81274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

Section III, Item 7 (previously Item 6), 

has been revised to eliminate the 

requirement that full power AM and FM 

licensees submit an exhibit to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s maximum permissible 

radio frequency (‘‘RF’’) electromagnetic 

exposure limits, in the event that they 

are unable or not eligible to use the RF 

worksheets contained in the 

instructions of the Form. All applicants 

continue to be required to certify that 

their facilities comply with the 

Commission’s maximum permissible RF 

limits. The elimination of the exhibit 

requirement for radio broadcasters, 

conforms the question so it is now 

consistent with the requirements for 

licensees of broadcast television 

stations, translator (FM and TV 

stations), and low-power FM stations, 

who are not required to submit an 

exhibit. The instructions for Section III, 

Item 7 and Worksheet #1 Environmental 

have been revised accordingly. 

Section V, Item 4 has been revised to 

clarify that Low Power TV (‘‘LPTV’’) 

stations still need to file Form 396 with 

the renewal application, but that they 

may or may not need to file a public file 

report and post it to their Web site. The 

word ‘‘as’’ has been replaced with the 

word ‘‘if.’’ The old version stated that 

stations are required to certify that they 

have created a public file report and 

posted it to their Web sites ‘‘as’’ required 

by regulation. The instructions have 

been revised to explain that for Section 

V, Item 4, only LPTV stations that are 

part of a station employment unit with 

full-power stations, where the unit 

employs at least five or more full-time 

employees, needs to file a public file 

report and post it to the station Web 

site. Other LPTV stations do not have to 

create a public file report because they 

do not have a public file. 

Additionally, a small number of 

typographical errors have been 

corrected throughout the instructions 

and form. 

Finally, the burden hours and burden 

costs published in the Federal Register 

on October 13, 2010 (75 FR 62816) have 

been reduced to reflect that only 

applicants for renewal of commercial 

broadcast stations are required to 

complete the new certification in 

Section II, Item 7 that their advertising 

sales agreements do not discriminate on 

the basis of race or ethnicity and that all 

such agreements contain 

nondiscrimination clauses. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32468 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[GN Docket No. 10–244; DA 10–2259] 

Media and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureaus Seek 

Comment on Recommendation of the 

Advisory Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Media and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureaus of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

seek comment on a recommendation of 

the Advisory Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age that 

the Commission consider a new 

preference program in its competitive 

bidding process to provide bidding 

credits to individuals and entities who 

have overcome substantial 

disadvantage. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 7, 2011; reply comments are 

due on or before February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 10–244, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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. 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 St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or telephone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 

202–418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Media Bureau, Industry Analysis 

Division: Amy Brett at (202) 418–2330, 

or Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division: Sayuri Rajapakse at (202) 418– 

0660. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the public notice, released 

December 2, 2010, in GN Docket No. 

10–244, seeking comment on the 

Advisory Committee’s Recommendation 

released on October 14, 2010. The 

Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation, which was released 

as an attachment to the public notice, is 

available at http://www.fcc.gov/ 

DiversityFAC/meeting101410.html. The 

complete texts of the public notice and 

Recommendation are available for 

public inspection and copying from 8 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through 

Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 

ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. The public notice may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone 202–488–5300, fax 

202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI 

at its Web site: http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering 

documents from BCPI, please provide 

the appropriate FCC document number, 

for example, DA 10–2259. The public 

notice is also available on the Internet 

at the Commission’s Web site or by 

using the search function for GN Docket 

No. 10–244 on the ECFS Web page at 

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

On October 14, 2010, the Advisory 

Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age 

(‘‘Advisory Committee’’) formally 

recommended that the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) undertake a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to consider how 

the Commission could design, adopt, 

and implement an additional new 

preference program in its competitive 

bidding process. Under the proposed 

preference, persons or entities who have 

overcome substantial disadvantage 

would be eligible for a bidding credit. 

The Advisory Committee explains that 

the new preference ‘‘would expand the 

pool of designated entities to include 

those qualified applicants who have 

overcome substantial disadvantage,’’ 

noting that the proposed program is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81275 

analogous in some respects to programs 

used by educational institutions in their 

admissions processes. 

The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation acknowledges that a 

number of issues concerning the design 

and implementation of its proposal 

would need to be refined and resolved 

by the Commission in a future 

rulemaking proceeding. The Media and 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus 

seek information that will assist the 

Commission in considering whether to 

launch a proceeding to further examine 

the components of the recommended 

preference. The Bureaus seek comment 

on the proposal and are especially 

interested in comments on the following 

questions. Interested parties need not 

address all the questions presented, but 

are encouraged to respond to those 

about which they have particular 

knowledge or information. 

I. Authority and Objectives 

Sections 309(j)(3)(B) and (4)(D) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, direct the Commission 

respectively to seek to disseminate 

licenses among ‘‘a wide variety of 

applicants, including small businesses, 

rural telephone companies, and 

businesses owned by members of 

minority groups and women’’ and to 

‘‘ensure that small businesses, rural 

telephone companies, and businesses 

owned by members of minority groups 

and women are given the opportunity to 

participate in the provision of spectrumbased services.’’ The Commission has 

established a program to promote the 

involvement of statutorily-identified 

designated entities in the provision of 

spectrum-based services. Designated 

entities are defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(a) 

as small businesses, businesses owned 

by members of minority groups and/or 

women, and rural telephone companies. 

The Commission’s primary method of 

promoting the participation of 

designated entities in competitive 

bidding for wireless services has been to 

award bidding credits (percentage 

discounts on winning bid amounts) to 

small business applicants. In the context 

of broadcast services, the Commission 

adopted a tiered new entrant bidding 

credit to promote the objectives of 

section 309(j) and further its longstanding commitment to the 

diversification of broadcast facility 

ownership. That bidding credit may be 

awarded to broadcast auction applicants 

having no, or very few, other media 

interests. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation would establish an 

additional preference for persons or 

entities that have overcome substantial 

disadvantage. 

1. Would the proposed preference 

comply with the Communications Act 

and other relevant statutes? Does section 

309(j)(4)(D) authorize the Commission 

to establish the proposed preference for 

individuals who have overcome 

substantial disadvantage? If not, are 

there other statutory provisions that 

afford sufficient authorization? Would 

the Commission need additional legal 

authority to implement this new 

preference? 

2. The Commission has previously 

found that rural telephone companies 

and minority- and women-owned 

businesses that qualify as small 

businesses are able to take advantage of 

the provisions we have adopted for 

small businesses. Similarly, in the 

broadcast context, the Commission 

established its new entrant bidding 

credit, having found that a preference 

for new entrants would be the most 

appropriate way to implement the 

statutory provisions regarding 

opportunities for small, minority- and 

women-owned businesses based on 

then-available information on 

opportunities for designated entities to 

participate in the provision of broadcast 

services. The Bureaus seek information 

to assess how individuals who have 

overcome substantial disadvantage have 

fared under the Commission’s existing 

auction process and the designated 

entity benefits. Have persons who have 

overcome substantial disadvantages had 

difficulty in obtaining licenses under 

the existing process and designated 

entity programs? Do data exist that 

would demonstrate that individuals 

who have overcome substantial 

disadvantage are underrepresented in 

the Commission’s auctions process? Is 

there evidence that persons who have 

overcome substantial disadvantage are 

more likely than others to utilize 

Commission licenses in the public 

interest, or do so to a greater extent? If 

no such data exist, what information 

could be developed to assess the need 

for the proposed bidding preference? 

3. In establishing the existing small 

business bidding credit program, the 

Commission found that the preferences 

would allow designated entities to 

overcome barriers that have impeded 

these groups’ participation in the 

telecommunications arena, including 

barriers related to access to capital. The 

Advisory Committee’s Recommendation 

notes that the proposed preference 

would provide fair opportunity to those 

who have overcome substantial 

disadvantage and that it would result in 

the introduction of new entrants having 

diverse viewpoints. How would this 

proposed preference provide additional 

opportunities to individuals and entities 

that differ from those available under 

our current bidding credit programs? 

4. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation observes that the 

proposed overcoming disadvantage 

preference would be subject to a 

‘‘rational basis’’ constitutional standard 

and that any Commission rulemaking 

‘‘must support the conclusion that the 

overcoming disadvantage preference 

program will serve the public interest 

and is a rational way to further’’ the 

program’s public interest objectives. 

What public or governmental interests 

would be served by establishing such a 

bidding preference? Commenters are 

specifically invited to provide 

information on what interests would be 

served under this program that are not 

being addressed with the Commission’s 

existing bidding credit programs. 

5. Are there additional constitutional 

issues raised by the Advisory 

Committee’s Recommendation that the 

Commission should consider? If so, 

what are they? How might they be 

mitigated or eliminated? 

II. Eligibility for Preference 

6. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation supplies a nonexhaustive list of disadvantages that 

may have had a substantial negative 

impact on an individual’s ‘‘entry into or 

advancement in the professional world 

or other comparable context’’ that might 

justify the award of a preference, such 

as physical disabilities or psychological 

disorders that have rendered 

professional or business advancement 

substantially more difficult. Are there 

other categories of disadvantages that 

should qualify an individual for 

preferences beyond those listed in the 

Recommendation? Should any of the 

proposed disadvantages not be 

included? Should any of the 

disadvantages take precedence over 

others? Should there be a point system 

to weigh the relative merit of different 

disadvantages? Should the Commission 

develop and publish an exclusive list of 

qualifying disadvantages, or should 

determinations about whether a 

substantial disadvantage is qualifying be 

made on a case-by-case basis? 

7. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation suggests that any 

disadvantage must be ‘‘substantial’’ in 

order to qualify an applicant for a 

preference. By what means should the 

Commission assess and/or quantify 

what experience would demonstrate 

‘‘substantial’’ disadvantage? 

8. What degree of success in 

overcoming a substantial disadvantage 

would an applicant have to demonstrate 

in order to evidence its eligibility for 

such a preference? How should 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

applicants be required to document 

their successes in ‘‘substantially’’ or at 

least ‘‘partially’’ overcoming 

disadvantages? Should any successes 

documented be limited to the 

applicant’s professional achievements, 

or should success in other contexts be 

considered by the Commission? 

9. At what level of success, if any, 

should an applicant who has overcome 

substantial disadvantages become 

ineligible for the preference (e.g., by 

what measure of wealth or access to 

capital)? Should the Commission adopt 

different levels of preference based on a 

measure of wealth or access to capital? 

What criteria should be used to 

disqualify the applicant from eligibility 

for a bidding credit? If the Commission 

adopts an additional preference such as 

that recommended by the Advisory 

Committee, how should the 

Commission implement the statutory 

requirement to avoid unjust enrichment 

in the context of its bidding preference 

program? 

III. Administration 

10. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation notes that any 

determination of an individual’s or 

entity’s eligibility for an overcoming 

disadvantage preference would require 

an examination of all relevant evidence 

and would be based on an 

individualized evaluation. The 

individualized reviews that would 

occur under the proposed program are 

subjective in a manner that 

distinguishes them from existing 

designated entity programs, which are 

based on objective criteria such as 

financial data. By what means could 

applicants demonstrate that they qualify 

for the preference? For example, should 

a narrative explanation suffice? If not, 

what information or documentation 

would be necessary to substantiate a 

claim? Should an applicant be 

permitted to certify its eligibility for this 

preference under penalty of perjury in 

its short-form application when it seeks 

to participate in an auction, similar to 

the way in which applicants may certify 

eligibility for new entrant and small 

business bidding credits? If so, what 

guidance can the Commission provide 

to potential applicants so that they can 

make a good faith certification of 

eligibility? The Recommendation 

suggests that an overcoming 

disadvantage preference might be 

applied differently for different services 

(e.g., a preference might apply only for 

more valuable licenses in a broadcast 

auction). Would the Commission have 

to tailor the preference for specific 

services in a rulemaking, similar to its 

existing practice of establishing the 

small business definitions on a serviceby-service basis? The Advisory 

Committee recognized the importance of 

reducing subjectivity and achieving 

consistency among individualized 

determinations. What standards could 

the Commission implement to achieve 

those goals? 

11. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation suggests that a 

determination as to whether applicants 

have overcome disadvantages could be 

made within the existing short-form 

auction application review process. 

What would be the administrative 

burden for the Commission to conduct 

individualized review for such a 

preference within the relatively short 

time frames allotted under the existing 

auctions short-form application process? 

If the Commission were to allocate 

additional time in the pre-auction 

process for such reviews, would the 

possible burdens on auction applicants 

be outweighed by the public interest 

benefits of the proposed preference? 

12. As an alternative, the 

Recommendation suggests that 

applicants could pre-qualify for 

preferences and thus avoid subsequent 

petitions to deny their licenses targeted 

at their qualification for the preference. 

Are there Administrative Procedure Act 

or other concerns for not allowing 

parties to file petitions challenging a 

proposed qualification? Is there a reason 

to treat this qualification differently 

than other qualifications that are subject 

to the petition to deny process? Does 

this raise issues with regard to the 

requirements of the Communications 

Act? If an applicant is found to be 

qualified prior to an auction but 

experiences a change of status during 

bidding, or after submitting a winning 

bid, should the individual remain 

eligible for the preference? Should a 

pre-qualification review strictly be 

limited to the overcoming of substantial 

disadvantage, or should it be a broader 

review of an applicant’s license 

qualifications, provided that the preauction process is extended? 

13. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation suggests three options 

for the management of qualification 

review: (1) Establishing a ‘‘special cadre’’ 

of Commission officials to evaluate 

applicant qualifications; (2) designing a 

modified Administrative Law Judge 

procedure for this purpose; (3) assigning 

the function to the Commission’s 

Bureau responsible for oversight of the 

service in question. What are the 

relative advantages and disadvantages of 

each option? What aspects of the current 

process for review of auction applicant 

eligibility suggest that these additional 

options are necessary for the proposed 

preference program? 

14. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation asks whether a 

corporation should be able to receive 

the proposed preference based on the 

qualifications of its principal. What role 

should the principal play in a 

corporation or other business entity to 

confer eligibility for the preference on 

the entity? For instance, should the 

principal be required to have majority 

equity ownership and a management 

role? 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 47 

CFR 1.1206(b). 

Gary D. Michaels, 

Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division, WTB, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32493 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

[No. 2010–N–17] 

Office of Inspector General; Delegation 

of Authorities 

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, 

Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of delegation of 

authorities. 

SUMMARY: This notice delegates two 

authorities of the Inspector General, 

Office of Inspector General for the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(FHFA–OIG), to the FHFA–OIG 

Principal Deputy Inspector General, the 

FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector General 

for Audit, the FHFA–OIG Deputy 

Inspector General for Investigations & 

Evaluations, and the FHFA–OIG Chief 

Counsel. These authorities are: (1) The 

authority to issue subpoenas; and (2) the 

authority to request information under 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(7). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2010. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES