13230 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contact. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by adding Channel 226C3 at Prineville. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–5073 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 06–180] 

Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of 

the Cable Communications Policy Act 

of 1984 as Amended by the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on its 

proposal to apply the findings in 

Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of 

the Cable Communications Policy Act of 

1984 as amended by the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket 

No. 05–311, FCC 06–180, Report & 

Order, (‘‘Order’’) to cable operators that 

have existing franchise agreements as 

they negotiate renewal of those 

agreements with LFAs. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the tentative 

conclusion that it cannot preempt State 

or local customer service laws that 

exceed the Commission’s standards, nor 

can it prevent LFAs and cable operators 

from agreeing to more stringent 

standards. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before April 20, 2007; 

reply comments are due on or before 

May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 05–311, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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 phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, 

Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov or Brendan 

Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov of the 

Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 

418–2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 06–180, adopted on 

December 20, 2006, and released on 

March 5, 2007. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

In this present document, we have 

assessed the effects of the application 

filing requirements used to calculate the 

time frame in which a local franchising 

authority shall make a decision, and 

find that those requirements will benefit 

companies with fewer than 25 

employees by providing such 

companies with specific application 

requirements of a reasonable length. We 

anticipate this specificity will 

streamline this process for companies 

with fewer than 25 employees, and that 

these requirements will not burden 

those companies. 

Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. As discussed above, this 

proceeding is limited to competitive 

applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, 

some of the decisions in this Order also 

appear germane to existing franchisees. 

We asked in the Local Franchising 

NPRM whether current procedures and 

requirements were appropriate for any 

cable operator, including existing 

operators. NCTA argues that if the 

Commission establishes franchising 

relief for new entrants, we should do the 

same for incumbent cable operators 

because imposing similar franchising 

requirements on new entrants and 

incumbent cable operators promotes 

competition. Somewhat analogously, 

the BSPA argues that any new franchise 

regulatory relief should extend to all 

current competitive operators and new 

entrants equally; otherwise, the 

inequities would effectively penalize 

existing competitive franchisees simply 

because they were the first to risk 

competition with the incumbent cable 

operator. The record does not indicate 

any opposition by new entrants to the 

idea that any relief afforded them also 

be afforded to incumbent cable 

operators. Some incumbent cable 

operators discussed the potential impact 

of Commission action under Section 621 

on incumbent cable operators. For 

example, Charter argues that granting 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13231 

competitive cable providers entry free 

from local franchise requirements 

would affect Charter’s ability to satisfy 

its existing obligations; funds that 

Charter might use to respond to 

competition by investing in new 

facilities and services would instead be 

tied up in franchise obligations not 

imposed on Charter’s competitors, 

which would undermine the company’s 

investment and render its franchise 

obligations commercially impracticable. 

AT&T argues that competition will not 

harm incumbent cable operators: Cable 

has handled the competition that DBS 

presents, and analysts predict that the 

new wave of competition will not put 

them out of business. 

2. We tentatively conclude that the 

findings in this Order should apply to 

cable operators that have existing 

franchise agreements as they negotiate 

renewal of those agreements with LFAs. 

We note that Section 611(a) states ‘‘A 

franchising authority may establish 

requirements in a franchise with respect 

to the designation or use of channel 

capacity for public, educational, or 

governmental use’’ and Section 622(a) 

provides ‘‘any cable operator may be 

required under the terms of any 

franchise to pay a franchise fee.’’ These 

statutory provisions do not distinguish 

between incumbents and new entrants 

or franchises issued to incumbents 

versus franchises issued to new 

entrants. We seek comment on our 

tentative conclusion. We also seek 

comment on our authority to implement 

this finding. We also seek comment on 

what effect, if any, the findings in this 

Order have on most favored nation 

clauses that may be included in existing 

franchises. The Commission will 

conclude this rulemaking and release an 

order no later than six months after 

release of this Order. 

3. In the Local Franchising NPRM, we 

also sought comment on whether 

customer service requirements should 

vary greatly from jurisdiction to 

jurisdiction. In response, AT&T urges us 

to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from 

imposing various data collection and 

related requirements in exchange for a 

franchise. AT&T claims that LFAs have 

imposed obligations that franchisees 

collect, track, and report customer 

service performance data for individual 

franchise areas. AT&T states that it 

operates its call centers and systems on 

a region-wide basis, and that it is not 

currently possible or economically 

feasible for AT&T to comply with the 

various local customer service 

requirements on a franchise by franchise 

basis. AT&T also asks us to affirm that 

LFAs may not, absent the franchise 

applicant’s consent, impose any local 

service quality standards that go beyond 

the requirements of duly enacted laws 

and ordinances. Verizon indicates that 

some localities have conditioned the 

grant of a franchise upon the submission 

of Verizon’s data services to local 

customer service regulation. 

