Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63883 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 25, 2014 (79 FR 57492), a 

proposed rule extending, by 45 days, the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

titled ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating 

Units.’’ This proposed rule corrects an 

incorrect docket number published on 

September 25, 2014. 

In FR Doc. 2014–22832, published on 

September 25, 2014 (79 FR 57492), in 

the first column of page 57492, correct 

the docket number listed in the notice 

to read: 

Docket: The EPA has established the 

official public docket for this 

rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0602. 

Dated: October 20, 2014. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director for Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25486 Filed 10–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74 

[GN Docket No. 12–268; Report No. 3011] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions 

for Reconsideration (Petitions) have 

been filed in the Commission’s 

Rulemaking proceeding by Benjamin 

Perez, on behalf of Abacus Television, 

Stephen G. Perlman, on behalf of 

Artemis Networks, LLC, Ari Q. 

Fitzgerald, Esq., on behalf of GE 

Healthcare, Steven K. Berry, on behalf of 

Competitive Carriers Association, Louis 

Libin, on behalf of Advanced Television 

Broadcasting Alliance, Andrew W. 

Levin, on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc., 

Melodie A. Virtue, Esq., and Garvey 

Schubert Barer, on behalf of Beach TV 

Properties, Inc., and Free Access & 

Broadcast Telemedia, LLC, Jennifer 

Johnson, Esq., on behalf of Bonton 

Media Group, Inc., and Raycom Media, 

Inc., John R. Feore, Esq., on behalf of 

Block Communications, Inc. and FBC 

Television Affiliates Association, Eve 

Pogoriler, Esq., on behalf of Gannett Co., 

Inc., Graham Media Group, ICA 

Broadcasting, and the Dispatching 

Printing Company, Dean R. Brenner, on 

behalf of Qualicomm Incorporated, 

Gerard J. Waldron, Esq., on behalf of 

CBS Television Network Affiliates 

Association, and NBC Television 

Affiliates, Wade H. Hargrove, Esq., on 

behalf ABC Television Affiliates 

Associates Association, Donald G. 

Everist, on behalf of Cohen, Dippell and 

Everist, P.C., Dale Woodin, on behalf of 

the American Society for Healthcare 

Engineering of the American Hospital 

Association, Sally A. Buckman, Esq., on 

behalf Journal Broadcast Corporation, 

Margaret L. Tobey, on behalf NBC 

Telemundo License LLC, Mike 

Cavender, on behalf of Radio Television 

Digital News Association, Michael 

Gravino, on behalf of LPTV Spectrum 

Rights Coalition, Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., 

on behalf of Sennheiser Electronic 

Corporation, M. Anne Swanson, Esq., on 

behalf of Media General, Inc., Mace 

Rosenstein, Esq., on behalf of the 

Videohouse and Public Broadcasting 

Service, Inc., Lonna Thompson, on 

behalf of Association of Public 

Television Stations, J. Westwood 

Smithers, on behalf of Corporation for 

Public Broadcasting, Katherine 

Lauderdale, on behalf Public 

Broadcasting Service, A. Wray Fitch III, 

Esq., on behalf of American Legacy 

Foundation and Signal Above, LLC, 

Tom W. Davidson, Esq., on behalf of the 

Walt Disney Company, Paul J. Broyles, 

on behalf of International Broadcasting 

Network, Dean M. Mosely, on behalf 

U.S. Television, LLC, William H. 

Shawn, Esq., on behalf of Mako 

Communications, LLC., and Preston 

Padden, on behalf of Expanding 

Opportunities for Broadcasters 

Coalition. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before November 12, 

2014. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before November 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.J. 

Glusman, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, (202) 418–1425, email 

AJ.Glusman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 3011, released October 2, 

2014. The full text of Report No. 3011 

is available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1– 

800–378–3160). The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because this notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

Subject: Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions, published 

at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, in GN 

Docket No. 12–268, and published 

pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 

1.4(b)(1) if the Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 31. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25456 Filed 10–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket Nos. 12–201; 13–140; 14–92; 

FCC 14–129] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2014; 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2013; 

and Procedures for Assessment and 

Collection of Regulatory Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on two 

regulatory fee issues. First, the 

Commission seeks comment on methods 

to ensure and encourage compliance 

with a new toll free regulatory fee 

requirement, and the appropriate 

procedures necessary to enforce nonpayment of toll free regulatory fees. And 

second, the Commission seeks comment 

on a proposal to adopt a new direct 

broadcast satellite (DBS) regulatory fee 

category based on Media Bureau FTEs 

(Full-Time Equivalents) who perform 

work related to DBS regulatees. 

DATES: Submit comments on November 

26, 2014, and reply comments on 

December 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MD Docket No. 14–92, 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 email: FCC504@fcc.gov 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

• Email: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include MD 

Docket No. 14–92 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Commercial overnight mail 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail, and Priority Mail, must be sent to 

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 

Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 

first-class, Express, and Priority mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington DC 20554. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 

14–129, MD Docket No. 14–92, MD 

Docket No. 13–140, and MD Docket No. 

12–201, adopted on August 29, 2014 

and released on August 29, 2014. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, 

and may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI, 

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

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via 

their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or 

call 1–800–378–3160. This document is 

available in alternative formats 

(computer diskette, large print, audio 

record, and braille). Persons with 

disabilities who need documents in 

these formats may contact the FCC by 

email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202– 

418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432. 

I. Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Rules Permit-But-Disclose 

Proceeding 

1. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and 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. 

Comment Filing Procedures 

2. Comments and Replies. 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: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. 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 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 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

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 & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

3. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available free 

online, via ECFS. Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

4. Accessibility Information. To 

request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document can also be 

downloaded in Word and Portable 

Document Format (‘‘PDF’’) at: http://

www.fcc.gov. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

5. This Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking document solicits possible 

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 

possible proposed information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63885 

1 79 FR 54190 (September 11, 2014) at paras. 28– 

31. 

2AT&T Comments at 5; US Telecom Reply 

Comments at 5; Bandwidth Reply Comments at 1. 

3 47 U.S.C. 159(c)(3). The Commission notes that 

under section 9(c)(1) it has authority to issue 

penalties for late payment. 

4Currently the SMS/800, Inc. tariff has a process 

in place to suspend or discontinue service to a 

RespOrg for nonpayment of SMS/800 fees. See 800 

Service Management System (SMS) Functions 

Tariff, FCC Tariff No. 1 at section 2.1.8, available 

at http://www.sms800.com/Controls/NAC/

Tariff.aspx#. 

5 47 U.S.C. 522(13). 

6 FY 2014 NPRM, 79 FR 37982 at 37985 at para. 

18 (July 3, 2014). The Commission sought comment 

on this issue in previous NPRMs. See, e.g., FY 2013 

NPRM, 78 FR 34612 at 34625 at para. 43 (June 10, 

2013); FY 2008 FNPRM, 73 FR 50285 at 50290– 

50291, paras. 24–25 (August 26, 2008). 

7 FY 2014 NPRM, 79 FR 37982 at 37991, Table 4. 

8See, e.g., ACA Comments at 3–9; ITTA 

Comments at 11–12; NCTA Comments at 3–6; 

NCTA & ACA Reply Comments at 3–11 (‘‘basic 

principles of fairness and technological neutrality 

require the Commission to assess [DBS] service 

providers regulatory fees as part of a . . . fee 

category that also includes cable operators and 

IPTV services.’’). 

9See FY 2014 NPRM, 79 FR 37982 at 37990, para. 

48. 

10 47 U.S.C. 548; 47 CFR 76.1000–1004. 

11 47 U.S.C. sections 325(b)(1), (3)(C)(ii); 47 CFR 

76.65(b). 

12See Implementation of the Commercial 

Advertisement, Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, 

Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222 (2011). 

13 47 U.S.C. 618(b). 

14 47 CFR Part 79. 

Public Law 104–13. 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 can further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

6. An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) is contained in 

section III. Comments to the IRFA must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and filed by the deadlines for comments 

on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). The Commission will send a 

copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

II. Introduction 

7. In this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission seeks 

comment on two regulatory fee issues: 

(1) Methods to ensure and encourage 

compliance with a new toll free 

regulatory fee requirement, and the 

appropriate procedures necessary to 

enforce non-payment of toll free 

regulatory fees, and (2) a proposal to 

adopt a new direct broadcast satellite 

(DBS) regulatory fee category based on 

Media Bureau FTEs who perform work 

related to DBS regulatees. 

A. Toll Free Numbers 

8. In the FY 2014 Report and Order, 

the Commission adopted a regulatory 

fee category for toll free numbers.1 The 

Commission agreed with the 

commenters 2 that additional 

development in the record is needed 

regarding the appropriate procedures for 

enforcement for non-payment such as 

revocation of numbers or decertifying a 

RespOrg. 

9. Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comment on what procedures we may 

use to enforce a RespOrg’s obligation to 

pay any regulatory fees assessed on toll 

free numbers. For instance, section 

9(c)(3) of the Act states that in lieu of 

penalties and dismissals, ‘‘the 

Commission may revoke any instrument 

of authorization held by an entity that 

has failed to make payment of a 

regulatory fee assessed pursuant to the 

section.’’ 3 The Commission seeks 

comment on whether section 9(c)(3) of 

the Act permits the Commission to 

classify toll free numbers as 

‘‘instruments of authorizations,’’ thereby 

allowing reclamation of those numbers 

if regulatory fees are not paid. The 

Commission also invites input on 

whether it may decertify (or direct SMS/ 

800 to decertify) a RespOrg in instances 

of delinquent regulatory fee payments. 

Does the Commission have authority 

under section 9(c) to revoke a 

certification granted by a third party, 

such as the SMS/800 Database 

Administrator? If so, would this 

certification be an ‘‘instrument of 

authorization’’ under section 9(c) of the 

Act that could be revoked if the RespOrg 

failed to pay regulatory fees? For 

instance, we might treat an SMS/800, 

Inc. certification as sufficient (though 

perhaps not necessary) evidence that an 

entity is entitled to an FCC 

authorization to operate as a RespOrg. 

Then, in the event of non-payment of 

regulatory fees, the Commission might 

revoke the FCC-issued authorization 

needed for the entity to serve as a 

RespOrg. The Commission seeks 

comment on this and any other possible 

approaches. In addition, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are other statutory 

approaches for revoking such 

certification in the event of 

nonpayment. And finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a RespOrg’s application, either for 

certification by SMS/800, Inc. or to 

receive toll free numbers filed with 

SMS/800 Inc., can be delayed or denied, 

thus preventing either temporary or 

permanent access to the toll free 

database to reserve toll free numbers if 

regulatory fees are delinquent.4 If not, 

should the Commission require that a 

separate application be submitted for 

the use of toll free numbers and 

payment of regulatory fees? 

B. Direct Broadcast Satellites (DBS) 

10. In this Further NPRM, the 

Commission proposes to adopt a new 

fee category for DBS, based on the 

Media Bureau FTEs that perform work 

related to these regulatees. DBS 

providers are multichannel video 

programming distributors (MVPDs), 

pursuant to section 602(13) of the Act.5

These operators of U.S.-licensed 

geostationary space stations used to 

provide one-way subscription television 

service to consumers in the United 

States pay a regulatory fee under the 

category ‘‘Space Station (Geostationary 

Orbit)’’ in the regulatory fee schedule. 

DBS providers are also similar to cable 

operators and IPTV providers because 

DBS providers offer multi-channel video 

programming to end-users. Despite this 

similarity, DBS providers do not pay the 

per-subscriber regulatory fee assessed 

on cable operators and IPTV providers 

based on Media Bureau FTE regulation. 

11. In the FY 2014 NPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on 

‘‘whether regulatory fees paid by DBS 

providers should be included in the 

cable television and IPTV category and 

assessed in the same manner as cable 

television system operators.’’ 6 It noted 

that DBS providers currently pay less 

than nine percent of the regulatory fees 

they would be assessed if the 

Commission were to combine these 

categories ($2,052,450 vs. $23,120,000) 

and required DBS to pay the same rate 

as cable television and IPTV.7 Various 

commenters have supported this 

proposal 8 arguing that assessing 

regulatory fees on DBS providers is 

warranted because Media Bureau FTEs 

provide similar regulatory work to both 

cable operators and DBS providers.9 For 

example, DBS providers and cable 

operators are permitted to file program 

access complaints 10 and complaints 

seeking relief under the retransmission 

consent good faith rules; 11 and DBS 

providers are also required to comply 

with Media Bureau oversight and 

regulation such as Commercial 

Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act 

(CALM Act),12 the Twenty-First Century 

Video Accessibility Act (CVAA),13 as 

well as the closed captioning and video 

description rules.14 ACA argues that 

because DBS providers do not pay fees 

to cover the Media Bureau FTE 

expenses, the Media Bureau costs are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15ACA Comments at 6. 

16See DIRECTV and DISH Comments at 13–18. 

17See, e.g., DIRECTV and DISH Comments at 13– 

17; SIA Comments at 7. 

18See, e.g., 47 CFR 76.65(b); 76.1000–1004; Part 

79; see also Implementation of Commercial 

Advertisement, Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, 

Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222 (2011); 47 

U.S.C. 618(b). 

19 FY 2013 Report and Order, 78 FR 52433 at 

52443–52444, para. 35 (August 23, 2013). 

20 Id., 78 FR 52433 at 52443, para. 35, footnote 81 

(August 23, 2013). 

21 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(1). 

22See Table 4 in the FY 2014 NPRM, 79 FR 37982 

at 37991, Table 4. If adopted, the regulatory fee rate 

will be proposed in the annual notice of proposed 

rulemaking seeking comment on regulatory fees for 

the upcoming fiscal year. 

23 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–612 has 

been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public 

Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 

24 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

25 Id. 

shifted entirely to the entities that do 

pay regulatory fees based on Media 

Bureau FTEs.15 DBS providers have 

opposed this proposal; arguing that they 

are not cable television operators and 

they are not subject to all of the 

regulations historically imposed on the 

cable industry by the Media Bureau; 

instead, their business model is based 

on satellite technology and is subject to 

satellite licensing rules through the 

International Bureau.16

12. The Commission recognizes that 

DBS providers are not subject to all of 

the regulations and requirements 

imposed on the cable industry.17

However, as discussed above, there are 

certain rules that both DBS providers 

and cable operators are subject to, and 

Media Bureau FTEs provide the 

oversight and regulation of the DBS 

industry in these areas.18 Last year, the 

Commission adopted a new category of 

regulatory fees for IPTV providers and 

cable television operators reasoning that 

‘‘assessing regulatory fees on cable 

television systems, but not on IPTV 

. . . may place cable providers at a 

competitive disadvantage,’’ 19 and 

noting that there is a ‘‘relatively small 

difference from a regulatory 

perspective’’ between IPTV providers 

and cable operators.20 This Media 

Bureau FTE involvement and the 

benefits received by DBS may support 

adoption of a new fee category. 

Therefore, the Commission believes that 

it may be appropriate under section 9 of 

the Act to recover the costs associated 

with Media Bureau FTE work.21

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

to adopt a new fee category to recover 

the costs incurred by the Media Bureau 

due to the DBS industry. Alternatively, 

should Media Bureau FTEs working on 

DBS issues be assigned to the 

International Bureau or as indirect FTEs 

for regulatory fee purposes? The 

Commission invites comment on the 

legal and policy implications of such a 

proposal. 

13. Unlike cable television/IPTV, DBS 

providers already pay regulatory fees 

based on the oversight of their industry 

by International Bureau FTEs and do 

not pay any Media Bureau FTE fees. As 

a result, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether DBS providers should pay a 

regulatory fee under this category at a 

much lower rate than that for other 

MVPDs, such as one-tenth of the 

anticipated revenue if DBS were 

combined with MVPD, to recognize the 

International Bureau FTE fees DBS 

providers will continue to pay as well 

as the Media Bureau FTEs related to 

DBS regulation. The Commission 

estimates that this amount would be 

approximately $2.1 million.22 We invite 

comment on the appropriateness of this 

amount, or whether it should be higher 

or lower. In assessing this proposal, the 

Commission also intends to factor in 

any resulting ‘‘rate shock’’ on DBS 

providers, the financial impact of such 

a fee on economic wellbeing of the DBS 

industry and the customers it serves, 

and the appropriateness of phasing in 

any permanent adjustments to our rate 

structure for DBS. This regulatory fee 

category, if adopted, would apply to all 

operators of U.S.-licensed geostationary 

space stations used to provide one-way 

subscription television service to 

consumers in the United States. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

assessing this fee on the space station 

operator is an efficient assessment 

mechanism or if there are alternative 

mechanisms for assessing a fee on 

providers of one-way subscription 

television service to consumers in the 

United States. 

14. Commenters should discuss 

whether the payment obligations of this 

new category should increase over time 

to a larger percentage of the cable 

television/IPTV rate or if this fee 

category should be transitioned to a 

MVPD category together with cable 

television and IPTV. The Commission 

invites comment on the appropriateness 

of eventually adopting a new regulatory 

fee category that includes DBS, cable 

operators, and IPTV, all assessed using 

the same methodology and at the same 

rate. In doing so, the Commission asks 

for legal and policy implications of such 

a combination. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the time period the 

DBS providers should have in 

transitioning into such a fee category, 

and in what manner, or if they should 

continue to remain at a lower rate than 

cable operators and IPTV. 

15. If DBS providers are assessed a 

more significant fee rate (comparable or 

the same as cable operators and IPTV), 

commenters should discuss whether 

they should have an offset or credit for 

all or a portion of the regulatory fees 

that they pay based on the International 

Bureau FTEs. 

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

16. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA),23 the Commission 

prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadline for comments on this 

FNPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).24

In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register.25

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

FNPRM 

17. The FNPRM seeks comment 

regarding the adoption and 

implementation of creating a new DBS 

fee category per section 9(b)(3), and how 

a Responsible Organization (RespOrgs) 

can be held to their regulatory fee 

obligation for lack of payment. With 

respect to establishing a new DBS fee 

category, the Commission has 

determined that DBS providers do not 

qualify as small business entities. With 

respect to RespOrgs, the Commission 

has discovered that while it provides 

oversight for RespOrgs in various 

numbering plans, it does not assess a 

regulatory fee for the resources that it 

expends. Consequently, the Commission 

has decided to assess a fee on this group 

of regulatees to ensure equitable access 

to toll free numbers and to minimize the 

chance that these toll free numbers are 

not unjustly controlled. In addition to 

holding RespOrgs responsible for 

payment of regulatory fees, the 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

extent to which it can revoke an 

instrument of authorization for failure to 

pay regulatory fees section 9(c)(3). We 

invite comment on this topic to better 

inform the Commission concerning 

whether and/or how this service should 

be assessed under our regulatory fee 

methodology in future years. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63887 

26 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 159, and 303(r). 

27 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

28 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

29 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’ 

30 15 U.S.C. 632. 

31See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently 

Asked Questions,’’ http://www.sba.gov/sites/

default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf. 

32See id. 

33 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

34See id. 

35 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

36See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 

Technology Division at Table 5.3 (September 2010) 

(Trends in Telephone Service). 

37 Id. 

38 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

39See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table. 5.3. 

40 Id. 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 45See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 46 Id. 47 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911. 48 Id. 

B. Legal Basis 

18. This action, including publication 

of proposed rules, is authorized under 

Sections (4)(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended.26

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

19. 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 and policies, if 

adopted.27 The RFA generally defines 

the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the 

same meaning as the terms ‘‘small 

business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 28 In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act.29 A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA.30

20. Small Businesses. Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 27.9 

million small businesses, according to 

the SBA.31

21. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of this total, 1,818 operated with more 

than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees.32 Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

22. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees.33 According to 

Commission data, census data for 2007 

shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of this total, 1,818 operated with more 

than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees.34 The Commission estimates 

that most providers of local exchange 

service are small entities that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

proposed in the FNPRM. 

23. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable 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.35 According to Commission 

data, 1,307 carriers reported that they 

were incumbent local exchange service 

providers.36 Of this total, an estimated 

1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees 

and 301 have more than 1,500 

employees.37 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

proposed in the FNPRM. 

24. 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.38 According to Commission 

data, 1,442 carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services.39

Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 

1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees 

and 186 have more than 1,500 

employees.40 In addition, 17 carriers 

have reported that they are SharedTenant Service Providers, and all 17 are 

estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 

employees.41 In addition, 72 carriers 

have reported that they are Other Local 

Service Providers.42 Of this total, 70 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees.43

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities that may be affected by rules 

adopted pursuant to the proposals in 

this FNPRM. 

25. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically applicable to 

interexchange services. The applicable 

size standard under SBA rules is for the 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.44 According to Commission 

data, 359 companies reported that their 

primary telecommunications service 

activity was the provision of 

interexchange services.45 Of this total, 

an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 42 have more than 1,500 

employees.46 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of interexchange service providers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM. 

26. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for prepaid calling 

card providers. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Telecommunications Resellers. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.47 Census data for 2007 show 

that 1,523 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000.48 Thus under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these prepaid 

calling card providers can be considered 

small entities. According to Commission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

49See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 50 Id. 51 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911. 52 Id. 53See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 

54 Id. 

55 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911. 

56 Id. 

57Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 

58 Id. 

59 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 60 Id. 61Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 62 Id. 63 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210. 64U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘517211 Paging,’’ available at http://

www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=

517211&search=2002%20NAICS%20Search; U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517212 

Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,’’ 

available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/

naics/naicsrch?code=517212&search=2002%20

NAICS%20Search. 

65 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The nowsuperseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 CFR 

121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring 

to the 2002 NAICS). 

66U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: 

Information, Table 5, ‘‘Establishment and Firm Size: 

Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 

2007 NAICS Code 517210’’ (issued Nov. 2010). 

67 Id. Available census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with ‘‘100 

employees or more.’’ 

68Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 

69 Id. 

70U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ 

(partial definition), available at http://

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code

=517110&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search. 

71 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

data, 193 carriers have reported that 

they are engaged in the provision of 

prepaid calling cards.49 All 193 carriers 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 

none have more than 1,500 

employees.50 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of prepaid calling card providers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM. 

27. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.51 Census data for 2007 show 

that 1,523 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000.52 Under this category and 

the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these local 

resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

213 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services.53 Of this total, an estimated 

211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 

two have more than 1,500 employees.54

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by rules adopted pursuant to 

the proposals in this FNPRM. 

28. Toll Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.55 Census data for 2007 show 

that 1,523 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000.56 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.57 Of this total, an estimated 

857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 

24 have more than 1,500 employees.58

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposals in the FNPRM. 

29. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees.59 Census data for 2007 

shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of this total, 1,818 operated with more 

than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees.60 Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of Other Toll 

Carriers can be considered small. 

According to Commission data, 284 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage.61 Of 

these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and five have more 

than 1,500 employees.62 Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

Other Toll Carriers are small entities 

that may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted pursuant to the 

FNPRM. 

30. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the SBA has recognized wireless firms 

within this new, broad, economic 

census category.63 Prior to that time, 

such firms were within the nowsuperseded categories of Paging and 

Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications.64 Under the 

present and prior categories, the SBA 

has deemed a wireless business to be 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.65 For this category, census 

data for 2007 show that there were 

11,163 establishments that operated for 

the entire year.66 Of this total, 10,791 

establishments had employment of 999 

or fewer employees and 372 had 

employment of 1000 employees or 

more.67 Thus, under this category and 

the associated small business size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

Similarly, according to Commission 

data, 413 carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 

wireless telephony, including cellular 

service, Personal Communications 

Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR) Telephony services.68 Of 

this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 152 have more 

than 1,500 employees.69 Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

31. Cable Television and other 

Program Distribution. Since 2007, these 

services have been defined within the 

broad economic census category of 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers; 

that category is defined as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating and/or providing access to 

transmission facilities and infrastructure 

that they own and/or lease for the 

transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 

and video using wired 

telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ 70 The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: all 

such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees.71 Census data for 2007 

shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of this total, 1,818 had more than 100 

employees, and 30,178 operated with 

fewer than 100 employees. Thus under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63889 

72See 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission 

determined that this size standard equates 

approximately to a size standard of $100 million or 

less in annual revenues. See Implementation of 

Sections of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer 

Protection and Competition Act: Rate Regulation, 

MM Docket Nos. 92–266, 93–215, Sixth Report and 

Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 

FCC Rcd 7393, 7408, para. 28 (1995). 

73These data are derived from R.R. BOWKER, 

BROADCASTING & CABLE YEARBOOK 2006, 

‘‘Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A–8 & C– 

2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); WARREN 

COMMUNICATIONS NEWS, TELEVISION & 

CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable 

Systems in the United States,’’ pages D–1805 to D– 

1857. 74See 47 CFR 76.901(c). 75WARREN COMMUNICATIONS NEWS, 

TELEVISION & CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, ‘‘U.S. 

Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,’’ page F–2 (data 

current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 

851 systems for which classifying data were not 

available. 76U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘2007 NAICS Definitions: 

517919 All Other Telecommunications,’’ available 

at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code

=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search. 

77 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919. 

78U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 

Subject Series: Information, Table 4, ‘‘Establishment 

and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 NAICS Code 517919’’ (issued Nov. 

2010). 

79 Id. 

80 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). 

81 47 U.S.C. 52.101(e), (f). 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

offering cable and other program 

distribution services can be considered 

small and may be affected by rules 

adopted pursuant to the FNPRM. 

32. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has developed its own 

small business size standards, for the 

purpose of cable rate regulation. Under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving 400,000 or 

fewer subscribers, nationwide.72

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 

eleven are small under this size 

standard.73 In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers.74 Industry data indicate 

that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 

systems have fewer than 10,000 

subscribers, and an additional 302 

systems have 10,000–19,999 

subscribers.75 Thus, under this second 

size standard, most cable systems are 

small and may be affected by rules 

adopted pursuant to the FNPRM. 

33. All Other Telecommunications. 

The Census Bureau defines this industry 

as including ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Establishments 

providing Internet services or Voice 

over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services 

via client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ 76 The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category; that size standard is $30.0 

million or less in average annual 

receipts.77 According to Census Bureau 

data for 2007, there were 2,623 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year.78 Of this total, 2478 establishments 

had annual receipts of under $10 

million and 145 establishments had 

annual receipts of $10 million or 

more.79 Consequently, we estimate that 

the majority of these firms are small 

entities that may be affected by our 

action in this FNPRM. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

34. While this FNPRM seeks comment 

on changes to the Commission’s current 

regulatory fee methodology and 

schedule, any changes to the regulatory 

fee methodology will not impact the 

information collection, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements. If a new 

fee is ultimately adopted, the 

Commission’s current online procedures 

for payment of regulatory fees will 

apply for the collection and reporting of 

these fees. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant 

1. Alternatives Considered 

35. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching 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 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.80

36. Toll free numbers allow callers to 

reach the called party without being 

charged for the call; instead the charge 

for the call is paid by the called party 

(the toll free subscriber).81 A 

Responsible Organization (RespOrg) is a 

company that manages toll free 

telephone numbers for subscribers. 

They use the SMS/800 data base to 

verify the availability of specific 

numbers and to reserve the numbers for 

subscribers. See 47 CFR 52.101(b). It is 

possible that our proposal, if adopted, 

would result in increasing or imposing 

a regulatory fee burden on small entities 

such as RespOrgs. The actual fee 

amount or financial burden, however, 

will be determined after comments are 

received and evaluated. Our proposal 

exempts entities that are already paying 

regulatory fees, such as Interexchange 

Carriers, but would assess fees on other 

Responsible Organizations that do not 

currently pay any regulatory fees. In 

addition, it is possible that many of the 

RespOrgs may also qualify for de 

minimis status if their total regulatory 

fee obligation is $500 or less, beginning 

in FY 2015. The Commission seeks 

comment on the abovementioned 

proposal, including methods on how to 

minimize significant economic impact 

on small entities. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

37. None. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

38. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 

303(r) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 159, and 303(r), this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

hereby adopted. 

39. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. 

Small Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24939 Filed 10–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS