Allegations of Anticompetitive Behavior in Satellite Industry, 43118-43122 [2013-17395]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43118
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
food products. Tolerance exemption
descriptors for polymers produced by
the reaction of either 1,6-hexanediisocyanate; 2,4,4-trimethyl-1,6hexanediisocyanate; 5-isocyanato-1(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethyI
cyclohexane (isophoronediisocyanate);
4,4′- methylene-bis-1,
1′-cyclohexanediisocyanate; 4,4′methylene-bis-1,1′benzyldiisocyanate;
or 1,3-bis-(2-isocyanatopropan-2-yl)
benzene with polyethylenglycol and
end-capped with one or a mixture of
more than one of octanol, decanol,
dodecanol, tetradecanol, hexadecanol,
octadecanol, and octadec-9-enol or
polyethyleneglycol ethers of octanol,
decanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol,
hexadecanol, octadecanol, and
octadec-9-enol. An analytical method to
determine the molecular weight of the
polymer is dynamic light scattering. The
petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because this information is
not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption. Contact: William
D. Cutchin, (RD), (703) 305–7990, email
address: cutchin.william@epa.gov.
7. PP IN–10559. (EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0383). Evonik Goldschmidt Corp.,
P.O. Box 1299, Hopewell, VA 23860,
requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2,5-furandione, polymer
with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide
with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol
2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2’-(1, 2diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]initiated, minimum number average
molecular weight (in AMU) 5,816 (CAS
No. 1062609–13–5), under 40 CFR
180.960, when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient (functioning as a dispersant)
in pesticide formulations. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed
because this information is not required
for the establishment of a tolerance
exemption. Contact: David Lieu, (RD),
(703) 305–0079, email address:
lieu.david@epa.gov.
8. PP IN–10565. (EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0467). Huntsman Corp., 8600
Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX 77381,
requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of cumenesulfonic acid and its
ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts with
no limits when used as pesticide inert
ingredients (surfactants, related
adjuvants of surfactants) in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.920 and
180.930, in or on all the raw agricultural
commodities, including the following
with Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Numbers (CASRNs):
Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-(1methylethyl)-, sodium salt (15763–76–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Jul 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
5); benzenesulfonic acid, 4-(1methylethyl)- (16066–35–6);
benzenesulfonic acid,
4-(1-methylethyl)-, potassium salt
(164524–02–1); benzenesulfonic acid,
(1-methylethyl)-, potassium salt (28085–
69–0); benzenesulfonic acid, (1methylethyl)-, sodium salt (1:1) (28348–
53–0); benzenesulfonic acid, 2(or 4)-(1methylethyl)- (28631–63–2); benzene,
(1-methylethyl)-, monosulfo deriv.,
sodium salt (1:1) (32073–22–6);
benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
ammonium salt (1:1) (37475–88–0);
benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)(37953–05–2); benzenesulfonic acid, (1methylethyl)-, magnesium salt (90959–
88–9). Prior to the submission of this
petition to add cumenesulfonate
CASRNs, the EPA reapproved
toluenesulfonate and xylenesulfonate
hydrotropes in the EPA Decision
Documents dated 9/14/2006 and 6/30/
2006. The combined documents are
available at https://www.epa.gov/
opprd001/inerts/xylenesulfonic.pdf.
Huntsman Corp. is relying on the
information in that combined EPA
Decision Document to support this
petition which includes a chemistry that
was also in the Screening Information
Data Set (SIDS) Initial Assessment
Report for hdrotropes. The SIDS
hydrotropes category included
cumenesulfonates, toluenesulfonates,
and xylenesulfonates. In fact,
cumenesulfonate data was used to
support the reassessment of the
toluenesulfonates and xylenesulfonates
in the EPA Decision Document.
Huntsman Corp. does not expect the
addition of these cumenesulfonate
CASRNs to result in additional exposure
or risk, and no new data is being
submitted with this petition. The
petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because this information is
not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption. Contact: William
D. Cutchin, (RD), (703) 305–7990, email
address: cutchin.william@epa.gov.
Amended Tolerance Exemption
1. PP IN–10544. (EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0210). Akzo Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, 525 West Van Buren,
Chicago, IL 60607–3823, requests to
amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR
180.920, 180.930, or 180.960, for
residues of [alpha]-alkyl-[omega]hydroxypoly (oxypropylene) and/or
poly(oxyethylene) polymers where the
alkyl chain contains a minimum of six
carbons, and alkyl-w-hydroxypoly
(oxypropylene) and/or poly
(oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl
chain contains a minimum of six
carbons, minimum number average
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
molecular weight (in AMU) 1,100 in or
on the raw agricultural commodity
growing crops at no limitation. An
analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency
is establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without any
numerical limitation. Contact: William
D. Cutchin, (RD), (703) 305–7990, email
address: cutchin.william@epa.gov.
2. PP IN–10551. (EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0381). Akzo Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, 909 Mueller Dr.,
Chattanooga, TN 37406, requests to
revise an existing exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for modified
acrylic polymers in 40 CFR 180.960.
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, is
requesting that the exemption be revised
to include lauryl methacrylate by
inserting lauryl methacrylate after
hydroxyethyl acrylate and before the
following text ‘‘and its sodium,
potassium, ammonium,
monoethanolamine and triethanolamine
salts; the resulting polymer having a
minimum number average molecular
weight (in amu), 1200.’’ This entry
begins with the following: Styrene,
copolymers with acrylic acid. The
petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because this information is
not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption. Contact: Mark
Dow, (RD), (703) 305–5533, email
address: dow.mark@epa.gov.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 11, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013–17378 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB DOCKET NO. 13–147; FCC 12–79]
Allegations of Anticompetitive
Behavior in Satellite Industry
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on whether, and, if so, to what
extent, incumbent satellite operators are
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
inhibiting competition in the market for
satellite services, particularly in the
fixed-satellite services (FSS) arena.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on whether FSS operators are
warehousing satellite orbital locations
and frequency assignments, and
preventing competitors from purchasing
capacity on incumbent-owned satellites.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 19, 2013, and reply comments
are due on or before September 17,
2013.
You may submit comments,
identified by IB Docket No. 13–147, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https:///
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC by email to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.): FCC504@fcc.gov; or phone
202–418–0530; or TTY: 202–418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Thomas (202) 418–2338, Satellite
Division, International Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554. For additional
information concerning the information
collection(s) contained in this
document, contact Judith B. Herman at
202–418–0214, or via the Internet at
Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry (Notice) in IB Docket No. 13–
147, adopted June 5, 2013, and released
on June 7, 2013. The full text of the
Notice is available for public inspection
and copying during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
This document may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile
202–488–5563, or via email
FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis: This document does not
propose revised information collection
requirements.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Jul 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Summary of Notice of Inquiry
A. Background
In this Notice of Inquiry (Notice) the
Commission seeks comment on
whether, and, if so, to what extent,
incumbent satellite operators are
inhibiting competition in the market for
satellite services, particularly in the
fixed-satellite services arena. This
Notice results from comments submitted
in response to two Congressionallymandated reports: The Orbit Act Report
and the Satellite Competition Report.
Pursuant to the Open-Market
Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act
(Orbit Act),1 the Commission is required
to submit an annual report to Congress
concerning the progress made with
regard to the privatization of INTELSAT
and Inmarsat. Some of the comments
submitted in preparation of the Eleventh
Orbit Act Report 2 raised two allegations
of anticompetitive behavior: First, that
Intelsat and other dominant satellite
operators are warehousing scarce orbital
resources, i.e., hoarding satellite orbital
locations and frequency assignments by
failing to replace aging satellites on a
timely basis or otherwise failing to
provide transponder capacity that
reflects current technology. The second
allegation is that Intelsat is now a
vertically integrated company, i.e. able
to provide its customers both space and
ground communications services, that
discriminates against competitors. As a
vertically integrated company, Intelsat
not only provides satellite services to
integrators (resellers) who need satellite
bandwidth to fashion their own
customer-specific service offerings, but
Intelsat also competes against
integrators because Intelsat is now able
to fashion its own customer-specific
service offerings. Consequently, some
integrators allege that this dual role has
resulted in them being vertically
foreclosed or barred by Intelsat from
securing satellite bandwidth capacity.
The Commission noted that the
Eleventh Orbit Act Report was not the
appropriate forum in which to resolve
such allegations, and stated that the
allegations would be addressed in an
appropriate forum.
The allegations were again raised in
comments considered in the Third
Satellite Competition Report,3 a report
1 Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment
of International Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C.
§§ 701, 706(e) (2000).
2 FCC Report to Congress as Required by the
ORBIT Act: Eleventh Report, FCC 10–112, 25 FCC
Rcd 7834, 7857–7861(2010)
3 Third Report and Analysis of Competitive
Market Conditions with respect to Domestic and
International Satellite Communications Services,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43119
the Commission annually delivers to
Congress regarding the state of
competition in the satellite industry.4 In
the Third Satellite Competition Report,
one commenter expanded upon the
warehousing and vertical foreclosure
allegations it made in the Eleventh Orbit
Act Report; the Commission, however,
determined that it was unable to reach
conclusions regarding these allegations
for two reasons. First, the factual record
for the Third Satellite Competition
Report was limited with regard to the
warehousing allegations and, second,
the evidence was inconclusive whether
Intelsat restricts or prevents integrators
from obtaining satellite bandwidth
capacity. The Third Satellite
Competition Report concluded that
these allegations warranted additional
analysis in a separate proceeding where
a more detailed record could be
developed and explored.
B. Warehousing Allegations
a. Gaps in Service
In the Notice, the Commission
identified four types of potential
warehousing scenarios. In the first
scenario, warehousing can result from
gaps in service when an operator deorbits or relocates an in-orbit satellite,
but does not immediately place another
satellite into the vacated orbital
location. Whether such a gap is the
result of warehousing or a legitimate
exercise of operator flexibility is a
determination the Commission makes
on a case-by-case basis. In the Notice,
the Commission asks, for example,
whether it should adopt a rule that
declares unused spectrum available for
reassignment as soon as service is
terminated, unless an operator can
demonstrate that it terminated service
because of an unforeseen catastrophic
circumstance. Alternatively, the
Commission asks whether permitting
some gap in service would strike a
better balance between providing an
operator flexibility in managing its fleet
while still safeguarding against
warehousing.
Gaps in service often result in satellite
operators inserting replacement
satellites that do not operate on all the
frequency bands used by the retired or
relocated satellite; and while satellite
operators sometimes specify the
frequencies used by both incoming and
outgoing satellites, often they do not,
Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
Conditions with respect to Domestic and
International Satellite Communications Services,
FCC 11–183, IB Docket Nos. 09–16 and IB 10–99,
26 FCC Rcd 17284, 17346–17353 (2011).
4 Amendment to Communications Satellite Act,
Public Law 109–34, 119 Stat. 377 (2005), codified
at 47 U.S.C. § 703.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
43120
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
thus requiring that the Commission
expend resources and time in order to
sort out which frequencies are
operational at a particular orbital
location. Thus, the Commission asks, for
example, whether each replacement
application should include a table that
lists the frequencies used by both the
original and the replacement space
station, and whether an application
should be considered incomplete if it
does not include such a table. The
Commission also seeks comment on
how to expeditiously address situations
where incomplete frequency
information is provided.
Additionally, there are instances
where a gap in service is caused by
unforeseen circumstances. Under the
Commission’s current rules, requests for
emergency replacement satellites are
considered on a case-by-case basis and,
generally, the Commission grants
authority for emergency replacement
satellites as long as an operator timely
launches a new satellite or relocates an
in-orbit satellite into the vacant orbital
location. Where the failure of a fully
functional five-year old in-orbit satellite
would be viewed as a catastrophic
failure that excuses a gap in service, the
Commission asks, for example, whether
the same should be true of a fourteenyear old satellite that fails a few months
earlier than expected; relatedly, the
Commission asks whether in a nonemergency situation, the satellite
operator should have made significant
progress on construction of and have
concrete launch plans for a replacement
satellite, particularly given that it takes
two-to-five years to construct and
launch a satellite. The Commission also
asks, for example, whether it should
require satellite operators to submit, in
their annual reports, end-of-life
projections for all in-orbit satellites, and
asks for comment on whether it should
propose rules that may allow it to
expedite consideration of requests for
emergency replacement satellites.
b. Older Replacement Satellites
In the second scenario, warehousing
can arise when there is no gap in service
but a satellite operator decides to
relocate an older, in-orbit satellite to
serve as a replacement for a satellite it
has de-orbited or moved to another
location. These situations potentially
restrict transponder capacity and result
in an underutilization of spectrum
resources because newer technology is
not brought into use at that orbital
location. As with other potential
warehousing situations, the Commission
must evaluate these requests on a caseby-case basis; thus, the Commission
seeks comment on, for example, the use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Jul 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
of older satellites as replacement
satellites and whether this practice
restricts transponder capacity and
results in an underutilization of
spectrum resources. Additionally, the
Commission requests comment on
whether or to what extent allowing
operators to use older satellites as
replacements precludes the use of
newer technologies that can provide
improved services to consumers.5 For
example, the Commission asks whether
it should permit an operator to replace
a 13- or 14- year old satellite with
another satellite that is 13- or 14-years
old, and whether it should be more
concerned about the health of the
replacement satellite, rather than its age.
c. License Extensions
With an increase in the useful life of
satellites, the third potential
warehousing scenario is evidenced by
the increase in the number of requests
made of the Commission to extend a
satellite’s license term well beyond its
initial license term. While it may be
possible for a satellite to operate an
additional decade or more beyond its
original license term, the Commission
asks whether lengthy extensions allow
inefficient or partially-functioning
satellites to block customer access to
newer, state-of-the art satellites.
Additionally, the Commission asks
whether, for example, prior to granting
a license extension, it should require the
operator to submit information
regarding the satellite’s health, and how
it might apply license extension
limitations to non-U.S. licensed
satellites granted market access to the
United States.
d. Underutilized Satellites
The fourth potential warehousing
scenario concerns underutilized
satellites. Regardless of age and for a
variety of reasons, satellites may not be
operating at full capacity. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
this creates a concern that the operator
is warehousing spectrum, and asks
whether it should propose a rule that
5 Most satellite operators are required to submit
annual reports to the Commission detailing the
status of their space stations. Depending on the
service, the operator may have to provide the status
of satellite construction and expected launch dates,
and a detailed description of the utilization of inorbit satellites, including outages, and any
transponders not available for service. See 47 CFR
§§ 25.142(c), 25.143(e), 25.145(f)(1), 25.146(l), and
25.210(l). The Commission has proposed to
consolidate these reporting requirements into a
single rule. See Comprehensive Review of Licensing
and Operating Rules for Satellite Services, FCC 12–
117, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd
11619 (2012). Comprehensive Review of Licensing
and Operating Rules for Satellite Services, Proposed
Rules, 77 FR 67172 (Nov. 8, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
automatically terminates a space station
license if the percentage of unused
capacity exceeds a certain amount. Even
if the authorization for an underutilized
satellite is not cancelled, the
Commission asks whether, at a
minimum, the unused spectrum should
be made available for reassignment.
Additionally, the Commission asks
whether there are instances in which
such ‘‘non-use’’ may be acceptable.
2. Vertical Foreclosure Allegations
Although some integrators allege that
a vertically-integrated Intelsat has
foreclosed them from securing satellite
bandwidth capacity, the Commission’s
focus is on protecting competition
rather than protecting particular
competitors. Thus, loss of business and
profits to integrator firms themselves is
not considered a public interest harm if
end users, i.e., customers and/or
consumers, are not harmed.
a. Analytical Framework
In the Third Satellite Competition
Report, the Commission described a
multi-step framework for examining the
vertical foreclosure allegations and
determining whether end users are
being harmed. The framework, for
example, seeks to determine: (1)
Whether the alleged foreclosure conduct
has or might lessen competition by
excluding integrators from acquiring
bandwidth capacity, and whether
integrators have access to adequate
alternatives to satellite bandwidth; (2)
whether Intelsat has the ability to
compete effectively as a provider of
satellite services as well the ability to
foreclose competitors; (3) whether
Intelsat’s vertical integration creates
procompetitive cost savings and
efficiencies likely to be passed on to end
users; or, instead, is likely to result in
increased price or degraded service
quality; (4) whether any resulting
efficiencies from vertical integration are
likely passed on to end users; and (5)
whether the Commission must
determine if vertically integrated
satellite operators will, to their
advantage and to the detriment of
integrators, purchase bandwidth from
each other, and whether that
relationship might have an impact on
competition.
b. Issues for Inquiry
In addition to seeking comment on
the multi-step framework, the
Commission seeks additional
information that can help it evaluate
adequately the warehousing and vertical
foreclosure allegations. For example, the
Commission seeks more details on the
nature and scope of the alleged
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
foreclosure, asking that commenters
detail the time period, the geographic
routes involved, the amount and type of
bandwidth capacity (Ku-band, C-band,
etc.) involved, and the size of the
disputed business, either in absolute
terms or relative to the size of the
excluded integrators’ business, the FSS
operators’ business, or the total demand
of the affected customer(s). The
Commission asks whether integrators,
for example, have viable options other
than using satellite bandwidth capacity,
whether integrators can launch their
own satellites, and how non-satellite
bandwidth options compare to service
provide by satellite operators.
The Commission asks commenters
about various types of pricing
information; information that will aid in
measuring cost savings and efficiencies
that, if any, result from vertical
integration; data on why vertical
integration does not reduce costs and
create efficiencies; data that quantifies
the effect of the vertical integration on
the services provided to end users
(including changes in the number of
bidders, the features and quality of
service provided by the selected bidder,
and bid rates); data on whether Intelsat
vertical integration was facilitated by
horizontal collusion among satellite
operators, and/or whether the vertical
integration has enhanced or deterred
coordinated interactions among
potential bidders; and comment on
appropriate remedies that could be
implemented by the Commission.
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
II. Regulatory Impact Conclusion
This document does not propose new
or modified information collection
requirements, and does not propose to
eliminate any existing information
collection requirements.
This Notice seeks data which will be
used to assess the warehousing and
vertical foreclosure allegations. It does
not propose any changes to existing
rules.
III. Procedural Matters
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Ex Parte
The proceeding this Notice initiates
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Jul 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
This document does not propose any
economic impact on small entities.
C. Initial Paperwork Reduction
D. Filing of Comments and Reply
Comments
Pursuant to sections 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. When filing
comments or reply comments, please
reference IB Docket No. 13–147.
Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3)
by filing paper copies. 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: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43121
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies 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 messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
People With Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202–
418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to
request reasonable accommodations for
filing comments (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email at:
FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: 202–418–0530
or TTY: 202–418–0432.
IV. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o),
301, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154 (i)–(j) & (o), 301, and 403, section
1.430 of the Commission’s Rules, 47
CFR 1.430, this Notice of Inquiry in IB
Docket No. 13–47 is adopted.
It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the initial regulatory
flexibility act analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
43122
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Business Administration, in accordance
with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
(1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–17395 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100;
FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074; 4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ21; RIN 1018–AY07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Status for the
Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and
the Northern Distinct Population
Segment of the Mountain YellowLegged Frog, and Threatened Status
for the Yosemite Toad
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the
public comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our April 25, 2013, proposed rule to
list the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
and the northern distinct population
segment (DPS) (populations that occur
north of the Tehachapi Mountains) of
the mountain yellow-legged frog as
endangered species, and the Yosemite
toad as a threatened species. We are also
reopening the public comment period
on our April 25, 2013, proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for these
species. The 60-day comment period for
both proposed rules ended on June 24,
2013. This notice announces reopening
of the comment periods to allow all
interested parties an additional
opportunity to comment on the
proposed rules and to submit
information on the status of the species
and proposed critical habitat. We will
consider all comments and information
provided by the public during these
comment periods in preparation of a
final determination on our proposed
listings and designation of critical
habitat. Accordingly, the final decisions
may differ from our proposals. If you
submitted comments previously, you do
not need to resubmit them because we
have already incorporated them into the
public record and will fully consider
them in preparation of the final rules.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Jul 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
The comment periods for the
proposed rules published April 25,
2013, at 78 FR 24472 and 24516, are
reopened. We will consider all
comments received or postmarked on or
before November 18, 2013. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may
obtain copies of the proposed rule and
related documents on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
Number FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 for the
proposed listing and Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074 for the
proposed critical habitat. You can also
obtain copies by mail from the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Comment submission: You may
submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 (the
docket number for the proposed listing
rule) or FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074 (the
docket number for the proposed critical
habitat rule). On the search results page,
under the Comment Period heading in
the menu on the left side of your screen,
check the box next to ‘‘Open’’ to locate
this document. Please ensure you have
found the correct document before
submitting your comments. If your
comments will fit in the provided
comment box, please use this feature of
https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your
comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word.
If you attach multiple comments (such
as form letters), our preferred format is
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2012–
0100 (if commenting on the proposed
listing rule) or FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074
(if commenting on the proposed critical
habitat rule); Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all information received on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see Request for Information in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
information).
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Jan
Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916–
414–6600; facsimile 916–414–6712. If
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
On April 25, 2013, we published in
the Federal Register a proposed rule to
list the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
and the northern distinct population
segment (DPS) (populations that occur
north of the Tehachapi Mountains) of
the mountain yellow-legged frog as
endangered species, and the Yosemite
toad as a threatened species (78 FR
24472). Also on April 25, 2013, we
published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for these species (78 FR 24516).
The 60-day comment period for both
proposed rules ended on June 24, 2013.
Information Requested
We are reopening the public comment
period for two proposed rules for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the
northern distinct population segment
(DPS) (populations that occur north of
the Tehachapi Mountains) of the
mountain yellow-legged frog, and the
Yosemite toad. We will accept written
comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our April
25, 2013, proposed rules to list these
species (78 FR 24472) and to designate
critical habitat (78 FR 24516). For more
information on the specific information
we are seeking, please see the April 25,
2013, proposed rules.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rules
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We will not accept
comments sent by email or fax, or to an
address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you
submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments previously submitted need
not be resubmitted, as they will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rules. We intend that any final actions
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43118-43122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17395]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB DOCKET NO. 13-147; FCC 12-79]
Allegations of Anticompetitive Behavior in Satellite Industry
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on whether, and, if so, to what extent, incumbent satellite
operators are
[[Page 43119]]
inhibiting competition in the market for satellite services,
particularly in the fixed-satellite services (FSS) arena. Specifically,
the Commission seeks comment on whether FSS operators are warehousing
satellite orbital locations and frequency assignments, and preventing
competitors from purchasing capacity on incumbent-owned satellites.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 19, 2013, and reply
comments are due on or before September 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 13-147,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https:///
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC by email to
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.): FCC504@fcc.gov; or phone 202-418-
0530; or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Thomas (202) 418-2338, Satellite
Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning the
information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judith B.
Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry (Notice) in IB Docket No. 13-147, adopted June 5, 2013, and
released on June 7, 2013. The full text of the Notice is available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via email
FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document
does not propose revised information collection requirements.
I. Summary of Notice of Inquiry
A. Background
In this Notice of Inquiry (Notice) the Commission seeks comment on
whether, and, if so, to what extent, incumbent satellite operators are
inhibiting competition in the market for satellite services,
particularly in the fixed-satellite services arena. This Notice results
from comments submitted in response to two Congressionally-mandated
reports: The Orbit Act Report and the Satellite Competition Report.
Pursuant to the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act (Orbit Act),\1\ the Commission is
required to submit an annual report to Congress concerning the progress
made with regard to the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Some of
the comments submitted in preparation of the Eleventh Orbit Act Report
\2\ raised two allegations of anticompetitive behavior: First, that
Intelsat and other dominant satellite operators are warehousing scarce
orbital resources, i.e., hoarding satellite orbital locations and
frequency assignments by failing to replace aging satellites on a
timely basis or otherwise failing to provide transponder capacity that
reflects current technology. The second allegation is that Intelsat is
now a vertically integrated company, i.e. able to provide its customers
both space and ground communications services, that discriminates
against competitors. As a vertically integrated company, Intelsat not
only provides satellite services to integrators (resellers) who need
satellite bandwidth to fashion their own customer-specific service
offerings, but Intelsat also competes against integrators because
Intelsat is now able to fashion its own customer-specific service
offerings. Consequently, some integrators allege that this dual role
has resulted in them being vertically foreclosed or barred by Intelsat
from securing satellite bandwidth capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 701,
706(e) (2000).
\2\ FCC Report to Congress as Required by the ORBIT Act:
Eleventh Report, FCC 10-112, 25 FCC Rcd 7834, 7857-7861(2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission noted that the Eleventh Orbit Act Report was not the
appropriate forum in which to resolve such allegations, and stated that
the allegations would be addressed in an appropriate forum.
The allegations were again raised in comments considered in the
Third Satellite Competition Report,\3\ a report the Commission annually
delivers to Congress regarding the state of competition in the
satellite industry.\4\ In the Third Satellite Competition Report, one
commenter expanded upon the warehousing and vertical foreclosure
allegations it made in the Eleventh Orbit Act Report; the Commission,
however, determined that it was unable to reach conclusions regarding
these allegations for two reasons. First, the factual record for the
Third Satellite Competition Report was limited with regard to the
warehousing allegations and, second, the evidence was inconclusive
whether Intelsat restricts or prevents integrators from obtaining
satellite bandwidth capacity. The Third Satellite Competition Report
concluded that these allegations warranted additional analysis in a
separate proceeding where a more detailed record could be developed and
explored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Third Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions
with respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications
Services, Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with
respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications
Services, FCC 11-183, IB Docket Nos. 09-16 and IB 10-99, 26 FCC Rcd
17284, 17346-17353 (2011).
\4\ Amendment to Communications Satellite Act, Public Law 109-
34, 119 Stat. 377 (2005), codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Warehousing Allegations
a. Gaps in Service
In the Notice, the Commission identified four types of potential
warehousing scenarios. In the first scenario, warehousing can result
from gaps in service when an operator de-orbits or relocates an in-
orbit satellite, but does not immediately place another satellite into
the vacated orbital location. Whether such a gap is the result of
warehousing or a legitimate exercise of operator flexibility is a
determination the Commission makes on a case-by-case basis. In the
Notice, the Commission asks, for example, whether it should adopt a
rule that declares unused spectrum available for reassignment as soon
as service is terminated, unless an operator can demonstrate that it
terminated service because of an unforeseen catastrophic circumstance.
Alternatively, the Commission asks whether permitting some gap in
service would strike a better balance between providing an operator
flexibility in managing its fleet while still safeguarding against
warehousing.
Gaps in service often result in satellite operators inserting
replacement satellites that do not operate on all the frequency bands
used by the retired or relocated satellite; and while satellite
operators sometimes specify the frequencies used by both incoming and
outgoing satellites, often they do not,
[[Page 43120]]
thus requiring that the Commission expend resources and time in order
to sort out which frequencies are operational at a particular orbital
location. Thus, the Commission asks, for example, whether each
replacement application should include a table that lists the
frequencies used by both the original and the replacement space
station, and whether an application should be considered incomplete if
it does not include such a table. The Commission also seeks comment on
how to expeditiously address situations where incomplete frequency
information is provided.
Additionally, there are instances where a gap in service is caused
by unforeseen circumstances. Under the Commission's current rules,
requests for emergency replacement satellites are considered on a case-
by-case basis and, generally, the Commission grants authority for
emergency replacement satellites as long as an operator timely launches
a new satellite or relocates an in-orbit satellite into the vacant
orbital location. Where the failure of a fully functional five-year old
in-orbit satellite would be viewed as a catastrophic failure that
excuses a gap in service, the Commission asks, for example, whether the
same should be true of a fourteen-year old satellite that fails a few
months earlier than expected; relatedly, the Commission asks whether in
a non-emergency situation, the satellite operator should have made
significant progress on construction of and have concrete launch plans
for a replacement satellite, particularly given that it takes two-to-
five years to construct and launch a satellite. The Commission also
asks, for example, whether it should require satellite operators to
submit, in their annual reports, end-of-life projections for all in-
orbit satellites, and asks for comment on whether it should propose
rules that may allow it to expedite consideration of requests for
emergency replacement satellites.
b. Older Replacement Satellites
In the second scenario, warehousing can arise when there is no gap
in service but a satellite operator decides to relocate an older, in-
orbit satellite to serve as a replacement for a satellite it has de-
orbited or moved to another location. These situations potentially
restrict transponder capacity and result in an underutilization of
spectrum resources because newer technology is not brought into use at
that orbital location. As with other potential warehousing situations,
the Commission must evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis;
thus, the Commission seeks comment on, for example, the use of older
satellites as replacement satellites and whether this practice
restricts transponder capacity and results in an underutilization of
spectrum resources. Additionally, the Commission requests comment on
whether or to what extent allowing operators to use older satellites as
replacements precludes the use of newer technologies that can provide
improved services to consumers.\5\ For example, the Commission asks
whether it should permit an operator to replace a 13- or 14- year old
satellite with another satellite that is 13- or 14-years old, and
whether it should be more concerned about the health of the replacement
satellite, rather than its age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Most satellite operators are required to submit annual
reports to the Commission detailing the status of their space
stations. Depending on the service, the operator may have to provide
the status of satellite construction and expected launch dates, and
a detailed description of the utilization of in-orbit satellites,
including outages, and any transponders not available for service.
See 47 CFR Sec. Sec. 25.142(c), 25.143(e), 25.145(f)(1), 25.146(l),
and 25.210(l). The Commission has proposed to consolidate these
reporting requirements into a single rule. See Comprehensive Review
of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services, FCC 12-117,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 11619 (2012).
Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite
Services, Proposed Rules, 77 FR 67172 (Nov. 8, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. License Extensions
With an increase in the useful life of satellites, the third
potential warehousing scenario is evidenced by the increase in the
number of requests made of the Commission to extend a satellite's
license term well beyond its initial license term. While it may be
possible for a satellite to operate an additional decade or more beyond
its original license term, the Commission asks whether lengthy
extensions allow inefficient or partially-functioning satellites to
block customer access to newer, state-of-the art satellites.
Additionally, the Commission asks whether, for example, prior to
granting a license extension, it should require the operator to submit
information regarding the satellite's health, and how it might apply
license extension limitations to non-U.S. licensed satellites granted
market access to the United States.
d. Underutilized Satellites
The fourth potential warehousing scenario concerns underutilized
satellites. Regardless of age and for a variety of reasons, satellites
may not be operating at full capacity. The Commission seeks comment on
whether this creates a concern that the operator is warehousing
spectrum, and asks whether it should propose a rule that automatically
terminates a space station license if the percentage of unused capacity
exceeds a certain amount. Even if the authorization for an
underutilized satellite is not cancelled, the Commission asks whether,
at a minimum, the unused spectrum should be made available for
reassignment. Additionally, the Commission asks whether there are
instances in which such ``non-use'' may be acceptable.
2. Vertical Foreclosure Allegations
Although some integrators allege that a vertically-integrated
Intelsat has foreclosed them from securing satellite bandwidth
capacity, the Commission's focus is on protecting competition rather
than protecting particular competitors. Thus, loss of business and
profits to integrator firms themselves is not considered a public
interest harm if end users, i.e., customers and/or consumers, are not
harmed.
a. Analytical Framework
In the Third Satellite Competition Report, the Commission described
a multi-step framework for examining the vertical foreclosure
allegations and determining whether end users are being harmed. The
framework, for example, seeks to determine: (1) Whether the alleged
foreclosure conduct has or might lessen competition by excluding
integrators from acquiring bandwidth capacity, and whether integrators
have access to adequate alternatives to satellite bandwidth; (2)
whether Intelsat has the ability to compete effectively as a provider
of satellite services as well the ability to foreclose competitors; (3)
whether Intelsat's vertical integration creates procompetitive cost
savings and efficiencies likely to be passed on to end users; or,
instead, is likely to result in increased price or degraded service
quality; (4) whether any resulting efficiencies from vertical
integration are likely passed on to end users; and (5) whether the
Commission must determine if vertically integrated satellite operators
will, to their advantage and to the detriment of integrators, purchase
bandwidth from each other, and whether that relationship might have an
impact on competition.
b. Issues for Inquiry
In addition to seeking comment on the multi-step framework, the
Commission seeks additional information that can help it evaluate
adequately the warehousing and vertical foreclosure allegations. For
example, the Commission seeks more details on the nature and scope of
the alleged
[[Page 43121]]
foreclosure, asking that commenters detail the time period, the
geographic routes involved, the amount and type of bandwidth capacity
(Ku-band, C-band, etc.) involved, and the size of the disputed
business, either in absolute terms or relative to the size of the
excluded integrators' business, the FSS operators' business, or the
total demand of the affected customer(s). The Commission asks whether
integrators, for example, have viable options other than using
satellite bandwidth capacity, whether integrators can launch their own
satellites, and how non-satellite bandwidth options compare to service
provide by satellite operators.
The Commission asks commenters about various types of pricing
information; information that will aid in measuring cost savings and
efficiencies that, if any, result from vertical integration; data on
why vertical integration does not reduce costs and create efficiencies;
data that quantifies the effect of the vertical integration on the
services provided to end users (including changes in the number of
bidders, the features and quality of service provided by the selected
bidder, and bid rates); data on whether Intelsat vertical integration
was facilitated by horizontal collusion among satellite operators, and/
or whether the vertical integration has enhanced or deterred
coordinated interactions among potential bidders; and comment on
appropriate remedies that could be implemented by the Commission.
II. Regulatory Impact Conclusion
This Notice seeks data which will be used to assess the warehousing
and vertical foreclosure allegations. It does not propose any changes
to existing rules.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
This document does not propose any economic impact on small
entities.
C. Initial Paperwork Reduction
This document does not propose new or modified information
collection requirements, and does not propose to eliminate any existing
information collection requirements.
D. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR Sec. Sec. 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. When filing comments or reply comments, please reference
IB Docket No. 13-147. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. 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: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies 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. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or
202-418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email at: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone:
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
IV. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 4(o), 301, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i)-(j) & (o), 301, and 403, section 1.430 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.430, this Notice of Inquiry in IB Docket
No. 13-47 is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the initial
regulatory flexibility act analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small
[[Page 43122]]
Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17395 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