4. NATOA opposes AT&T’s request 

for relief from local customer service 

standards, and argues that the Act and 

the Commission’s rules explicitly 

provide for local customer service 

regulation. Specifically, NATOA asserts 

that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act 

allows for the establishment and 

enforcement of local customer service 

laws that go beyond the federal 

standards. Other parties assert that 

customer service regulation is necessary 

to ensure that consumers have 

regulatory relief. 

5. Section 632(d)(2) states that: 

22. [n]othing in this Section shall be 

construed to preclude a franchising authority 

and a cable operator from agreeing to 

customer service requirements that exceed 

the standards established by the Commission 

* * * Nothing in this Title shall be 

construed to prevent the establishment and 

enforcement of any municipal law or 

regulation, or any State law, concerning 

customer service that imposes customer 

service requirements that exceed the 

standards set by the Commission under this 

section, or that addresses matters not 

addressed by the standards set by the 

Commission under this section. 

23. Given this explicit statutory language, 

we tentatively conclude that we cannot 

preempt state or local customer service laws 

that exceed the Commission’s standards, nor 

can we prevent LFAs and cable operators 

from agreeing to more stringent standards. 

We seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

I. Procedural Matters 

6. Ex Parte Rules. This is a permit-butdisclose notice and comment 

rulemaking proceeding. Ex Parte 

presentations are permitted, except 

during the Sunshine Agenda 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). 

7. Comment Information. 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 30 days after this 

Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking 

is published in the Federal Register, 

and reply comments on or before 45 

days of publication. Comments may be 

filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers 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, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue 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. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
13232 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

print, electronic files, 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). 

8. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This Further NPRM of 

Proposed Rulemaking does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

9. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. 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 

NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written 

public comments are requested on the 

IRFA. These comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on the Second 

Further NPRM, and they should have a 

separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. 

10. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, 

Media Bureau at (202) 418–2120, or 

Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media 

Bureau at (202) 418–2120. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

11. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the 

‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible 

significant economic impact of the 

policies and rules proposed in the 

Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘Further NPRM’’) on a substantial 

number of small entities. 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 

Further NPRM provided in paragraph 

145 of the item. The Commission will 

send a copy of the Further NPRM, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’). In 

addition, the Further NPRM and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

12. The Further NPRM continues a 

process to implement Section 621(a)(1) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, in order to further the 

interrelated goals of enhanced cable 

competition and accelerated broadband 

deployment as discussed in the Report 

and Order (‘‘Order’’). Specifically, the 

Further NPRM solicits comment on 

whether the Commission should apply 

the rules and guidelines adopted in the 

Order to cable operators that have 

existing franchise agreements, and if so, 

whether the Commission has authority 

to do so. The Further NPRM also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

can preempt state or local customer 

service laws that exceed Commission 

standards. 

Legal Basis 

13. The Further NPRM tentatively 

concludes that the Commission has 

authority to apply the findings in the 

Order to cable operators with existing 

franchise agreements. In that regard, the 

Further NPRM finds that neither Section 

611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes 

between incumbents and new entrants 

or franchises issued to incumbents and 

franchises issued to new entrants. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

14. 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, 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’’). 

15. Small Businesses. Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 22.4 

million small businesses, according to 

SBA data. 

16. Small Organizations. Nationwide, 

there are approximately 1.6 million 

small organizations. 

17. The Commission has determined 

that the group of small entities possibly 

directly affected by the proposed rules 

herein, if adopted, consists of small 

governmental entities. A description of 

these entities is provided below. In 

addition the Commission voluntarily 

provides descriptions of a number of 

entities that may be merely indirectly 

affected by any rules that result from the 

Further NPRM. 

Small Governmental Jurisdictions 

18. The term ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined as ‘‘governments 

of cities, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts, with 

a population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’ As of 1997, there were 

approximately 87,453 governmental 

jurisdictions in the United States. This 

number includes 39,044 county 

governments, municipalities, and 

townships, of which 37,546 

(approximately 96.2 percent) have 

populations of fewer than 50,000, and of 

which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 

or more. Thus, we estimate the number 

of small governmental jurisdictions 

overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 

Miscellaneous Entities 

19. The entities described in this 

section are affected merely indirectly by 

our current action, and therefore are not 

formally a part of this RFA analysis. We 

have included them, however, to 

broaden the record in this proceeding 

and to alert them to our tentative 

conclusions. 

