8622 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

help to facilitate the protection of 

passive sensors used for weather 

forecasting and scientific research in the 

23.6 GHz–24.0 GHz band, while 

continuing to promote flexible 

commercial use of the 24.25–24.45 GHz 

and 24.75–25.25 GHz bands 

(collectively, 24 GHz band). The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

alternatives to the proposals it makes, 

and on other related issues. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 28, 2024; reply comments are 

due on or before March 14, 2024. 

Written comments on the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

in this document must have a separate 

and distinct heading designating them 

as responses to the IRFA and must be 

submitted by the public on or before 

February 28, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Simon Banyai of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at 202–418–1443 

or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is correcting the Preamble 

and Regulatory Flexibility Act sections 

of proposed rule FR Doc. 2024–01681 by 

correcting the docket number. 

Correction 

In FR Doc. 2024–01681 appearing on 

page 5440 in the Federal Register of 

Monday, January 29, 2024, the following 

corrections are made: 

ET Docket No. 21–186 [Corrected] 

1. On page 5440, in the first column,

in the Preamble, the Agency Docket 

Number is corrected to read as ‘‘[ET 

Docket No. 21–186; FCC 23–114; FR ID 

198341]’’. 

2. On page 5440, in the third column,

in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act section is 

corrected to read as ‘‘The Commission 

seeks comment on potential rule and 

policy changes contained in the NPRM, 

and accordingly, has prepared an IRFA. 

The IRFA for this NPRM in ET Docket 

No. 21–186 is set forth below in this 

document and written public comments 

are requested. Comments must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

NPRM indicated under the DATES

section of this document and must have 

a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. The Commission reminds 

commenters to file in the appropriate 

docket: ET Docket No. 21–186.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02598 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 24–14; FCC 24–1; FR ID 

198888] 

Priority Application Review for 

Broadcast Stations That Provide Local 

Journalism or Other Locally Originated 

Programming 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) issues a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to prioritize 

processing review of certain 

applications filed by commercial and 

noncommercial radio and television 

broadcast stations that provide locally 

originated programming. The 

Commission’s goal is to provide 

additional incentive to stations to 

provide programming that responds to 

the needs and interests of the 

communities they are licensed to serve. 

In 2017, the Commission eliminated the 

rule that required broadcast stations to 

maintain a main studio located in or 

near their community of license, as well 

as the associated requirement that the 

main studio have program origination 

capability. We propose this processing 

priority in order to further encourage 

radio and TV stations to serve their 

community of license with local 

journalism or other locally originated 

programming. Such prioritization would 

be granted to renewal applicants, as 

well as applicants for assignment or 

transfer of license, that certify they 

provide locally originated programming, 

thereby advancing our efforts to 

promote localism and serve local 

communities across the nation. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before March 11, 2024, and reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

April 8, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and reply comments, identified by MB 

Docket No. 24–14, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent 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. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class,

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy 

Division, at (202) 418–2154, or by email 

at Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MB 

Docket No. 24–14; FCC 24–1, adopted 

on January 10, 2024 and released on 

January 17, 2024. The full text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-24-1A1.pdf. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats (braille, large print, computer 

diskettes, or audio recordings), please 

send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Government Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Background

1. One of a broadcaster’s fundamental

public service obligations is to provide 

programming that is responsive to the 

needs and interests of its community of 

license. The Communications Act 

requires the Commission to determine, 

in the case of applications for licenses, 

‘‘whether the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity will be 

served by granting such application.’’ 

The Commission has consistently 

interpreted this requirement to mean 

that licensees must air programming 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8623 

that serves their local community. The 

main studio and local program 

origination rules were originally 

adopted to ensure that broadcast 

stations fulfill their local service 

obligations. In furtherance of section 

307(b) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (the Act), which 

requires the Commission to ‘‘make such 

distribution of licenses, frequencies, 

hours of operation, and of power among 

the several States and communities as to 

provide for a fair, efficient, and 

equitable distribution of radio service to 

each of the same,’’ each broadcast radio 

and television station is assigned to a 

community of license that it is obligated 

to serve. The main studio rule required 

stations to maintain the main studio in 

or near its community of license to 

facilitate interaction between the station 

and the local community it is licensed 

to serve. The Commission also required 

that the main studio have a ‘‘meaningful 

management and staff presence’’ to 

fulfill the main studio’s function, and 

that the main studio be equipped with 

production and transmission facilities. 

