774 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

23. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these local resellers can be considered 

small entities. 

24. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for the category 

of Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these prepaid calling card providers can 

be considered small entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

25. As indicated above, the FNPRM 

builds on the Report and Order portion 

of document FCC 17–151 by inquiring 

about how to effectively implement a 

challenge mechanism to allow 

erroneously blocked calls to be 

unblocked as quickly as possible and 

seeking comment on how to measure 

the effectiveness of the rules adopted in 

the Report and Order. The Commission 

seeks to minimize the burden associated 

with reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements for the 

proposed rules. 

26. Under the proposed rules, 

providers may need to establish 

procedures to respond to and evaluate 

complaints of erroneous call blocking, 

and quickly cease blocking that it 

determined to have been initiated in 

error. In addition, providers may need 

to retain records of calls blocked and 

report that information on a periodic 

basis. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

27. 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. 

28. The challenge mechanism and 

reporting on which the Commission 

seeks comment could apply to all 

providers that block calls under the 

permissive rules in the Report and 

Order. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission encourages all carriers, 

including small businesses, to block 

illegal calls, and the Commission 

therefore seeks comment from small 

businesses on how to minimize costs 

associated with the challenge 

mechanism and the reporting. The 

FNPRM poses specific requests for 

comment from small businesses 

regarding how the proposed rules affect 

them and what could be done to 

minimize any disproportionate impact 

on small businesses. 

29. The Commission will consider 

ways to reduce the impact on small 

businesses, such as establishment of 

different compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities based on the record in response 

to the FNPRM. The Commission has 

requested feedback from small 

businesses in the FNPRM and seeks 

comment on ways to make a challenge 

mechanism and reporting less costly. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how to minimize the economic impact 

of these potential requirements. 

30. The Commission expects to 

consider the economic impact on small 

entities, as identified in comments filed 

in response to the FNPRM, in reaching 

its final conclusions and taking action 

in this proceeding. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

31. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00100 Filed 1–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 17–289; FCC 17–156] 

Rules and Policies To Promote New 

Entry and Ownership Diversity in the 

Broadcasting Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document solicits 

comment on how to design and 

implement an incubator program to 

support the entry of new and diverse 

voices in the broadcast industry. It seeks 

comment on the structure, review, and 

oversight of such a program in order to 

help create new sources of financial, 

technical, operational, and managerial 

support for eligible broadcasters, 

thereby creating ownership 

opportunities for new entrants and 

small businesses and promoting 

competition and new voices in the 

broadcast industry. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 9, 2018 and reply comments are 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 775 

due on or before April 9, 2018. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before March 9, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 17–289, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 888– 

835–5322. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained 

herein should be submitted to the 

Federal Communications Commission 

via email to PRA@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin Arden, Industry Analysis 

Division, Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 

418–2330. For additional information 

concerning the PRA proposed 

information collection requirements 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, contact Cathy Williams at 

(202) 418–2918, or via the internet at 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MB 

Docket No. 17–289; FCC 17–156, was 

adopted on November 16, 2017, and 

released on November 20, 2017. The 

complete text of this document is 

available electronically via the search 

function on the FCC’s Electronic 

Document Management System 

(EDOCS) web page at https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The 

complete document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

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 FCC’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The NPRM proposes a new or revised 

information collection requirement. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the OMB 

to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due March 9, 2018. 

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) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; (d) 

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; 

and (e) way to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. With the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on how to design and 

implement an incubator program to 

support the entry of new and diverse 

voices in the broadcast industry. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on the structure, review, and 

oversight of a comprehensive incubator 

program that will help create new 

sources of financial, technical, 

operational, and managerial support for 

eligible broadcasters. The Commission 

believes that such a program can create 

ownership opportunities for new 

entrants and small businesses, thus 

promoting competition and new voices 

in the broadcast industry. 

II. Background 

2. The Commission has long 

considered whether to adopt an 

incubator program to help provide new 

sources of capital and support to entities 

that may otherwise lack operational 

experience or access to financing. 

Generally, an incubator program would 

provide an ownership rule waiver or 

similar benefits to a company that 

establishes a program to help facilitate 

station ownership for a certain class of 

prospective or existing station owners. 

For example, in exchange for a defined 

benefit, such as waiver of a broadcast 

ownership rule, an established company 

could assist a new owner by providing 

financial, management, technical, 

training, and/or business planning 

assistance. Over the years, a number of 

parties have proposed or supported 

recommendations for some type of an 

incubator program, but the Commission 

has never developed a comprehensive 

incubator program. The Commission has 

adopted a limited program that provides 

a duopoly preference to parties that 

agree to incubate or finance an eligible 

entity, but this limited policy preference 

does not serve as an effective basis upon 

which to design a comprehensive 

incubator program. 

3. The history of this issue dates back 

at least to the early 1990s, but the 

Commission’s goal is to build on its 

most recent efforts. Notably, in 2010 the 

Commission’s Advisory Committee on 

Diversity for Communications in the 

Digital Age recommended that the 

Commission commence a rulemaking to 

pursue an incubator program in order to 

help promote ownership diversity. The 

committee provided various 

recommendations on how to structure 

such a program. Subsequently, the 

Commission sought comment during its 

2010/2014 quadrennial reviews of its 

media ownership rules on whether to 

adopt an incubator program and, if so, 

how to structure such a program. The 

Commission highlighted administrative 

concerns and structural issues that 

needed to be addressed before such a 

program could be adopted. The record 

built in response to the Commission’s 

requests for comment contained 

continued support for the concept of an 

incubator program and some 

suggestions on how to structure certain 

aspects of such a program. Some 

commenters, however, expressed 

concern that an incubator program 

would create a loophole in the 

Commission’s ownership limits that 

could potentially harm small and 

independent station owners. The 

Commission found that the record failed 

to address those specific concerns and 

declined to adopt an incubator program. 

A couple of commenters urged the 

Commission to continue its 

consideration of an incubator program 

and suggested that additional public 

comment could help resolve the 

remaining administrative and structural 

issues. In an Order on Reconsideration 

adopted in conjunction with this NPRM, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
776 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission decided to adopt an 

incubator program and committed to 

initiating this proceeding to resolve 

issues regarding the design and 

implementation of that program. 

4. In addition, on July 5, 2017, the 

Commission commissioned the 

Advisory Committee on Diversity and 

Digital Empowerment, which held its 

first meeting on September 25, 2017. 

The Commission anticipates that the 

committee’s work will help inform its 

efforts to create an incubator program. 

III. Discussion 

5. As stated above, the Commission 

decided to adopt an incubator program 

to help address the lack of access to 

capital and technical expertise faced by 

potential new entrants and small 

businesses. But while there is general 

support for an incubator program to 

help address these issues, there is little 

consensus regarding the structure or 

details of such a program. The 

Commission anticipates that this NPRM, 

devoted exclusively to an incubator 

program, can help generate solutions to 

these technical and administrative 

issues. Accordingly, as detailed below, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

eligibility criteria for the incubated 

entity; appropriate incubating activities; 

benefits to the incubating entity; how 

such a program would be reviewed, 

monitored, and enforced; and the 

attendant costs and benefits. The 

Commission anticipates that the record 

will reveal innovative strategies for 

partnerships between established 

broadcasters and new entrants. 

A. Defining Entities Eligible for 

Participation 

6. The Commission seeks comment on 

how to determine eligibility for 

participation in the incubator program. 

Options include: 

• New Entrants. The Commission 

could create a standard similar to the 

new entrant bidding credit eligibility 

definition applicable in the broadcast 

auction context. Under the auction 

rules, an auction participant is eligible 

for bidding credits if it has attributable 

interests in few or no other media of 

mass communication. A 35 percent 

bidding credit is awarded to a qualifying 

new entrant that has no attributable 

interest in any other media of mass 

communication, while a 25 percent 

bidding credit is awarded to a qualifying 

new entrant that holds an attributable 

interest in no more than three mass 

media facilities. 

• Revenue-Based Eligible Entity. The 

Commission could use its previously 

adopted revenue-based eligible entity 

standard to identify those qualified to 

take advantage of certain preferential 

regulatory policies. An eligible entity 

under this definition is any commercial 

or non-commercial entity that qualifies 

as a small business consistent with 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

revenue grouping according to industry. 

Additionally, the Commission requires a 

small business eligible entity to hold: (1) 

30 percent or more of the stock/ 

partnership shares and more than 50 

percent voting power of the corporation 

or partnership that will hold the 

broadcast license; (2) 15 percent or more 

of the stock/partnership shares and 

more than 50 percent voting power of 

the corporation or partnership that will 

hold the broadcast license, providing 

that no other person or entity owns or 

controls more than 25 percent of the 

outstanding stock or partnership 

interest; or (3) more than 50 percent of 

the voting power of the corporation if 

the corporation that holds the licenses 

is a publicly traded corporation. 

• Socially and Economically 

Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB). The 

SDB standard is based on the definition 

employed by the SBA. Pursuant to the 

SBA’s program, persons of certain racial 

or ethnic backgrounds are presumed to 

be disadvantaged; all other individuals 

may qualify for the program if they can 

show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that they are disadvantaged. 

To qualify for this program, a small 

business must be at least 51 percent 

owned and controlled by a socially and 

economically disadvantaged individual 

or individuals. The SDB standard is 

explicitly race-conscious and, therefore, 

subject to heightened constitutional 

review, a standard that the Commission 

previously found was insufficiently met 

by the record at the time. 

• Overcoming Disadvantages 

Preference (ODP). The ODP standard 

would employ various criteria to 

demonstrate that an individual or entity 

has overcome significant disadvantage. 

The Commission previously declined to 

adopt an ODP standard, citing concerns 

with the approach. 

7. The Commission seeks comment on 

these various standards, including any 

modifications that would be appropriate 

in the incubator context. In particular, 

are there any changes to these standards 

that would help address previous 

concerns expressed by the Commission? 

Which of these standards most closely 

aligns with the Commission’s goal to 

help facilitate ownership opportunities 

for entities that lack access to capital 

and operational experience and thereby 

promote competition and viewpoint 

diversity in local markets? In addition, 

the Commission seeks comment on any 

other standards that would effectively 

promote its objectives. Any commenters 

proposing or supporting a race- and/or 

gender-specific standard should also 

provide analysis regarding how such a 

standard could withstand a 

constitutional challenge. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

relative advantages of the various 

standards. Certain standards are more 

difficult to define and administer and 

may raise constitutional concerns. What 

are the offsetting benefits of these 

approaches relative to standards that are 

easier to apply and/or do not raise 

constitutional concerns? 

B. Defining Qualifying Incubation 

Activities 

8. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the activities that would 

qualify as incubation. Such activities 

would need to provide the incubated 

entity with support that it otherwise 

lacks and that is essential to its 

operation and ability to serve its 

community. As traditionally conceived, 

a comprehensive program could include 

management or technical assistance, 

loan guarantees, direct financial 

assistance through loans or equity 

investment, and training and business 

planning assistance. Should the 

Commission consider other activities, 

such as donating stations to certain 

organizations or arrangements whereby 

the new entrant gains operational 

experience without first acquiring a 

station, such as programming a station 

and selling advertising time under a 

local marketing agreement? 

9. What combination of activities 

(financial and operational) should be 

required to qualify as an incubation 

relationship? Should there be any 

conditions on the financial aspects of 

the relationship? For example, should 

there be any limitations on the 

incubating entity holding an option to 

acquire the incubated station? Should 

the Commission adopt time limitations 

on technical assistance? For example, 

should the Commission impose a 

minimum amount of time to ensure that 

the incubated station acquires sufficient 

technical expertise to operate the station 

independently of the established 

broadcaster? Should the Commission 

impose a maximum amount of time to 

ensure that the incubated station 

actually does become independent? 

What role should sharing agreements 

(e.g., local marketing agreements, joint 

sales agreements, and shared service 

agreements) play, if any, in the 

incubation relationship? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

issues. 

10. How can the Commission ensure 

that use of the incubation program is 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 777 

necessary to promote new entry? For 

example, should the proposed 

incubated station certify that it lacks the 

access to capital and technical expertise 

necessary to acquire and operate the 

station? Should participation in an 

incubator program be limited to new 

station acquisitions? Alternatively, 

should participation extend to existing 

station owners that are struggling and 

may need financing or other support to 

continue operation? Are there any 

justifications for limiting participation 

differently based on the eligibility 

standard selected? 

11. While the Commission’s rules 

already prohibit unauthorized transfers 

of control, including de facto transfers 

of control, should it adopt any 

additional safeguards as part of an 

incubation program to ensure that the 

incubated station licensee retains 

control of its station? 

C. Benefit to Incubating Station 

12. In order to encourage an 

established broadcaster to engage in 

incubating activities, the incubation 

program must provide a meaningful 

benefit to the incubating entity. In 

general, the potential benefit suggested 

has been a waiver of the Commission’s 

local broadcast ownership rules. How 

should the Commission structure the 

waiver program? For example, should 

the waiver be limited to the market in 

which the incubating activity is 

occurring? Alternatively, should waiver 

be permissible in any similarly sized 

market? How would the Commission 

determine which markets are similar in 

size? Should the Commission review 

these waivers in the future to determine 

whether they continue to be justified? 

On what grounds would the 

Commission evaluate the waivers? 

Should the waiver be tied to the success 

of the incubation relationship? Should 

the waiver continue even if the 

incubator program ends and, if so, for 

how long? What should be considered a 

successful relationship? Should the 

waiver be transferrable if the incubating 

entity sells a cluster of stations that does 

not comply with the ownership limits at 

the time? 

13. Instead of a waiver to acquire a 

different station in the market (or a 

similarly sized market), should the 

Commission allow the incubating entity 

to obtain an otherwise impermissible 

non-controlling, attributable interest in 

the incubated station? This would allow 

the incubating entity to obtain financial 

benefits that accrue from successful 

operation of the incubated station and 

would limit the impact on competition, 

both by ensuring that the incubated 

entity retains control of the station and 

by tying the ownership waiver to the 

period of time the incubated entity 

owns the station. Would such an 

approach dilute the contributions of the 

incubated station as an independent 

market participant? 

14. Should the Commission limit any 

incubator program to radio, as the 

proposal was initially conceived, or 

should the program apply to both radio 

and television? Should the Commission 

adopt a phased approach, whereby it 

institutes the program on a trial basis in 

radio and then evaluate its success and 

operation before expanding to 

television, and if so, how long should 

such a trial period last? What steps 

should the Commission take to evaluate 

the trial period and whether to expand 

the program? 

D. Review of Incubation Proposals 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on the review process for incubation 

proposals. It expects that most 

incubation proposals will accompany an 

assignment or transfer of control 

application. These applications would 

be subject to petitions to deny and 

informal comments under the 

Commission’s rules. Does this provide 

the public with sufficient opportunity to 

comment on the proposal? What public 

concerns should the Commission 

consider in its evaluation? Are there 

other situations beyond an assignment 

or transfer of control application in 

which an incubator proposal could be 

applied, and if so, how should the 

review process work in such 

circumstances? 

16. If the program is extended to 

incubation opportunities for existing 

station owners that are facing financial 

and/or technical difficulties, how 

should the parties submit the proposal 

to the Commission for review and 

approval? For example, should the 

Commission require electronic filing of 

such requests in the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System? 

Should these filings then be subject to 

the same public comment requirements 

as those filed as part of an assignment 

or transfer of control application? 

17. The Commission notes that so 

long as the arrangement is permissible 

under existing Commission rules, 

parties do not need prior approval to 

enter into agreements regarding finances 

or station operations. However, for the 

arrangement to count as incubation, 

such that the incubating entity is 

entitled to the benefits of the program 

(e.g., an ownership waiver), the 

Commission would need to find that the 

relationship satisfies the incubation 

criteria. In such circumstances, should 

Commission approval be required prior 

to the initiation of the incubation 

relationship or should the parties be 

permitted to request recognition of a 

previous or ongoing incubation 

relationship, perhaps as part of an 

application from the incubating entity 

requesting an ownership waiver for the 

acquisition of another station? Should 

there be a time limit on such subsequent 

requests for approval? 

E. Compliance Assessment 

18. As evidenced by the foregoing, an 

incubation relationship may involve 

complex agreements between the parties 

regarding financing, programming, and 

operations. How should the 

Commission monitor compliance with 

the terms of incubation? Should the 

Commission require periodic reports to 

be filed by one or both parties or placed 

in their online public files? If so, how 

frequently should the reports be filed? 

Should these reports be available to the 

public? What information should the 

reports contain? Should the 

Commission instead conduct its own 

periodic review of the incubation 

activities and compliance with the 

relevant agreements? What other 

compliance measures should the 

Commission consider? 

19. If compliance lapses, for any 

reason, what are the consequences? 

Should the incubating party be required 

to divest itself of the benefits it received 

for engaging in incubation activities? 

For example, if the incubating party was 

granted a waiver of a local broadcast 

ownership rule, should it be forced to 

come into compliance with the relevant 

ownership limit if it does not fulfill the 

terms of the incubation program? 

Should the Commission allow the 

incubating party to seek to be relieved 

of its obligations and retain the benefits 

(e.g., ownership waiver) if the incubated 

station fails to comply with the terms of 

the agreement? Are there other 

appropriate enforcement responses, 

such as fines? Should the Commission 

establish a time limit on the benefits 

granted under the incubation program 

based on the premise that the purpose 

of the program is to enable incubated 

entities to operate independently after 

some period of assistance? 

F. Costs and Benefits 

20. The Commission seeks comment 

on the costs and benefits associated 

with the proposals in this NPRM. In 

particular, the Commission encourages 

broadcasters and other industry 

participants to submit any relevant data 

regarding the potential costs associated 

with the various application, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements proposed herein. Are there 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
778 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

ways to structure the program to reduce 

costs, particularly for small businesses? 

How does the Commission define and 

quantify the expected benefits of an 

incubator program? 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules 

21. The proceeding for the NPRM 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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 

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 Section 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

Section 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. 

B. Filing Requirements 

22. Pursuant to sections 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). 

D Commenting parties may file 

comments in response to this NPRM in 

MB Docket No. 17–289; interested 

parties are not required to file duplicate 

copies in the additional dockets 

associated with the Order on 

Reconsideration adopted at the same 

time as the NPRM. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

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

ecfs/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

23. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this 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 

24. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on the structure and 

implementation of an incubator 

program. Broadly speaking, an incubator 

program would provide an ownership 

rule waiver or similar benefits to a 

company that establishes a program to 

help facilitate station ownership for a 

certain class of new owners. Under such 

a program, an established company 

could assist a new owner by providing 

financial, management, technical, 

training, and/or business planning 

assistance. The primary purpose of such 

a program would be to help provide 

new sources of capital and support to 

entities that may otherwise lack 

operational experience or access to 

financing and thereby promote 

diversity. Over the years, a number of 

parties have proposed or supported 

recommendations for some type of an 

incubator program; however, 

substantive and administrative issues 

need to be resolved before an incubator 

program can be adopted. This NPRM 

seeks comment on these issues. 

B. Legal Basis 

25. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 257, 

303, 307, 309, 310, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

257, 303, 307, 309, 310, and 403. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

26. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 779 

established by the SBA. A description of 

such small entities is provided below, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, where feasible. 

27. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ These establishments operate 

television broadcasting 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 has 

created the following small business 

size standard for such businesses: Those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The 2012 Economic Census 

data reports that 751 such firms in this 

category operated in that year. Of that 

number, 656 had annual receipts of 

$25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual 

receipts between $25,000,000 and 

$49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts 

of $50,000,000 or more. Based on this 

data the Commission therefore estimates 

that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small entities 

under the applicable SBA size standard. 

28. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed commercial 

television stations to be 1,382. Of this 

total, 1,262 stations (or about 91 

percent) had revenues of $38.5 million 

or less, according to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 

Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 

May 9, 2017, and therefore these 

licensees qualify as small entities under 

the SBA definition. In addition, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed noncommercial educational 

television stations to be 393. 

Notwithstanding, the Commission does 

not compile and otherwise does not 

have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

29. It is important to note, however, 

that, in assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as small under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. The 

Commission’s estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by its action, 

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 television broadcast station is 

dominant in its field of operation. 

Accordingly, the estimate of small 

businesses to which rules may apply do 

not exclude any television broadcast 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and are therefore 

possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted 

above, an additional element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity must be independently owned 

and operated. It is difficult at times to 

assess these criteria in the context of 

media entities and the Commission’s 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

30. Radio Stations. This Economic 

Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Programming may originate 

in their own studio, from an affiliated 

network, or from external sources.’’ The 

SBA has established a small business 

size standard for this category as firms 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 

shows that 2,849 radio station firms 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 2,806 operated with annual 

receipts of less than $25 million per 

year, 17 with annual receipts between 

$25 million and $49,999,999 million 

and 26 with annual receipts of $50 

million or more. Therefore, based on the 

SBA’s size standard the majority of such 

entities are small entities. 

31. According to Commission staff 

review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Media 

Access Pro Radio Database on May 9, 

2017, about 11,392 (or about 99.9 

percent) of 11,401 of commercial radio 

stations had revenues of $38.5 million 

or less and thus qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. The 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial radio stations to 

be 11,401. It is important to note that 

the Commission has also estimated the 

number of licensed noncommercial 

radio stations to be 4,111. Nevertheless, 

the Commission does not compile and 

otherwise does not have access to 

information on the revenue of NCE 

stations that would permit it to 

determine how many such stations 

would qualify as small entities. 

32. It is important to note, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included. The Commission’s 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by its action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, an 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity not be 

dominant in its field of operation. It is 

difficult at times to assess these criteria 

in the context of media entities, and the 

estimate of small businesses to which 

these rules may apply does not exclude 

any radio station from the definition of 

a small business on these basis. The 

Commission’s estimate of small 

businesses may therefore be overinclusive. Also, as noted above, 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 

33. Certain options, if adopted, may 

result in new reporting, recordkeeping, 

and compliance obligations for those 

broadcasters that participate in an 

incubator program. For example, parties 

could be required to submit the 

incubation proposal to the Commission 

for approval, file periodic compliance 

reports with the Commission or place 

the reports in their online public files, 

or submit requests for relief if the terms 

of the incubator proposal are not 

adhered to. In order to evaluate any new 

or modified reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements that may 

result from the actions proposed in this 

NPRM, the Commission has sought 

input from the parties on various 

matters. The NPRM seeks comment on 

how to structure an incubation program, 

including a requirement that the parties 

file the incubation proposal with the 

Commission for the purpose of seeking 

the Commission’s approval of the 

arrangement. The Commission seeks 

comment on the method for filing the 

agreement in circumstances in which 

the parties seek Commission approval of 

the incubation relationship, such as 

whether it should be filed as part of an 

application for assignment or transfer of 

control of a broadcast license or, in the 

absence of such an application, via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on how to structure reporting, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements, which could also result in 

increased requirements for parties to an 

incubation arrangement. For example, 

the NPRM seeks comment on whether to 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
780 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

require periodic certifications that the 

parties remain in compliance with the 

incubation proposal approved by the 

Commission. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

34. 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, 

standard; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

35. To evaluate options and 

alternatives should there be a significant 

economic impact on small entities as a 

result of actions that have been 

proposed in this NPRM, the 

Commission has sought comment from 

the parties. The NPRM seeks comment 

on the costs and benefits associated 

with various proposals and alternatives 

such as how to structure the 

administration and oversight of an 

incubator program and specifically 

seeks comment on ways to reduce the 

burdens on small entities. Overall, 

however, the Commission believes that 

small entities will benefit from their 

participation in an incubator 

arrangement by getting access to capital 

and/or operational assistance that they 

may otherwise lack, which may 

minimize any economic impact that 

may be incurred by small entities. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

36. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

37. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 257, 303, 307, 309, 

310, and 403 of the Communications 

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

152(a), 154(i), 257, 303, 307, 309, 310, 

and 403, and section 202(h) of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

38. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on the NPRM in MB Docket 

No. 17–289 on or before March 9, 2018 

and reply comments on or before April 

9, 2018. 

39. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the NPRM, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28328 Filed 1–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 171023999–7999–01] 

RIN 0648–BH35 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Black Sea Bass Fishery; 2018 

February Recreational Management 

Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes recreational 

management measures for a February 

2018 black sea bass fishery. The 

proposed action is intended to provide 

additional recreational black sea bass 

fishing opportunities while maintaining 

management measures to prevent 

overfishing. This action is also intended 

to inform the public of these proposed 

measures and to provide an opportunity 

for comment. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. local time, on January 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0151, by either of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0151, 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

—OR— 

Mail: Submit written comments to 

John Bullard, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on the Proposed 

Rule for 2018 Black Sea Bass February 

Recreational Fishery.’’ 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

A draft environmental assessment 

(EA) has been prepared for this action 

that describes the proposed measures 

and other considered alternatives, as 

well as provides an analysis of the 

impacts of the proposed measures and 

alternatives. Copies of this draft EA, 

including the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis (RFAA) and Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), are available online at 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov, 

or on request from John Bullard, 

Regional Administrator, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission 

jointly manage the summer flounder, 

scup, and black sea bass fisheries under 

the provisions of the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). The 

management unit specified in the FMP 

for black sea bass (Centropristis striata) 

is U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean 

from 35 E 13.3′ N lat. (the latitude of 

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, 

North Carolina) north to the U.S./ 

Canada border. States manage black sea 

bass through the Commission’s plan 

within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of 

their coasts. The applicable Federal 

regulations govern vessels and 

individual anglers fishing in Federal 

waters of the exclusive economic zone 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS