Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 63

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See 

supplementary information for further 

filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelli Farmer, Consumer Policy Division, 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, (202) 418–2512 (voice), 

Kelli.Farmer@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, CG Docket No. 02–278, DA 

04–3837, released December 7, 2004. On 

July 3, 2003, the Commission released a 

Report and Order (2003 TCPA Order), In 

the Matter of Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act of 1991, adopted June 26, 

2003, CG Docket No. 02–278, FCC 03–

153; published at 68 FR 44144, July 25, 

2003. In the 2003 TCPA Order, the 

Commission stated its belief that any 

state regulation of interstate 

telemarketing calls that differed from 

our rules under section 227 almost 

certainly would conflict with and 

frustrate the federal scheme and would 

be preempted. The Commission will 

consider any alleged conflicts between 

state and federal requirements and the 

need for preemption on a case-by-case 

basis. Accordingly, any party that 

believes a state law is inconsistent with 

section 227 or our rules may seek a 

Declaratory Ruling from the 

Commission. When filing comments, 

please reference CG Docket No. 02–278. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments 

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an 

electronic file via the Internet to

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

Generally, only one copy of an 

electronic submission must be filed. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 

should include the following words in 

the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

must send an original and four (4) 

copies of each filing. Filings can be sent 

by hand or messenger delivery, by 

electronic media, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). The Commission’s contractor, 

Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings or 

electronic media for the Commission’s 

Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

The filing hours at this location are 8 

a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must 

be held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

Commercial and electronic media 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 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room TW–B204, Washington, DC 

20554. 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit but disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200. Persons 

making oral ex parte presentations are 

reminded that memoranda summarizing 

the presentations must contain 

summaries of the substances of the 

presentations and not merely a listing of 

the subjects discussed. More than a one 

or two sentence description of the views 

and arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclosed proceedings are set forth in 

section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

The full text of this document and 

copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, 

(202) 418–0270. This document may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing (BCPI), Inc., Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site: 

www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 1–800–

378–3160. 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 & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). This document 

can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.

Synopsis 

On November 22, 2004, National City 

Mortgage Company (NCMC) filed a 

Petition for Expedited Declaratory 

Ruling asking the Commission to 

preempt Florida law prohibiting 

prerecorded messages without consent. 

According to Petitioner, NCMC has 

received a notice from the Florida 

Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services which indicates that a 

prerecorded message call initiated by 

NCMC violated section 501.059(7)(a) of 

the Florida statute. NCMC explains that 

the Florida statute prohibits such 

prerecorded calls and makes no 

exception to this restriction for calls that 

are placed to persons with whom the 

caller has an established business 

relationship. In addition, NCMC 

explains that its calls into Florida are 

interstate calls. NCMC contends that the 

Florida statute is inconsistent with the 

Commission’s rules that permit calls 

using prerecorded voice messages to any 

person with whom the caller has an 

established business relationship at the 

time the call is made; therefore, NCMC 

argues that the Florida statute should be 

preempted as applied to interstate calls. 

In addition, NCMC indicates that it has 

been informed by the Florida 

Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services that the complaint is still 

pending and might become the basis for 

further enforcement proceedings against 

NCMC. NCMC maintains that ‘‘the State 

of Florida’s apparent intention to 

enforce th[e] prohibition as to interstate 

calls subjects NCMC to the ‘multiple, 

conflicting regulations’ that the 

Commission has declared its intention 

to avoid.’’

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jay Keithley, 

Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–28419 Filed 12–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76 

[MM Docket No. 00–167; FCC 04–221] 

Broadcast Services; Children’s 

Television; Cable Operators; Satellite 

Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

64 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks 

comment on applying to Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service 

providers its revised interpretation of 

the commercial time limits applicable to 

children’s programming. Specifically, 

the Commission proposes to require that 

the display of Internet Web site 

addresses during DBS program material 

is permitted as within the time limits 

only if the Web site meets certain 

requirements, including the requirement 

that it offer a substantial amount of bona 

fide program-related or other 

noncommercial content and is not 

primarily intended for commercial 

purposes. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to apply to DBS its revised 

definition of ‘‘commercial matter’’ as 

including promotions of television 

programs or video programming 

services other than children’s 

educational and informational 

programming. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how to tailor its rules 

to allow innovation in interactivity in 

children’s television programming, 

while at the same time ensuring that 

parents can control what information 

their children can access.

DATES: Comments are due by March 1, 

2005, and reply comments are due by 

April 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Matthews, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM 

Docket No. 00–167, FCC 04–221, 

adopted September 9, 2004, and 

released November 23, 2004. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Qualex International, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic file, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

document contains proposed and 

modified information collections subject 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the modified and proposed information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

Summary of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making 

1. In the final rule document in this 

proceeding, published elsewhere in the 

same issue of this Federal Register, we 

resolved a number of issues raised in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 

FR 66951–01, November 8, 2000) 

regarding the obligation of television 

broadcasters to protect and serve 

children in their audience. In the final 

rule document, we concluded that, for 

the time being, we will not prohibit the 

appearance of direct, interactive, links 

to commercial Internet sites in 

children’s programming, as this 

technology is currently not being used 

in children’s programming. 

Nonetheless, we are aware that the 

inclusion of interactive technology in 

television programming is on the 

horizon. We encourage broadcasters to 

develop interactive services that 

enhance the educational value of 

children’s programming. With the 

benefits of interactivity, however, come 

potential risks that children will be 

exposed to additional commercial 

influences. Accordingly, we seek 

comment on how to tailor our rules to 

allow innovation in interactivity in 

children’s television programming, 

while at the same time ensuring that 

parents can control what information 

their children can access. 

2. We tentatively conclude that we 

should prohibit interactivity during 

children’s programming that connects 

viewers to commercial matter unless 

parents ‘‘opt in’’ to such services. We 

seek comment on how such a rule could 

be implemented technologically. We 

also seek comment on how we would 

implement such a rule in terms of the 

statutory limits on commercial time. In 

particular, we note that the time spent 

accessing the Internet or other 

interactive material during a program is 

not limited to the time that a link is 

displayed on the screen. For the same 

reason, we seek comment as to how 

such a rule would apply to 

commercials, given that interactive 

elements can cause a commercial to last 

much longer than a 30-second or 15-

second spot. Finally, we seek comment 

on whether to change how we define 

commercial matter in this context. 

3. We also concluded in the Report 

and Order in this proceeding that we 

will revise our definition of 

‘‘commercial matter’’ to include 

promotions of television programs or 

video programming services other than 

children’s educational and 

informational programming. We stated 

that we will apply this revised 

definition to television licensees and 

cable operators. We tentatively conclude 

that we should also amend Part 25 of 

the Commission’s rules to apply this 

revised definition to Direct Broadcast 

Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) service providers, and 

seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. In addition, in the Report 

and Order we interpreted the CTA 

commercial time limits to require that, 

with respect to programs directed to 

children ages 12 and under, the display 

of Internet Web site addresses during 

program material is permitted as within 

the CTA limitations only if the Web site: 

(1) Offers a substantial amount of bona 

fide program-related or other 

noncommercial content; (2) is not 

primarily intended for commercial 

purposes, including either e-commerce 

or advertising; (3) the Web site’s home 

page and other menu pages are clearly 

labeled to distinguish the 

noncommercial from the commercial 

sections; and (4) the page of the Web 

site to which viewers are directed by the 

Web site address is not used for ecommerce, advertising, or other 

commercial purposes (e.g., contains no 

links labeled ‘‘store’’ and no links to 

another page with commercial material). 

We propose to apply these restrictions 

on the displaying of commercial Web 

site information to DBS and require DBS 

providers to maintain records sufficient 

to verify compliance with the 

commercial limits requirements and to 

make such records available to the 

public. We believe that it is appropriate 

to require that children in DBS 

households receive the same protection 

from excessive commercialism on 

television as children in cable or overthe-air television households. We do not 

believe that compliance with these rules 

will be burdensome as many of the 

programming services carried by DBS 

providers are the same as are carried by 

cable systems around the country, 

which must comply with the revised 

commercial limits rules adopted in our 

decision today. 

Administrative Matters 

4. This is a permit-but-disclose notice 

and comment rulemaking proceeding. 

Ex parte presentations are permitted, 

except during the Sunshine Agenda 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 65

period, provided that they are disclosed 

as provided in the Commission’s Rules. 

See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 

and 1.1206(a).

5. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before March 1, 2005, 

and reply comments on or before April 

1, 2005. Comments may be filed using 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24121 (1998). Documents filed 

through the ECFS can be sent as an 

electronic file via the Internet to

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

Generally, only one copy of an 

electronic submission must be filed. If 

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 

are referenced in the caption of the 

comments, however, commenters must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments to each docket or rulemaking 

number referenced in the caption. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,

and should include the following words 

in the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper must 

file an original and four copies of each 

filing. If more than one docket or 

rulemaking number appear in the 

caption of the comment, commenters 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). The Commission’s contractor, 

Vistronix, Inc., will receive handdelivered or messenger-delivered paper 

filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 

236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 

110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 

hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 

p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 

together with rubber bands or fasteners. 

Any envelopes must be disposed of 

before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

6. This Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking may contain either 

proposed or modified information 

collections subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. As part of our 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, we invite OMB, the general 

public, and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on the 

information collections contained in 

this Further Notice, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Public and agency comments are due at 

the same time as other comments on the 

Further Notice. Comments should 

address: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Commission, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (c) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the 

information collections contained 

herein should be submitted to Cathy 

Williams, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Room 1–C823, Washington, DC 20554, 

or via the Internet to 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov and to Kristy L. 

LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, 10234 

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503 or via the 

Internet to Kristy L. LaLonde 

@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202–395–

5167. 

7. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities of 

the proposals addressed in this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written 

public comments are requested on the 

IRFA. These comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on the Further 

Notice, and they should have a separate 

and distinct heading designating them 

as responses to the IRFA. 

8. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic file, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document can also be 

downloaded in Word and Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: http://

www.fcc.gov.

9. For additional information on this 

proceeding, please contact Kim 

Matthews, Policy Division, Media 

Bureau at (202) 418–2154. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’). 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. In addition, 

the Notice and IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

I. Need for and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rules 

Our goal in commencing this 

proceeding is to seek comment on two 

issues: (1) Whether and how we should 

limit the use of interactivity for 

commercial purposes in children’s 

television programming; and (2) 

whether we should apply to Direct 

Broadcast Satellite service providers the 

same revised definition of ‘‘commercial 

matter’’ adopted in the Report and 

Order. 

We seek comment in the Notice on 

the tentative conclusion that we should 

prohibit interactivity during children’s 

programming that connects viewers to 

commercial matter unless parents ‘‘opt 

in’’ to such services. We seek comment 

on how such a rule could be 

implemented technologically. We also 

seek comment on how we would 

implement such a rule in terms of the 

statutory limits on commercial time. 

We concluded in the Report and 

Order that we will revise our definition 

of ‘‘commercial matter’’ to include 

promotions of television programs or 

video programming services other than 

children’s educational and 

informational programming. We stated 

that we will apply this revised 

definition to television licensees and 

cable operators. We tentatively conclude 

in the Notice that we should also amend 

66 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Part 25 of the Commission’s rules to 

apply this revised definition to Direct 

Broadcast Satellite service providers, 

and seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion.

In addition, the Report and Order 

interprets the CTA commercial time 

limits to require that, with respect to 

programs directed to children ages 12 

and under, the display of Internet Web 

site addresses during program material 

is permitted as within the CTA 

limitations only if the Web site: (1) 

Offers a substantial amount of bona fide 

program-related or other noncommercial 

content; (2) is not primarily intended for 

commercial purposes, including either 

e-commerce or advertising; (3) the Web 

site’s home page and other menu pages 

are clearly labeled to distinguish the 

noncommercial from the commercial 

sections; and (4) the page of the Web 

site to which viewers are directed by the 

Web site address is not used for ecommerce, advertising, or other 

commercial purposes (e.g., contains no 

links labeled ‘‘store’’ and no links to 

another page with commercial material). 

The Report and Order applies this 

restriction to broadcasters and cable 

operators. We propose in the NPRM to 

apply this restriction to DBS. In 

addition, we propose to require DBS 

providers to maintain records sufficient 

to verify compliance with the 

commercial limits in children’s 

programming and to make such records 

available to the public. 

II. Legal Basis 

The authority for the action proposed 

in this rulemaking is contained in 

Sections 4(i) & (j), 303, 303a, 303b, 307, 

309 and 336 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) & 

(j), 303, 303a, 303b, 307, 309 and 336. 

III. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

The RFA directs the Commission to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

proposed rules, 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 Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). 

In this context, the application of the 

statutory definition to television stations 

is of concern. An element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. We are unable at this time to 

define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific 

television station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, the estimates 

that follow 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 

therefore might be over-inclusive. 

An additional element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity must be independently owned 

and operated. It is difficult at times to 

assess these criteria in the context of 

media entities and our estimates of 

small businesses might therefore be over 

inclusive. 

Television Broadcasting. The Small 

Business Administration defines a 

television broadcasting station that has 

no more than $12 million in annual 

receipts as a small business. Business 

concerns included in this industry are 

those ‘‘primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ According to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Publications, Inc. 

Master Access Television Analyzer 

Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 

of the 1,220 commercial television 

stations in the United States have 

revenues of $12 million or less. We 

note, however, that, in assessing 

whether a business concern qualifies as 

small under the above definition, 

business (control) affiliations must be 

included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by our action, 

because the revenue figure on which it 

is based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from affiliated companies. 

In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. We are unable at this time to 

define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific 

television station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, the estimate 

of small businesses to which rules may 

apply do not exclude any television 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and are therefore 

over-inclusive to that extent. Also as 

noted, an additional element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity must be independently owned 

and operated. We note that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and our 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

There are also 380 non-commercial 

TV stations in the BIA database. Since 

these stations do not receive advertising 

revenue, there are no revenue estimates 

for these stations. We believe that 

virtually all of these stations would be 

considered ‘‘small businesses’’ given 

that they are generally owned by noncommercial entities including local 

schools and governments and, for the 

most part, rely on public donations and 

funding. 

Cable and Other Program 

Distribution. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for cable 

and other program distribution services, 

which includes all such companies 

generating $12.5 million or less in 

revenue annually. This category 

includes, among others, cable operators, 

direct broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’) 

services, home satellite dish (‘‘HSD’’) 

services, multipoint distribution 

services (‘‘MDS’’), multichannel 

multipoint distribution service 

(‘‘MMDS’’), Instructional Television 

Fixed Service (‘‘ITFS’’), local multipoint 

distribution service (‘‘LMDS’’), satellite 

master antenna television (‘‘SMATV’’) 

systems, and open video systems 

(‘‘OVS’’). According to Census Bureau 

data, there are 1,311 total cable and 

other pay television service firms that 

operate throughout the year of which 

1,180 have less than $10 million in 

revenue. We address below each service 

individually to provide a more precise 

estimate of small entities.

Cable Operators. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for cable and other program 

distribution services, which includes all 

such companies generating $12.5 

million or less in revenue annually. The 

Commission has developed, with SBA’s 

approval, our own definition of a small 

cable system operator for the purposes 

of rate regulation. Under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving fewer than 

400,000 subscribers nationwide. We last 

estimated that there were 1,439 cable 

operators that qualified as small cable 

companies. Since then, some of those 

companies may have grown to serve 

over 400,000 subscribers, and others 

may have been involved in transactions 

that caused them to be combined with 

other cable operators. Consequently, we 

estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 

small entity cable system operators that 

may be affected by the decisions and 

rules in this Report and Order. 

The Communications Act, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for a small cable system operator, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1% 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.’’ The 

Commission has determined that there 

are 68,500,000 subscribers in the United 

States. Therefore, an operator serving 

fewer than 685,000 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, we 

find that the number of cable operators 

serving 685,000 subscribers or less totals 

approximately 1,450. Although it seems 

certain that some of these cable system 

operators are affiliated with entities 

whose gross annual revenues exceed 

$250,000,000, we are 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. 

Direct Broadcast Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) 

Service. Because DBS provides 

subscription services, DBS falls within 

the SBA-recognized definition of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution 

services. This definition provides that a 

small entity is one with $12.5 million or 

less in annual receipts. There are four 

licensees of DBS services under Part 100 

of the Commission’s Rules. Three of 

those licensees are currently 

operational. Two of the licensees that 

are operational have annual revenues 

that may be in excess of the threshold 

for a small business. The Commission, 

however, does not collect annual 

revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is 

unable to ascertain the number of small 

DBS licensees that could be impacted by 

these proposed rules. DBS service 

requires a great investment of capital for 

operation, and we acknowledge, despite 

the absence of specific data on this 

point, that there are entrants in this field 

that may not yet have generated $12.5 

million in annual receipts, and therefore 

may be categorized as a small business, 

if independently owned and operated. 

Therefore, we will assume all four 

licensees are small, for the purpose of 

this analysis. 

Electronics Equipment Manufacturers.

Rules adopted in this proceeding could 

apply to manufacturers of DTV 

receiving equipment and other types of 

consumer electronics equipment. The 

SBA has developed definitions of small 

entity for manufacturers of audio and 

video equipment as well as radio and 

television broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment. These 

categories both include all such 

companies employing 750 or fewer 

employees. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

applicable to manufacturers of 

electronic equipment used by 

consumers, as compared to industrial 

use by television licensees and related 

businesses. Therefore, we will utilize 

the SBA definitions applicable to 

manufacturers of audio and visual 

equipment and radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment, since these 

are the two closest NAICS Codes 

applicable to the consumer electronics 

equipment manufacturing industry. 

However, these NAICS categories are 

broad and specific figures are not 

available as to how many of these 

establishments manufacture consumer 

equipment. According to the SBA’s 

regulations, an audio and visual 

equipment manufacturer must have 750 

or fewer employees in order to qualify 

as a small business concern. Census 

Bureau data indicates that there are 554 

U.S. establishments that manufacture 

audio and visual equipment, and that 

542 of these establishments have fewer 

than 500 employees and would be 

classified as small entities. The 

remaining 12 establishments have 500 

or more employees; however, we are 

unable to determine how many of those 

have fewer than 750 employees and 

therefore, also qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. Under the 

SBA’s regulations, a radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturer must also have 750 or 

fewer employees in order to qualify as 

a small business concern. Census 

Bureau data indicates that there 1,215 

U.S. establishments that manufacture 

radio and television broadcasting and 

wireless communications equipment, 

and that 1,150 of these establishments 

have fewer than 500 employees and 

would be classified as small entities. 

The remaining 65 establishments have 

500 or more employees; however, we 

are unable to determine how many of 

those have fewer than 750 employees 

and therefore, also qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. We 

therefore conclude that there are no 

more than 542 small manufacturers of 

audio and visual electronics equipment 

and no more than 1,150 small 

manufacturers of radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment for 

consumer/household use. 

Computer Manufacturers. The 

Commission has not developed a 

definition of small entities applicable to 

computer manufacturers. Therefore, we 

will utilize the SBA definition of 

electronic computers manufacturing. 

According to SBA regulations, a 

computer manufacturer must have 1,000 

or fewer employees in order to qualify 

as a small entity. Census Bureau data 

indicates that there are 563 firms that 

manufacture electronic computers and 

of those, 544 have fewer than 1,000 

employees and qualify as small entities. 

The remaining 19 firms have 1,000 or 

more employees. We conclude that 

there are approximately 544 small 

computer manufacturers. 

IV. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

At this time, we do not expect that the 

proposed rules would impose 

significant additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. While the 

requirements proposed in the Notice 

would have an impact on Direct 

Broadcast Satellite providers and others, 

we do not expect the impact to be 

significant in terms of time or expense 

to comply. At this time, we expect the 

requirements to be the same for large 

and small entities. We seek comment on 

whether others perceive a need for less 

extensive recordkeeping or compliance 

requirements for small entities. 

V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

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 

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. 

The proposals in the NPRM would 

apply equally to large and small entities. 

We welcome comment on modifications 

of the proposals if such modifications 

might assist small entities and 

especially if such are based on evidence 

of potential differential impact. 

VI. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Commission’s Proposals 

None.

68 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

47 CFR Part 76 

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–28174 Filed 12–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 122304D]

RIN 0648–AN25

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Monkfish 

Fishery; Amendment 2 to the Monkfish 

Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) 

have submitted Amendment 2 to the 

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) (Amendment 2) incorporating the 

draft Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (FSEIS), Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

for Secretarial review and is requesting 

comments from the public. Amendment 

2 was developed to address essential 

fish habitat (EFH) and bycatch issues, 

and to revise the FMP to address several 

issues raised during the public scoping 

process. The intent of this action is to 

provide efficient management of the 

monkfish fishery and to meet 

conservation objectives.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed interim rule may be submitted 

by any of the following methods:

• E-mail: E-mail comments may be 

submitted to http://

monkamend2@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following: ‘‘Comments 

on the Monkfish Amendment 2.’’

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

• Mail: Comments submitted by mail 

should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, 

Regional Administrator, Northeast 

Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. Mark the 

outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on 

the Monkfish Amendment 2.’’

• Facsimile (fax): Comments 

submitted by fax should be faxed to 

(978) 281–9135.

Copies of Amendment 2, the FSEIS, 

RIR, and IRFA are available from Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 

01950. These documents are also 

available online at http://

www.nefmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison R. Ferreira, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9103; fax (978) 281–

9135; e-mail: allison.ferreira@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of availability for the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (DSEIS) for Amendment 2 

was published in the Federal Register

on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23571), with 

public comment accepted through July 

28, 2004. After considering all 

comments on the DSEIS, the NEFMC 

and MAFMC adopted the final measures 

to be included in Amendment 2 at their 

respective September 14–16, 2004, and 

October 4–6, 2004, meetings, and voted 

to submit the Amendment 2 document, 

including the FSEIS, to NMFS.

The NEFMC and MAFMC developed 

Amendment 2 to address a number of 

issues that arose out of the 

implementation of the original FMP, as 

well as issues that were identified 

during public scoping. Issues arising 

from the original FMP include: (1) The 

displacement of vessels from their 

established monkfish fisheries due to 

restrictive trip limits; (2) unattainable 

permit qualification criteria for vessels 

in the southern end of the range of the 

fishery; (3) discards (bycatch) of 

monkfish due to regulations (i.e., 

minimum size restrictions and 

incidental catch limits); and (4) 

deficiencies in meeting MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) requirements pertaining to 

protection of EFH in accordance with 

the Joint Stipulation and Order resulting 

from the legal challenge American 

Oceans Campaign, et al. v. Daley. Issues 

arising from public scoping include: (1) 

Deficiencies in meeting MagnusonStevens Act requirements, including 

preventing overfishing and rebuilding 

overfished stocks; (2) a need to improve 

monkfish data collection and research; 

(3) the need to establish a North Atlantic 

Fisheries Organization (NAFO) 

exemption program for monkfish; 

multiple vessel baseline specifications 

for limited access monkfish vessels; (4) 

a need to update environmental 

documents describing the impact of the 

FMP; and, (5) a need to reduce FMP 

complexity where possible.

Amendment 2 evaluates and includes 

the following measures to minimize the 

adverse effects of fishing on EFH: A 

maximum disc diameter of 6 inches 

(15.2 cm) for trawl gear vessels fishing 

in the Southern Fishery Management 

Area (SFMA); and closure of two deepsea canyon areas to all gears when 

fishing under the monkfish day-at-sea 

(DAS) program. Amendment 2 also 

proposes the following management 

measures: (1) A new limited access 

permit for qualified vessels fishing 

south of 38o 20’ N. lat.; (2) an offshore 

trawl fishery in the SFMA; 

establishment of a research DAS setaside program; (3) an exemption 

program for vessels fishing outside of 

the Exclusive Economic Zone; (4) 

adjustments to the incidental monkfish 

catch limits; a decrease in the minimum 

monkfish size in the SFMA; (5) removal 

of the 20–day block requirement; 

revisions to the monkfish baseline 

provisions; and (6) additions to the 

frameworable measures.

Public comments are being solicited 

on Amendment 2 and its incorporated 

documents through the end of the 

comment period stated in this notice of 

availability. A proposed rule that would 

implement Amendment 2 may be 

published in the Federal Register for 

public comment, following NMFS’s 

evaluation of the proposed rule under 

the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Public comments on the proposed 

rule must be received by the end of the 

comment period provided in this notice 

of availability of Amendment 2 to be 

considered in the approval/disapproval 

decision on the amendment. All 

comments received by March 3, 2005, 

whether specifically directed to 

Amendment 2 or the proposed rule, will 

be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on Amendment 2. 

Comments received after that date will 

not be considered in the decision to 

approve or disapprove Amendment 2. 

Therefore, to be considered, comments 

must be received by close of business on 

the last date of the comment period, 

March 3, 2005; that does not mean 

postmarked or otherwise transmitted by 

that date.