2. Locally originated programming 

was deemed an important element of a 

station’s service obligations from the 

time location requirements for AM, FM, 

and TV broadcast stations were first 

adopted. As the main studio played a 

key role in the origination of a broadcast 

station’s programming, its location in 

the community helped to ensure that 

the station could participate in 

community activities, that community 

members could participate in live 

programs, and that community residents 

could more easily present complaints or 

suggestions to the station. The 

Commission reasoned that interaction 

between the station and the community 

would help foster programming 

responsive to community needs and 

concerns. 

3. In 2017, however, the Commission 

eliminated the main studio rule and the 

associated requirements that the main 

studio have full-time management and 

staff present during normal business 

hours, and that it have program 

origination capability. The Commission 

found that technological changes have 

‘‘rendered local studios unnecessary’’ as 

a means for viewers and listeners to 

contact or access their local station. The 

Commission noted that most 

community members communicate with 

stations via email, station websites, 

telephone, or other means, rather than 

visiting a main studio, and that public 

inspection files can now be viewed on 

the Commission’s Online Public 

Inspection File (OPIF) database. The 

Commission also found that there was 

no evidence that the physical location of 

a station’s main studio is the reason 

broadcasters are able to deliver content 

that meets the needs and interests of the 

local community. 

4. The elimination of the main studio 

rule and its associated requirements 

followed other, earlier steps taken by 

the Commission to reduce or eliminate 

regulations applicable to TV and radio 

broadcasters that were intended to 

reinforce the obligation of stations to 

provide programming responsive to 

community needs and interests. In its 

radio and television deregulation orders, 

the Commission eliminated its formal 

ascertainment and program log 

requirements and quantitative 

guidelines regarding the duration, type, 

and time of presentation of 

nonentertainment programming. While 

the Commission concluded generally 

that these requirements were no longer 

necessary or appropriate means to 

ensure station operation in the public 

interest, it reaffirmed the continuing 

obligation of all licensees to provide 

issue-responsive programming. 

5. Currently, the Commission requires 

stations to prepare quarterly a list of 

programs that ‘‘have provided the most 

significant treatment of community 

issues.’’ The purpose of this 

requirement is to provide both the 

public and the Commission with 

information needed to monitor a 

licensee’s performance in meeting its 

public interest obligation of providing 

programming that is responsive to its 

community. Our current rules require 

full-power radio and TV and Class A TV 

broadcasters to post these issues/ 

programs lists on the station’s OPIF. 

Further, as part of the broadcast station 

license renewal process, the 

Commission is required to find that ‘‘the 

station has served the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity’’ during its 

preceding license term. 

II. Discussion 

6. To provide an additional incentive 

to stations to broadcast content 

responsive to the needs of the local 

community, particularly news and 

information, we propose to adopt a 

change in our application processing 

procedures that would benefit those 

radio and TV broadcasters that certify 

that they provide locally originated 

content. Specifically, when reviewing 

applications for renewal, transfer, or 

assignment of license, we propose to 

adopt a processing policy to prioritize 

evaluation of those applications filed by 

stations that certify that they provide 

locally originated programming. These 

applications would be the first to be 

reviewed, which would likely result in 

quicker action and, if the application is 

granted, quicker approval of these 

applications. 

7. We tentatively conclude that our 

proposal to award priority application 

review to applicants that provide locally 

originated programming advances the 

Commission’s longstanding policy goal 

of encouraging licensees to air 

programming that serves the needs and 

interests of their local community. We 

also tentatively conclude that the 

provision by a station of locally 

originated programming serves as a 

reasonable gauge of whether the station 

is serving the public interest by 

providing programming that is 

responsive to particular local needs. In 

addition, by focusing on where the 

programming is created, our proposal 

avoids having the Commission try to 

evaluate the content of a station’s 

broadcasts to determine their local 

nature. 

8. The Commission has recognized 

that programming does not have to be 

locally originated to have interest or 

value to audiences in any particular 

community and has suggested that 

locally originated content may not 

always be responsive to a community’s 

needs or interests. But the corollary that 

some may read into those statements— 

that locally originated programming is 

not valuable enough to warrant 

Commission attention—goes too far. To 

the contrary, programming containing at 

least some locally sourced content 

appears quite likely to be responsive to 

local concerns and interests. We believe 

that the incentives behind the creation 

of local programming (including but not 

limited to financial incentives) tend to 

align local creators with the needs and 

interests of local audiences; evidence 

suggests that creators of local 

programming would be unlikely to 

expend time and financial resources on 

material that has little or no appeal to 

local listeners and viewers. We also 

recognize that the line between ‘‘local’’ 

and ‘‘non-local’’ is not always a sharp 

one; broadcasters may ‘‘localize’’ a state, 

national, or international issue by 

providing local commentary or local 

expert explanations on the probable 

effect of the issue on people within the 

station’s signal contour. Such content 

plainly also serves local needs and 

interests. We seek comment on these 

views. 

9. Accordingly, to the degree that the 

Main Studio Elimination Order could be 

read to the contrary, we tentatively 

conclude that locally originated 

programming usually reflects needs, 

interests, circumstances, or perspectives 

that may be quite pertinent to that 

community and that production of local 

broadcast programming remains a key 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
8624 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

consideration. We also question 

whether the Main Studio Elimination 

Order’s predictive judgment—that the 

Commission’s action there would foster 

creation of more and better local 

content—has actually come to pass. We 

invite comment on these views and 

request commenters to provide analysis 

and data in support of their positions. 

Under our proposal, licensees will 

continue to ultimately have the 

discretion to determine what mix of 

local and non-local programming will 

best serve the community. We 

tentatively conclude our proposal does 

not interfere with this discretion but 

merely offers an opportunity to 

licensees to obtain prioritized review of 

applications if they certify that they 

provide programming that is locally 

originated. We invite comment 

generally on these views. 

A. Processing Priority 

10. We tentatively conclude that our 

proposal would apply only to those 

applications for which processing is not 

immediately available because the 

application has a hold, petition to deny, 

or other pending issue that requires 

further staff review. Applications 

without holds or other processing issues 

requiring additional staff review, also 

referred to here as ‘‘simple’’ 

applications, would be acted upon 

consistent with current routine 

processing procedures. In contrast, 

applications that have holds related to 

the applicant’s failure to comply with 

Commission rules, or where petitions to 

deny or informal objections have been 

filed, generally require additional staff 

research and processing time before 

they can be processed. The amount of 

time it takes to process these types of 

applications is often dependent upon 

the number of applications pending 

before the Commission at any given 

time, the complexity of the issues 

involved, and the availability of 

Commission staff to process the 

applications in light of other agency 

priorities. With respect to these more 

‘‘complex’’ applications, we propose 

that the staff first would consider those 

that are filed together with a 

certification that the station provides 

programming that is locally originated. 

We tentatively conclude this approach 

will not slow the review of ‘‘simple’’ 

applications that are otherwise grantable 

but will create a priority system for 

more ‘‘complex’’ applications that 

require further staff attention. We will 

not delay the processing of a ‘‘simple’’ 

application while a more ‘‘complex’’ 

application with a certification is 

pending. We seek comment on this 

approach. 

11. We propose that the decision by 

a licensee to elect to certify that the 

station meets the local programming 

guideline be purely voluntary, and we 

seek comment on this proposal. With 

respect to those licensees that either 

cannot, or choose not, to provide a 

certification, the Commission staff will 

process the licensee’s application 

pursuant to its normal procedures. 

Applications that do not include a 

certification will not be scrutinized or 

processed differently as a substantive 

matter than applications with a 

certification, other than the 

prioritization proposal discussed above. 

12. While we do not propose at this 

time to extend our proposed application 

processing priority to modification 

applications, waiver requests, or 

requests for Special Temporary 

Authority (STA), we invite comment on 

whether these types of applications and 

requests should be included in our 

proposal herein. Based upon the 

experience of the Media’s Bureaus 

licensing divisions, we note that the 

review time for these applications is 

generally more abbreviated than for 

renewals and transactions, and therefore 

such a prioritization may not be 

appreciably relevant. Despite this, 

should these, or other, kind of requests 

be treated in the same manner as 

renewal applications and applications 

for assignment and transfer of control 

for purposes of application processing 

priority? 

13. Finally, we do not propose to offer 

priority application review, as outlined 

herein, to applications filed for radio 

translators or boosters or TV translators. 

Booster stations do not originate 

programming and translator stations 

may only originate a very limited 

amount of programming so the 

underlying purpose of the proposed 

processing policy—i.e., to further 

incentivize broadcast licensees to serve 

community needs and interests through 

production of locally originated 

programming—would not apply. 

Accordingly, we believe there would be 

minimal value, if any, in asking these 

stations to certify they provide locally 

originated programming content. As 

noted above, we tentatively conclude 

this approach will not slow the review 

of ‘‘simple’’ applications that are 

otherwise grantable. We seek comment 

on our proposals and findings. 

B. Applications Eligible for Processing 

Priority 

1. ‘‘Local’’ Market 

14. Under our proposal, we would 

prioritize the review of applications 

filed by stations that provide locally 

originated programming. We invite 

comment on how we should define 

‘‘local’’ for this purpose. The former 

main studio rule required each AM, FM, 

and television broadcast station to 

maintain a main studio that is located 

either: ‘‘(1) [w]ithin the station’s 

community of license; (2) [a]t any 

location within the principal 

community contour of any AM, FM, or 

TV broadcast station licensed to the 

station’s community of license; or (3) 

[w]ithin twenty-five miles from the 

reference coordinates of the center of its 

community of license as described in 

§ 73.208(a)(1).’’ Should we define 

‘‘locally originated’’ programing as 

programming originated within one or 

more of these geographic areas? One 

purpose of the former main studio rule 

was to ensure that the station complied 

with its local service obligations. Would 

adopting a definition of the geographic 

area in which ‘‘locally originated ’’ 

programming is created for purposes of 

priority application review in a manner 

similar to the geographic area used for 

the former main studio rule help ensure 

that this programming reflects the needs 

and interests of the local community? 

Should we instead define the ‘‘local’’ 

market as the station’s service contour? 

As service contours generally 

encompass a larger geographic area than 

a station’s community of license or 

principal community contour, this 

definition would give the station more 

flexibility with respect to where local 

programming could be originated. We 

invite comment generally on how to 

define the geographic area in which a 

program should be originated in order to 

qualify as ‘‘local’’ under our proposal 

herein. Should we define the local 

market differently for radio stations than 

for TV stations? Should we define the 

local market differently for low power 

TV stations than full power TV stations? 

2. Locally ‘‘Originated’’ Programming 

15. We also invite comment on how 

to define programming ‘‘originated’’ 

locally for purposes of qualifying for 

priority application review. We propose 

that any kind of activity involved in 

creating audio (radio) or video (TV) 

programming that occurs within the 

‘‘local’’ market, as defined in this 

proceeding, would be sufficient. Local 

program origination could involve, for 

example, activities such as program 

scripting, recording (video or audio) at 

a studio or other location in the local 

market, or editing. Our proposed 

approach would include programming 

that contains video or audio recordings 

that were made at locations outside the 

local market, as long as the program also 

includes some other element of local 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8625 

creation. For particular programming 

that contains content made at locations 

outside the local market, should we 

establish a minimum amount of 

required locally originated 

programming? What other kinds of local 

activities should qualify as local 

program origination? 

16. We note that, in the case of 

mutually exclusive applications for new 

Low Power FM (LPFM) stations, the 

Commission’s rules favor the selection 

of applicants that pledge to provide at 

least eight hours of locally originated 

programming each day. The LPFM rules 

define ‘‘local origination’’ as ‘‘the 

production of programming by the 

licensee within ten miles of the 

coordinates of the proposed transmitting 

antenna’’ and provides the following 

examples of locally originated 

programming: ‘‘licensee produced callin shows, music selected and played by 

a disc jockey present on site, broadcasts 

of events at local schools, and 

broadcasts of musical performances at a 

local studio or festival, whether 

recorded or live.’’ We propose that these 

kinds of programs and activities would 

qualify as locally originated 

programming for purposes of our 

proposed priority application review, 

and invite comment on this proposal. 

Are there other examples of locally 

originated programming we should 

provide? 

17. We note that, in the LPFM context 

for resolving mutually exclusive 

applications, the rules require the 

locally originated programming to be 

produced by the licensee. We do not 

propose to adopt a similar requirement 

for this priority application review 

proposal. Thus, we propose that the 

locally originated content can be 

produced by a third party that is not the 

licensee. We invite comment on this 

approach. 

