78768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30573 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291; FRL–9921–25–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP69 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; extension of 

public comment period and change to 

public hearing date. 

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2014, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for brick and structural clay products 

manufacturing and NESHAP for clay 

ceramics manufacturing. The EPA is 

extending the deadline for written 

comments on the proposed rule by 30 

days to March 19, 2015. In addition, the 

EPA is changing the date of the public 

hearing, if requested, to January 27, 

2015, and the date to pre-register for the 

hearing if it is held. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

in the Federal Register on December 18, 

2014 (79 FR 75622) is being extended 

for 30 days to March 19, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on January 27, 2015, 

from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] 

to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. If the EPA holds a 

public hearing, the EPA will keep the 

record of the hearing open for 30 days 

after completion of the hearing to 

provide an opportunity for submission 

of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written 

comments on the proposed rule may be 

submitted to the EPA electronically, by 

mail, by facsimile or through hand 

delivery/courier. Please refer to the 

proposal for the addresses and detailed 

instructions. 

Docket. The EPA has established 

dockets for this rulemaking under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing and Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents 

in the dockets are listed in the 

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If requested by 

January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on January 27, 2015, 

from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] 

to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. 

Pamela Garrett of the Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–01), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

7966; email address: garrett.pamela@

epa.gov to request a hearing, register to 

speak at the hearing or to inquire as to 

whether or not a hearing will be held. 

The last day to pre-register in advance 

to speak at the hearing will be January 

23, 2015. Additionally, requests to 

speak will be taken the day of the 

hearing at the hearing registration desk, 

although preferences on speaking times 

may not be able to be fulfilled. Please 

refer to the proposal for the more 

detailed information on the public 

hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the proposed rule for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon 

Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing 

Group, Sector Policies and Program 

Division (D243–04), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

2825; Fax number: (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

After considering a request to extend 

the public comment period, the EPA has 

decided to extend the public comment 

period for an additional 30 days. 

Therefore, the public comment period 

will end on March 19, 2015, rather than 

February 17, 2015. This extension will 

help ensure that the public has 

sufficient time to review the proposed 

rule and the supporting technical 

documents and data available in the 

docket. 

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30715 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 14–206] 

Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming; Telecommunications for 

the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. 

Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission issues a Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 

additional comment on several issues 

related to matters raised in the 

Commission’s Closed Captioning 

Quality Order. These issues include 

whether the Commission should require 

video programmers to file contact 

information and certifications of 

captioning compliance with the 

Commission and whether other means 

would make programmer contact 

information and certifications more 

widely available. 

DATES: Comments are due January 20, 

2015 and reply comments are due 

January 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket No. 05–231, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), through 

the Commission’s Web site http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78769 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal service 

mailing address, and CG Docket No. 05– 

231. • Paper filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (although the Commission 

continues to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. • All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. • Commercial Mail sent by 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. 

In addition, parties must serve one copy 

of each pleading with the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com. 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: Eliot 

Greenwald, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office, (202) 418–2235, email: 

Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov; or Caitlin 

Vogus, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, 

(202) 418–1264, email: Caitlin.Vogus@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

document FCC 14–206, adopted 

December 12, 2014, released December 

15, 2014. The full text of document FCC 

14–206, and any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. It also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

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

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: 

(202) 488–5563, or Internet: 

www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14– 

206 can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/

disability-rights-office-headlines. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

Document FCC 14–206 seeks 

comment on potential revised 

information collection requirements. If 

the Commission adopts any revised 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish another notice 

in the Federal Register inviting the 

public to comment on the requirements, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

1. In FCC 14–206, the Commission 

seeks additional comment on several 

issues related to matter raised in the 

Commission’s February 24, 2014 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on closed captioning. Closed Captioning 

of Video Programming; 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for 

Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05–231, 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Further Notice); published at 79 FR 

17093, March 27, 2014. The 

Commission invites comment on 

requiring video programmers to file 

contact information and certifications of 

captioning compliance with the 

Commission. The Commission also 

invites comment on whether any other 

means would make programmer contact 

information and certifications more 

widely available to consumers, video 

programming distributors (VPDs), and 

other interested parties. Further, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

these potential rule modifications alter 

previous Commission positions and 

whether there are justifications for the 

Commission changing course at this 

time. 

