCC/CGB-1, ``Informal
Complaints and Inquiries.''
The PIA that the FCC completed on June 28, 2007 gives a full and
complete explanation of how the FCC collects, stores, maintains,
safeguards, and destroys PII, as required by OMB regulations and the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The PIA may be viewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.
Also, the Commission will prepare a revision to the SORN and PIA to
cover the PII collected related to this information collection, as
required by OMB's Memorandum M-03-22 (September 26, 2003) and by the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Needs and Uses: On January 13, 2012, in document FCC 12-9, the
Commission released a Report and Order adopting final rules to
implement sections 303, 330(b), and 713 of the Communications Act of
1934 (the Act), as amended by the ``Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010'' (CVAA). See Public Law 111-260,
Sec. Sec. 202 and 203. The Commission also released an Erratum thereto
on January 30, 2012. Pursuant to Section 202 of the CVAA, the Report
and Order adopts rules governing the closed captioning requirements for
the owners, providers, and distributors of video programming delivered
using Internet protocol (IP). Pursuant to Section 203 of the CVAA, the
Report and Order adopts rules governing the closed captioning
capabilities of certain apparatus on which consumers view video
programming.
The following rule sections and other requirements contain revised
information collection requirements for which the Commission is seeking
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
(a) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(1)(ii) and 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(ii) require video
programming owners (VPOs) and video programming distributors and
providers (VPDs) to agree upon a mechanism to inform VPDs on an ongoing
basis whether video programming is subject to the IP closed captioning
requirements. The Commission considered and rejected adopting a single
specific mechanism that could impose greater information collection
burdens on small businesses. 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(ii) requires VPDs to
make a good faith effort to identify video programming subject to the
IP closed captioning requirements using the agreed upon mechanism. A
VPD may rely in good faith on a certification by a VPO that video
programming need not be captioned if: (A) the certification includes a
clear and concise explanation of why captioning is not required; and
(B) the VPD is able to produce the certification to the Commission in
the event of a complaint. VPDs may seek Commission determinations that
other proposed mechanisms provide adequate information for them to rely
on the mechanisms in good faith.
(b) 47 CFR 79.4(c)(2)(iii) requires VPDs to make contact
information available to end users for the receipt and handling of
written IP closed captioning complaints. The contact information
required for written complaints shall include the name of a person with
primary responsibility for IP captioning issues and who can ensure
compliance with the IP closed captioning rules. In addition, this
contact information shall include the person's title or office,
telephone number, fax number, postal mailing address, and email
address. VPDs must keep this information current and update it within
10 business days of any change.
(c) 47 CFR 79.4(d)(1) permits VPOs and VPDs to petition the
Commission for a full or partial exemption from the IP closed
captioning requirements, which the Commission may grant upon a finding
that the requirements would be economically burdensome. 47 CFR
79.4(d)(2) requires the petitioner to support a petition for exemption
with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the
requirements for closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming
would be economically burdensome. The term ``economically burdensome''
means imposing significant difficulty or expense. The Commission will
consider the following factors when determining whether the
requirements for closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming
would be economically burdensome: (i) the nature and cost of the closed
captions for the programming; (ii) the impact on the operation of the
VPD or VPO; (iii) the financial resources of the VPD or VPO; and (iv)
the type of operations of the VPD or VPO. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(3) provides
that, in addition to these factors, the petitioner must describe any
other factors it deems relevant to the Commission's final determination
and any available alternatives that might constitute a reasonable
substitute for the
[[Page 19286]]
IP closed captioning requirements including, but not limited to, text
or graphic display of the content of the audio portion of the
programming. The Commission will evaluate economic burden with regard
to the individual outlet. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(4) requires the petitioner to
electronically file its petition for exemption, and all subsequent
pleadings related to the petition. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits any
interested person to electronically file comments or oppositions to the
petition within 30 days after release of the public notice of the
petition. Within 20 days after the close of the period for filing
comments or oppositions, the petitioner may reply to any comments or
oppositions filed. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(7) requires persons who file comments
or oppositions to the petition to serve the petitioner with copies of
those comments or oppositions and to include a certification that the
petitioner was served with a copy. Any petitioner filing a reply to
comments or oppositions must serve the commenting or opposing party
with a copy of the reply and must include a certification that the
party was served with a copy.
Comments or oppositions and replies shall be served upon a party,
its attorney, or its other duly constituted agent by delivering or
mailing a copy to the party's last known address or by sending a copy
to the email address last provided by the party, its attorney, or other
duly constituted agent. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(8) provides that, upon a finding
of good cause, the Commission may lengthen or shorten any comment
period and waive or establish other procedural requirements. 47 CFR
79.4(d)(9) requires persons filing petitions and responsive pleadings
to include a detailed, full showing, supported by affidavit, of any
facts or considerations relied on. Overall, while there is some burden
associated with requesting an exemption, when granted, an exemption
will relieve the entity from complying with the IP closed captioning
requirements.
(d) 47 CFR 79.4(e)(1) provides that complaints concerning an
alleged violation of the IP closed captioning requirements shall be
filed in writing with the Commission or with the VPD responsible for
enabling the rendering or pass through of the closed captions for the
video programming within sixty (60) days after the date the complainant
experienced a problem with captioning. A complaint filed with the
Commission must be directed to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau and submitted through the Commission's online informal complaint
filing system, U.S. Mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile. 47 CFR
79.4(e)(2) sets forth certain information that a complaint should
include. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(3) states that, if a complaint is filed first
with the Commission, the Commission will forward complaints satisfying
the above requirements to the named VPD and/or VPO, as well as to any
other VPD and/or VPO that Commission staff determines may be involved.
The VPD and/or VPO must respond in writing to the Commission and the
complainant within 30 days after receipt of the complaint from the
Commission. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(4) states that, if a complaint is filed
first with the VPD, the VPD must respond in writing to the complainant
within thirty (30) days after receipt of a closed captioning complaint.
If a VPD fails to respond to the complainant within thirty (30) days,
or the response does not satisfy the consumer, the complainant may file
the complaint with the Commission within thirty (30) days after the
time allotted for the VPD to respond. If a consumer re-files the
complaint with the Commission and the complaint satisfies the above
requirements, the Commission will forward the complaint to the named
VPD, as well as to any other VPD and/or VPO that Commission staff
determines may be involved. The VPD and/or VPO must then respond in
writing to the Commission and the complainant within 30 days after
receipt of the complaint from the Commission. 47 CFR 79.4(e)(5)
requires VPDs and/or VPOs, in response to a complaint, to file with the
Commission sufficient records and documentation to prove that the
responding entity was (and remains) in compliance with the Commission's
rules. If the responding entity admits that it was not or is not in
compliance with the Commission's rules, it shall file with the
Commission sufficient records and documentation to explain the reasons
for its noncompliance, show what remedial steps it has taken or will
take, and show why such steps have been or will be sufficient to
remediate the problem. 47 CFR 79.4(d)(6) permits the Commission to
request additional information from any relevant entities when, in the
estimation of Commission staff, such information is needed to
investigate the complaint or adjudicate potential violation(s) of
Commission rules. When the Commission requests additional information,
parties to which such requests are addressed must provide the requested
information in the manner and within the time period the Commission
specifies. Overall, while the complaint procedures impose an
information collection burden, the requirement for VPDs to publish
contact information, described above, and to respond to consumer
complaints provides an opportunity for VPDs to resolve complaints
without Commission involvement.
(e) Under the CVAA, the requirements of Section 203 only apply to
the extent they are ``technically feasible.'' Parties may raise
technical infeasibility as a defense to a complaint or, alternatively,
may file a request for a ruling under Section 1.41 of the Commission's
rules before manufacturing or importing the product.
(f) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(3)(i) permits manufacturers of apparatus that
use a picture screen of less than 13 inches in size to petition the
Commission for a full or partial exemption from the closed captioning
requirements pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, which
the Commission may grant upon a finding that the requirements are not
achievable. Such manufacturers may also assert that such apparatus is
fully or partially exempt as a response to a complaint, which the
Commission may dismiss upon a finding that the requirements are not
achievable. 47 CFR 79.103(b)(3)(ii) requires the petitioner or
respondent to support a petition for exemption or a response to a
complaint with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with
the requirements is not ``achievable'' where ``achievable'' means with
reasonable effort or expense. The rule further sets forth certain
factors that the Commission will consider when determining whether the
requirements are not ``achievable.''
(g) 47 CFR 79.103(b)(4) permits manufacturers of apparatus to
petition the Commission for a full or partial waiver of the closed
captioning requirements, which the Commission may grant upon a finding
that the apparatus meets one of the following provisions: (i) The
apparatus is primarily designed for activities other than receiving or
playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound;
or (ii) The apparatus is designed for multiple purposes, capable of
receiving or playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously
with sound but whose essential utility is derived from other purposes.
(h) The Report and Order also established procedures for the filing
of written complaints alleging violations of the Commission's rules
requiring apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video
programming to be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder
circuitry or capability designed to display closed captions. The
Commission set forth information that such complaints should include. A
[[Page 19287]]
written complaint filed with the Commission must be transmitted to the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau through the Commission's
online informal complaint filing system, U.S. Mail, overnight delivery,
or facsimile. The Commission may forward such complaints to the named
manufacturer or provider, as well as to any other entity that
Commission staff determines may be involved, and may request additional
information from any relevant parties when, in the estimation of
Commission staff, such information is needed to investigate the
complaint or adjudicate potential violations of Commission rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7601 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