18. The LPFM rules further provide 

that local origination ‘‘does not include 

the broadcast of repetitive or automated 

programs or time-shifted recordings of 

non-local programming whatever its 

source.’’ Should we exclude these kinds 

of programs and/or time-shifted 

recordings from the definition of local 

programming for purposes of priority 

application review? In addition, the 

LPFM rules provide that ‘‘local 

origination does not include a local 

program that has been broadcast twice, 

even if the licensee broadcasts the 

program on a different day or makes 

small variations in the program 

thereafter.’’ In adopting this restriction 

for LPFM, the Commission noted that 

local origination is a ‘‘central virtue’’ of 

that service and that there was ‘‘room 

for abuse’’ if repetitious, automated 

programs could count as locally 

originated. Should we adopt this same 

restriction on repetition of locally 

originated programming for purposes of 

priority application review? With 

respect to television stations, should we 

define ‘‘locally originated 

programming’’ for purposes of priority 

application review as programming 

containing simultaneous video and 

audio programming where the audio 

portion of the programming directly 

relates to the video portion of the 

program? This would mean that, for 

television applicants, video-only or 

audio-only programming would not 

count for purposes of obtaining priority 

application review. For television 

stations, would this restriction help 

ensure that locally originated 

programming contains the type of 

television services viewers expect TV 

stations to provide? 

C. Certification 

19. We propose to provide priority 

staff review to licensees that certify that 

the station(s) provides on average at 

least three hours per week of locally 

originated programming. We note that, 

to be eligible for Class A status, the 

CBPA required that low power TV 

stations, during the 90 days preceding 

the date of enactment of the statute, 

broadcast an average of at least three 

hours per week of programming 

produced within the ‘‘market area’’ 

served by the station. Should we adopt 

the same three-hour guideline for 

purposes of priority staff review? We 

note that under a three-hour per week 

criteria, stations on the air 24 hours per 

day seven days each week that air 

locally originated programming for just 

two minutes at the top of each hour 

would exceed a three-hour guideline. 

Should the guideline number be greater 

or less than three hours? Should it be 

prorated for stations that are on the air 

less than 24 hours per day? Should the 

amount be the same for radio and 

television stations? Should it be the 

same for commercial and noncommercial stations? Should applicants 

be required to have met the required 

amount of hours per week for a 

minimum number of days or weeks 

prior to filing of the application? If so, 

what would be an appropriate minimum 

number of days or weeks? As in the 

CBPA, would 90 days prior to the filing 

of the application be an appropriate 

timeframe? Should applicants also be 

required to continue to meet the 

required amount of hours per week 

while the subject application is 

pending? Should applicants be required 

to re-certify compliance while the 

application is pending? Should 

applicants also be required to continue 

to meet the required amount of hours 

per week for a minimum number of 

days or weeks after the application is 

granted? If so, what would be an 

appropriate minimum number of days 

or weeks? 

20. We propose that the Media Bureau 

add a question to each FCC application 

form for which expedited processing 

would be made available (e.g., each TV/ 

radio renewal, transfer, and assignment 

application form) asking the licensee 

whether it certifies, under penalty of 

perjury, that the station(s) provides at 

least three hours per week of locally 

originated programming, consistent 

with the criteria adopted in this 

proceeding. We invite comment on this 

approach. We propose that, in the case 

of applications involving multiple 

stations (such as an application 

proposing the transfer or assignment of 

multiple stations), priority review be 

available only if the applicant certifies 

that every station included in the 

application meets the priority 

processing criteria, and invite comment 

on this proposal. Should we require the 

applicant to provide any additional 

information that would permit the 

Commission to review the certification, 

such as identifying the programs the 

applicant claims are locally originated? 

D. Digital Equity and Inclusion 

21. Finally, the Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to advance 

digital equity for all, including people of 

color, persons with disabilities, persons 

who live in rural or Tribal areas, and 

others who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, we seek comment 

on how our proposals may promote or 

inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 

inclusion, and accessibility, as well the 

scope of the Commission’s relevant legal 

authority. 

III. Procedural Matters 

22. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-ButDisclose. The proceeding this NPRM 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
8626 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

23. Filing Requirements—Comments 

and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

24. During the time the Commission’s 

building is closed to the general public 

and until further notice, if more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of a proceeding, 

paper filers need not submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number; an 

original and one copy are sufficient. 

25. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice and comment rulemakings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Accordingly, we have prepared an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) concerning the possible impact 

of the rule changes proposed in this 

NPRM on small entities. Written public 

comments are requested on the IRFA. 

Comments must be filed by the 

deadlines for comments on the NPRM 

indicated on the first page of this 

document and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

26. Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act. The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act requires each agency, in providing 

notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 

brief plain-language summary of the 

proposed rule. Accordingly, the 

Commission will publish the required 

summary of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking/Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

27. This document proposes new or 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens and pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on these 

information collection requirements. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

28. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in the 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 provided 

on the first page of the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

29. In this NPRM, we propose to 

prioritize processing review of certain 

applications filed by commercial and 

noncommercial radio and television 

broadcast stations that provide locally 

originated programming. Our goal is to 

provide additional incentive to stations 

to provide programming that responds 

to the needs and interests of the 

communities they are licensed to serve. 

In 2017, the Commission eliminated the 

rule that required broadcast stations to 

maintain a main studio located in or 

near their community of license, as well 

as the associated requirement that the 

main studio have program origination 

capability. We propose this processing 

priority in order to further encourage 

radio and TV stations to serve their 

community of license with local 

journalism or other locally originated 

programming. Such prioritization would 

be granted to renewal applicants, as 

well as applicants for assignment or 

transfer of license, that certify they 

provide locally originated programming, 

thereby advancing our efforts to 

promote localism and serve local 

communities across the nation. 

30. The NPRM also seeks comment on 

the Commission’s proposal to exclude 

television translator and radio translator 

and booster stations from the proposed 

priority application review proposal and 

on whether its proposals may promote 

or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 

inclusion, and accessibility, as well as 

the scope of the Commission’s relevant 

legal authority. 

B. Legal Basis 

31. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 

307, and 309 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

152, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, and 309. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

32. 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; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8627 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

33. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe, at the outset, three 

broad groups of small entities that could 

be directly affected herein. First, while 

there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

SBA’sOffice of Advocacy, in general a 

small business is an independent 

business having fewer than 500 

employees. These types of small 

businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 33.2 million businesses. 

34. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

35. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number, there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal, and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

36. Television Broadcasting. This 

industry is comprised of 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ These establishments operate 

television broadcast studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public. 

These establishments also produce or 

transmit visual programming to 

affiliated broadcast television stations, 

which in turn broadcast the programs to 

the public on a predetermined schedule. 

Programming may originate in their own 

studio, from an affiliated network, or 

from external sources. The SBA small 

business size standard for this industry 

classifies businesses having $41.5 

million or less in annual receipts as 

small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data 

indicate that 744 firms in this industry 

operated for the entire year. Of that 

number, 657 firms had revenue of less 

than $25,000,000. Based on this data we 

estimate that the majority of television 

broadcasters are small entities under the 

SBA small business size standard. 

37. As of March 31, 2023, there were 

1,375 licensed commercial television 

stations. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 

93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or 

less in 2021, according to Commission 

staff review of the BIA Kelsey Media 

Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 

April 7, 2023, and therefore these 

licensees qualify as small entities under 

the SBA definition. In addition, the 

Commission estimates as of March 31, 

2023, there were 383 licensed 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

television stations, 381 Class A TV 

stations, and 1,887 LPTV stations. The 

Commission, however, does not compile 

and otherwise does not have access to 

financial information for these 

television broadcast stations that would 

permit it to determine how many of 

these stations qualify as small entities 

under the SBA small business size 

standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA’s 

large annual receipts threshold for this 

industry and the nature of these 

television station licensees, we presume 

that all of these entities qualify as small 

entities under the above SBA small 

business size standard. 

38. Radio Broadcasting. This industry 

is comprised of ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in broadcasting aural 

programs by radio to the public.’’ 

Programming may originate in the 

station’s own studio, from an affiliated 

network, or from external sources. The 

SBA small business size standard for 

this industry classifies firms having 

$41.5 million or less in annual receipts 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in 

this industry during that year. Of this 

number, 1,879 firms operated with 

revenue of less than $25 million per 

year. Based on this data and the SBA’s 

small business size standard, we 

estimate a majority of such entities are 

small entities. 

39. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed commercial 

radio stations to be 11,153 (4,472 

commercial AM stations and 6,681 

commercial FM stations). Of this total, 

11,151 stations (or 99.98%) had 

revenues of $41.5 million or less in 

2022, according to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 

Access Pro Database (BIA) on April 7, 

2023, and therefore these licensees 

qualify as small entities under the SBA 

definition. In addition, the Commission 

estimates that as of March 31, 2023, the 

number of licensed noncommercial 

radio stations to be 4,219, and the 

number of LPFM Stations to be 1,999. 

The Commission however does not 

compile, and otherwise does not have 

access to financial information for these 

radio stations that would permit it to 

determine how many of these stations 

qualify as small entities under the SBA 

small business size standard. 

Nevertheless, given the SBA’s large 

annual receipts threshold for this 

industry and the nature of radio station 

licensees, we presume that all of these 

entities qualify as small entities under 

the above SBA small business size 

standard. 

40. We note that in assessing whether 

a business entity qualifies as small 

under the above definition, business 

control affiliations must be included. 

This estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, 

another element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ is that the entity not 

be dominant in its field of operation. 

The Commission is unable at this time 

to define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific radio 

station is dominant in its field of 

operation. Accordingly, the estimate of 

small businesses to which rules may 

apply does not exclude any radio station 

from the definition of a small business 

on this basis and therefore may be overinclusive to that extent. Also, an 

additional element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ is that the entity must 

be independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and the 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

41. We expect that the proposed rules 

set forth in the NPRM will impose new 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
8628 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

or additional filing, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for small and 

other entities. We note, however, that 

while the proposed rules will create 

additional compliance requirements, the 

NPRM also proposes that the decision 

by a licensee to elect to certify that the 

station meets the local programming 

guideline be purely voluntary. With 

respect to those small or other licensees 

that either cannot, or choose not, to 

provide a certification, the Commission 

staff will process the licensee’s 

application pursuant to its normal 

procedures. 

42. The NPRM proposes to provide 

priority in terms of processing review to 

applications filed by commercial and 

noncommercial radio and television 

broadcast stations that certify that they 

provide on average at least three hours 

per week of locally originated 

programming. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on whether applicants should 

also be required to re-certify compliance 

while the subject application is 

pending, and whether they should be 

required to continue to meet the 

required amount of hours per week for 

a minimum number of days or weeks 

after the application is granted. We 

propose that the Media Bureau add a 

question to each FCC application form 

for which expedited processing would 

be made available (e.g., each TV/radio 

renewal, transfer, and assignment 

application form) asking the licensee 

whether it certifies, under penalty of 

perjury, that the station(s) provides at 

least three hours per week of locally 

originated programming, consistent 

with the criteria adopted in this 

proceeding. We also propose that, in the 

case of applications involving multiple 

stations, priority review be available 

only if the applicant certifies that every 

station included in the application 

meets the priority processing criteria. 

We invite comment on these proposals. 

We also seek comment on whether we 

should require applicants to provide 

any additional information that would 

permit the Commission to review the 

certification, such as identifying the 

programs the applicant claims are 

locally originated. 

43. We propose that licensees that 

request priority staff review of an 

application(s) be required to certify, 

under penalty of perjury, that the station 

meets the criteria adopted in this 

proceeding. The NPRM seeks comment 

on whether we should require 

applicants to provide any additional 

information that would permit the 

Commission to review the certification, 

such as identifying the programs the 

applicant claims are locally originated. 

We expect that the information we 

receive in the comments will help the 

Commission identify and evaluate 

relevant compliance matters for small 

entities, including compliance costs and 

other burdens that may emerge as a 

result of the potential changes discussed 

in the NPRM. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

44. 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.’’ 

45. The NPRM seeks comment 

generally on its proposal to provide 

priority staff review of applications filed 

by stations that certify that they provide 

an average of at least three hours per 

week of locally originated programming. 

The NPRM invites comment on whether 

this guideline is appropriate. We also 

invite comment on all the proposed 

approaches and on any alternatives, 

which will provide the Commission 

additional information on possible steps 

that can be taken to minimize any 

significant impact on small entities. 

46. In an effort to minimize significant 

economic impact on small entities as a 

result of the proposals that are 

ultimately adopted, the NPRM makes 

clear that a station’s participation in 

certifying that it meets the qualifications 

for priority application review is purely 

voluntary. A station may choose 

whether it wants to provide the 

additional information to qualify for 

prioritized review of its application and, 

should it decline to, would have its 

application processed pursuant to its 

normal procedures. Applications that do 

not include a certification will not be 

scrutinized or processed differently as a 

substantive matter than applications 

with a certification, other than the 

prioritization proposal discussed in the 

NPRM. 

47. Finally, we do not propose to offer 

priority application review, as outlined 

herein, to applications filed for radio 

translators or boosters or TV translators. 

Booster stations do not originate 

programming and translator stations 

may only originate a very limited 

amount of programming so the 

underlying purpose of the proposed 

processing policy—i.e., to further 

incentivize broadcast licensees to serve 

community needs and interests through 

production of locally originated 

programming—would not apply. 

Accordingly, we believe there would be 

minimal value, if any, in asking these 

stations to certify they provide locally 

originated programming. We tentatively 

conclude that our prioritized processing 

approach will not slow the review of 

‘‘simple’’ applications that are otherwise 

grantable. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

48. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

49. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, and 309 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(j), 303, 307, and 309, this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

50. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, Reference Information 

Center, shall send a copy of this Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

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, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.3514 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 73.3514 Content of applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicants for renewal, 

assignment, or transfer of license for 

commercial and noncommercial AM, 

FM, and TV broadcast stations may 

request priority staff review of such 

applications if the applicant certifies 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8629 

that the station provides an average of 

at least three hours per week of locally 

originated programming. This paragraph 

does not apply to TV translator or radio 

translator or booster stations. 

(1) For purposes of this provision, 

locally originated programming is 

programming produced either 

(i) [W]ithin the station’s community 

of license; 

(ii) [A]t any location within the 

principal community contour of any 

AM, FM, or TV broadcast station 

licensed to the station’s community of 

license; or 

(iii) [W]ithin 25 miles from the 

reference coordinates of the center of its 

community of license as described in 

§ 73.208(a)(1). 

(2) For purposes of this provision, 

locally originated programming is 

defined as: 

(i) Programming that was created 

within the area defined in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section. Programming that 

contains video or audio recordings that 

were made at locations outside the area 

defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section qualifies as locally originated 

programming as long as the program 

also includes some other element of 

local creation that takes place in the 

area defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, including program scripting, 

recording (video or audio) at a studio or 

other location in the local market, 

editing, or other activity. 

(ii) Locally originated programming 

does not include: the broadcast of 

repetitive or automated programs or 

time-shifted recordings of non-local 

programming whatever its source; a 

local program that has been broadcast 

twice, even if the licensee broadcasts 

the program on a different day or makes 

small variations in the program 

thereafter. In addition, with respect to 

television stations, locally originated 

programming is programming 

containing simultaneous video and 

audio programming where the audio 

portion of the programming directly 

relates to the video portion of the 

program. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02039 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 245] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for the 

Kings River Pyrg 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition finding 

and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to add the 

Kings River pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 

imperialis) to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petition to list the Kings 

River pyrg presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether the 

petitioned action is warranted. To 

ensure that the status review is 

comprehensive, we request scientific 

and commercial data and other 

information regarding Kings River pyrg 

and factors that may affect its status. 

Based on the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month petition finding, 

which will address whether or not the 

petitioned action is warranted, in 

accordance with the Act. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

February 8, 2024. As we commence our 

status review, we seek any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Kings River pyrg or its 

habitats. Any information we receive 

during the course of our status review 

will be considered. 

ADDRESSES: 

Supporting documents: A summary of 

the basis for the petition finding 

contained in this document is available 

on https://www.regulations.gov in 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261. In 

addition, this supporting information is 

available by contacting the appropriate 

person, as specified in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Status reviews: If you have new 

scientific or commercial data or other 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Kings River pyrg or its 

habitat, please provide those data or 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261, which is 

the docket number for this action. Then, 

click on the ‘‘Search’’ button. After 

finding the correct document, you may 

submit information by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ If your information will fit 

in the provided comment box, please 

use this feature of https://

www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our information review 

procedures. If you attach your 

information as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information we receive 

on https://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Barrett, Deputy Field Supervisor, 

Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 

telephone: 775–861–6300, email: justin_

barrett@fws.gov. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for adding species to, 

removing species from, or reclassifying 

species on the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 

17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to add a species to the List (i.e., 

‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from 

the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or 

change a listed species’ status from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered (i.e., 

‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1