71072 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

III. Where Can I Find More Information 

About This Proposal and the 

Corresponding Direct Final Rule? 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action only applies to specific 

SO2 sources located in Dearborn 

County, Indiana. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through RME, regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Indiana’s SO2 SIP for specified 

existing stationary sources located in 

Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP 

revisions amend 326 IAC 7–4–13, by 

removing obsolete rule language for the 

Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek 

Station. The SIP revision also updates 

information for other companies listed 

in 326 IAC 7–4–13, including adding 

source identification numbers. The 

amendments to this rule are minor, and 

will not result in an increase in SO2

emissions in Dearborn County because 

no emission limits were increased. 

III. Where Can I Find More Information 

About This Proposal and the 

Corresponding Direct Final Rule? 

For additional information, see the 

Direct Final Rule which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. 

Copies of the request and the EPA’s 

analysis are available electronically at 

RME or in hard copy at the above 

address. (Please telephone Charles 

Hatten at (312) 886–6031 before visiting 

the Region 5 Office.) 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 05–23278 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[EB Docket No. 04–296; FCC 05–191] 

Review of the Emergency Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) examines the reach of 

Emergency Alert System (EAS), as 

currently constituted, to cover digital 

communications technologies that are 

increasingly being used by the 

American public to receive news and 

entertainment—digital television and 

radio, digital cable, and satellite 

television and radio. The Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking is the most 

recent in a series of proceedings in 

which the Commission has sought to 

contribute to an efficient and 

technologically current public alert and 

warning system. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 24, 2006, and reply comments 

are due on or before February 23, 2006. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted to the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

January 24, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply 

comments to the Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. You may submit 

comments, identified by EB Docket No. 

04–296, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. You may submit your 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

comments by electronic mail or U.S. 

mail. To submit your PRA comments by 

electronic mail, send comments to: 

PRA@fcc.gov. To submit your PRA 

comments by U.S. mail, mark them to 

the attention of Judith B. Herman and 

address them to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

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

DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

Ann Collins, Senior Counsel, Office of 

Homeland Security, Enforcement 

Bureau, at (202) 418–1199. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an e-mail to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith B. 

Herman at (202) 418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in EB Docket No. 04–296, FCC 

05–191, adopted November 3, 2005, and 

released November 10, 2005. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71073 

(202) 863–2898, or via e-mail at 

www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available 

on the Commission’s website at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. 

This document contains proposed 

information collection requirements. 

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 requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due January 24, 2006. 

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; and 

(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. 

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.’’

OMB Control Number: 3060–0207. 

Title: Part 11—Emergency Alert 

System (EAS). 

Form No.: Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Revision of currently 

approved collection. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions; and/or 

state, local or tribal governments. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

22,008. 

Estimated Time Per Response: Range 

from 0.017–40 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement and 

recordkeeping requirement. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

22,100 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs: None. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not 

applicable. 

Needs and Uses: As currently 

approved by OMB and reflected in the 

information above, Part 11 contains 

rules and regulations providing for an 

emergency alert system. The EAS 

provides the President with the 

capability to provide immediate 

communications and information to the 

general public during periods of 

national emergency. The EAS also 

provides state and local governments, as 

well as the National Weather Service 

with the capability to provide 

immediate communications and 

information to the general public 

concerning emergency situations posing 

a threat to life and property. With the 

adoption of the FNPRM, the 

Commission seeks comment on what 

actions the Commission, along with its 

Federal, State and industry partners, 

should take to help expedite the 

development of a robust, state-of-the-art, 

digitally based public alert and warning 

system. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how to amend the EAS 

rules to ensure that EAS messages more 

effectively reach individuals with 

hearing and vision disabilities, as well 

as speakers of languages other than 

English. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

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

DC 20554, or via the Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Background. In the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (69 FR 

52843, August 30, 2004), the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether the EAS in its present form is 

the most efficient mechanism for 

warning the American public of an 

emergency and, if not, on how the 

Emergency Alert System (EAS) can be 

improved. The main objective of the 

NPRM was to seek comment on whether 

the EAS as currently constituted is the 

most effective and efficient public 

warning system that best takes 

advantage of appropriate technological 

advances and best responds to the 

public’s need to obtain timely 

emergency information. The NPRM 

sought comment on the current efficacy 

of EAS in an age when the 

communications landscape has evolved 

from what it was when EAS 

predecessors, and EAS itself, were 

originally conceived. 

2. Introduction. The Commission 

realizes the immediate objective of 

ensuring that the large and growing 

segments of the population who rely on 

digital radio and television technologies 

are not left without access to alerts in 

the event of an emergency. While the 

current EAS performs a critical 

function, the Commission believes it 

could be improved. In this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), the Commission seeks 

specific comments on what actions the 

Commission should take to help 

expedite the development of a more 

comprehensive system. 

3. An accurate, wide-reaching public 

alert and warning system is critical to 

the public’s safety and a vital part of the 

Commission’s core mission to promote 

the safety of life and property through 

a robust communications system. Such 

a system should enable officials at the 

national, state and local levels to reach 

affected citizens in the most effective 

and efficient manner possible. It should 

have built-in redundancy features and 

use a variety of communications media 

so that officials can reach large numbers 

of people simultaneously. In response to 

the NPRM, commenters identified a 

number of approaches to digital alert 

and warning. The Commission seeks 

further comment on these approaches 

and asks what the Commission can do 

to facilitate the development of a more 

effective, comprehensive digital public 

alert and warning system. Specifically, 

comment is sought on the appropriate 

role for the Commission among the 

various government and industry 

entities that are involved in the creation 

of this system. In addition, the 

Commission seeks further comment on 

how to amend the EAS rules to ensure 

that EAS messages more effectively 

reach individuals with hearing and 

vision disabilities, and speakers of 

languages other than English. 

4. The comments filed in response to 

the NPRM reveal a multitude of 

technical approaches to a digital alert 

and warning system, from specific 

approaches to individual technologies 

to broad approaches to architecture and 

protocol design. The FNPRM includes a 

representative sample of issues for 

parties to address. The issues we 

include are representative, and do not 

constitute an exclusive list. Parties 

can—and should—comment on any 

next generation issues, and should 

consider what role the Commission 

should play in facilitating choice among 

these options. 

5. It is the Commission’s intention in 

this proceeding to seek comment on 

these and an array of other questions 

and potential rule changes. The 

Commission has already begun—and 

will continue throughout this 

proceeding—to coordinate carefully 

with the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), its component, FEMA, 

and the Department of Commerce and 

its component, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA’s) National Weather Service 

(NWS). The Commission anticipates 

71074 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

these federal partners will be active 

participants in the proceeding. In 

addition to seeking comments from all 

interested individuals and federal 

entities on the issues raised in this 

FNPRM, the Commission also 

specifically seeks the participation of 

state and local emergency planning 

organizations and solicit their views. 

Finally, the Commission seeks input 

from all telecommunications industries 

concerned about developing a more 

effective EAS. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

6. With respect to this FNPRM, an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) is contained in Appendix A. As 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared an IRFA of 

the possible significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this FNPRM. 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 

described above. The Commission will 

send a copy of the FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

7. The EAS First Report and Order, 

which accompanies the FNPRM, is the 

Commission’s first step to ensure that 

digital media is capable of receiving and 

disseminating EAS messages. In the 

Order, the Commission realized the 

immediate objective of ensuring that the 

large and growing segments of the 

population who rely on digital radio 

and television technologies are not left 

without access to alerts in the event of 

an emergency. Although the current 

EAS performs a critical function, the 

Commission believes it could be 

improved. An accurate, wide-reaching 

public alert and warning system is 

critical to the public safety and a vital 

part of the Commission’s core mission 

to promote the safety of life and 

property through a robust 

communications system. The 

Commission believes that such a system 

should be technologically up-to-date, 

should have built-in redundancy 

features, and should use a variety of 

communications media to allow 

officials at the national, state and local 

levels to send messages to reach the 

greatest number of citizens in the 

affected areas in the most effective and 

efficient manner possible. 

8. Accordingly, the Commission is 

initiating this FNPRM to seek additional 

comment on what actions the 

Commission, along with its Federal, 

State and industry partners, should take 

to help expedite the development of a 

robust, state-of-the-art, digitally based 

public alert and warning system. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

appropriate role for the Commission 

among the various government and 

industry entities that are involved in the 

creation of this system. In their 

comments, parties should also comment 

on the Commission’s statutory authority 

to regulate such a system. 

9. The comments filed in response to 

the NPRM reveal a multitude of 

technical approaches to a digital alert 

and warning system, from specific 

approaches to individual technologies 

to broad approaches to architecture and 

protocol design. The Commission does 

not seek to duplicate that significant 

effort, but rather seeks comment on a 

representative group of issues. The 

issues on which comment is sought do 

not constitute an exclusive list. Parties 

can—and should—comment on any 

issues relevant to specific technologies 

that can aid the development of a nextgeneration alert and warning system. 

10. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate role 

for the Commission in developing 

system architecture and common 

protocols that could be used for message 

distribution across different platforms. 

The Commission also asks questions 

specific to particular technologies, such 

as how DTH and SDARS could deliver 

local alerts; how best to involve wireless 

providers; and whether traditional 

wireline telephone companies that 

become content providers should have 

an obligation to provide alerts. To 

ensure that the American public 

receives public alert and warning in an 

accurate and timely fashion from this 

next-generation system, the Commission 

seeks comment whether it will need to 

adopt performance standards and 

reporting requirements. 

11. The Commission also seeks 

comment regarding how it may, 

consistent with the EAS First Report 

and Order, make EAS alerts more 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

The Commission is committed to 

ensuring that persons with disabilities 

have equal access to public warnings 

and are considered in emergency 

preparedness planning. Thus, it seeks 

comment on how any next-generation, 

digitally based alert and warning system 

can be developed in a manner that 

assures that persons with disabilities 

will be given equal access to alert and 

warning as other Americans. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are disparities in or 

conflicts between the EAS rules and the 

Commission’s other disability access 

rules contained in section 79.2, and if 

so, the manner in which such 

disparities or conflicts could be resolved 

in subsequent rules. 

12. The Commission recognizes the 

historic and important role of states and 

localities in public safety matters, and 

the essential role of states and localities 

in public safety matters, and the 

essential role that state and local 

governments play in delivering alert and 

warning. Accordingly, the Commission 

seeks comment on how it can best work 

with the states to help implement the 

EAS rules adopted in the Order as well 

as to develop the next generation of alert 

and warning systems. In particular, the 

Commission notes that there is a vital 

connection between state and local alert 

and warning and Federal efforts to 

mitigate disasters. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether its rules 

should be revised to require that states 

notify the Commission of any changes 

in EAS participants’ state EAS Local 

Area and/or EAS designation (PEP, LP1, 

LP2, SR, LR, etc.) within thirty days of 

such change, and in the absence of a 

change, a yearly confirmation that all 

state EAS Local Area and EAS 

designations remain the same. 

13. On September 22, 2005, the 

Independent Spanish Broadcasters 

Association, the Office of 

Communication of the United Church of 

Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and 

Telecommunications Council filed a 

Petition for Immediate Relief with the 

Commission proposing changes to the 

Commission’s EAS rules to require 

stations to air EAS messages in other 

languages in addition to English. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

issues raised in the petition and, for that 

purpose, incorporates the petition as 

well as the other pleadings filed in 

response to the petition into the record 

of this proceeding. The Commission 

seeks comment on how this proposal 

would be implemented, and seeks 

comment on any other proposals 

regarding how to best alert non-English 

speakers. 

Legal Basis 

14. Authority for the actions proposed 

in this FNPRM may be found in sections 

1, 4(i), 4(o), 303(r), 403, 624(g) and 706 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

154(o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71075 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 

Apply 

15. 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 rules adopted herein. 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) 

Independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

16. A small organization is generally 

‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined as 

‘‘governments of cities, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ As of 1997, 

there were approximately 87,453 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. This number includes 

39,044 county governments, 

municipalities, and townships, of which 

37,546 (approximately 96.2%) have 

populations of fewer than 50,000, and of 

which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 

or more. Thus, we estimate the number 

of small governmental jurisdictions 

overall to be 84,098 or fewer. 

Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data. 

17. Television Broadcasting. The SBA 

has developed a small business sized 

standard for television broadcasting, 

which consists of all such firms having 

$12 million or less in annual receipts. 

Business concerns included in this 

industry are those ‘‘primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ According to Commission staff 

review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master 

Access Television Analyzer Database, as 

of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 

commercial television stations in the 

United States had revenues of $12 

million or less. The Commission notes, 

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. There are also 2,127 low 

power television stations (LPTV). Given 

the nature of this service, we will 

presume that all LPTV licensees qualify 

as small entities under the SBA size 

standard. 

18. Radio Stations. The proposed 

rules and policies potentially will apply 

to all AM and commercial FM radio 

broadcasting licensees and potential 

licensees. The SBA defines a radio 

broadcasting station that has $6 million 

or less in annual receipts as a small 

business. A radio broadcasting station is 

an establishment primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Included in this industry are 

commercial, religious, educational, and 

other radio stations. Radio broadcasting 

stations which primarily are engaged in 

radio broadcasting and which produce 

radio program materials are similarly 

included. However, radio stations that 

are separate establishments and are 

primarily engaged in producing radio 

program material are classified under 

another NAICS number. According to 

Commission staff review of BIA 

Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio 

Analyzer Database on March 31, 2005, 

about 10,840 (95%) of 11,410 

commercial radio stations have revenue 

of $6 million or less. The Commission 

notes, however, that many radio stations 

are affiliated with much larger 

corporations having much higher 

revenue. The Commission’s estimate, 

therefore, likely overstates the number 

of small entities that might be affected 

by itsr action. 

19. Cable and Other Program 

Distribution. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for cable 

and other program distribution, which 

consists of all such firms having $12.5 

million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

1997, in this category there was a total 

of 1,311 firms that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had 

annual receipts of under $10 million, 

and an additional 52 firms had receipts 

of $10 million to $24,999,999. Thus, 

under this size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. In 

addition, limited preliminary census 

data for 2002 indicate that the total 

number of cable and other program 

distribution companies increased 

approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 

2002. 

20. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has developed its own small business 

size standard for cable system operators, 

for purposes of rate regulation. Under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving fewer than 

400,000 subscribers nationwide. The 

Commission estimates that there were 

1,439 cable operators who qualified as 

small cable system operators at the end 

of 1995. Since then, some of those 

companies may have grown to serve 

over 400,000 subscribers, and others 

may have been involved in transactions 

that caused them to be combined with 

other cable operators. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that there are 

now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable 

system operators that may be affected by 

the rules and policies proposed herein. 

21. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ The Commission has 

determined that there are 67,700,000 

subscribers in the United States. 

Therefore, an operator serving fewer 

than 677,000 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator, if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, the 

Commission estimates that the number 

of cable operators serving 677,000 

subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450. The 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million, and therefore are 

unable, at this time, to estimate more 

accurately the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators under the size standard 

contained in the Communications Act of 

1934. 

22. Multipoint Distribution Systems. 

The established rules apply to 

Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS) 

operated as part of a wireless cable 

system. The Commission has defined 

‘‘small entity’’ for purposes of the 

auction of MDS frequencies as an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, has 

average gross annual revenues that are 

not more than $40 million for the 

preceding three calendar years. This 

definition of small entity in the context 

of MDS auctions has been approved by 

the SBA. The Commission completed its 

MDS auction in March 1996 for 

authorizations in 493 basic trading 

71076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

areas. Of 67 winning bidders, 61 

qualified as small entities. At this time, 

we estimate that of the 61 small 

business MDS auction winners, 48 

remain small business licensees. 

23. MDS also includes licensees of 

stations authorized prior to the auction. 

As noted above, the SBA has developed 

a definition of small entities for pay 

television services, cable and other 

subscription programming, which 

includes all such companies generating 

$12.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

This definition includes MDS and thus 

applies to MDS licensees that did not 

participate in the MDS auction. 

Information available to us indicates 

that there are approximately 392 

incumbent MDS licensees that do not 

generate revenue in excess of $11 

million annually. Therefore, the 

Commission estimates that there are at 

least 440 (392 pre-auction plus 48 

auction licensees) small MDS providers 

as defined by the SBA and the 

Commission’s auction rules which may 

be affected by the rules adopted herein. 

In addition, limited preliminary census 

data for 2002 indicate that the total 

number of cable and other program 

distribution companies increased 

approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 

2002. 

24. Instructional Television Fixed 

Service. The established rules would 

also apply to Instructional Television 

Fixed Service facilities operated as part 

of a wireless cable system. The SBA 

definition of small entities for pay 

television services also appears to apply 

to ITFS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS 

licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 

are held by educational institutions. 

Educational institutions are included in 

the definition of a small business. 

However, we do not collect annual 

revenue data for ITFS licensees, and are 

not able to ascertain how many of the 

100 non-educational licensees would be 

categorized as small under the SBA 

definition. Thus, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that at least 1,932 

are small businesses and may be 

affected by the established rules. 

25. Wireless Service Providers. The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for wireless small 

businesses within the two separate 

categories of Paging and Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications. 

Under both SBA categories, a wireless 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. According to Commission 

data, 1,012 companies reported that 

they were engaged in the provision of 

wireless service. Of these 1,012 

companies, an estimated 829 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 183 have more 

than 1,500 employees. This SBA size 

standard also applies to wireless 

telephony. Wireless telephony includes 

cellular, personal communications 

services, and specialized mobile radio 

telephony carriers. According to the 

data, 437 carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 

wireless telephony. The Commission 

has estimated that 260 of these are small 

businesses under the SBA small 

business size standard. 

26. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband personal communications 

services (PCS) spectrum is divided into 

six frequency blocks designated A 

through F, and the Commission has held 

auctions for each block. The 

Commission has created a small 

business size standard for Blocks C and 

F as an entity that has average gross 

revenues of less than $40 million in the 

three previous calendar years. For Block 

F, an additional small business size 

standard for ‘‘very small business’’ was 

added and is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates, has average 

gross revenues of not more than $15 

million for the preceding three calendar 

years. These small business size 

standards, in the context of broadband 

PCS auctions, have been approved by 

the SBA. No small businesses within the 

SBA-approved small business size 

standards bid successfully for licenses 

in Blocks A and B. There were 90 

winning bidders that qualified as small 

entities in the Block C auctions. A total 

of 93 ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘very small’’ business 

bidders won approximately 40 percent 

of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and 

F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission 

reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block 

licenses; there were 113 small business 

winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, 

the Commission completed the auction 

of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses 

in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning 

bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as 

‘‘small’’ or ‘‘very small’’ businesses. 

Subsequent events, concerning Auction 

35, including judicial and agency 

determinations, resulted in a total of 163 

C and F Block licenses being available 

for grant. 

27. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). The 

Commission has included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this present IRFA analysis. As noted 

above, a ‘‘small business’’ under the 

RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 

pertinent small business size standard 

(e.g., a telephone communications 

business having 1,500 or fewer 

employees), and ‘‘is not dominant in its 

field of operation.’’ The SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy contends that, for RFA 

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not 

dominant in their field of operation 

because any such dominance is not 

‘‘national’’ in scope. The Commission 

has therefore included small incumbent 

local exchange carriers in this RFA 

analysis, although we emphasize that 

this RFA action has no effect on 

Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. Neither the Commission nor 

the SBA has developed a small business 

size standard specifically for incumbent 

local exchange services. The appropriate 

size standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 1,303 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of incumbent local exchange 

services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an 

estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 283 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by its proposed rules. 

28. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

‘‘Shared-Tenant Service Providers,’’ and 

‘‘Other Local Service Providers.’’

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is for the category 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. According to Commission 

data, 769 carriers have reported that 

they are engaged in the provision of 

either competitive access provider 

services or competitive local exchange 

carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an 

estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 93 have more than 1,500 

employees. In addition, 12 carriers have 

reported that they are ‘‘Shared-Tenant 

Service Providers,’’ and all 12 are 

estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. In addition, 39 carriers have 

reported that they are ‘‘Other Local 

Service Providers.’’ Of the 39, an 

estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and one has more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of competitive local exchange 

service, competitive access providers, 

‘‘Shared-Tenant Service Providers,’’ and 

‘‘Other Local Service Providers’’ are 

small entities that may be affected by its 

proposed rules. 

29. Satellite Telecommunications and 

Other Telecommunications. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71077 

Commission has not developed a small 

business size standard specifically for 

providers of satellite service. The 

appropriate size standards under SBA 

rules are for the two broad categories of 

Satellite Telecommunications and Other 

Telecommunications. Under both 

categories, such a business is small if it 

has $12.5 or less in average annual 

receipts. For the first category of 

Satellite Telecommunications, Census 

Bureau data for 1997 show that there 

were a total of 324 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 273 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and an additional twenty-four 

firms had receipts of $10 million to 

$24,999,999. Thus, the majority of 

Satellite Telecommunications firms can 

be considered small. 

30. The second category—Other 

Telecommunications—includes 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

* * * providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

operationally connected with one or 

more terrestrial communications 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to or receiving 

telecommunications from satellite 

systems.’’ Of this total, 424 firms had 

annual receipts of $5 million to 

$9,999,999 and an additional 6 firms 

had annual receipts of $10 million to 

$24,999,990. Thus, under this second 

size standard, the majority of firms can 

be considered small. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

31. There are potential reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements proposed in 

this FNPRM, particularly with regard to 

state and local EAS participation and 

participation by digital broadcasters. For 

example, the Commission is considering 

whether to adopt performance standards 

and reporting obligations for EAS 

participants. The proposals set forth in 

this FNPRM are intended to advance the 

Commission’s public safety mission and 

enhance the performance of the EAS 

while reducing regulatory burdens 

wherever possible. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

32. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’

33. The NPRM invited comments on 

a number of alternatives to the 

imposition of EAS obligations on the 

digital communications technologies. 

The Commission has considered each of 

those comments and in its Order 

imposes minimal regulation on small 

entities to the extent consistent with its 

goal of advancing the Commission’s 

public safety mission by adopting rules 

that expand the reach of EAS. The 

Commission believes that requiring 

DTV, DAB, digital cable, satellite DTH 

and SDARS providers to install and use 

EAS equipment will not impose undue 

regulatory or financial burdens. 

34. This FNPRM seeks additional 

comment to help expedite the 

development of a robust, state-of-the-art, 

digitally based public alert and warning 

system, and to further minimize the 

impact on small entities. In particular, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

DTH and SDARS could deliver local 

alerts; how best to involve wireless 

providers; and how the Commission can 

best work with the states to help 

implement the EAS rules adopted in the 

EAS First Report and Order as well as 

to develop the next generation of alert 

and warning systems. The Commission 

notes that it sought specific comment 

concerning possible alternatives in its 

approach toward small entities in the 

context of making EAS accessible to 

persons with disabilities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

35. None. 

Ex Parte Rules 

36. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Ordering Clauses 

37. Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority contained in sections 1, 4(i) 

and (o), 303(r), 403, 624(g) and 706 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

154(o), 303(r), 403, 544(g), and 606, 

Notice is Hereby Given of the proposals 

described in the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

38. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–23270 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[CG Docket No. 05–231; DA 05–2974] 

Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming, Telecommunications for 

the Deaf, Inc.; Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

reply comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau grants a request for an extension 

of time to file reply comments in 

response to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted by the 

Commission in the ‘‘Closed Captioning 

of Video Programming’’ proceeding. The 

extension is granted to provide parties 

the necessary time to coordinate and file 

reply comments that will result in a 

more complete record. 

DATES: Reply comments are due on or 

before December 16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit reply comments, identified by 

CG Docket No. 05–231, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable