Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62683

CSW services furnished to SNF

residents during a noncovered stay

would have to be submitted by the SNF

rather than by the CSW. Exempting

CSW services from the SNF

consolidated billing provision would

require legislation to amend the Act by

adding these services to the list of

statutory exclusions discussed above.

III. Collection of Information

Requirements

This document does not impose any

information collection and record

keeping requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). Consequently, it does not need to

be reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the authority of PRA.

IV. Response to Comments

Because of the large number of items

of correspondence we normally receive

on Federal Register documents

published for comment, we are not able

to acknowledge or respond to them

individually. We will consider all

comments we receive by the date and

time specified in the DATES section of

this preamble, and, if we proceed with

a subsequent document, we will

respond to the comments in the

preamble to that document.

V. Regulatory Impact Statement

We have examined the impacts of this

proposed rule as required by Executive

Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (Public Law 96–

354). E.O. 12866 directs agencies to

assess all costs and benefits of available

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation

is necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits

(including potential economic,

environmental, public health and safety

effects, distributive impacts, and

equity). A regulatory impact analysis

(RIA) must be prepared for major rules

with economically significant effects

($100 million or more annually). We

have determined that this proposed rule

is not a major rule with economically

significant effects. However, we have

prepared a voluntary RFA to furnish

additional information.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze

options for regulatory relief of small

businesses. For purposes of the RFA,

small entities include small businesses,

nonprofit organizations, and

governmental agencies. Most hospitals

and most other providers and suppliers

are small entities, either by nonprofit

status or by having revenues of $5

million or less annually. For purposes of

the RFA, intermediaries and carriers are

not considered to be small entities.

Individuals and States are not included

in the definition of a small entity.

According to estimates provided by the

National Association of Social Workers,

there were approximately 18,000

clinically trained social workers serving

the 1.6 million residents of the nation’s

17,000 nursing homes in 1999. Because

this proposed rule permits

approximately $12 million in annual

payments for CSW services that the final

rule of April 23, 1998 would have

eliminated, this proposed rule would

have a significant positive impact on a

substantial number of small entitites.

This rule would also benefit residents of

SNFs who receive mental health

services from clinical social workers.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act

requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule

may have a significant impact on the

operations of a substantial number of

small rural hospitals. This analysis must

conform to the provisions of section 603

of the RFA. For purposes of section

1102(b) of the Act, we define a small

rural hospital as a hospital that is

located outside of a Metropolitan

Statistical Area and has fewer than 50

beds. This proposed rule would not

have a significant impact on the

operations of a substantial number of

small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also

requires that agencies assess anticipated

costs and benefits before issuing any

rule that may result in an expenditure

in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

This proposed rule would have no

consequential effect on State, local, or

tribal governments, and the private

sector cost of this rule falls below these

thresholds as well.

For these reasons, we are not

preparing analyses for either the RFA or

section 1102(b) of the Act because we

have determined, and we certify, that

this rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities or a significant

impact on the operations of a substantial

number of small rural hospitals.

In accordance with the provisions of

E.O. 12866, this regulation was

reviewed by OMB.

We have reviewed this proposed rule

under the threshold criteria of E.O.

13132, Federalism. We have determined

that the proposed rule would not

significantly affect the rights, roles, and

responsibilities of States.

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 410

Health facilities, Health professions,

Kidney diseases, Laboratories,

Medicare, Rural areas, X-rays.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 42 CFR part 410 is proposed

to be amended as set forth below:

PART 410—SUPPLEMENTARY

MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI)

BENEFITS

1. The authority citation for part 410

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and

1395hh).

2. In § 410.73, paragraph (b)

introductory text and (b)(2) introductory

text are republished, and paragraph

(b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

§ 410.73 Clinical social worker services.

* * * * *

(b) Covered clinical social worker

services. Medicare Part B covers clinical

social worker services.

* * * * *

(2) Exception. The following services

are not clinical social worker services

for purposes of billing Medicare Part B:

* * * * *

(ii) Services furnished by a clinical

social worker to an inpatient of a

Medicare-participating SNF if the

services are required by the

requirements for participation for SNFs

at §§ 483.15 and 483.45 of this chapter.

* * * * *

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: February 7, 2000.

Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Approved: March 27, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

Editorial Note: This document was

received at the Office of the Federal Register

October 13, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–26737 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 00–168; FCC 00–345]

Standardized and Enhanced

Disclosure of Commercial Television

Station Public Interest Obligations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

62684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This document concerns rules

and policies on how commercial

television broadcast station licensees

provide public interest information to

the public. This document proposes

amendments to the public inspection

file rules that would standardize the

format used for providing public

interest information to the public and

make information contained in public

inspection files available on the

Internet. The intended effect of this

action is to propose rules that would

make information regarding how

television broadcast stations meet their

fundamental public interest obligation

to serve the needs and interests of their

communities of license easier to

understand or more accessible to the

public.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 18, 2000, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

January 17, 2001. Written comments by

the public on the proposed information

collections are due on or before

December 18, 2000. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collection(s) on or

before December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments

concerning this proposed rule to the

Commission’s Secretary,

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cyndi Thomas, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau, at (202)

418–2130, TTY (202) 418–2989. For

additional information concerning the

information collection(s) contained in

this document, contact Judy Boley at

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 00–168,

FCC 00–345, adopted on September 14,

2000, and released on October 5, 2000.

The full text of this decision is available

for inspection and copying during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street,

SW, Room CY–A257, Washington DC,

and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,

Room CY–B402, Washington DC. The

complete text is also available under the

file name fcc00345.pdf on the

Commission’s Internet site at

www.fcc.gov.

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

contains proposed information

collection(s) subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The

general public and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

Comments may be filed using the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies via the Internet to http://

www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties

may also submit an electronic comment

by Internet e-mail. To get filing

instructions for e-mail comments,

commenters should send an e-mail to

ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the

following words in the body of the

message, ‘‘get form, <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

contains a proposed information

collection. The Commission, as part of

its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

information collection(s) contained in

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due at the

same time as other comments on this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; OMB

comments are due 60 days from date of

publication of this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in the Federal Register.

Comments should address (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information collected; (c) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX.

Title: Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking—Standardized Disclosure

Requirements for TV Broadcast Licensee

Public Interest Obligations.

Form No.: Undetermined.

Estimated Time Per Response: 52.5–

100 hours dependent on final rules.

Total Annual Burden: 86625–165000

hours.

Total Annual Costs: Undetermined.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has

proposed in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to require television

broadcast station licensees to use a

standardized form to provide

information on a quarterly basis on how

the station serves the public interest.

The information on this standardized

form will enhance the public’s access to

information on how television

broadcasters are meeting their public

interest obligation.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. The Commission adopts a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to

address some of the difficulties

described in response to the Notice of

Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) (65 FR 4211, January

26, 2000) in this proceeding, that

members of the public have

encountered in trying to access

information on how television

broadcasters are meeting their

fundamental public interest obligation

to air programming responsive to the

needs and interests of its community of

license. To meet that obligation in part,

under current rules, commercial

television broadcast station licensees

must provide coverage of issues facing

their communities and place lists of

programming used in providing

significant treatment of those issues

(issues/programs lists) in the station’s

public inspection files on a quarterly

basis. The NPRM seeks comment on the

Commission’s tentative conclusion to

require television broadcast station

licensees to use a standardized form to

provide information on a quarterly basis

on how the station serves the public

interest. The Commission would require

that this form be maintained in the

station’s public inspection file in place

of the issues/programs lists. The

Commission proposes to enhance the

public’s ability to access public interest

information by requiring licensees to

make the contents of their public

inspection files, including the form,

available on the station’s or a state

broadcasters association’s Internet

website. The NPRM also seeks comment

on the Commission’s proposal to

encourage, but not mandate the use of

station websites to conduct on-line

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62685

discussions and facilitate interaction

with the public.

2. As the Commission noted in the

NOI, the discussion of television

broadcasters’ public interest obligations

‘‘has been renewed by their transition

from analog to digital (DTV)

technology.’’ Some of the issues raised

in the NOI relate exclusively to

broadcasters’ use of digital technology.

The Commission sought comment

generally, however, on ‘‘how

broadcasters can meet their public

interest obligations on both their analog

and digital channels during the

transition period, and on various

proposals and recommendations that

have been made on how broadcasters

could better serve their communities of

license.’’ Television licensees may

continue to broadcast in analog format

until at least 2006. The mechanisms

proposed below do not relate

exclusively to digital transmissions.

Given the benefits to be derived from

the proposals set forth below, the

Commission believes it should not wait

until after the digital transition is

complete to implement them. The

Commission recognizes that the

application of the proposals in this

NPRM to analog as well as digital

television broadcasters raises the issue

of whether we should also consider

changes to the disclosure obligations of

radio broadcasters. The Commission

began this discussion, however, with

the NOI, which related only to

television broadcasters, and is limiting

the scope of this proceeding to

television.

Standardization of Disclosures

3. The Commission seeks comment on

what format a broadcast television

licensee should use to provide

information to the public regarding how

it meets certain public interest

obligations. Members of the public

currently must contact a station’s main

studio to review a variety of documents

or quarterly reports maintained in the

public inspection file that provide

information on station operations and

management as well as what actions the

station has taken to provide communityresponsive programming. Station

personnel must make the file available

to the public at any time during regular

business hours and documents must be

made available for printing or

photocopying upon request made in

person. Stations may also maintain all

or part of the file in a computer database

as long as a computer terminal is made

available to the public at the location of

the file. Licensees that maintain a

station’s main studio and public file

outside its community of license must

provide photocopies of documents to

persons within the station’s geographic

service area by mail upon telephone

request.

4. Based upon the comments the

Commission received in response to the

NOI, it appears that members of the

public have encountered difficulties

accessing information under existing

procedures. For example, People for

Better TV explains that when its

members reviewed public files, ‘‘the

most consistent finding is the lack of

consistency and uniformity about what

is in the files, even within the same

community.’’ The Commission sought

comment in the NOI on the

recommendation made in the December

18, 1998 report from the President’s

Advisory Committee on the Public

Interest Obligations of Digital Television

Broadcasters (Advisory Committee

Report) that broadcasters should use a

single standardized form to provide

information to the public on a station’s

public interest programming and

activities in the community. The

Commission also sought comment on

the recommendation by People for

Better TV and the Advisory Committee

Report that broadcasters disclose their

public interest programming and

activities on a quarterly basis.

5. The Commission tentatively

concludes that it should require

broadcasters to complete a standardized

form that will allow them to disclose

how they meet their obligation to serve

the public interest. The Commission

believes that the use of a standardized

disclosure form will facilitate access to

information on how licensees are

serving the public interest and allow the

public to play a more active role in

helping a station meet its obligation to

provide programming that addresses the

community’s needs and interests. The

Commission further believes that

standardized forms will make

broadcasters more accountable to the

public, and that improving broadcaster

accountability will minimize the need

for government involvement in

monitoring how broadcasters comply

with their public interest obligation.

The Commission believes standardized

disclosure will significantly reduce the

time needed to locate information

requested by the public and will

provide the public with a better

mechanism for reviewing a

broadcaster’s public interest

programming and activities. The NPRM

seeks comment on the Commission’s

tentative conclusion. The NPRM also

asks commenters to provide empirical

data on any administrative costs or

benefits associated with the requirement

that broadcasters, especially small

broadcasters, provide public interest

programming and activity information

in a standardized format. Finally, the

Commission tentatively concludes that

the form be updated on a quarterly

basis, and the NPRM seeks comment on

whether this is the appropriate

timeframe.

6. Given that these benefits can be

realized today and are not limited to

digital broadcasts, the Commission

tentatively concludes it should not limit

application of this requirement to DTV.

The NPRM seeks comment on this, as

well as on when broadcasters’ first

quarterly standardized forms must be

placed in their public inspection files.

7. While the public inspection file

rules will fully apply to analog and DTV

broadcasters, the Commission

recognizes some overlap in the function

of the proposed standardized form and

the requirement to maintain issues/

programs lists. The Commission

tentatively concludes that the proposed

standardized public interest disclosure

form will replace the requirement that

broadcasters maintain issues/programs

lists in their public files. The

Commission believes that issues/

programs lists provide such an

assortment of information that the

public may have difficulty determining

the extent to which the station is serving

the public interest. The Commission

therefore believes the standardized form

as proposed will perform the same

intended function as the issues/

programs list, while providing better

and more easily accessible information

on a station’s public interest obligations.

The NPRM seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion. The Commission

notes that this proceeding does not

affect the other requirements of its

public inspection file rules, because

these requirements are not made

redundant by the proposed standardized

form.

Types of Disclosures

8. The Commission sought comment

in the NOI on recommendations made

by People for Better TV and the

Advisory Committee Report to require

licensees to provide specific types of

public interest information. The

Advisory Committee Report

recommends that the enhanced

disclosures ‘‘include but not be limited

to contributions to political discourse,

public service announcements,

children’s and educational

programming, local programming,

programming that meets the needs of

underserved communities, and

community-specific activities.’’ People

for Better TV advocates requiring

broadcasters to ‘‘disclose their public

62686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

interest programming and activities

* * * matched against ascertained

community needs and interests.’’ The

Commission also sought comment on

whether public files should contain

information on programming aired with

closed captioning and video

description. Finally, the Commission

asked parties to address the extent to

which the Advisory Committee’s and

People for Better TV’s proposals parallel

the Commission’s previous

ascertainment requirements, which the

Commission repealed in the 1980s, and

it asked parties to address whether its

reasons for eliminating those

requirements apply to its consideration

of these proposals.

9. As noted above, the current issues/

programs lists provide such an

assortment of information that the

public may have difficulty determining

the extent to which the station is serving

the public interest. The Commission

therefore invites further comment on

whether the public interest would be

better served by requiring television

broadcasters to provide information

relating to various concrete ways in

which they meet certain public interest

obligations.

10. Community-responsive

programming. The Commission

tentatively concludes that the

standardized form should ask questions

about categories of programming. The

Commission believes that categorization

will serve the goal of this proceeding—

to make disclosures about public

interest efforts more uniform, easier to

understand, and more accessible to the

public. The NPRM seeks comment on

what categories should be included on

the standardized form. The Advisory

Committee, for example, proposes to

include local and national news

programming, local and national public

affairs programming, programming that

meets the needs of underserved

communities, programming that

contributes to political discourse, other

local programming that is not otherwise

addressed in the form, and public

service announcements. In addition to

any defined categories, the Commission

proposes to include a ‘‘catch-all’’

category to ensure that the form enables

broadcasters to reflect any public

interest programming they aired that

does not fit neatly into one of the

defined categories. While the

Commission would expect that the

scope of defined categories would be

commonly understood and that

broadcasters could exercise discretion

as to which programs belong under

which categories, the NPRM welcomes

comment on any benefits to the public

and to broadcasters of defining the

proposed programming categories.

11. The proposed form is intended to

standardize the format and enhance

disclosure of the information

broadcasters should already be

compiling on their issues/programs

lists. Consistent with the current

requirement for maintaining issues/

programs lists, the Commission

therefore would expect that licensees

would provide a brief narrative

description in each category, including

a list of the program titles aired, as well

as the time, date, and duration of the

programs. The Commission does not

believe this will impose a substantial

additional burden on broadcasters. The

NPRM seeks comment on the burden of

providing this type of information on a

standardized form.

12. Closed captioning and video

description. In 1998, the Commission

adopted a transition period during

which television broadcasters must

meet certain benchmarks for providing

closed captioning for nonexempt video

programming. The Commission has also

recently adopted rules for providing

video description of programming for

the benefit of persons with visual

disabilities. The Commission sought

comment in the NOI on whether the

public file should contain information

on programming aired with closed

captioning and video description. One

commenter states that the Commission

‘‘previously rejected requests to adopt

recordkeeping or reporting requirements

with respect to closed captioning.’’

Another commenter asserts that

consumers who rely on captions have

become increasingly frustrated with the

lack of information about which

programs are closed captioned. The

Commission tentatively concludes that

the standardized disclosure form should

include information on broadcasters’

provision of closed captioning and

video description. The NPRM seeks

comment on this approach and on what

specific information should be

provided.

13. Identifying community needs and

interests. The Advisory Committee

recommends including information on

the efforts licensees take to identify the

programming needs of various segments

of their communities. In the NOI, the

Commission sought comment on the

extent to which the Advisory

Committee’s and People for Better TV’s

proposals parallel the Commission’s

previous ascertainment requirements,

which the Commission repealed in the

1980s. The Commission also asked

parties to address whether the

Commission’s reasons for eliminating its

formal ascertainment requirements

apply to its consideration of these

proposals.

14. The NPRM invites further

comment on whether licensees should

provide a narrative description on the

standardized form of the actions taken,

in the normal course of business, to

assess a community’s programming

needs and interests. The Commission

believes this requirement would differ

from the former ascertainment

requirements, which included detailed

methodologies for ascertaining the

problems, needs and interests of the

public within the station’s service area.

Licensees were required to provide

demographic information on a station’s

community of license, conduct

interviews with community leaders and

members of the general public to

ascertain the community’s needs and

interests, and provide programming

responsive to those ascertained needs

and interests.

15. In contrast to these formal and

detailed requirements, under the

Commission’s proposal licensees would

only provide the public with

information on how, in the normal

course of business, they assess

community needs and interests. The

Commission agrees with one commenter

that repeal of the formal ascertainment

requirements was not intended to alter

a broadcaster’s obligation to meet

community needs. The Commission

recognizes that in adopting the

requirement to provide quarterly issues/

programs lists, the Commission

determined that it was not concerned

with how a broadcaster became aware of

community issues so long as the issues

were identified and adequate responsive

programming was offered or proposed.

As a result, the Commission eliminated

the requirement to include in the issues/

programs list a description or

explanation of the means by which a

licensee determined any given issue as

one facing its community. The

Commission notes the concerns

expressed, however, by another

commenter, for example, that

broadcasters ‘‘ignore certain

communities.’’ The Commission also

recognizes that disclosure to a

community of how local broadcasters

identify its needs will promote the kind

of dialogue between broadcasters and

communities intended by its rules

without the need for government

intervention. The NPRM seeks comment

on the benefits and burdens of these

proposals.

16. Community service activities. The

Advisory Committee recommends

including on the form a description of

a licensee’s ‘‘community service

programs, community outreach, or other

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62687

similar non-broadcast activities directed

to serving the community of license.’’

One commenter describes local

broadcasters as providing important

support for fundraising and awareness

campaigns for community organizations

such as hospitals and homeless and

domestic violence shelters; supporting

and organizing community events such

as blood drives and food as well as

clothing drives for the needy; and

promoting and organizing awareness

campaigns covering the full range of

issues confronting communities today,

including AIDS awareness and

prevention, alcohol abuse, and public

safety. The NPRM seeks comment on

whether these types of activities should

be considered in assessing whether a

licensee has served the public interest

under the Communications Act and

whether they should be listed on an

attachment to the standardized form.

Access to Public Interest Information

17. In addition to standardizing the

information currently required on a

station’s community-responsive

programming, the NPRM proposes to

enhance the public’s access to public

interest information by requiring

broadcast television licensees to

maintain a hard copy of the

standardized form in their public

inspection files and to make a station’s

public inspection file, including the

form, available on the Internet. The

NPRM seeks comment on this proposal

and on whether licensees should

forward an electronic copy of the

disclosure form to the Commission for

inclusion in the license file.

18. Public inspection file. Consistent

with the current requirements for

issues/programs lists, the Commission

tentatively concludes that licensees

must place a paper copy of the

standardized disclosure form and

attachments in their public inspection

files each quarter and retain those forms

until final action on the next renewal

application. The NPRM seeks comment

on this tentative conclusion.

19. Websites. The Commission

currently allows licensees to maintain

their public inspection file in computer

databases. Stations that maintain all or

part of the file in a computer database

must also make a computer terminal

available to the public at the location of

the file. The Commission also

encourages licensees to post their

electronic file on any websites they

maintain. In the NOI, the Commission

asked for information on how many

broadcasters provide their public file in

electronic format, and the costs and

benefits of doing so. The Commission

did not receive any specific information

in response to these questions. The

Commission also sought comment on

whether broadcasters should be

required to make their public files

available on the Internet.

20. The Commission tentatively

concludes that each licensee must, each

quarter, post the proposed standardized

form and the other contents of its public

inspection file on its website or its state

broadcasters association’s website. The

Commission believes that converting the

public inspection file into an electronic

format and placing it and the

standardized form on a website will not

be unduly burdensome. Making the

information available on the Internet

will provide 24-hour access to it and,

therefore, greatly increase public access

to information on actions a station has

taken to meet its public interest

obligation. In contrast, the public

currently only has access to public

inspection files during a main studio’s

regular business hours. To the extent

individuals do not have access to the

Internet or do not want to access the

information over the Internet, however,

they still have the option of contacting

the station’s main studio. The NPRM

seeks comment on this tentative

conclusion. The NPRM asks

commenters to provide detailed

information on the cost of requiring

stations that do not already maintain a

website to do so. The NPRM also seeks

comment on whether state broadcasters

associations’ websites are appropriate

vehicles for posting the disclosure forms

and public files and what costs may be

involved. The NPRM also seeks

comment on its tentative conclusion

that broadcasters must maintain the

disclosure forms on the website until

final action has been taken on the

station’s next renewal license.

21. Access to persons with disabilities.

In the NOI, the Commission sought

comment on how websites could be

made accessible to persons with

disabilities. Commenters urge the

Commission to ensure that broadcasters

design and maintain their websites in a

manner that meets the World Wide Web

Consortium’s Web Accessibility

Initiative (W3C/WAI) guidelines. The

guidelines, as well as extensive

information on the guidelines, can be

accessed at http://www.w3.org/WAI. The

NPRM seeks comment on whether the

Commission should require or

encourage television broadcasters to

design new or make existing websites

on which they post the proposed form

and public file accessible to persons

with disabilities using the W3C/WAI

guidelines. The NPRM also seeks

comment on other ways in which

broadcasters could make the disclosure

form accessible over the Internet to

persons with disabilities.

22. Electronic filing of the

Standardized Form with the

Commission. The Commission is not

inclined, at this time, to require

licensees to file the proposed

standardized form electronically with

the Commission. While licensees must

maintain certain material in a station’s

public inspection file, they are generally

not required to file such information or

reports with the Commission. One

commenter proposes that broadcasters

should be required to file public interest

reports electronically with the

Commission and that the Commission

should post a link to the filed reports on

its own website. The Commission

believes that its tentative conclusion to

require licensees to make disclosure

forms available on individual websites

will afford both the Commission and the

public adequate access to public interest

information. The Commission

recognizes that this approach differs

from that taken in the children’s

television context, and seeks comment

on whether the proposed standardized

public interest disclosure forms should

receive different treatment.

23. Other methods for distributing

public interest information to the

public. Commenters also provide other

suggestions for how licensees might

make public interest information

available to the public, including on-air

notifications and providing public

interest information in newspapers and

local-programming guides. The

Commission proposes not to make any

of these methods of distribution

mandatory, but again encourages

television broadcasters to provide

information to the public under any of

these proposals. The NPRM seeks

comment on this approach.

24. Licensee interaction with the

public through Internet websites. While

licensees may already interact with the

public through telephone calls and

visits in person to assess a community’s

programming needs and interests, the

Commission sought comment in the

NOI on whether it should require

licensees to use Internet websites to

ensure that they are responsive to the

needs of the public. The Commission

believes licensees could make very

effective use of the Internet to maintain

a continuous dialogue with their

communities. At this time, however, the

Commission is inclined not to mandate

interaction with the public through

Internet websites, but to encourage

broadcasters to use their websites to

conduct discussions with members of

the public. The NPRM seeks comment

on this approach.

62688 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Administrative Matters

25. Comments and Reply Comments.

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 December 18,

2000, and reply comments on or before

January 17, 2001. Comments may be

filed using the Commission’s Electronic

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies. See Electronic Filing of

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

26. Comments filed through the ECFS

can be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of

an electronic submission must be filed.

If multiple docket or rulemaking

numbers appear in the caption of this

proceeding, however, commenters must

transmit one electronic copy of the

comments to each docket or rulemaking

number referenced in the caption. In

completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, postal service mailing address,

and the applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get filing instructions for e-mail

comments, commenters should send an

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

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form, <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

27. Parties who choose to file by

paper should also submit comments on

diskette. These diskettes should be

submitted to: Wanda Hardy, 445

Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 2–C221,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

format using WORD 97 or compatible

software. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter and

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (including the docket

number (MM Docket No. 00–168)), type

of pleading (comment or reply

comment), date of submission, and the

name of the electronic file on the

diskette. The label should also include

the following phrase: ‘‘Disk Copy—Not

an Original.’’ Each diskette should

contain only one party’s pleadings,

preferably in a single electronic file. In

addition, commenters must send

diskette copies to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth

Street, S.W., Room CY–B402,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

28. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding, subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47

CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description or the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the

Commission’s rules.

29. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. An Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is contained

in Appendix B of the NPRM. As

required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603,

the Commission has prepared an IRFA

of the expected impact on small entities

of the proposals contained in this

NPRM. Written public comments are

requested on the IRFA. To fulfill the

mandate of the Contract with America

Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

the Commission asks a number of

questions in its IRFA regarding the

prevalence of small business in the

television broadcasting industry.

Comments on the IRFA must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the NPRM,

but they must have a distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

IRFA. The Commission’s Reference

Information Center, Consumer

Information Bureau, will send a copy of

this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981),

as amended.

30. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. This NPRM may contain either

proposed or modified information

collections. As part of our continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the

Commission invites the public to take

this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.

Public and agency comments are due at

the same time as other comments on the

NPRM. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information collected;

(c) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained in

this NPRM should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,

Room 1–C804, Washington, D.C. 20554,

or over the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov

and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk

Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or over

the Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov. 

31. Additional Information. For

additional information on this

proceeding, please contact Cyndi

Thomas, Legal Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2130.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

possible significant economic impact on

small entities by the policies and rules

proposed in this 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 as

provided in 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

NRPM and IRFA (or summaries thereof)

will be published in the Federal

Register.

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed

Rules

On December 20, 1999, the

Commission released a Notice of Inquiry

(‘‘NOI’’) seeking comment on several

issues related to how broadcasters might

best serve the public interest during and

after the transition from analog to digital

television (DTV). One of a television

broadcaster’s fundamental public

interest obligations is to air

programming responsive to the needs

and interests of its community of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62689

license. As part of this obligation,

commercial television broadcast station

licensees must currently provide

coverage of issues facing their

communities and place lists of

programming used in providing

significant treatment of those issues

(issues/programs lists) in the station’s

public inspection files on a quarterly

basis. The record developed in response

to the NOI, however, provides

information on the ‘‘lack of consistency

and uniformity’’ in accessing

information in a station’s public

inspection files.

The Commission is now proposing to

require analog and DTV broadcast

station licensees to use a standardized

form to provide certain information on

how stations serve the public interest.

The form would be provided on a

quarterly basis and maintained in the

station’s public inspection file in place

of the issues/programs lists. The

Commission is also proposing to require

that licensees make the contents of their

public inspection files, including the

standardized form, available on the

station’s or a state broadcasters

association’s Internet website. The

Commission believes that making

information, regarding how a television

broadcast station serves the public

interest easier to understand and more

accessible will promote discussion

between the licensee and its

community, lessening the need for

government involvement in ensuring

that a station is meeting its public

interest obligation.

Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in

this NPRM may be found in Sections

4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 336 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307,

309, and 336, and Sections 1.412, 1.413,

and 1.415 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 1.412, 1.413, and 1.415.

Description and Estimate of the Number

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed

Rules Will Apply

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 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 Section 3 of the Small

Business Act. A small business concern

is one which: (1) Is independently

owned and operated; (2) is not

dominant in its field of operation; and

(3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the SBA.

The statutory definition of a small

business applies ‘‘unless an agency after

consultation with the Office of

Advocacy of the SBA and after

opportunity for public comment,

establishes such definition(s) in the

Federal Register. A ‘‘small

organization’’ is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field’’. Nationwide, as of

1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations.

The SBA defines a television

broadcasting station that has $10.5

million or less in annual receipts as a

small business. A television

broadcasting station is an establishment

primarily engaged in broadcasting

visual programs to the public, except

cable and other pay television stations.

Included in this industry are

commercial, religious, educational, and

other television stations. According to

Commission staff review of the BIA

Publications, Inc., Master Access

Television Analyzer Database on July

11, 2000, fewer than 800 commercial

television broadcast stations (65%)

subject to our proposal have revenues of

less than $10.5 million. We note,

however, that under SBA’s definition,

revenues of affiliates that are not

television stations should be aggregated

with the television station revenues in

determining whether a concern is small.

Our estimate, therefore, may overstate

the number of small entities because the

revenue figure on which it is based does

not include or aggregate revenues from

non-television affiliated companies. It

would appear that there would be no

more than 800 entities affected.

Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

Licensees must currently maintain in

their station’s public inspection files

quarterly issues/programs lists, records

that substantiate certification of

compliance with the commercial limits

on children’s programming and

quarterly Children’s Television

Programming Reports (FCC Form 398).

Television and radio broadcast station

licensees must also maintain

information in their public inspection

files on applications, authorizations,

citizens agreements, service contour

maps, ownership reports, annual

employment reports, written

correspondence with the public on

station operations, material related to

Commission investigations or

complaints, and certification that the

licensee is complying with its

requirements for local public notice

announcements. In addition, broadcast

licensees must maintain a separate file

within the public inspection file

concerning requests by political

candidates for broadcast time on the

station.

The Commission is proposing to

standardize and enhance disclosure of

information from these public

inspection files. Specifically, the

Commission proposes to replace the

issues/programs list with a standardized

form and to require broadcasters to

indicate their compliance with closed

captioning and video description

requirements as well as describe how, in

the normal course of business, they

assess community needs and interests.

In addition, the Commission proposes to

require broadcasters to make their

public inspection files, including the

forms, available on the Internet. This

endeavor would not require

broadcasters to collect any new

information. Rather, the proposals

would require television broadcasters to

provide public interest information in a

new format—on a standardized form as

well as on the Internet. The proposals

would require the same reporting,

recordkeeping, and other compliance

requirements for small television station

broadcasters as large broadcasters. The

NPRM seeks comment on these issues,

including comment specifically directed

toward the possible effects of the

requirements on small entities.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives (among

others): (1) The establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

compliance or reporting requirements

under the rule for small entities; (3) the

use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.

The NPRM requests comment on the

Commission’s tentative conclusion to

replace the issues/programs list with a

standardized form. An alternative to the

proposed use of a standardized form

would be to leave the issues/programs

list as it currently exists. Based on

comments to the NOI, however, we

believe that a standardized disclosure

62690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

would simplify the process of providing

requested information. This

simplification would significantly

reduce the time licensees, including

small broadcast television station

licensees, need to locate information

requested by the public. The NPRM

specifically asks for cost information

associated with the requirement that

broadcasters, especially small

broadcasters, provide public interest

information in a standardized format.

By definition, the standardized

disclosure form would ask questions

about defined categories of

programming. Accordingly, the NPRM

seeks comment on what categories

should be included on the form. While

categories should be defined, the

Commission believes it is not necessary

to define what type of programming

would fall within any category, leaving

it to the broadcasters’ discretion to

determine which programs belong

under which categories. The NPRM also

seeks comment on the Commission’s

tentative view only to require that

licensees certify on the standardized

form compliance with the minimum

requirements for closed captioning and

video description.

The NPRM invites further comment

on whether licensees should provide a

narrative description on the

standardized form of the actions taken,

in the normal course of business, to

assess a community’s programming

needs and interests. This requirement

would be much less burdensome than

the Commission’s former ascertainment

requirements, which included detailed

methodologies for ascertaining the

problems, needs and interests of the

public within the station’s service area.

Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on

whether a licensee’s activities in its

community, including supporting and

organizing community events and

promoting and organizing awareness

campaigns, should be considered in

assessing whether a licensee has served

the public interest under the

Communications Act and whether they

should be listed on an attachment to the

standardized form. The alternative to

this requirement would be to leave the

rule as is. Based on our experience and

the comments to the NOI, we believe

that it serves an important public

interest to make the information

available in a clear and easy to

understand format.

The NPRM also requests comment on

the Commission’s tentative conclusion

to require licensees each quarter to

place a paper copy of the standardized

form in their public inspection files and

to make their public inspection files,

including the standardized forms,

available on the Internet until final

action has been taken on the station’s

next renewal license. As an alternative

to posting the information on each

station’s website, the Commission has

proposed allowing licensees to make the

public inspection file available on state

broadcasters associations’ websites. The

Commission has asked for cost

information on creating new websites as

well as using a licensee’s state

broadcasters association’s website. The

NPRM seeks comment on whether

television broadcasters should be

encouraged or required to make

websites on which they post the

proposed form and public file accessible

to persons with disabilities and

proposes not to require licensees to file

the proposed form with the

Commission. One alternative that the

Commission considered was a

requirement to mandate this type of

interaction with the public. As the

NPRM states, however, the Commission

is disinclined to mandate interaction

with the public through Internet

websites, but encourages broadcasters to

use their websites to conduct

discussions with members of the public.

The Commission is seeking comment on

these proposed alternatives so as to

minimize the effect of the proposed

rules on small businesses.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

None.

Ordering Clauses

32. This Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is issued pursuant to the

authority contained in Sections 4(i),

303, 307, 309, and 336 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307,

309, and 336, and Sections 1.412, 1.413,

and 1.415 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 1.412, 1.413, and 1.415.

33. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this NPRM, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26785 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG32

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Extending of Comment

Period on Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for the California RedLegged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii).

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) gives notice of the

extension of the comment period on the

proposed rule to designate critical

habitat for the California Red-Legged

Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The

extension of the comment period will be

for 30 additional days. The extension of

the comment period will allow all

interested parties to submit written

comments on the proposal. We are

seeking comments or suggestions from

the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific

community, industry, or any other

interested parties concerning the

proposed rule. Comments already

submitted on the proposed rule need

not be resubmitted as they will be fully

considered in the final determination.

DATES: The comment period for this

proposal now closes on November 20,

2000. Any comments received by the

closing date will be considered in the

final decision on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,

Suite W–2605, Sacramento, California

95825. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

If you wish to comment, you may

submit your comments and materials

concerning this proposal by any one of

several methods.

1. You may submit written comments

and information to the Field Supervisor,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825.

2. You may also send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to

fw1crfch@fws.gov. See the Public

Comments Solicited section below for