Cable Operators 

20. The ‘‘Cable and Other Program 

Distribution’’ census category includes 

cable systems operators, closed circuit 

television services, direct broadcast 

satellite services, multipoint 

distribution systems, satellite master 

antenna systems, and subscription 

television services. The SBA has 

developed small business size standard 

for this census category, which includes 

all such companies generating $13.0 

million or less in revenue annually. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms 

in this category, total, that had operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,180 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million and an additional 52 firms had 

receipts of $10 million or more but less 

than $25 million. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of providers in this service category are 

small businesses that may be affected by 

the rules and policies adopted herein. 

21. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has developed its own small-businesssize standard for cable system operators, 

for purposes of rate regulation. Under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving fewer than 

400,000 subscribers nationwide. The 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13233 

most recent estimates indicate that there 

were 1,439 cable operators who 

qualified as small cable system 

operators at the end of 1995. 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, the Commission 

estimates that there are now fewer than 

1,439 small entity cable system 

operators that may be affected by the 

rules and policies adopted herein. 

22. 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.’’ The Commission has 

determined that there are 67,700,000 

subscribers in the United States. 

Therefore, an operator serving fewer 

than 677,000 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 estimates that the number 

of cable operators serving 677,000 

subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450. The 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million, and therefore is 

unable, at this time, to estimate more 

accurately the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators under the size standard 

contained in the Communications Act of 

1934. 

23. Open Video Services. Open Video 

Service (‘‘OVS’’) systems provide 

subscription services. As noted above, 

the SBA has created a small business 

size standard for Cable and Other 

Program Distribution. This standard 

provides that a small entity is one with 

$13.0 million or less in annual receipts. 

The Commission has certified 

approximately 25 OVS operators to 

serve 75 areas, and some of these are 

currently providing service. Affiliates of 

Residential Communications Network, 

Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate 

OVS systems in New York City, Boston, 

Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN 

has sufficient revenues to assure that 

they do not qualify as a small business 

entity. Little financial information is 

available for the other entities that are 

authorized to provide OVS and are not 

yet operational. Given that some entities 

authorized to provide OVS service have 

not yet begun to generate revenues, the 

Commission concludes that up to 24 

OVS operators (those remaining) might 

qualify as small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

24. We anticipate that any rules that 

result from this action would have at 

most a de minimis impact on small 

governmental jurisdictions (e.g., onetime proceedings to amend existing 

procedures regarding the method of 

granting competitive franchises). Local 

franchising authorities (‘‘LFAs’’) today 

must review and decide upon 

competitive cable franchise 

applications, and will continue to 

perform that role upon the conclusion of 

this proceeding; any rules that might be 

adopted pursuant to this NPRM likely 

would require at most only 

modifications to that process. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

25. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, 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 and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such 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 such small entities.’’

26. As discussed in the Further 

NPRM, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do 

not distinguish between new entrants 

and cable operators with existing 

franchises. As discussed in the Order, 

the Commission has the authority to 

implement the mandate of Section 

621(a)(1) to ensure that LFAs do not 

unreasonably refuse to award 

competitive franchises to new entrants, 

and adopts rules designed to ensure that 

the local franchising process does not 

create unreasonable barriers to 

competitive entry for new entrants. 

Such rules consist of specific guidelines 

(e.g., maximum timeframes for 

considering a competitive franchise 

application) and general principles 

regarding franchise fees designed to 

provide LFAs with the guidance 

necessary to conform their behavior to 

the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As 

noted above, applying these rules 

regarding the franchising process to 

cable operators with existing franchises 

likely would have at most a de minimis 

impact on small governmental 

jurisdictions. Even if that were not the 

case, however, we believe that the 

interest of fairness to those cable 

operators would outweigh any impact 

on small entities. The alternative (i.e., 

continuing to allow LFAs to follow 

procedures that are unreasonable) 

would be unacceptable, as it would be 

inconsistent with the Communications 

Act. We seek comment on the impact 

that such rules might have on small 

entities, and on what effect alternative 

rules would have on those entities. We 

also invite comment on ways in which 

the Commission might implement the 

tentative conclusions while at the same 

time imposing lesser burdens on small 

entities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

27. None. 

Report to Congress 

28. The Commission will send a copy 

of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, in 

a report to be sent to Congress pursuant 

to the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. A copy 

of the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will also be published in the 

Federal Register. 

II. Ordering Clauses 

29. It is ordered that, pursuant to the 

authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 

4(i), 303, 303r, 403 and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 

151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403, this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–5118 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS