Overview
Title
Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FCC wants to know what people think about its paperwork process, asking if it's useful and if it can be improved to help small businesses, especially those with less than 25 workers. They're making sure their forms are fair and want comments by April 26, 2021, to decide if any changes need to be made.
Summary AI
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for public comments on its information collection process to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. People can comment on whether the information collection is necessary, the accuracy of the FCC's burden estimates, and how to reduce the burden on small businesses. Comments should be submitted by April 26, 2021. The FCC uses Form 396-C to check if Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors are following Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements, and no privacy impacts or confidentiality issues are associated with this data collection.
Abstract
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published in the Federal Register. This notice invites public comments regarding the FCC's information collection process, a routine requirement as per the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The aim is to assess whether the collection is essential for the FCC's operations, evaluate burden estimates on respondents, and explore ways to minimize this burden, particularly for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Additionally, the commission seeks comments before proceeding with the collection, which involves checking compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements through Form 396-C used by Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs).
General Summary
The notice primarily focuses on soliciting feedback about the administrative process involved in collecting data for assessing compliance with EEO laws. This exercise helps ensure that the FCC's measures are efficient and do not unduly burden the entities required to comply. Specifically, this document is centered around evaluating the relevance and accuracy of these processes while seeking public input to potentially make improvements.
Significant Issues
One notable issue is the use of technical and bureaucratic language that might not be easily understood by the general public. Terms like "Multi-Channel Video Program Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, FCC Form 396-C" are not self-explanatory without further context. Consequently, this could impede meaningful public participation and feedback.
Another concern is the broad estimate of response time, ranging from 10 minutes to 2.5 hours. This wide range may confuse stakeholders as it offers little clarity on what specific tasks require more time to complete. Additionally, while it mentions efforts to reduce burdens on small businesses, the notice lacks specific examples or strategies aimed at achieving this goal.
Impact on the Public
The broader impact of this document on the public is fairly limited as it primarily involves industry stakeholders like MVPDs. However, by inviting public commentary, the notice reaffirms a commitment to transparency and accountability. Ensuring compliance with EEO requirements benefits the wider community by promoting fair employment practices within the media industry.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as businesses and non-profit entities in the broadcasting sector, are directly affected by this information collection and compliance process. The notice provides an opportunity for these organizations to express concerns or suggest ways to streamline reporting requirements, potentially alleviating administrative burdens.
On the downside, the lack of detailed explanations around the cost implications (stated as "No Cost") and the frequency of reporting requirements might leave some stakeholders, especially smaller organizations, uncertain about the true impact of compliance in terms of resource allocation.
Overall, while the FCC's initiative to engage the public and stakeholders in refining its data collection processes is commendable, the document could be improved by simplifying language, providing clearer estimates, and expounding upon cost and frequency obligations for more accurate stakeholder understanding.
Issues
• The document uses bureaucratic language such as 'Multi-Channel Video Program Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, FCC Form 396-C' without adequately explaining what it is in simpler terms.
• The estimated time per response range (10 minutes to 2.5 hours) is quite broad and could use clarification on what tasks typically require more time.
• The notice implies a burden to small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees but does not provide specific measures or examples of how the burden is minimized.
• The frequency of the reporting requirements ('Recordkeeping requirement; Once every five year reporting requirement; Annual reporting requirement') is not entirely clear and could benefit from further breakdown or examples.
• The document does not discuss any potential costs beyond 'No Cost,' which may not consider potential hidden expenses incurred by respondents in terms of time and resources.