2. The Commission invites comment 

on whether to require video 

programmers to file contact information 

with the Commission for inclusion in 

the registry of VPD contact information 

(VPD Registry) or a separate database, if 

the Commission were to decide to 

extend to video programmers some of 

the responsibilities for compliance with 

its closed captioning rules and for the 

resolution of captioning complaints. 

The Commission also invites comment 

on whether such filings should utilize a 

web form, i.e., an interactive form on the 

Commission’s Web site designed to 

receive and transfer information to a 

publicly available Commission 

database. What are the costs and 

benefits of requiring video programmers 

to file contact information with the 

Commission? Should the Commission 

require video programmers to provide 

the same contact information as is 

currently required of VPDs by its 

existing rules? Do video programmers 

generally have a designated person 

available to handle immediate closed 

captioning concerns, and if not, what 

benefits and burdens would result from 

a requirement that programmers 

designate such a person? Is there 

additional information beyond that 

required of VPDs that the Commission 

should require video programmers to 

file? Should video programmers also be 

required to place the contact 

information on their Web sites, if they 

have a Web site, or to provide the 

information in some other way for 

added access by the public? 

3. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should alter its 

requirements regarding certifications by 

video programmers as to their 

compliance with rules on the provision 

and quality of closed captioning, if the 

Commission decides to extend some 

responsibilities for compliance with its 

closed captioning rules to video 

programmers. 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) requires 

VPDs to exercise best efforts to obtain a 

certification from each video 

programmer from which the VPD 

obtains programming stating (i) that the 

video programmer’s programming 

satisfies the required caption quality 

standards; (ii) that in the ordinary 

course of business, the video 

programmer adopts and follows the Best 

Practices in captioning its programming; 

or (iii) that the video programmer is 

exempt from the closed captioning 

rules, under one or more properly 

obtained and specified exemptions. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should amend 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78770 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

require video programmers to file their 

certifications on captioning quality with 

the Commission, or whether the 

Commission should require them to 

make such certifications widely 

available through other means. Should 

the Commission additionally modify the 

Video Programmer Best Practices’ 

certification procedures set forth in 47 

CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to make filing 

certifications with the Commission part 

of the video programmers’ best 

practices? Why should the Commission 

change its position and require video 

programmer certifications to be filed 

with the Commission rather than 

making such certifications widely 

available through other means? What 

are the benefits and costs of requiring 

the certifications mandated by 47 CFR 

79.1(j)(1) and 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) to be 

filed with the Commission? What would 

be the expected volume of such video 

programmer certifications on captioning 

quality? Would requiring video 

programmers to file these certifications 

with the Commission assist VPDs, 

consumers and the Commission in 

locating the certifications, in addition to 

providing video programmers with a 

convenient means of making their 

certifications widely available? 

4. The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether it should 

otherwise amend its rules regarding 

certifications for the provision of closed 

captioning. Currently, 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) 

allows VPDs to rely upon certifications 

from ‘‘programming suppliers’’ to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s rules for the provision of 

closed captioning. According to 47 CFR 

79.1(g)(6), ‘‘programming supplier’’ 

includes ‘‘programming producers, 

programming owners, networks, 

syndicators and other distributors’’ 

(emphasis added). If the Commission 

retains 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) in some form, 

either as a separate rule or incorporated 

into another rule, should the 

Commission amend the rule to replace 

the term ‘‘programming supplier’’ with 

the term ‘‘video programmer’’? The 

Commission notes that unlike the term 

‘‘programming supplier,’’ the term 

‘‘video programmer’’ does not include 

VPDs. Rather, the term ‘‘video 

programmer’’ is defined as ‘‘any entity 

that provides video programming that is 

intended for distribution to residential 

households including, but not limited 

to, broadcast or nonbroadcast television 

networks and the owners of such 

programming.’’ Is this rule amendment 

necessary to help differentiate the 

responsibilities of regulated entities, if 

the Commission were to decide to 

impose some obligations directly on 

video programmers? The term 

‘‘programming supplier’’ also is used in 

47 CFR 79.1(e)(6). Should the use of the 

term in 47 CFR 79.1(e)(6) be replaced to 

be consistent with any changes to 47 

CFR 79.1(g)(6) or its successor rule? Are 

there other subsections contained 

within 47 CFR 79.1 in which the term 

‘‘programming supplier’’ should be 

replaced with ‘‘video programmer’’? 

5. Further, although 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) 

allows VPDs to rely upon certifications 

from programming suppliers, it does not 

require programming suppliers to 

provide such certifications. Should the 

Commission amend 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) to 

require programming suppliers or video 

programmers to file certifications with 

the Commission certifying that they are 

in compliance with the Commission’s 

rules for the provision of closed 

captioning? The Commission currently 

does not require such certifications from 

either VPDs or video programmers. Is 

there a reason why the Commission 

should change its approach? If a 

programming supplier or video 

programmer claims that it is exempt 

from providing closed captioning, 

should the Commission require it to 

specify the exemption it claims as part 

of the certification? As an alternative to 

amending 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), should the 

Commission include within 47 CFR 

79.1(j)(1) or 47 CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) 

certification language to the effect that 

the video programmer is in compliance 

with the Commission’s rules for the 

provision of closed captioning? What 

are the benefits and costs of requiring 

programming suppliers or video 

programmers to provide such 

certification? Would such certification 

help to ensure programming supplier or 

video programmer compliance with the 

Commission’s rules requiring the 

provision of closed captioning? If so, 

how? 

6. If the Commission requires video 

programmers to file certifications 

regarding the provision and quality of 

closed captioning with the Commission, 

should the Commission require each 

VPD, when arranging to carry a video 

programmer’s programming, to alert the 

video programmer to the requirement to 

register with and provide certification to 

the Commission? Once a VPD alerts a 

video programmer of any such 

requirement and a video programmer 

fails to provide a certification to the 

Commission, should that video 

programmer be solely responsible for 

failing to comply with Commission 

rules? Or, alternatively, should the 

Commission task VPDs with monitoring 

video programmers’ compliance with a 

certification requirement and require 

them to report to the Commission any 

failure by a video programmer to 

comply? Would placing such an 

obligation on VPDs be inconsistent with 

the approach of shifting certain 

responsibilities in the areas of closed 

captioning from VPDs to video 

programmers? What would be the costs 

and benefits of these requirements? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

and any other matters relating to VPDs’ 

obligations pertaining to such 

certifications. Is there any reason that 

the Commission would not have 

statutory authority to impose the 

requirements proposed in this and other 

paragraphs of FCC 14–206? 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

7. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as 

amended, this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Public Notice has been prepared. An 

IRFA was previously included with the 

Further Notice in the Closed Captioning 

Quality Order. 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 on document FCC 14– 

206. The Commission will send a copy 

of document FCC 14–206, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’). 

8. In the Further Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on 

extending some of the responsibilities 

for complying with its rules regarding 

the provision and quality of closed 

captioning on television beyond VPDs 

to other entities involved in the 

production and delivery of video 

programming. The Commission also 

sought comment on adopting a burdenshifting approach for complaint 

resolution that would require both VPDs 

and video programmers to be involved 

in the resolution of consumer 

complaints. Further, the Commission 

asked whether 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6), which 

permits VPDs to rely on certifications 

from programming suppliers to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s captioning requirements, 

should be eliminated if the Commission 

were to reapportion responsibility for 

compliance with the Commission’s 

television closed captioning rules, and 

more generally whether other changes to 

its rules would be appropriate if the 

Commission decides to impose some 

obligations directly on programming 

entities other than VPDs. 

9. In response to the Further Notice, 

some commenters have raised concerns 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78771 

regarding the ability of VPDs and 

consumers to locate the correct contact 

information for video programmers for 

the resolution of closed captioning 

complaints, should the Commission 

decide to extend to video programmers 

some of the responsibilities for 

compliance with its closed captioning 

rules and for the resolution of 

captioning complaints. Several have 

proposed requiring video programmers 

to file contact information with the 

Commission for inclusion in a database. 

The Commission is therefore inviting 

comment on whether such contact 

information should be filed, and if so, 

whether such filings should utilize a 

web form. 

10. 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to 

rely on certifications from video 

programming suppliers, including 

programming producers, programming 

owners, networks, syndicators and other 

distributors, to demonstrate compliance 

with the Commission’s rules for the 

provision of closed captioning. 47 CFR 

79.1(j)(1) requires VPDs to exercise best 

efforts to obtain a certification from each 

video programmer from which the VPD 

obtains programming stating (i) that the 

video programmers’ programming 

satisfies the required caption quality 

standards, (ii) that in the ordinary 

course of business, the video 

programmers adopt and follow the Best 

Practices in captioning its programming, 

or (iii) that the video programmers are 

exempt from the closed captioning 

rules, under one or more properly 

attained, specified exemptions. 

11. One commenter on the Further 

Notice suggests that the Commission 

require video programmers to file 

certifications pursuant to 47 CFR 

79.1(g)(6) and 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) with the 

Commission, rather than providing 

them to the VPD (in the case of 47 CFR 

79.1(g)(6)) or making them widely 

available (in the case of 47 CFR 

79.1(j)(1)). The Commission is inviting 

comment on whether the Commission 

should amend 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) to 

require video programmers to file 

certifications on captioning quality with 

the Commission, or whether the 

Commission should require video 

programmers to make such certifications 

widely available through other means. 

The Commission specifically asks for 

comment on whether requiring video 

programmers to file these certifications 

with the Commission would assist 

VPDs, consumers and the Commission 

in locating the certifications, in addition 

to providing video programmers with a 

convenient means of making their 

certifications widely available. 

12. The Commission is also inviting 

comment on whether the Commission 

should amend other Commission rules 

regarding certifications for the provision 

of closed captioning. Although 47 CFR 

79.1(g)(6) allows VPDs to rely upon 

certifications from programming 

suppliers, it does not require 

programming suppliers to provide such 

certifications. The Commission is 

therefore asking whether it should 

amend 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6) to require 

video programmers to file certifications 

with the Commission certifying that 

they are in compliance with the 

Commission’s rules for the provision of 

closed captioning. Alternatively, the 

Commission is asking whether it should 

include within 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) or 47 

CFR 79.1(k)(1)(iv) certification language 

to the effect that the video programmer 

is in compliance with the Commission’s 

rules for the provision of closed 

captioning. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether such certification 

would help to ensure video programmer 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules requiring the provision of closed 

captioning. 

13. Additionally, the Commission is 

seeking comment on whether it should 

require each VPD, when arranging to 

carry a video programmer’s 

programming, to alert the video 

programmer to the requirement to 

register with and provide certification to 

the Commission, and whether the VPD 

should be required to report to the 

Commission any video programmers 

that have failed to do so. 

14. The authority for this proposed 

rulemaking is contained in sections 4(i), 

303(r) and 713 of the Communications 

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

154(i), 303(r) and 613. 

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 proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

16. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s action 

may, over time, affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes 

here, at the outset, three comprehensive, 

statutory small entity size standards that 

encompass entities that could be 

directly affected by the proposals under 

consideration. As of 2009, small 

businesses represented 99.9% of the 

27.5 million businesses in the United 

States, according to the SBA. 

Additionally, 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 2007, there 

were approximately 1,621,315 small 

organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts, with 

a population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007 

indicate that there were 89,527 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. The Commission 

estimates that, of this total, as many as 

88,761 entities may qualify as ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the 

Commission estimates that most 

governmental jurisdictions are small. 

17. Cable Television Distribution 

Services. These services have been 

included within the broad economic 

census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 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.’’ The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category, which is all such firms having 

1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge 

small business prevalence for the Cable 

Television Distribution service, the 

Commission relies on data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau for the year 2007, the 

most recent year currently available. 

According to that source, there were 

3,188 Wired Telecommunications 

Carrier firms that operated for the entire 

year in 2007. Of these, 3,144 operated 

with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 

operated with 1,000 or more employees. 

However, as to the latter 44 there is no 

data available that shows how many 

operated with more than 1,500 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the vast majority of firms can 

be considered small. 

18. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 

Industry data shows that there are 1,100 

cable companies. Of this total, all but 10 

incumbent cable companies are small 

under this size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000 

or fewer subscribers. Current 

Commission records show 4,945 cable 

systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 

cable systems have less than 20,000 

subscribers, and 565 systems have 

20,000 subscribers or more, based on the 

same records. Thus, under this second 

size standard, most cable systems are 

small. 

19. 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.’’ There were 

approximately 56.4 million incumbent 

cable video subscribers in the United 

States as of 2012. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 564,000 

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 finds that all but 10 

incumbent cable operators are small 

under this size standard. The 

Commission notes that the Commission 

neither requests nor collects information 

on whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Although it seems certain that some of 

these cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million 

the Commission is unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

20. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 

Service. DBS service is a nationally 

distributed subscription service that 

delivers video and audio programming 

via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’ 

antenna at the subscriber’s location. 

DBS, by exception, is now included in 

the SBA’s broad economic census 

category of Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, which was developed for small 

wireline firms. Under this category, the 

SBA deems a Wired 

Telecommunications Carrier to be small 

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Currently, only two entities provide 

DBS service, which requires a great 

investment of capital for operation: 

DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each 

currently offers subscription services. 

DIRECTV and DISH Network each 

report annual revenues that are in 

excess of the threshold for a small 

business. Because DBS service requires 

significant capital, the Commission 

believes it is unlikely that a small entity 

as defined by the SBA would have the 

financial wherewithal to become a DBS 

service provider. 

21. Wireless Cable Systems— 

Broadband Radio Service and 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Wireless cable systems use the 

Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and 

Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to 

transmit video programming to 

subscribers. In connection with the 1996 

BRS auction, the Commission 

established a small business size 

standard as an entity that had annual 

average gross revenues of no more than 

$40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The BRS auctions 

resulted in 67 successful bidders 

obtaining licensing opportunities for 

493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 

67 auction winners, 61 met the 

definition of a small business. BRS also 

includes licensees of stations authorized 

prior to the auction. At this time, the 

Commission estimates that of the 61 

small business BRS auction winners, 48 

remain small business licensees. In 

addition to the 48 small businesses that 

hold BTA authorizations, there are 

approximately 392 incumbent BRS 

licensees that are considered small 

entities. After adding the number of 

small business auction licensees to the 

number of incumbent licensees not 

already counted, the Commission finds 

that there are currently approximately 

440 BRS licensees that are defined as 

small businesses under either the SBA 

or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the 

Commission conducted Auction 86, the 

sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The 

Commission offered three levels of 

bidding credits: (i) A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that exceed $15 million and do not 

exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years (small business) received a 

15 percent discount on its winning bid; 

(ii) a bidder with attributed average 

annual gross revenues that exceed $3 

million and do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years (very small 

business) received a 25 percent discount 

on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that do not exceed $3 million 

for the preceding three years 

(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 

concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 

licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two 

bidders that claimed small business 

status won four licenses; one bidder that 

claimed very small business status won 

three licenses; and two bidders that 

claimed entrepreneur status won six 

licenses. 

22. In addition, the SBA’s placement 

of Cable Television Distribution 

Services in the category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is 

applicable to cable-based Educational 

Broadcasting Services. These services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

was developed for small wireline 

businesses. This 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. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services; wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution; and wired broadband 

Internet services.’’ The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is all 

such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census Bureau data for 

2007, the most recent year currently 

available, shows that there were 3,188 

Wired Telecommunications Carrier 

firms that operated for the entire year in 

2007. Of these, 3,144 operated with less 

than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated 

with 1,000 or more employees. 

However, as to the latter 44 there is no 

data available that shows how many 

operated with more than 1,500 

employees. Therefore, under this size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of these businesses can be 

considered small entities. In addition to 

Census Bureau data, the Commission’s 

internal records indicate that as of 

September 2012, there are 2,239 active 

EBS licenses. The Commission 

estimates that of these 2,239 licenses, 

the majority are held by non-profit 

educational institutions and school 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78773 

districts, which are by statute defined as 

small businesses. 

23. Open Video Services. Open Video 

Service (OVS) systems provide 

subscription services. The OVS 

framework was established in 1996, and 

is one of four statutorily recognized 

options for the provision of video 

programming services by local exchange 

carriers. The OVS framework provides 

opportunities for the distribution of 

video programming other than through 

cable systems. Although some entities 

have filed for certifications to operate 

OVS systems, the Commission believes 

that most OVS subscribers are included 

in cable multichannel video 

programming distributor (MVPD) 

subscriber data and the Commission 

does not have a way to count them 

separately. Because OVS operators 

provide subscription services, OVS falls 

within the SBA small business size 

standard covering cable services, which 

is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for this category, 

which is all such firms having 1,500 or 

fewer employees. To gauge small 

business prevalence for the OVS service, 

the Commission relies on data from the 

U.S. Census for the year 2007, the most 

recent year currently available. 

According to that source, there were 

3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 

3,144 operated with less than 1,000 

employees, and 44 operated with 1,000 

or more employees. However, as to the 

latter 44 there is no data available that 

shows how many operated with more 

than 1,500 employees. Based on this 

data, the majority of these firms can be 

considered small. 

24. Television Broadcasting. The SBA 

defines a television broadcasting station 

as a small business if such station has 

no more than $35.5 million in annual 

receipts. Business concerns included in 

this industry are those ‘‘primarily 

engaged in broadcasting images together 

with sound.’’ The Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed full 

power commercial television stations to 

be 1,388. To gauge the number of 

broadcast stations that are owned by 

small businesses, the Commission relies 

on data from the U.S. Census for the 

year 2007, the most recent year 

currently available. According to that 

source, there were 2,076 television 

broadcasting establishments in 2007. Of 

these, 1,515 establishments had receipts 

under $10 million, and 561 had receipts 

of $10 million or more. However, as to 

the latter 561 there is no data available 

that shows how many had receipts in 

excess of $35.5 million. Based on this 

data, the majority of these 

establishments can be considered small. 

The Commission notes, however, that, 

in assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business control affiliations 

must be included. Because many of 

these stations may be held by large 

group owners, and the revenue figures 

on which the Commission’s estimate is 

based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from control affiliates, the 

Commission’s estimate likely overstates 

the number of small entities that might 

be affected by its action. 

25. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed noncommercial 

educational (NCE) full power television 

stations to be 396. The Commission 

does not compile and otherwise does 

not have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

There are also 428 Class A television 

stations and 1,986 low power television 

stations (LPTV). Given the nature of 

these services, the Commission will 

presume that all Class A television and 

LPTV licensees qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition, even though 

a number of these stations may be 

owned by entities that do not qualify as 

small entities. 

26. In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. The Commission is unable at 

this time to define or quantify the 

criteria that would establish whether a 

specific television station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

the estimate of small businesses to 

which rules may apply do not exclude 

any television station from the 

definition of a small business on this 

basis and is therefore over-inclusive to 

that extent. Also as noted, an additional 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity must be 

independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities, and its 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

27. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for ILECs. 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 and ‘‘is not dominant 

in its field of operation.’’ The SBA’s 

Office of Advocacy contends that, for 

RFA purposes, small ILECs are not 

dominant in their field of operation 

because any such dominance is not 

‘‘national’’ in scope. The Commission 

has therefore included small ILECs in 

the RFA analysis, although the 

Commission emphasizes that this RFA 

action has no effect on Commission 

analyses and determinations in other, 

non-RFA contexts. 

28. Census Bureau data for 2007, the 

most recent year currently available, 

show that there were 3,188 firms in this 

category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 3,144 had 

employment of less than 1000 

employees, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 or more. 

According to Commission data, 1,307 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of ILEC 

services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 301 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of ILEC service are small 

entities that may be affected by the rules 

and policies adopted. The Commission 

estimates that three large ILECs, each of 

whom employ more than 1,500 people, 

currently provide video programming. 

29. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (CLECs), 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. 

Census Bureau data for 2007, the most 

recent year currently available, show 

that there were 3,188 firms in this 

category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 3,144 had 

employment of less than 1000 

employees, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either CLEC 

services or CAP services. Of these 1,442 

carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 186 have more 

than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 

carriers have reported that they are 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Seventy-two carriers 

have reported that they are Other Local 

Service Providers, and of the 72, 70 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, most CLECs, CAPs, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Other Local Service Providers can be 

considered small entities. 

30. Electric Power Distribution 

Companies. These entities can provide 

video services over power lines (BPL). 

The Census Bureau defines Electric 

Power Distribution companies as 

‘‘electric power establishments 

primarily engaged in either (1) operating 

electric power distribution systems (i.e., 

consisting of lines, poles, meters, and 

wiring) or (2) operating as electric 

power brokers or agents that arrange the 

sale of electricity via power distribution 

systems operated by others.’’ These 

types of MVPDs serve few subscribers 

and their subscriber base is declining. 

To gauge small business prevalence in 

the Electric Power Distribution category, 

the Commission relies on data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007, 

the most recent year currently available. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for this category, 

which is all such firms having 1,000 or 

fewer employees. Census Bureau data 

for 2007 show that there were 1,174 

firms that operated for the entire year in 

this category. Of these firms, 50 had 

1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had 

fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on 

this data, a majority of these firms can 

be considered small. 

31. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. These entities may be 

directly or indirectly affected by the 

Commission’s action. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. . . . These 

establishments produce programming in 

their own facilities or acquire 

programming from external sources. The 

programming material is usually 

delivered to a third party, such as cable 

systems or direct-to-home satellite 

systems, for transmission to viewers.’’ 

To gauge small business prevalence in 

the Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming industries, the 

Commission relies on data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau for the year 2007, the 

most recent year currently available. 

The size standard established by the 

SBA for this business category is that 

annual receipts of $35.5 million or less 

determine that a business is small. 

According to 2007 Census Bureau data, 

there were 396 firms that were engaged 

in production of Cable and Other 

Subscription Programming. Of these, 

349 had annual receipts below $25 

million, 12 had annual receipts ranging 

from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 35 

had annual receipts of $50 million or 

more. Thus, under this category and 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. 

32. Motion Picture and Video 

Production. These entities may be 

directly or indirectly affected by the 

Commission’s action. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

producing, or producing and 

distributing motion pictures, videos, 

television programs, or television 

commercials.’’ The Commission notes 

that firms in this category may be 

engaged in various industries, including 

cable programming. Specific figures are 

not available regarding how many of 

these firms produce and/or distribute 

programming for VPDs. To gauge small 

business prevalence in the Motion 

Picture and Video Production 

industries, the Commission relies on 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 

the year 2007, the most recent year 

currently available. The size standard 

established by the SBA for this business 

category is that annual receipts of $30 

million or less determine that a business 

is small. According to 2007 Census 

Bureau data, there were 9,095 firms that 

were engaged in Motion Picture and 

Video Production. Of these, 8,995 had 

annual receipts of less than $25 million, 

43 had annual receipts ranging from $25 

million to $49,999,999, and 57 had 

annual receipts of $50 million or more. 

Thus, under this category and 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. 

33. Internet Publishing and 

Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. 

These entities may be indirectly affected 

by the Commission’s action. The Census 

Bureau defines this category to include 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

(1) publishing and/or broadcasting 

content on the Internet exclusively or 

(2) operating Web sites that use a search 

engine to generate and maintain 

extensive databases of Internet 

addresses and content in an easily 

searchable format (and known as Web 

search portals). The publishing and 

broadcasting establishments in this 

industry do not provide traditional 

(non-Internet) versions of the content 

that they publish or broadcast. They 

provide textual, audio, and/or video 

content of general or specific interest on 

the Internet exclusively. Establishments 

known as Web search portals often 

provide additional Internet services, 

such as email, connections to other Web 

sites, auctions, news, and other limited 

content, and serve as a home base for 

Internet users.’’ 

34. In this category, the SBA has 

deemed an Internet publisher or Internet 

broadcaster or the provider of a web 

search portal on the Internet to be small 

if it has fewer than 500 employees. For 

this category of manufacturers, Census 

Bureau data for 2007, the most recent 

year currently available, show that there 

were 2,705 such firms that operated that 

year. Of those 2,705 firms, 2,682 

(approximately 99%) had fewer than 

500 employees, and 23 had 500 or more 

employees. Accordingly, the majority of 

establishments in this category can be 

considered small under that standard. 

35. Certain rule changes proposed in 

FCC 14–206, if adopted by the 

Commission, would modify rules or add 

requirements governing reporting, 

recordkeeping and other compliance 

obligations. 

36. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

register and file contact information 

with the Commission or to make such 

contact information widely available 

through other means, such regulations 

would impose new reporting and 

recordkeeping obligations on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. 

37. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

file certifications with the Commission 

regarding compliance with the 

Commission’s rules on the provisioning 

and quality of closed captioning, such 

regulations would impose different 

reporting and recordkeeping obligations 

than currently required on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. 

38. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring each VPD, when 

arranging to carry a video programmer’s 

programming, to alert the video 

programmer of the requirement to 

provide certification to the Commission 

and to report to the Commission any 

video programmers that have failed to 

do so, such regulations would impose 

different reporting and recordkeeping 

obligations than currently required on 

VPDs, video programmers, video 

programming owners, and other entities, 

including small entities. 

39. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78775 

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. 

40. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

register and file contact information 

with the Commission or to make such 

contact information widely available 

through other means, such regulations 

would impose new reporting and 

recordkeeping obligations on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. However, the proposed 

requirement takes into consideration the 

impact on small entities. The filing of 

contact information is a simple task that 

should take no more than a few 

minutes. In addition, such requirements 

may benefit other entities, such as VPDs 

and consumers, who would be able to 

search the registration information for 

contact information, thereby enabling 

them to more readily contact video 

programmers who can address their 

closed captioning concerns. 

41. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

file certifications with the Commission 

regarding compliance with the 

Commission’s rules on the provisioning 

and quality of closed captioning, such 

regulations would impose different 

reporting and recordkeeping obligations 

than currently required on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. The proposed rules 

would not impose additional burdens 

on such entities, because video 

programmers are already required to 

provide certifications to VPDs and to 

make such certifications widely 

available under the Commission’s rules. 

See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and (k)(1)(iv); see 

also 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). The proposed 

rule may ease the burden on video 

programmers, because video 

programmers would know to go directly 

to the Commission’s Web site to provide 

certification and would not need to 

determine how to make such 

certification widely available, and the 

proposed rules would ease the burden 

on VPDs and consumers by having all 

certifications in one easy to find place. 

42. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring each VPD, when 

arranging to carry a video programmer’s 

programming, to alert the video 

programmer of the requirement to 

provide certification to the Commission 

and to report to the Commission any 

video programmers that have failed to 

do so, such regulations would impose 

different reporting and recordkeeping 

obligations than currently required on 

VPDs, video programmers, video 

programming owners, and other entities, 

including small entities. The proposed 

rules would not impose additional 

burdens on such entities, because VPDs 

who are unable to locate certifications 

on widely available sources are already 

required to alert video programmers of 

the requirement and report such 

noncompliance to the Commission. See 

47 CFR 79.1(j)(1). The proposed rule 

may ease the burden on VPDs, because 

VPDs would be able to go directly to the 

Commission’s Web site to confirm 

whether the video programmer has 

registered and certified, which may be 

easier than having to determine on 

which Web site or other widely 

available place the information appears. 

43. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals. 

None. 

Ordering Clauses 

44. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), 

and 713 of the Communications Act of 

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

303(r) and 613, document FCC 14–206 

IS ADOPTED. 

45. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, SHALL SEND a 

copy of document FCC 14–206 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Sheryl D. Todd, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30576 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket Nos. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058; 

FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056; 4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Two 

Petitions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition findings and 

initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on a petition to delist the 

coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) and a petition to 

list the monarch butterfly (Danaus 

plexippus plexippus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that both petitions present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a review of the 

status of these subspecies to determine 

if the petitioned actions are warranted. 

To ensure that these status reviews are 

comprehensive, we are requesting 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding these 

subspecies. Based on the status reviews, 

we will issue 12-month findings on the 

petitions, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct the status reviews, we request 

that we receive information no later 

than March 2, 2015. Information 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see table below). You may submit 

information by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ If your information will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as 

it is most compatible with our 

information review procedures. If you 

attach your information as a separate 

document, our preferred file format is 

Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 

comments (such as form letters), our 

preferred format is a spreadsheet in 

Microsoft Excel. 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate 

docket number; see table below]; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section, 

below, for more details). 

Species Docket No. 

coastal California 

gnatcatcher.

FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS