Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking, 78768-78775 [2014-30576]
Download as PDF
78768
*
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–30573 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0291; FRL–9921–25–OAR]
RIN 2060–AP69
NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; extension of
public comment period and change to
public hearing date.
ACTION:
On December 18, 2014, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
for brick and structural clay products
manufacturing and NESHAP for clay
ceramics manufacturing. The EPA is
extending the deadline for written
comments on the proposed rule by 30
days to March 19, 2015. In addition, the
EPA is changing the date of the public
hearing, if requested, to January 27,
2015, and the date to pre-register for the
hearing if it is held.
DATES: Comments. The public comment
period for the proposed rule published
in the Federal Register on December 18,
2014 (79 FR 75622) is being extended
for 30 days to March 19, 2015.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting a public hearing by
January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold a
public hearing on January 27, 2015,
from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time]
to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency building located at 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. If the EPA holds a
public hearing, the EPA will keep the
record of the hearing open for 30 days
after completion of the hearing to
provide an opportunity for submission
of rebuttal and supplementary
information.
SUMMARY:
Comments. Written
comments on the proposed rule may be
submitted to the EPA electronically, by
mail, by facsimile or through hand
delivery/courier. Please refer to the
proposal for the addresses and detailed
instructions.
Docket. The EPA has established
dockets for this rulemaking under
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–
0291 for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing and Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents
in the dockets are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744 and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–1742.
Public Hearing. If requested by
January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold a
public hearing on January 27, 2015,
from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time]
to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency building located at 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms.
Pamela Garrett of the Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D243–01),
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
7966; email address: garrett.pamela@
epa.gov to request a hearing, register to
speak at the hearing or to inquire as to
whether or not a hearing will be held.
The last day to pre-register in advance
to speak at the hearing will be January
23, 2015. Additionally, requests to
speak will be taken the day of the
hearing at the hearing registration desk,
although preferences on speaking times
may not be able to be fulfilled. Please
refer to the proposal for the more
detailed information on the public
hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about the proposed rule for
Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon
Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing
Group, Sector Policies and Program
Division (D243–04), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; Telephone number: (919) 541–
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2825; Fax number: (919) 541–5450;
Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
After considering a request to extend
the public comment period, the EPA has
decided to extend the public comment
period for an additional 30 days.
Therefore, the public comment period
will end on March 19, 2015, rather than
February 17, 2015. This extension will
help ensure that the public has
sufficient time to review the proposed
rule and the supporting technical
documents and data available in the
docket.
Dated: December 23, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014–30715 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 14–206]
Closed Captioning of Video
Programming; Telecommunications for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.
Petition for Rulemaking
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission issues a Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking
additional comment on several issues
related to matters raised in the
Commission’s Closed Captioning
Quality Order. These issues include
whether the Commission should require
video programmers to file contact
information and certifications of
captioning compliance with the
Commission and whether other means
would make programmer contact
information and certifications more
widely available.
DATES: Comments are due January 20,
2015 and reply comments are due
January 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 05–231, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Web site for submitting comments. For
ECFS filers, in completing the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal service
mailing address, and CG Docket No. 05–
231.
• Paper filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving 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 Mail sent by 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 should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties must serve one copy
of each pleading with the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com. 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: Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office, (202) 418–2235, email:
Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov; or Caitlin
Vogus, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office,
(202) 418–1264, email: Caitlin.Vogus@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
document FCC 14–206, adopted
December 12, 2014, released December
15, 2014. The full text of document FCC
14–206, and any subsequently filed
documents in this matter will be
available for public inspection and
copying via ECFS, and during regular
business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
Washington, DC 20554. It also may 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: (800) 378–3160, fax:
(202) 488–5563, or Internet:
www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14–
206 can also be downloaded in Word or
Portable Document Format (PDF) at
https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/
disability-rights-office-headlines. 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),
202–418–0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 14–206 seeks
comment on potential revised
information collection requirements. If
the Commission adopts any revised
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how the
Commission might ‘‘further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
Synopsis
1. In FCC 14–206, the Commission
seeks additional comment on several
issues related to matter raised in the
Commission’s February 24, 2014
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on closed captioning. Closed Captioning
of Video Programming;
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for
Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05–231,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Further Notice); published at 79 FR
17093, March 27, 2014. The
Commission invites comment on
requiring video programmers to file
contact information and certifications of
captioning compliance with the
Commission. The Commission also
invites comment on whether any other
means would make programmer contact
information and certifications more
widely available to consumers, video
programming distributors (VPDs), and
other interested parties. Further, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
these potential rule modifications alter
previous Commission positions and
whether there are justifications for the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78769
Commission changing course at this
time.
2. The Commission invites comment
on whether to require video
programmers to file contact information
with the Commission for inclusion in
the registry of VPD contact information
(VPD Registry) or a separate database, if
the Commission were to decide to
extend to video programmers some of
the responsibilities for compliance with
its closed captioning rules and for the
resolution of captioning complaints.
The Commission also invites comment
on whether such filings should utilize a
web form, i.e., an interactive form on the
Commission’s Web site designed to
receive and transfer information to a
publicly available Commission
database. What are the costs and
benefits of requiring video programmers
to file contact information with the
Commission? Should the Commission
require video programmers to provide
the same contact information as is
currently required of VPDs by its
existing rules? Do video programmers
generally have a designated person
available to handle immediate closed
captioning concerns, and if not, what
benefits and burdens would result from
a requirement that programmers
designate such a person? Is there
additional information beyond that
required of VPDs that the Commission
should require video programmers to
file? Should video programmers also be
required to place the contact
information on their Web sites, if they
have a Web site, or to provide the
information in some other way for
added access by the public?
3. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether it should alter its
requirements regarding certifications by
video programmers as to their
compliance with rules on the provision
and quality of closed captioning, if the
Commission decides to extend some
responsibilities for compliance with its
closed captioning rules to video
programmers. 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) requires
VPDs to exercise best efforts to obtain a
certification from each video
programmer from which the VPD
obtains programming stating (i) that the
video programmer’s programming
satisfies the required caption quality
standards; (ii) that in the ordinary
course of business, the video
programmer adopts and follows the Best
Practices in captioning its programming;
or (iii) that the video programmer is
exempt from the closed captioning
rules, under one or more properly
obtained and specified exemptions. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should amend 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78770
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
require video programmers to file their
certifications on captioning quality with
the Commission, or whether the
Commission should require them to
make such certifications widely
available through other means. Should
the Commission additionally modify the
Video Programmer Best Practices’
certification procedures set forth in 47
CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to make filing
certifications with the Commission part
of the video programmers’ best
practices? Why should the Commission
change its position and require video
programmer certifications to be filed
with the Commission rather than
making such certifications widely
available through other means? What
are the benefits and costs of requiring
the certifications mandated by 47 CFR
79.1(j)(1) and 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to be
filed with the Commission? What would
be the expected volume of such video
programmer certifications on captioning
quality? Would requiring video
programmers to file these certifications
with the Commission assist VPDs,
consumers and the Commission in
locating the certifications, in addition to
providing video programmers with a
convenient means of making their
certifications widely available?
4. The Commission further seeks
comment on whether it should
otherwise amend its rules regarding
certifications for the provision of closed
captioning. Currently, 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6)
allows VPDs to rely upon certifications
from ‘‘programming suppliers’’ to
demonstrate compliance with the
Commission’s rules for the provision of
closed captioning. According to 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6), ‘‘programming supplier’’
includes ‘‘programming producers,
programming owners, networks,
syndicators and other distributors’’
(emphasis added). If the Commission
retains 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) in some form,
either as a separate rule or incorporated
into another rule, should the
Commission amend the rule to replace
the term ‘‘programming supplier’’ with
the term ‘‘video programmer’’? The
Commission notes that unlike the term
‘‘programming supplier,’’ the term
‘‘video programmer’’ does not include
VPDs. Rather, the term ‘‘video
programmer’’ is defined as ‘‘any entity
that provides video programming that is
intended for distribution to residential
households including, but not limited
to, broadcast or nonbroadcast television
networks and the owners of such
programming.’’ Is this rule amendment
necessary to help differentiate the
responsibilities of regulated entities, if
the Commission were to decide to
impose some obligations directly on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
video programmers? The term
‘‘programming supplier’’ also is used in
47 CFR 79.1(e)(6). Should the use of the
term in 47 CFR 79.1(e)(6) be replaced to
be consistent with any changes to 47
CFR 79.1(g)(6) or its successor rule? Are
there other subsections contained
within 47 CFR 79.1 in which the term
‘‘programming supplier’’ should be
replaced with ‘‘video programmer’’?
5. Further, although 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6)
allows VPDs to rely upon certifications
from programming suppliers, it does not
require programming suppliers to
provide such certifications. Should the
Commission amend 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) to
require programming suppliers or video
programmers to file certifications with
the Commission certifying that they are
in compliance with the Commission’s
rules for the provision of closed
captioning? The Commission currently
does not require such certifications from
either VPDs or video programmers. Is
there a reason why the Commission
should change its approach? If a
programming supplier or video
programmer claims that it is exempt
from providing closed captioning,
should the Commission require it to
specify the exemption it claims as part
of the certification? As an alternative to
amending 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), should the
Commission include within 47 CFR
79.1(j)(1) or 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv)
certification language to the effect that
the video programmer is in compliance
with the Commission’s rules for the
provision of closed captioning? What
are the benefits and costs of requiring
programming suppliers or video
programmers to provide such
certification? Would such certification
help to ensure programming supplier or
video programmer compliance with the
Commission’s rules requiring the
provision of closed captioning? If so,
how?
6. If the Commission requires video
programmers to file certifications
regarding the provision and quality of
closed captioning with the Commission,
should the Commission require each
VPD, when arranging to carry a video
programmer’s programming, to alert the
video programmer to the requirement to
register with and provide certification to
the Commission? Once a VPD alerts a
video programmer of any such
requirement and a video programmer
fails to provide a certification to the
Commission, should that video
programmer be solely responsible for
failing to comply with Commission
rules? Or, alternatively, should the
Commission task VPDs with monitoring
video programmers’ compliance with a
certification requirement and require
them to report to the Commission any
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
failure by a video programmer to
comply? Would placing such an
obligation on VPDs be inconsistent with
the approach of shifting certain
responsibilities in the areas of closed
captioning from VPDs to video
programmers? What would be the costs
and benefits of these requirements? The
Commission seeks comment on these
and any other matters relating to VPDs’
obligations pertaining to such
certifications. Is there any reason that
the Commission would not have
statutory authority to impose the
requirements proposed in this and other
paragraphs of FCC 14–206?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
7. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
Public Notice has been prepared. An
IRFA was previously included with the
Further Notice in the Closed Captioning
Quality Order. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on document FCC 14–
206. The Commission will send a copy
of document FCC 14–206, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(‘‘SBA’’).
8. In the Further Notice, the
Commission sought comment on
extending some of the responsibilities
for complying with its rules regarding
the provision and quality of closed
captioning on television beyond VPDs
to other entities involved in the
production and delivery of video
programming. The Commission also
sought comment on adopting a burdenshifting approach for complaint
resolution that would require both VPDs
and video programmers to be involved
in the resolution of consumer
complaints. Further, the Commission
asked whether 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), which
permits VPDs to rely on certifications
from programming suppliers to
demonstrate compliance with the
Commission’s captioning requirements,
should be eliminated if the Commission
were to reapportion responsibility for
compliance with the Commission’s
television closed captioning rules, and
more generally whether other changes to
its rules would be appropriate if the
Commission decides to impose some
obligations directly on programming
entities other than VPDs.
9. In response to the Further Notice,
some commenters have raised concerns
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
regarding the ability of VPDs and
consumers to locate the correct contact
information for video programmers for
the resolution of closed captioning
complaints, should the Commission
decide to extend to video programmers
some of the responsibilities for
compliance with its closed captioning
rules and for the resolution of
captioning complaints. Several have
proposed requiring video programmers
to file contact information with the
Commission for inclusion in a database.
The Commission is therefore inviting
comment on whether such contact
information should be filed, and if so,
whether such filings should utilize a
web form.
10. 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to
rely on certifications from video
programming suppliers, including
programming producers, programming
owners, networks, syndicators and other
distributors, to demonstrate compliance
with the Commission’s rules for the
provision of closed captioning. 47 CFR
79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to exercise best
efforts to obtain a certification from each
video programmer from which the VPD
obtains programming stating (i) that the
video programmers’ programming
satisfies the required caption quality
standards, (ii) that in the ordinary
course of business, the video
programmers adopt and follow the Best
Practices in captioning its programming,
or (iii) that the video programmers are
exempt from the closed captioning
rules, under one or more properly
attained, specified exemptions.
11. One commenter on the Further
Notice suggests that the Commission
require video programmers to file
certifications pursuant to 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6) and 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) with the
Commission, rather than providing
them to the VPD (in the case of 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6)) or making them widely
available (in the case of 47 CFR
79.1(j)(1)). The Commission is inviting
comment on whether the Commission
should amend 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to
require video programmers to file
certifications on captioning quality with
the Commission, or whether the
Commission should require video
programmers to make such certifications
widely available through other means.
The Commission specifically asks for
comment on whether requiring video
programmers to file these certifications
with the Commission would assist
VPDs, consumers and the Commission
in locating the certifications, in addition
to providing video programmers with a
convenient means of making their
certifications widely available.
12. The Commission is also inviting
comment on whether the Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
should amend other Commission rules
regarding certifications for the provision
of closed captioning. Although 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely upon
certifications from programming
suppliers, it does not require
programming suppliers to provide such
certifications. The Commission is
therefore asking whether it should
amend 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) to require
video programmers to file certifications
with the Commission certifying that
they are in compliance with the
Commission’s rules for the provision of
closed captioning. Alternatively, the
Commission is asking whether it should
include within 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) or 47
CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification language
to the effect that the video programmer
is in compliance with the Commission’s
rules for the provision of closed
captioning. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether such certification
would help to ensure video programmer
compliance with the Commission’s
rules requiring the provision of closed
captioning.
13. Additionally, the Commission is
seeking comment on whether it should
require each VPD, when arranging to
carry a video programmer’s
programming, to alert the video
programmer to the requirement to
register with and provide certification to
the Commission, and whether the VPD
should be required to report to the
Commission any video programmers
that have failed to do so.
14. The authority for this proposed
rulemaking is contained in sections 4(i),
303(r) and 713 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 303(r) and 613.
15. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
16. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission’s action
may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present.
The Commission therefore describes
here, at the outset, three comprehensive,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78771
statutory small entity size standards that
encompass entities that could be
directly affected by the proposals under
consideration. As of 2009, small
businesses represented 99.9% of the
27.5 million businesses in the United
States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, as many as
88,761 entities may qualify as ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the
Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
17. Cable Television Distribution
Services. These services have been
included within the broad economic
census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which is
defined as follows: ‘‘This industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in operating and/or providing
access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or
lease for the transmission of voice, data,
text, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge
small business prevalence for the Cable
Television Distribution service, the
Commission relies on data from the U.S.
Census Bureau for the year 2007, the
most recent year currently available.
According to that source, there were
3,188 Wired Telecommunications
Carrier firms that operated for the entire
year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated
with less than 1,000 employees, and 44
operated with 1,000 or more employees.
However, as to the latter 44 there is no
data available that shows how many
operated with more than 1,500
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the vast majority of firms can
be considered small.
18. Cable Companies and Systems.
The Commission has also developed its
own small business size standards, for
the purpose of cable rate regulation.
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78772
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
cable company’’ is one serving 400,000
or fewer subscribers, nationwide.
Industry data shows that there are 1,100
cable companies. Of this total, all but 10
incumbent cable companies are small
under this size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. Current
Commission records show 4,945 cable
systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380
cable systems have less than 20,000
subscribers, and 565 systems have
20,000 subscribers or more, based on the
same records. Thus, under this second
size standard, most cable systems are
small.
19. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual
revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ There were
approximately 56.4 million incumbent
cable video subscribers in the United
States as of 2012. Accordingly, an
operator serving fewer than 564,000
subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when
combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
Based on available data, the
Commission finds that all but 10
incumbent cable operators are small
under this size standard. The
Commission notes that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million
the Commission is unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the
number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the
Communications Act.
20. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service. DBS service is a nationally
distributed subscription service that
delivers video and audio programming
via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’
antenna at the subscriber’s location.
DBS, by exception, is now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline firms. Under this category, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
SBA deems a Wired
Telecommunications Carrier to be small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Currently, only two entities provide
DBS service, which requires a great
investment of capital for operation:
DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each
currently offers subscription services.
DIRECTV and DISH Network each
report annual revenues that are in
excess of the threshold for a small
business. Because DBS service requires
significant capital, the Commission
believes it is unlikely that a small entity
as defined by the SBA would have the
financial wherewithal to become a DBS
service provider.
21. Wireless Cable Systems—
Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service.
Wireless cable systems use the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to
transmit video programming to
subscribers. In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission
established a small business size
standard as an entity that had annual
average gross revenues of no more than
$40 million in the previous three
calendar years. The BRS auctions
resulted in 67 successful bidders
obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the
67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also
includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, the
Commission estimates that of the 61
small business BRS auction winners, 48
remain small business licensees. In
addition to the 48 small businesses that
hold BTA authorizations, there are
approximately 392 incumbent BRS
licensees that are considered small
entities. After adding the number of
small business auction licensees to the
number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, the Commission finds
that there are currently approximately
440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA
or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the
Commission conducted Auction 86, the
sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years (small business) received a
15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3
million and do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years (very small
business) received a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with attributed average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $3 million
for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent
discount on its winning bid. Auction 86
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61
licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two
bidders that claimed small business
status won four licenses; one bidder that
claimed very small business status won
three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six
licenses.
22. In addition, the SBA’s placement
of Cable Television Distribution
Services in the category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is
applicable to cable-based Educational
Broadcasting Services. These services
have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline
businesses. This category is defined as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is all
such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, the most recent year currently
available, shows that there were 3,188
Wired Telecommunications Carrier
firms that operated for the entire year in
2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less
than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated
with 1,000 or more employees.
However, as to the latter 44 there is no
data available that shows how many
operated with more than 1,500
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of these businesses can be
considered small entities. In addition to
Census Bureau data, the Commission’s
internal records indicate that as of
September 2012, there are 2,239 active
EBS licenses. The Commission
estimates that of these 2,239 licenses,
the majority are held by non-profit
educational institutions and school
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
districts, which are by statute defined as
small businesses.
23. Open Video Services. Open Video
Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services. The OVS
framework was established in 1996, and
is one of four statutorily recognized
options for the provision of video
programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides
opportunities for the distribution of
video programming other than through
cable systems. Although some entities
have filed for certifications to operate
OVS systems, the Commission believes
that most OVS subscribers are included
in cable multichannel video
programming distributor (MVPD)
subscriber data and the Commission
does not have a way to count them
separately. Because OVS operators
provide subscription services, OVS falls
within the SBA small business size
standard covering cable services, which
is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category,
which is all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees. To gauge small
business prevalence for the OVS service,
the Commission relies on data from the
U.S. Census for the year 2007, the most
recent year currently available.
According to that source, there were
3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these,
3,144 operated with less than 1,000
employees, and 44 operated with 1,000
or more employees. However, as to the
latter 44 there is no data available that
shows how many operated with more
than 1,500 employees. Based on this
data, the majority of these firms can be
considered small.
24. Television Broadcasting. The SBA
defines a television broadcasting station
as a small business if such station has
no more than $35.5 million in annual
receipts. Business concerns included in
this industry are those ‘‘primarily
engaged in broadcasting images together
with sound.’’ The Commission has
estimated the number of licensed full
power commercial television stations to
be 1,388. To gauge the number of
broadcast stations that are owned by
small businesses, the Commission relies
on data from the U.S. Census for the
year 2007, the most recent year
currently available. According to that
source, there were 2,076 television
broadcasting establishments in 2007. Of
these, 1,515 establishments had receipts
under $10 million, and 561 had receipts
of $10 million or more. However, as to
the latter 561 there is no data available
that shows how many had receipts in
excess of $35.5 million. Based on this
data, the majority of these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
establishments can be considered small.
The Commission notes, however, that,
in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above
definition, business control affiliations
must be included. Because many of
these stations may be held by large
group owners, and the revenue figures
on which the Commission’s estimate is
based does not include or aggregate
revenues from control affiliates, the
Commission’s estimate likely overstates
the number of small entities that might
be affected by its action.
25. The Commission has estimated
the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) full power television
stations to be 396. The Commission
does not compile and otherwise does
not have access to information on the
revenue of NCE stations that would
permit it to determine how many such
stations would qualify as small entities.
There are also 428 Class A television
stations and 1,986 low power television
stations (LPTV). Given the nature of
these services, the Commission will
presume that all Class A television and
LPTV licensees qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition, even though
a number of these stations may be
owned by entities that do not qualify as
small entities.
26. In addition, an element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. The Commission is unable at
this time to define or quantify the
criteria that would establish whether a
specific television station is dominant
in its field of operation. Accordingly,
the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude
any television station from the
definition of a small business on this
basis and is therefore over-inclusive to
that extent. Also as noted, an additional
element of the definition of ‘‘small
business’’ is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated.
The Commission notes that it is difficult
at times to assess these criteria in the
context of media entities, and its
estimates of small businesses to which
they apply may be over-inclusive to this
extent.
27. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for ILECs. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees and ‘‘is not dominant
in its field of operation.’’ The SBA’s
Office of Advocacy contends that, for
RFA purposes, small ILECs are not
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78773
dominant in their field of operation
because any such dominance is not
‘‘national’’ in scope. The Commission
has therefore included small ILECs in
the RFA analysis, although the
Commission emphasizes that this RFA
action has no effect on Commission
analyses and determinations in other,
non-RFA contexts.
28. Census Bureau data for 2007, the
most recent year currently available,
show that there were 3,188 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 3,144 had
employment of less than 1000
employees, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 or more.
According to Commission data, 1,307
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of ILEC
services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 301 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of ILEC service are small
entities that may be affected by the rules
and policies adopted. The Commission
estimates that three large ILECs, each of
whom employ more than 1,500 people,
currently provide video programming.
29. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant
Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under
SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census Bureau data for 2007, the most
recent year currently available, show
that there were 3,188 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 3,144 had
employment of less than 1000
employees, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. According to Commission data,
1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either CLEC
services or CAP services. Of these 1,442
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17
carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Seventy-two carriers
have reported that they are Other Local
Service Providers, and of the 72, 70
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2
have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, most CLECs, CAPs,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78774
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Other Local Service Providers can be
considered small entities.
30. Electric Power Distribution
Companies. These entities can provide
video services over power lines (BPL).
The Census Bureau defines Electric
Power Distribution companies as
‘‘electric power establishments
primarily engaged in either (1) operating
electric power distribution systems (i.e.,
consisting of lines, poles, meters, and
wiring) or (2) operating as electric
power brokers or agents that arrange the
sale of electricity via power distribution
systems operated by others.’’ These
types of MVPDs serve few subscribers
and their subscriber base is declining.
To gauge small business prevalence in
the Electric Power Distribution category,
the Commission relies on data from the
U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007,
the most recent year currently available.
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category,
which is all such firms having 1,000 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data
for 2007 show that there were 1,174
firms that operated for the entire year in
this category. Of these firms, 50 had
1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had
fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on
this data, a majority of these firms can
be considered small.
31. Cable and Other Subscription
Programming. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the
Commission’s action. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the
broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. . . . These
establishments produce programming in
their own facilities or acquire
programming from external sources. The
programming material is usually
delivered to a third party, such as cable
systems or direct-to-home satellite
systems, for transmission to viewers.’’
To gauge small business prevalence in
the Cable and Other Subscription
Programming industries, the
Commission relies on data from the U.S.
Census Bureau for the year 2007, the
most recent year currently available.
The size standard established by the
SBA for this business category is that
annual receipts of $35.5 million or less
determine that a business is small.
According to 2007 Census Bureau data,
there were 396 firms that were engaged
in production of Cable and Other
Subscription Programming. Of these,
349 had annual receipts below $25
million, 12 had annual receipts ranging
from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35
had annual receipts of $50 million or
more. Thus, under this category and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
32. Motion Picture and Video
Production. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the
Commission’s action. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
producing, or producing and
distributing motion pictures, videos,
television programs, or television
commercials.’’ The Commission notes
that firms in this category may be
engaged in various industries, including
cable programming. Specific figures are
not available regarding how many of
these firms produce and/or distribute
programming for VPDs. To gauge small
business prevalence in the Motion
Picture and Video Production
industries, the Commission relies on
data from the U.S. Census Bureau for
the year 2007, the most recent year
currently available. The size standard
established by the SBA for this business
category is that annual receipts of $30
million or less determine that a business
is small. According to 2007 Census
Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms that
were engaged in Motion Picture and
Video Production. Of these, 8,995 had
annual receipts of less than $25 million,
43 had annual receipts ranging from $25
million to $49,999,999, and 57 had
annual receipts of $50 million or more.
Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
33. Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
These entities may be indirectly affected
by the Commission’s action. The Census
Bureau defines this category to include
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
(1) publishing and/or broadcasting
content on the Internet exclusively or
(2) operating Web sites that use a search
engine to generate and maintain
extensive databases of Internet
addresses and content in an easily
searchable format (and known as Web
search portals). The publishing and
broadcasting establishments in this
industry do not provide traditional
(non-Internet) versions of the content
that they publish or broadcast. They
provide textual, audio, and/or video
content of general or specific interest on
the Internet exclusively. Establishments
known as Web search portals often
provide additional Internet services,
such as email, connections to other Web
sites, auctions, news, and other limited
content, and serve as a home base for
Internet users.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34. In this category, the SBA has
deemed an Internet publisher or Internet
broadcaster or the provider of a web
search portal on the Internet to be small
if it has fewer than 500 employees. For
this category of manufacturers, Census
Bureau data for 2007, the most recent
year currently available, show that there
were 2,705 such firms that operated that
year. Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682
(approximately 99%) had fewer than
500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more
employees. Accordingly, the majority of
establishments in this category can be
considered small under that standard.
35. Certain rule changes proposed in
FCC 14–206, if adopted by the
Commission, would modify rules or add
requirements governing reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
obligations.
36. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
register and file contact information
with the Commission or to make such
contact information widely available
through other means, such regulations
would impose new reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities.
37. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
file certifications with the Commission
regarding compliance with the
Commission’s rules on the provisioning
and quality of closed captioning, such
regulations would impose different
reporting and recordkeeping obligations
than currently required on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities.
38. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer’s
programming, to alert the video
programmer of the requirement to
provide certification to the Commission
and to report to the Commission any
video programmers that have failed to
do so, such regulations would impose
different reporting and recordkeeping
obligations than currently required on
VPDs, video programmers, video
programming owners, and other entities,
including small entities.
39. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
40. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
register and file contact information
with the Commission or to make such
contact information widely available
through other means, such regulations
would impose new reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities. However, the proposed
requirement takes into consideration the
impact on small entities. The filing of
contact information is a simple task that
should take no more than a few
minutes. In addition, such requirements
may benefit other entities, such as VPDs
and consumers, who would be able to
search the registration information for
contact information, thereby enabling
them to more readily contact video
programmers who can address their
closed captioning concerns.
41. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
file certifications with the Commission
regarding compliance with the
Commission’s rules on the provisioning
and quality of closed captioning, such
regulations would impose different
reporting and recordkeeping obligations
than currently required on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities. The proposed rules
would not impose additional burdens
on such entities, because video
programmers are already required to
provide certifications to VPDs and to
make such certifications widely
available under the Commission’s rules.
See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and (k)(1)(iv); see
also 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). The proposed
rule may ease the burden on video
programmers, because video
programmers would know to go directly
to the Commission’s Web site to provide
certification and would not need to
determine how to make such
certification widely available, and the
proposed rules would ease the burden
on VPDs and consumers by having all
certifications in one easy to find place.
42. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer’s
programming, to alert the video
programmer of the requirement to
provide certification to the Commission
and to report to the Commission any
video programmers that have failed to
do so, such regulations would impose
different reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
obligations than currently required on
VPDs, video programmers, video
programming owners, and other entities,
including small entities. The proposed
rules would not impose additional
burdens on such entities, because VPDs
who are unable to locate certifications
on widely available sources are already
required to alert video programmers of
the requirement and report such
noncompliance to the Commission. See
47 CFR 79.1(j)(1). The proposed rule
may ease the burden on VPDs, because
VPDs would be able to go directly to the
Commission’s Web site to confirm
whether the video programmer has
registered and certified, which may be
easier than having to determine on
which Web site or other widely
available place the information appears.
43. Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals.
None.
Ordering Clauses
44. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r),
and 713 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
303(r) and 613, document FCC 14–206
IS ADOPTED.
45. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of document FCC 14–206
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–30576 Filed 12–30–14; 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–2014–0058;
FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Two
Petitions
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition findings and
initiation of status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90day findings on a petition to delist the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica) and a petition to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78775
list the monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus plexippus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that both petitions present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the
status of these subspecies to determine
if the petitioned actions are warranted.
To ensure that these status reviews are
comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding these
subspecies. Based on the status reviews,
we will issue 12-month findings on the
petitions, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct the status reviews, we request
that we receive information no later
than March 2, 2015. Information
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
ADDRESSES:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the appropriate docket number
(see table below). You may submit
information by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’ If your information will fit in the
provided comment box, please use this
feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as
it is most compatible with our
information review procedures. If you
attach your information 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: [Insert appropriate
docket number; see table below]; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send information
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 the Request for Information section,
below, for more details).
Species
Docket No.
coastal California
gnatcatcher.
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78768-78775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30576]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 14-206]
Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission issues a Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking additional comment on several
issues related to matters raised in the Commission's Closed Captioning
Quality Order. These issues include whether the Commission should
require video programmers to file contact information and
certifications of captioning compliance with the Commission and whether
other means would make programmer contact information and
certifications more widely available.
DATES: Comments are due January 20, 2015 and reply comments are due
January 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05-231,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in
completing the
[[Page 78769]]
transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal
service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 05-231.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving 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 Mail sent by 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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
fcc@bcpiweb.com. 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: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, (202) 418-2235,
email: Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov; or Caitlin Vogus, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, (202) 418-1264,
email: Caitlin.Vogus@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 14-206, adopted
December 12, 2014, released December 15, 2014. The full text of
document FCC 14-206, and any subsequently filed documents in this
matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS,
and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. It also may 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: (800) 378-3160,
fax: (202) 488-5563, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14-206
can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at
https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/disability-rights-office-headlines. 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), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 14-206 seeks comment on potential revised information
collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any revised
information collection requirements, the Commission will publish
another notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks
comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
Synopsis
1. In FCC 14-206, the Commission seeks additional comment on
several issues related to matter raised in the Commission's February
24, 2014 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on closed captioning.
Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05-
231, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice); published
at 79 FR 17093, March 27, 2014. The Commission invites comment on
requiring video programmers to file contact information and
certifications of captioning compliance with the Commission. The
Commission also invites comment on whether any other means would make
programmer contact information and certifications more widely available
to consumers, video programming distributors (VPDs), and other
interested parties. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether
these potential rule modifications alter previous Commission positions
and whether there are justifications for the Commission changing course
at this time.
2. The Commission invites comment on whether to require video
programmers to file contact information with the Commission for
inclusion in the registry of VPD contact information (VPD Registry) or
a separate database, if the Commission were to decide to extend to
video programmers some of the responsibilities for compliance with its
closed captioning rules and for the resolution of captioning
complaints. The Commission also invites comment on whether such filings
should utilize a web form, i.e., an interactive form on the
Commission's Web site designed to receive and transfer information to a
publicly available Commission database. What are the costs and benefits
of requiring video programmers to file contact information with the
Commission? Should the Commission require video programmers to provide
the same contact information as is currently required of VPDs by its
existing rules? Do video programmers generally have a designated person
available to handle immediate closed captioning concerns, and if not,
what benefits and burdens would result from a requirement that
programmers designate such a person? Is there additional information
beyond that required of VPDs that the Commission should require video
programmers to file? Should video programmers also be required to place
the contact information on their Web sites, if they have a Web site, or
to provide the information in some other way for added access by the
public?
3. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should alter its
requirements regarding certifications by video programmers as to their
compliance with rules on the provision and quality of closed
captioning, if the Commission decides to extend some responsibilities
for compliance with its closed captioning rules to video programmers.
47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to exercise best efforts to obtain a
certification from each video programmer from which the VPD obtains
programming stating (i) that the video programmer's programming
satisfies the required caption quality standards; (ii) that in the
ordinary course of business, the video programmer adopts and follows
the Best Practices in captioning its programming; or (iii) that the
video programmer is exempt from the closed captioning rules, under one
or more properly obtained and specified exemptions. The Commission
seeks comment on whether it should amend 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to
[[Page 78770]]
require video programmers to file their certifications on captioning
quality with the Commission, or whether the Commission should require
them to make such certifications widely available through other means.
Should the Commission additionally modify the Video Programmer Best
Practices' certification procedures set forth in 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv)
to make filing certifications with the Commission part of the video
programmers' best practices? Why should the Commission change its
position and require video programmer certifications to be filed with
the Commission rather than making such certifications widely available
through other means? What are the benefits and costs of requiring the
certifications mandated by 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv)
to be filed with the Commission? What would be the expected volume of
such video programmer certifications on captioning quality? Would
requiring video programmers to file these certifications with the
Commission assist VPDs, consumers and the Commission in locating the
certifications, in addition to providing video programmers with a
convenient means of making their certifications widely available?
4. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should
otherwise amend its rules regarding certifications for the provision of
closed captioning. Currently, 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely
upon certifications from ``programming suppliers'' to demonstrate
compliance with the Commission's rules for the provision of closed
captioning. According to 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), ``programming supplier''
includes ``programming producers, programming owners, networks,
syndicators and other distributors'' (emphasis added). If the
Commission retains 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) in some form, either as a separate
rule or incorporated into another rule, should the Commission amend the
rule to replace the term ``programming supplier'' with the term ``video
programmer''? The Commission notes that unlike the term ``programming
supplier,'' the term ``video programmer'' does not include VPDs.
Rather, the term ``video programmer'' is defined as ``any entity that
provides video programming that is intended for distribution to
residential households including, but not limited to, broadcast or
nonbroadcast television networks and the owners of such programming.''
Is this rule amendment necessary to help differentiate the
responsibilities of regulated entities, if the Commission were to
decide to impose some obligations directly on video programmers? The
term ``programming supplier'' also is used in 47 CFR 79.1(e)(6). Should
the use of the term in 47 CFR 79.1(e)(6) be replaced to be consistent
with any changes to 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) or its successor rule? Are there
other subsections contained within 47 CFR 79.1 in which the term
``programming supplier'' should be replaced with ``video programmer''?
5. Further, although 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely upon
certifications from programming suppliers, it does not require
programming suppliers to provide such certifications. Should the
Commission amend 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) to require programming suppliers or
video programmers to file certifications with the Commission certifying
that they are in compliance with the Commission's rules for the
provision of closed captioning? The Commission currently does not
require such certifications from either VPDs or video programmers. Is
there a reason why the Commission should change its approach? If a
programming supplier or video programmer claims that it is exempt from
providing closed captioning, should the Commission require it to
specify the exemption it claims as part of the certification? As an
alternative to amending 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), should the Commission
include within 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) or 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification
language to the effect that the video programmer is in compliance with
the Commission's rules for the provision of closed captioning? What are
the benefits and costs of requiring programming suppliers or video
programmers to provide such certification? Would such certification
help to ensure programming supplier or video programmer compliance with
the Commission's rules requiring the provision of closed captioning? If
so, how?
6. If the Commission requires video programmers to file
certifications regarding the provision and quality of closed captioning
with the Commission, should the Commission require each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer's programming, to alert the video
programmer to the requirement to register with and provide
certification to the Commission? Once a VPD alerts a video programmer
of any such requirement and a video programmer fails to provide a
certification to the Commission, should that video programmer be solely
responsible for failing to comply with Commission rules? Or,
alternatively, should the Commission task VPDs with monitoring video
programmers' compliance with a certification requirement and require
them to report to the Commission any failure by a video programmer to
comply? Would placing such an obligation on VPDs be inconsistent with
the approach of shifting certain responsibilities in the areas of
closed captioning from VPDs to video programmers? What would be the
costs and benefits of these requirements? The Commission seeks comment
on these and any other matters relating to VPDs' obligations pertaining
to such certifications. Is there any reason that the Commission would
not have statutory authority to impose the requirements proposed in
this and other paragraphs of FCC 14-206?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Public Notice has
been prepared. An IRFA was previously included with the Further Notice
in the Closed Captioning Quality Order. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on document FCC
14-206. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 14-206,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (``SBA'').
8. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on
extending some of the responsibilities for complying with its rules
regarding the provision and quality of closed captioning on television
beyond VPDs to other entities involved in the production and delivery
of video programming. The Commission also sought comment on adopting a
burden-shifting approach for complaint resolution that would require
both VPDs and video programmers to be involved in the resolution of
consumer complaints. Further, the Commission asked whether 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6), which permits VPDs to rely on certifications from
programming suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's
captioning requirements, should be eliminated if the Commission were to
reapportion responsibility for compliance with the Commission's
television closed captioning rules, and more generally whether other
changes to its rules would be appropriate if the Commission decides to
impose some obligations directly on programming entities other than
VPDs.
9. In response to the Further Notice, some commenters have raised
concerns
[[Page 78771]]
regarding the ability of VPDs and consumers to locate the correct
contact information for video programmers for the resolution of closed
captioning complaints, should the Commission decide to extend to video
programmers some of the responsibilities for compliance with its closed
captioning rules and for the resolution of captioning complaints.
Several have proposed requiring video programmers to file contact
information with the Commission for inclusion in a database. The
Commission is therefore inviting comment on whether such contact
information should be filed, and if so, whether such filings should
utilize a web form.
10. 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely on certifications from
video programming suppliers, including programming producers,
programming owners, networks, syndicators and other distributors, to
demonstrate compliance with the Commission's rules for the provision of
closed captioning. 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to exercise best
efforts to obtain a certification from each video programmer from which
the VPD obtains programming stating (i) that the video programmers'
programming satisfies the required caption quality standards, (ii) that
in the ordinary course of business, the video programmers adopt and
follow the Best Practices in captioning its programming, or (iii) that
the video programmers are exempt from the closed captioning rules,
under one or more properly attained, specified exemptions.
11. One commenter on the Further Notice suggests that the
Commission require video programmers to file certifications pursuant to
47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) and 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) with the Commission, rather
than providing them to the VPD (in the case of 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6)) or
making them widely available (in the case of 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1)). The
Commission is inviting comment on whether the Commission should amend
47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to require video programmers to file certifications
on captioning quality with the Commission, or whether the Commission
should require video programmers to make such certifications widely
available through other means. The Commission specifically asks for
comment on whether requiring video programmers to file these
certifications with the Commission would assist VPDs, consumers and the
Commission in locating the certifications, in addition to providing
video programmers with a convenient means of making their
certifications widely available.
12. The Commission is also inviting comment on whether the
Commission should amend other Commission rules regarding certifications
for the provision of closed captioning. Although 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6)
allows VPDs to rely upon certifications from programming suppliers, it
does not require programming suppliers to provide such certifications.
The Commission is therefore asking whether it should amend 47 CFR
79.1(g)(6) to require video programmers to file certifications with the
Commission certifying that they are in compliance with the Commission's
rules for the provision of closed captioning. Alternatively, the
Commission is asking whether it should include within 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1)
or 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification language to the effect that the
video programmer is in compliance with the Commission's rules for the
provision of closed captioning. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether such certification would help to ensure video programmer
compliance with the Commission's rules requiring the provision of
closed captioning.
13. Additionally, the Commission is seeking comment on whether it
should require each VPD, when arranging to carry a video programmer's
programming, to alert the video programmer to the requirement to
register with and provide certification to the Commission, and whether
the VPD should be required to report to the Commission any video
programmers that have failed to do so.
14. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in
sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613.
15. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
16. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory
small entity size standards that encompass entities that could be
directly affected by the proposals under consideration. As of 2009,
small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in
the United States, according to the SBA. Additionally, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as
88,761 entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
17. Cable Television Distribution Services. These services have
been included within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which is defined as follows: ``This
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the Cable Television
Distribution service, the Commission relies on data from the U.S.
Census Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year currently
available. According to that source, there were 3,188 Wired
Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for the entire year in
2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44
operated with 1,000 or more employees. However, as to the latter 44
there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than
1,500 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the vast majority of firms can be considered
small.
18. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation.
[[Page 78772]]
Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving
400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data shows that
there are 1,100 cable companies. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent
cable companies are small under this size standard. In addition, under
the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving
15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945
cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less
than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or
more, based on the same records. Thus, under this second size standard,
most cable systems are small.
19. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There were approximately 56.4 million
incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States as of 2012.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 subscribers shall
be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds
that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size
standard. The Commission notes that the Commission neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although
it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
20. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the
SBA's broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline firms. Under this
category, the SBA deems a Wired Telecommunications Carrier to be small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Currently, only two entities
provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for
operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each currently offers subscription
services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are
in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service
requires significant capital, the Commission believes it is unlikely
that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial
wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
21. Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction,
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition
of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of
the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees
that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small
business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently
approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses
under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission
conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do
not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business)
received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small
business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii)
a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not
exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received
a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009
with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders
that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that
claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders
that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
22. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting
Services. These services have been defined within the broad economic
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was
developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.'' The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is
all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data
for 2007, the most recent year currently available, shows that there
were 3,188 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for the
entire year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000
employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees. However, as to
the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many operated
with more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, under this size standard,
the Commission estimates that the majority of these businesses can be
considered small entities. In addition to Census Bureau data, the
Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there
are 2,239 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these
2,239 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational
institutions and school
[[Page 78773]]
districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
23. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services. The OVS framework was established in 1996, and
is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of
video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS
framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable systems. Although some entities
have filed for certifications to operate OVS systems, the Commission
believes that most OVS subscribers are included in cable multichannel
video programming distributor (MVPD) subscriber data and the Commission
does not have a way to count them separately. Because OVS operators
provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business
size standard covering cable services, which is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,500
or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS
service, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census for the
year 2007, the most recent year currently available. According to that
source, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 or more employees. However,
as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how many
operated with more than 1,500 employees. Based on this data, the
majority of these firms can be considered small.
24. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more
than $35.5 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in
this industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound.'' The Commission has estimated the number of
licensed full power commercial television stations to be 1,388. To
gauge the number of broadcast stations that are owned by small
businesses, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census for the
year 2007, the most recent year currently available. According to that
source, there were 2,076 television broadcasting establishments in
2007. Of these, 1,515 establishments had receipts under $10 million,
and 561 had receipts of $10 million or more. However, as to the latter
561 there is no data available that shows how many had receipts in
excess of $35.5 million. Based on this data, the majority of these
establishments can be considered small. The Commission notes, however,
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under
the above definition, business control affiliations must be included.
Because many of these stations may be held by large group owners, and
the revenue figures on which the Commission's estimate is based does
not include or aggregate revenues from control affiliates, the
Commission's estimate likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by its action.
25. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) full power television stations to be
396. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access
to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to
determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There
are also 428 Class A television stations and 1,986 low power television
stations (LPTV). Given the nature of these services, the Commission
will presume that all Class A television and LPTV licensees qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition, even though a number of these
stations may be owned by entities that do not qualify as small
entities.
26. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is
therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must
be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media
entities, and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may
be over-inclusive to this extent.
27. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for ILECs. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees
and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small ILECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. The Commission has therefore included small
ILECs in the RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this
RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in
other, non-RFA contexts.
28. Census Bureau data for 2007, the most recent year currently
available, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of
less than 1000 employees, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 or
more. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of ILEC services. Of these 1,307
carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
most providers of ILEC service are small entities that may be affected
by the rules and policies adopted. The Commission estimates that three
large ILECs, each of whom employ more than 1,500 people, currently
provide video programming.
29. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, the most recent year currently available, show that there were
3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 had employment of less than 1000 employees, and 44 firms
had had employment of 1,000 employees or more. According to Commission
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
of either CLEC services or CAP services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. Seventy-two carriers have reported that they are
Other Local Service Providers, and of the 72, 70 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 2 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, most
CLECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
[[Page 78774]]
Other Local Service Providers can be considered small entities.
30. Electric Power Distribution Companies. These entities can
provide video services over power lines (BPL). The Census Bureau
defines Electric Power Distribution companies as ``electric power
establishments primarily engaged in either (1) operating electric power
distribution systems (i.e., consisting of lines, poles, meters, and
wiring) or (2) operating as electric power brokers or agents that
arrange the sale of electricity via power distribution systems operated
by others.'' These types of MVPDs serve few subscribers and their
subscriber base is declining. To gauge small business prevalence in the
Electric Power Distribution category, the Commission relies on data
from the U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007, the most recent year
currently available. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is all such firms having 1,000 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were 1,174
firms that operated for the entire year in this category. Of these
firms, 50 had 1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had fewer than 1,000
employees. Based on this data, a majority of these firms can be
considered small.
31. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. . . .
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' To gauge small
business prevalence in the Cable and Other Subscription Programming
industries, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau
for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available. The size
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that
annual receipts of $35.5 million or less determine that a business is
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 396 firms that
were engaged in production of Cable and Other Subscription Programming.
Of these, 349 had annual receipts below $25 million, 12 had annual
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35 had annual
receipts of $50 million or more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
32. Motion Picture and Video Production. These entities may be
directly or indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing and
distributing motion pictures, videos, television programs, or
television commercials.'' The Commission notes that firms in this
category may be engaged in various industries, including cable
programming. Specific figures are not available regarding how many of
these firms produce and/or distribute programming for VPDs. To gauge
small business prevalence in the Motion Picture and Video Production
industries, the Commission relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau
for the year 2007, the most recent year currently available. The size
standard established by the SBA for this business category is that
annual receipts of $30 million or less determine that a business is
small. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms
that were engaged in Motion Picture and Video Production. Of these,
8,995 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 43 had annual
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 57 had annual
receipts of $50 million or more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
33. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
These entities may be indirectly affected by the Commission's action.
The Census Bureau defines this category to include ``establishments
primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or broadcasting content on the
Internet exclusively or (2) operating Web sites that use a search
engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
addresses and content in an easily searchable format (and known as Web
search portals). The publishing and broadcasting establishments in this
industry do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the
content that they publish or broadcast. They provide textual, audio,
and/or video content of general or specific interest on the Internet
exclusively. Establishments known as Web search portals often provide
additional Internet services, such as email, connections to other Web
sites, auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home
base for Internet users.''
34. In this category, the SBA has deemed an Internet publisher or
Internet broadcaster or the provider of a web search portal on the
Internet to be small if it has fewer than 500 employees. For this
category of manufacturers, Census Bureau data for 2007, the most recent
year currently available, show that there were 2,705 such firms that
operated that year. Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682 (approximately 99%) had
fewer than 500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more employees.
Accordingly, the majority of establishments in this category can be
considered small under that standard.
35. Certain rule changes proposed in FCC 14-206, if adopted by the
Commission, would modify rules or add requirements governing reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations.
36. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video
programmers to register and file contact information with the
Commission or to make such contact information widely available through
other means, such regulations would impose new reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including small entities.
37. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video
programmers to file certifications with the Commission regarding
compliance with the Commission's rules on the provisioning and quality
of closed captioning, such regulations would impose different reporting
and recordkeeping obligations than currently required on video
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including
small entities.
38. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer's programming, to alert the video
programmer of the requirement to provide certification to the
Commission and to report to the Commission any video programmers that
have failed to do so, such regulations would impose different reporting
and recordkeeping obligations than currently required on VPDs, video
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including
small entities.
39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
[[Page 78775]]
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
40. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video
programmers to register and file contact information with the
Commission or to make such contact information widely available through
other means, such regulations would impose new reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including small entities. However, the
proposed requirement takes into consideration the impact on small
entities. The filing of contact information is a simple task that
should take no more than a few minutes. In addition, such requirements
may benefit other entities, such as VPDs and consumers, who would be
able to search the registration information for contact information,
thereby enabling them to more readily contact video programmers who can
address their closed captioning concerns.
41. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring video
programmers to file certifications with the Commission regarding
compliance with the Commission's rules on the provisioning and quality
of closed captioning, such regulations would impose different reporting
and recordkeeping obligations than currently required on video
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including
small entities. The proposed rules would not impose additional burdens
on such entities, because video programmers are already required to
provide certifications to VPDs and to make such certifications widely
available under the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and
(k)(1)(iv); see also 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). The proposed rule may ease the
burden on video programmers, because video programmers would know to go
directly to the Commission's Web site to provide certification and
would not need to determine how to make such certification widely
available, and the proposed rules would ease the burden on VPDs and
consumers by having all certifications in one easy to find place.
42. If the Commission were to adopt rules requiring each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer's programming, to alert the video
programmer of the requirement to provide certification to the
Commission and to report to the Commission any video programmers that
have failed to do so, such regulations would impose different reporting
and recordkeeping obligations than currently required on VPDs, video
programmers, video programming owners, and other entities, including
small entities. The proposed rules would not impose additional burdens
on such entities, because VPDs who are unable to locate certifications
on widely available sources are already required to alert video
programmers of the requirement and report such noncompliance to the
Commission. See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1). The proposed rule may ease the
burden on VPDs, because VPDs would be able to go directly to the
Commission's Web site to confirm whether the video programmer has
registered and certified, which may be easier than having to determine
on which Web site or other widely available place the information
appears.
43. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals.
None.
Ordering Clauses
44. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 713 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and
613, document FCC 14-206 IS ADOPTED.
45. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of document FCC 14-206
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30576 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P