80 FR 19594 - Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 70 (April 13, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 70 (April 13, 2015)
| Page Range | 19594-19611 | |
| FR Document | 2015-08435 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 19594-19611] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-08435] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 15-71; FCC 15-34] Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (``STELAR''). The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. In this document, the Commission proposes to revise the current cable market modification rule to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service. The document also proposes to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and considers whether to make any other changes to the current market modification rules. DATES: Comments are due on or before May 13, 2015; reply comments are due on or before May 28, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before June 12, 2015. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 15-71, by any of the following methods:Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to the FCC Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 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. Hand or Messenger Delivery: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the FCC Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418- 0530; or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the section IV. ``PROCEDURAL MATTERS'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._ [[Page 19595]] [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, adopted and released on March 26, 2015. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document Summary I. Introduction 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose satellite television ``market modification'' rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (``STELA Reauthorization Act'' or ``STELAR'').\1\ The STELAR amended the Communications Act (``Communications Act'' or ``Act'') and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.\2\ The Commission previously had such authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.\3\ With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.\4\ Congress' intent through this provision of STELAR, and the Commission's actions in this NPRM, seek to address satellite subscribers' inability to receive in-state programming in certain areas, sometimes called ``orphan counties.'' \5\ In this NPRM, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, we propose to implement section 102 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\6\ In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs us to consider whether we should make changes to the current cable market modification rules,\7\ and it also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision.\8\ Accordingly, as part of our implementation of the STELAR, we propose to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and consider whether we should make any other changes to the current cable market modification rules. The STELAR requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). This proceeding implements STELAR sec. 102 (titled ``Modification of television markets to further consumer access to relevant television programming''), 128 Stat. at 2060-62, and the related statutory copyright license provisions in STELAR sec. 204 (titled ``Market determinations''), 128 Stat. at 2067 (codified at 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E)). \2\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067. STELAR sec. 102(a) amends section 338 of the Act by adding a new paragraph (l). 47 U.S.C. 338(l) (titled ``Market Determinations''). STELAR sec. 102(b) also makes conforming amendments to the cable market modification provision at 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). STELAR sec. 204 amends the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of ``local'' stations in 17 U.S.C. 122 to cover market modifications in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E). We note that, like the cable provision, the STELAR provision pertains only to ``commercial'' stations, thus excluding noncommercial stations from seeking market modifications. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). \3\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). This section was added to the Act by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), as part of the cable must-carry/retransmission consent regime for carriage of local television stations. See also 47 CFR 76.59. \4\ See title of STELAR sec. 102, ``Modification of Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television Programming.'' See also 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (directing the Commission to consider whether a market modification would ``promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence''). There was no final Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELAR bill (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.) as it was enacted. Because section 102 of the STELAR was added from the Senate predecessor bill (S. 2799, the Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA)), we therefore look to the Senate Report No. 113-322 (dated December 12, 2014) accompanying this predecessor bill for the relevant legislative history for this provision. See Report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (``Senate Commerce Committee Report''). \5\ We note that the Commission has sometimes referred to the situation in which a county in one state is assigned to a neighboring state's local television market and, therefore, satellite subscribers residing in such county cannot receive some or any broadcast stations that originate in-state as the ``orphan county'' problem. The inability of satellite subscribers located in ``orphan counties'' to access in-state programming has been the subject of some congressional interest. See, e.g., Orphan County Telecommunications Rights Act, H.R. 4635, 113th Cong. (2014); Colorado News, Emergency, Weather, and Sports Act, S. 2375, 113th Cong. (2014); Four Corners Television Access Act, H.R. 4469, 112th Cong. (2012); Letting Our Communities Access Local Television Act, S. 3894, 111th Cong. (2010); Local Television Freedom Act, H.R. 3216, 111th Cong. (2009). \6\ See 47 CFR 76.59. As discussed herein, we propose to revise section 76.59 of our rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers. We note Congress' intent that the process established by the Commission under the section 102 of the STELAR be ``modeled'' on the current cable market modification process. See Senate Commerce Committee Report at 10. However, the STELAR recognizes the inherent difference between cable and satellite television service with provisions specific to satellite. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A), (5). \7\ STELAR sec. 102(d) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section, and update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.'' \8\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). \9\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Background 2. The STELAR, enacted December 4, 2014, is the latest in a series of statutes that have amended the Communications Act and Copyright Act to set the parameters for the satellite carriage of television broadcast stations. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) first established a ``distant'' statutory copyright license to enable satellite carriers to offer subscribers who could not receive the over- the-air signal of a broadcast station access to broadcast [[Page 19596]] programming via satellite.\10\ The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) established a ``local'' statutory copyright license and expanded satellite carriers' ability to offer broadcast television signals directly to subscribers by permitting carriers to offer ``local'' broadcast signals.\11\ The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) reauthorized the distant signal statutory copyright license until December 31, 2009 and expanded that license to allow satellite carriers to carry ``significantly viewed'' stations.\12\ The 2010 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) extended the distant signal statutory copyright license through December 31, 2014, moved the significantly viewed signal copyright provisions to the local statutory copyright license (which does not expire), and revised the ``significantly viewed'' provisions to facilitate satellite carrier use of that option.\13\ With the STELAR, Congress extends the distant signal statutory copyright license for another five years, through December 31, 2019 and, among other things, authorizes market modification in the satellite carriage context and revises the market modification provisions for cable to promote parity for satellite and cable subscribers and competition between satellite and cable operators.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 100-667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988); 17 U.S.C. 119 (distant statutory copyright license). \11\ The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 17 U.S.C. 122 (local statutory copyright license). \12\ The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004). \13\ The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010). See also Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), MB Docket No. 10-148, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-193, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010 (STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order). \14\ In section 102 of the STELAR, Congress intended to ``create a television market modification process for satellite carriers similar to the one already used for cable operators.'' Senate Commerce Committee Report at 6. The STELAR also makes a variety of reforms to the video programming distribution laws and regulations that are not relevant here to our implementation of this section. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Section 338 of the Act authorizes satellite carriage of local broadcast stations into their local markets, which is called ``local- into-local'' service.\15\ Specifically, a satellite carrier provides ``local-into-local'' service when it retransmits a local television signal back into the local market of that television station for reception by subscribers.\16\ Generally, a television station's ``local market'' is defined by the Designated Market Area (DMA) in which it is located, as determined by the Nielsen Company (Nielsen).\17\ DMAs describe each television market in terms of a unique geographic area (group of counties) and are defined by Nielsen based on measured viewing patterns.\18\ The United States is divided into 210 DMA markets. (DMAs frequently cross state lines and thus may include counties from multiple states.) Unlike cable operators, satellite carriers are not required to carry local broadcast television stations. However, if a satellite carrier chooses to carry a local station in a particular DMA in reliance on the statutory copyright license, it generally must carry any qualified local station in the same DMA that makes a timely election for retransmission consent or mandatory carriage.\19\ This is commonly referred to as the ``carry one, carry all'' requirement. If a broadcaster elects retransmission consent, the satellite carrier and broadcaster negotiate the terms of a retransmission consent agreement. With respect to those stations electing mandatory carriage, satellite carriers are generally not required to carry a station if the station's programming ``substantially duplicates'' that of another station carried by the satellite carrier in the DMA, and satellite carriers are not required to carry more than one network affiliate station in a DMA (even if the affiliates do not substantially duplicate their programming), unless the stations are licensed to communities in different states.\20\ Satellite carriers are also not required to carry an otherwise qualified station if the station fails to provide a good quality signal to the satellite carrier's local receive facility.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1). \16\ 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6). \17\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2); 47 CFR 76.66(e) (defining a television broadcast station's local market for purposes of satellite carriage as the DMA in which the station is located). We note that a commercial television broadcast station's local market for purposes of cable carriage is also generally defined as the DMA in which the station is located. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C); 47 CFR 76.55(e)(2). \18\ The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and by MVPD distribution. \19\ See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). \20\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h). See also Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Retransmission Consent Issues, CS Docket Nos. 00-96 and 99-363, Report and Order, FCC 00-417, 66 FR 7410, at para. 80, Jan. 23, 2001 (DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order). \21\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Section 102 of the STELAR, which adds section 338(l) of the Act, creates a satellite market modification regime very similar to that in place for cable, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\22\ Market modification, which has been available in the cable carriage context since 1992, will allow the Commission to modify the local television market of a commercial television broadcast station to enable those broadcasters and satellite carriers to better serve the interests of local communities.\23\ Market modification provides a means to avoid rigid adherence to DMA designations and to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.\24\ To better reflect market realities and effectuate the purposes of this provision, section 338(l), like the corresponding cable provision in section 614(h)(1)(C), permits the Commission to add communities to or delete communities from a station's local television market following a written request.\25\ Furthermore, as in the cable carriage context, the Commission may determine that particular communities are part of more than one television market.\26\ Similar to the cable carriage context, when the Commission modifies a station's market to add a community for purposes of carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license and may assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite [[Page 19597]] carrier in the local market.\27\ Likewise, if the Commission modifies a station's market to delete a community, the station is considered ``distant'' and loses its right to assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the local market. We note that, in the cable carriage context, market modifications pertain to specific stations in specific cable communities and apply to the specific cable system named in the petition.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C). \23\ See In-State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 10-238, Report, DA 11-1454, at para. 55-59 (MB rel. Aug. 29, 2011) (``In-State Programming Report'') (stating that ``market modifications could potentially address special situations in underserved areas and facilitate greater access to local information''). See also Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218, 73 FR 8255 at paras. 49-50, Feb. 13, 2008 (``Broadcast Localism Report''). \24\ Broadcast Localism Report at para. 50. The Commission has observed that, in some cases, general reliance on DMAs to define a station's market may not provide viewers with the most local programming. Certain DMAs cross state borders and, in such cases, current Commission rules sometimes require carriage of the broadcast signal of an out-of-state station rather than that of an in-state station. The Commission has observed that such cases may weaken localism, since viewers are often more likely to receive information of local interest and relevance--particularly local weather and other emergency information and local news and electoral and public affairs--from a station located in the state in which they live. Id. at paras. 49-50. \25\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1), 534(h)(1)(C). \26\ Id. 338(l)(2)(A). \27\ Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local statutory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 so that when the Commission modifies a station's market for purposes of satellite carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E); 47 U.S.C. 338. See also 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(4) (defining ``local service area of a primary transmitter'' for cable carriage copyright purposes); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). \28\ See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, MM Docket No. 92-259, Report and Order, FCC 93-144, 58 FR 17350, at para. 47, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) (stating that ``the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's market to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Section 338(l) states that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors: Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area--have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community; whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence; whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community.\29\ These statutory factors largely mirror those originally set forth for cable in section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the extent the factors differ from the previous factors applicable to cable, section 102 of the STELAR makes conforming changes to the cable factors.\30\ These include adding a fifth factor (inserted as factor number three) to section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to ``promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' \31\ Thus, STELAR creates parallel factors for satellite and cable.\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). \30\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by STELAR sec. 102(b). \31\ See id. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (``whether modifying the market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence''). \32\ Upon completion of this rulemaking proceeding, we will implement section 102(c) of the STELAR by creating a consumer guide that will explain the market modification rules and procedures as revised and adopted in this proceeding, and by posting such guide on the Commission's Web site. Section 102(c) requires the Commission to ``make information available to consumers on its Web site that explains the market modification process.'' STELAR 102(c); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. Such information must include: ``(1) who may petition to include additional communities within, or exclude communities from, a--(A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, United States Code); or (B) television market (as determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the Commission takes into account when responding to a petition described in paragraph (1).'' See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The STELAR, however, provides a unique exception applicable only in the satellite context, providing that a market modification shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also unique to satellite, the STELAR provides that a market modification will not have ``any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339 [of the Act].'' \34\ Like the cable provision, section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 days to act on a request for market modification and does not allow a carrier to delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5). \35\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Discussion 7. Consistent with the STELAR's goal of regulatory parity, we propose to amend section 76.59 of our rules--the current cable market modification rule--to apply to the satellite context.\36\ We also propose to amend section 76.59 to reflect the STELAR provisions that uniquely apply to satellite carriers. The STELAR also directs us to update our definition of a ``community'' for purposes of market modification and, below, we seek comment in this regard. We seek comment on the specific rule proposals and tentative conclusions contained herein. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ See 47 CFR 76.59. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Requesting Market Modification 8. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, we propose to allow either the affected commercial broadcast station or satellite carrier to file a satellite market modification request.\37\ Section 338(l)(1) of the Act contains very similar language to the corresponding cable statutory provision in section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.\38\ Like the cable provision, section 338(l)(1) permits the Commission to modify a local television market ``following a written request,'' but does not specify the appropriate party to make such requests.\39\ Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR further directs the Commission to ensure in both the cable and satellite contexts that ``procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request . . . fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.'' \40\ The Commission found in the cable context that the involved broadcaster and cable operator are the only appropriate parties to file market [[Page 19598]] modification requests.\41\ The Commission reasoned that ``the fact that Congress made must carry an elective choice for broadcasters diminishes the argument that third parties have standing to demand carriage of a broadcast station on a cable system. A subscriber's ability to receive the benefits provided from must carry is predicated upon a station's election to exercise its rights under the statute. No statute or Commission rule requires a broadcaster to allow its signal to be carried on a local cable system because another party wishes to view it. Instead, broadcasters are given a choice whether to demand carriage under must carry, to negotiate carriage under the retransmission consent provisions, or not to be carried on a particular cable system at all.'' \42\ Thus, only these entities have carriage rights or obligations at stake, giving them a legitimate basis for filing such requests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ See 47 CFR 76.59(a) (allowing either a broadcast station or a cable system to file market modification requests). \38\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (``Following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station, include additional communities within its local market or exclude communities from such station's local market to better effectuate the purposes of this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i) (``For purposes of this section, a broadcasting station's market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using, where available, commercial publications which delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section . . . .''). \39\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). \40\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.'' See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. \41\ See John Wiegand v. Post Newsweek Pacifica Cable, Inc., CSR 4179-M, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-239 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) (``Wiegand v. Post Newsweek'') (limiting standing in the must carry and market modification contexts to the affected broadcaster or cable operator); Must Carry Order, at para. 46. \42\ See Must Carry Order, at para. 46. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Without the active participation of the affected broadcaster, modifying the market of a particular television station, in itself, would not result in consumer access to that station.\43\ This reasoning appears to apply to the satellite context as well. Thus, a market modification would serve little purpose without the cooperation of the involved broadcaster or MVPD having carriage rights or obligations. We seek comment on our proposal and these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. We note, for example, that some local governments have previously sought the ability to petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.\44\ We recognize that seeking and providing carriage is a business decision by the involved broadcaster and satellite carrier and, therefore, we tentatively conclude to limit the participation of local governments and individuals to filing comments in support of, or in opposition to, particular market modification requests, for the reasons discussed in this and the preceding paragraph. We, nevertheless, seek comment on this tentative conclusion and how else satellite subscribers or their representatives can meaningfully advocate for the receipt of in-state programming via satellite. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, at para. 11(``[t]he granting of a request to expand the market of a television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek must carry status on cable systems added to its market. A broadcaster is not required to seek carriage of its signal on all of the cable systems in its market.''). \44\ See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, we propose to require broadcasters and satellite carriers to file market modification requests for satellite carriage purposes in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.\45\ Consistent with section 76.7, we propose that a petitioner must serve a copy of its market modification request on any MVPD operator, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested party who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted, and we propose to amend section 76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to reference ``any MVPD operator.'' \46\ We seek comment on our proposal. Because, as noted above, some local governments have expressed interest in orphan county issues, we also seek comment on whether franchising authorities \47\ or certain local government entities (such as cities, counties or towns) that may represent subscribers and local viewers in affected communities should be considered ``interested parties'' and served with market modification requests. We seek specific comment on whether to require petitioners seeking only a satellite carriage market modification to serve the relevant franchising authority. We note that while the Commission has found that a franchising authority represents the interests of subscribers and other local viewers in the cable context,\48\ franchising authorities currently have no role in satellite regulation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally required for the filing of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, 1.1117, 76.7. We remind filers that Special Relief petitions must be submitted electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of Mandatory Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing System, Public Notice, DA 11-2095 (MB rel. Dec. 30, 2011). Petitions must be initially filed in MB Docket No. 12-1. Id. \46\ See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3). While our rules currently state that documents that are required to be served must be served in paper form unless the parties agree to another method of service, 47 CFR 1.47(d), we take notice of the Commission's broader efforts to modernize our procedures where possible. See, e.g., Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, GC Docket No. 10-44, Order, FCC 14-183, 80 FR 1586, para. 26, Jan. 13, 2015 (authorizing Commission staff to accept secs. 214 and 215 filings in electronic form); Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure Relating to the Filing of Formal Complaints Under Section 208 of the Communications Act and Pole Attachment Complaints Under Section 224 of the Communications Act, GC Docket No. 10-44, Order, FCC 14-179, 79 FR 73844, para. 2, Dec. 12, 2014 (mandating electronic filing of secs. 208 and 224 complaints). Service of market modification requests seems ripe for modernization as well. In the near term, the Commission will explore whether and how this and other types of required filings might transition to electronic form. \47\ We recognize, for example, that in several states, the state acts as the franchising authority instead of a local government. \48\ See KMSO-TV, Inc., CSR-883, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 FCC2d 414, 415, para. 3 (1976). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary Requirements 11. As discussed above, the purpose of market modifications is to permit adjustments to a particular station's local television market (which is initially defined by the DMA in which it is located) to better reflect localism and ensure that satellite subscribers receive the broadcast stations most relevant to them.\49\ To this end, the STELAR requires the Commission to consider five statutory factors when evaluating market modification requests. As noted, the STELAR added a fifth factor (inserted as the new third statutory factor) for both cable and satellite to ``promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' \50\ The legislative history indicates Congress' concern that ``many consumers, particularly those who reside in DMAs that cross State lines or cover vast geographic distances,'' may ``lack access to local television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.'' \51\ The legislative history further indicates Congress' intent that the Commission ``consider the plight of these consumers when judging the merits of a [market modification] petition . . . , even if granting such modification would pose an economic challenge to various local television broadcast stations.'' \52\ We tentatively conclude that this new third statutory factor is intended to favor a market modification to add a community if doing so would increase consumer access to in- state programming. We also tentatively conclude, however, that this new third statutory factor is not intended to bar a market modification simply because it would not result in increased consumer access to in- state programming. In such cases, we believe this new third [[Page 19599]] statutory factor would be inapplicable.\53\ We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and any alternative interpretations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the Commission to ``afford particular attention to the value of localism'' by taking into account the five statutory factors). \50\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). We will refer to this new factor as the ``third statutory factor.'' \51\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. \52\ Id. \53\ We note that this is similar to how we apply the fourth statutory factor (``whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community''). 47 U.S.C.534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). The Commission has found that this fourth factor (previously the third factor) is not intended to operate as a bar to a station's market modification request whenever other stations could also be shown to serve the communities at issue. See e.g., Great Trails Broadcasting Corp., DA 95-1700, para. 23 (MB rel. Aug. 11, 1995); Paxson San Jose License, Inc., DA 97-2276, para. 13 (MB rel. Oct. 30, 1997). Rather, the fourth factor is intended to enhance a station's market modification request where it could be shown that other stations do not provide news coverage of issues of concern to the communities at issue. See id. Likewise, we believe the new third statutory factor is intended to enhance a station's market modification request where it could be shown that such modification would promote consumer access to in- state programming. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. We tentatively conclude that the evidentiary requirements currently required in section 76.59 continue to be appropriate to support and evaluate market modification petitions. Specifically, we propose that market modification requests for both satellite carriers and cable system operators must include the following evidence: A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market; Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) or Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas. Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local market. Television station programming information derived from station logs or the local edition of the television guide. Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings. Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.\54\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(1) through (6). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1999, the Commission adopted this standardized evidence approach for market modifications in the cable context in an effort to promote administrative efficiency, given the 120-day time period for Commission action on such petitions.\55\ We seek comment on whether to do the same for satellite and on whether any of these evidentiary requirements are not relevant in the satellite context. We further seek comment on whether any other evidence should be required to evaluate the statutory factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, CS Docket No. 95-178, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 99-116, 64 FR 33788, para. 44, Jun. 24, 1999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. In particular, we seek comment on what evidence could be used to demonstrate the new ``third statutory factor,'' which seeks to promote consumer access to in-state programming.\56\ For example, in situations in which this third statutory factor would apply, should we require the petitioner to show that the station at issue is licensed to a community within the state in which the modification is requested and that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state stations? We note that the current rule already requires a petitioner to provide television station programming information. Would this information provide sufficient evidence of whether the station at issue offers programming (e.g., news, sports, weather, political, talk shows, etc.) specifically covering in-state issues? Should we require a petitioner to provide a list of advertisers, which would show that the station is used to attract viewers to local businesses? In addition, are there any satellite-specific evidentiary showings that we should require separate and apart from the six evidentiary showings described above? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. In addition, we tentatively conclude to revise section 76.59(b)(2) of the rules to add a reference to the digital noise- limited service contour (NLSC), which is the relevant service contour for a station's digital signal.\57\ Section 76.59(b)(2) requires petitioners seeking a market modification to provide Grade B contour maps delineating the station's technical service area; \58\ however the Grade B contour defines an analog television station's service area.\59\ Since the completion of the full power digital television transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog stations and, therefore, the Commission uses the NLSC set forth in 47 CFR 73.622(e),\60\ in place of the analog Grade B contour set forth in 47 CFR 73.683(a), to describe a full power station's technical service area.\61\ Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has required full power stations to provide NLSC maps, in place of Grade B contour maps, for purposes of cable market modifications.\62\ Therefore, we tentatively conclude that section 76.59(b)(2) should be updated for purposes of market modifications in both the cable and satellite contexts. However, we propose to retain the reference in the rule to the Grade B contour because that reference may still have relevance with respect to low power television (LPTV) stations.\63\ We [[Page 19600]] seek comment on these tentative conclusions. (We are also updating section 76.59(b)(6) of the rules to reflect the change from ``evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households . . .'' to ``evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors'' in the fifth statutory factor (emphasis added).\64\ We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). \58\ 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). \59\ See 47 CFR 73.683(a). \60\ As set forth in section 73.622(e), a full-power station's DTV service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise- limited service level. See 47 CFR 73.622(e). \61\ See STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 51 (2010) (stating that the digital NLSC is ``the appropriate service contour relevant for a station's digital signal''); 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 09-182, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-92, 75 FR 33227, para. 103, June 11, 2010 (stating that the Commission developed the digital NLSC to approximate the same probability of service as the Grade B contour and has stated that the two are roughly equivalent); Report To Congress: The Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Reauthorization Act of 2004; Study of Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures; ET Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199, para. 111 (rel. Dec. 9, 2005). Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has used the digital NLSC in place of the analog Grade B contour in cable contexts in addition to market modifications. See, e.g., KXAN, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-589, para. 8 n.32 (MB rel. Apr. 1, 2010) (using the NLSC in place of the Grade B contour for purposes of the cable network non-duplication and syndicated program exclusivity rules). Congress has also acted on the presumption that the two standards are roughly equivalent, by adopting parallel definitions for households that are ``unserved'' by analog (measured by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) broadcasters in the STELA legislation enacted after the DTV transition. See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A)(i). \62\ See, e.g., Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-824, para. 6, n.14 (MB rel. May 12, 2010) (stating, in a market modification order, that the Commission has treated a digital station's NLSC as the functional equivalent of an analog station's Grade B contour); Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 04-1414, para. 7, n.27 (MB rel. May 20, 2004). \63\ We note that the Commission has tentatively concluded that it should extend the September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline for LPTV stations. See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14- 151, 79 FR 70824, para. 4, Nov. 28., 2014. Although LPTV stations are not entitled to mandatory satellite carriage, see 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(3), LPTV stations may be entitled to mandatory cable carriage, but only in limited circumstances. Both the Communications Act and the Commission's rules mandate that only a minimum number of qualified low power stations must be carried by cable systems, see 47 U.S.C. 534(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.56(b)(3), and, in order to qualify, such stations must meet several criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(2)(A)-(F); 47 CFR 76.55(d)(1)-(6). \64\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that satellite market modification requests that do not include the required evidence also be dismissed without prejudice and may be supplemented and re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.\65\ In addition, consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that, during the pendency of a market modification petition before the Commission, satellite carriers will also be required to maintain the status quo with regard to signal carriage and must not delete from carriage the signal of an affected commercial television station.\66\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ See 47 CFR 76.59(c). \66\ See 47 CFR 76.59(d). See also 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(iii); Must Carry Order, at para. 46. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Market Determinations 16. Consistent with the cable carriage context, we interpret the statute to require that market modifications in the satellite carriage context must be limited to the specific station or stations identified in the market modification request and to the specific satellite community or communities referenced in the request.\67\ This reading is based on the statute's language granting authority to modify markets ``with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station.'' \68\ This also makes sense because market modification determinations are highly fact-specific and turn on whether a particular commercial television broadcast station serves the needs of a specific community. We also propose to consider market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite contexts. We believe this proposal makes sense given the service area differences between satellite carriers and cable systems and the potential difference between a cable and satellite community, given that the former is defined as ``a separate and distinct community or municipal entity'' and we consider defining the latter using one or more five-digit zip codes.\69\ We also propose that market modification requests will only apply to the satellite carrier or carriers named in the request.\70\ For example, a modification may not always appropriately apply to both carriers because their spot beams may be different, even though they are serving the same market and thus one may have an infeasibility defense while the other may not. We seek comment on these proposals. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. For example, should market determinations apply for purposes of both cable and satellite carriage and what procedures or definitional changes would be needed to implement such an approach? How would such an alternative approach account for the STELAR's exception for satellite carriage that would not be ``technically and economically feasible'' (discussed below)? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ See Must Carry Order, at para. 47, n.139 (stating that ``the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's market to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59. We note that this is also consistent with the Commission's previous determination that stations may make a different retransmission consent/mandatory carriage election in the satellite context than that made in the cable context. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, at para. 23. \68\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). \69\ See id. at 1930, para. 24. \70\ This is also consistent with the satellite carriage election process. See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, CS Docket No. 00-96, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-249, 66 FR 49124, para. 62, Sept. 26., 2001 (DBS Must Carry Reconsideration Order) (``where there is more than one satellite carrier in a local market area, a television station can elect retransmission consent for one satellite carrier and elect must carry for another satellite carrier''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. Prior Determinations. Because market modification determinations are so highly fact-specific, we tentatively conclude that prior market determinations made with respect to cable carriage will not automatically apply to the satellite context. It appears that the inherent differences between cable and satellite service would make such automatic application inadvisable. We note, however, that historic carriage is one of the five factors the Commission would consider in evaluating market modification requests and could carry weight in determining a market modification in the satellite context.\71\ We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. For example, should prior market determinations in the cable context carry a presumption of approval in the satellite context or automatically apply to the satellite context? We note, however, that any presumption or automatic application would have to be subject to the STELAR's exception for satellite carriers if the resulting carriage would not be ``technically and economically feasible.'' Would such alternative approaches impose a significant burden on satellite carriers who would have to evaluate the feasibility of carriage resulting from all prior determinations? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \71\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i)(I) (whether the station, or other stations located in the same area-- ``have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. Carriage after a market modification. We tentatively conclude that television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to section 76.66 of the rules) by virtue of a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to section 76.59 of the rules) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. We further tentatively conclude that a satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station. These proposals are consistent with our cable rules, as well as with existing satellite carriage procedures, including those involving new television stations.\72\ In addition, we tentatively conclude that the carriage election must be made in accordance with section 76.66(d)(1).\73\ We seek comment on these tentative conclusions [[Page 19601]] and on any other procedural requirements we should consider. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \72\ See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5), 76.66(d)(1) and (d)(3). \73\ See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1). Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). The rule requires that a television station's written notification shall include the following information: (1) Station's call sign; (2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station's address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) Station's community of license; (5) Station's DMA assignment; and (6) Station's election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). The rule also requires that, within 30 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station, a satellite carrier must notify the station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the station. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility Exception for Satellite Carriers 19. We propose to include the statutory language of section 338(l)(3) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek comment on this implementation. section 338(l)(3) provides that ``[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.'' \74\ The legislative history indicates that Congress recognized ``that there are technical and operational differences that may make a particular television market modification difficult for a satellite carrier to effectuate.'' \75\ The legislative history also indicates ``that claims of the existence of such difficulties should be well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration process.'' \76\ Based on the language of the provision and the legislative history, we tentatively conclude that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility. We further interpret the statutory text as requiring a satellite carrier to raise any technical or economic impediments in the market modification proceeding and we propose to address this issue in the market modification proceeding. This reading is consistent with the language of the statute (that we consider whether the carrier can accomplish carriage ``at the time of the determination''). Moreover, this will be most efficient for all parties. We seek comment on this proposal and whether the satellite carrier should be deemed to have waived technical or economic infeasibility arguments if not raised in response to the market modification request (and, thus, be prohibited from raising such a claim after a market determination, such as in response to a station's request for carriage). We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. In addition, we propose to grant a meritorious market modification request, even if such grant would not create a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility.\77\ This would ensure that, if there is a change in circumstances such that it later becomes technically and economically feasible for the satellite carrier to carry the station, then the station could assert its carriage rights pursuant to the earlier market modification.\78\ We seek comment on this proposal or if, alternatively, we should deny a market modification request that would not create a new carriage obligation at the time of the determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \74\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). \75\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. \76\ See id. \77\ We note that this is consistent with the cable carriage context, in which the Commission might grant a market modification, even if such grant would not result in a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to the station being a duplicating signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5). \78\ This concept is similar to the duplicating signals situation, in which a satellite carrier must add a television station to its channel line-up if such station no longer duplicates the programming of another local television station. See 47 CFR 76.66(h)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. We also invite comment on the types of technical or economic impediments contemplated by this provision and the type of evidence needed to prove such infeasibility claims. Are there any objective criteria by which the Commission could determine technical or economic infeasibility? For example, the Commission has recognized that spot beam coverage limitations, in the provision of local-into-local service context, may be a legitimate technical impediment.\79\ Under what circumstances would the limitations or coverage of a spot beam be a sufficient basis for a satellite carrier to prove that carriage of a station in the community at issue is not technically and economically feasible? Should we require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community? We also seek specific comment from satellite carriers on the complexities and expense that may be associated with reconfiguring a spot beam to cover additional communities added to the market served by the spot beam by operation of the market modification process. In addition, in the event of a Commission finding of technical or economic infeasibility, we seek comment on whether we should impose a reporting requirement on satellite carriers to notify the affected broadcaster if circumstances change at a later time making it technically and economically feasible for the carrier to carry the station. Would such changes in circumstances be sufficiently public so as to not necessitate the burden of such a reporting requirement? If not notified by the carrier, how else could a broadcaster find out about such a change in the feasibility of carriage? To the extent that a satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to some, but not all, subscribers in the community, should we allow or require the carrier to deliver the station to subscribers in the community who are capable of receiving the signal? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, at para. 42 (allowing satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to provide local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not cover the entire market). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. We note that compiling the standardized evidence necessary to demonstrate that a market modification should be granted may not be, in some instances, a simple or inexpensive process. In this regard, should the Commission, in the case of satellite market modifications, require or encourage stations seeking market modifications to contact a satellite carrier before filing a market modification request in order to get an initial determination on whether the carrier considers the request technically and economically feasible? Such an initial inquiry might save some broadcasters the time and expense of compiling the standardized evidence for a modification that is not technically and economically feasible by alerting them to the technical or economic issue, which they could then take into account in deciding whether to file the request. We seek comment on this issue. E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive Distant Signals via Satellite 22. We propose to include the statutory language of section 338(l)(5) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek comment on any further guidance we can give for its implementation.\80\ Section 338(l)(5) provides that ``[n]o modification of a commercial television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this subsection shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.'' \81\ There are two key restrictions on a satellite subscriber's eligibility to receive ``distant'' (out-of-market) signals.\82\ First, subscribers are generally eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier only if the subscriber is ``unserved'' over the air by [[Page 19602]] a local station of the same network.\83\ Second, even if ``unserved,'' a subscriber is not eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier if the carrier is making ``available'' to such subscriber a local station of the same network.\84\ We believe section 338(l)(5) is largely intended as an exception to these two subscriber eligibility requirements. In other words, under this reading, the addition of a new local station to a local television market by operation of a market modification (which might otherwise restrict a subscriber's eligibility to receive a distant station) would not disqualify an otherwise eligible satellite subscriber from receiving a distant station of the same network. For example, a subscriber may be receiving a distant station because the subscriber resides in a ``short market,'' \85\ has obtained a waiver from the relevant network station,\86\ or is otherwise eligible to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339. That subscriber will continue to be eligible to receive the distant station after a market modification that adds a new local station of the same network. We seek comment on our proposed reading of this provision. We also seek comment on any alternative interpretations. We invite comment on the specific situations intended to be covered by section 338(l)(5). We seek comment on whether section 338(l)(5) also means that the deletion of a local station from a local television market by operation of a market modification would not make otherwise ineligible subscribers now eligible to receive a distant station of the same network. We also seek comment on any other rule changes necessary to implement this statutory provision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \80\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5). \81\ Id. \82\ See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a station is considered ``distant'' with respect to a subscriber if such station originates from outside of the subscriber's local television market (or DMA). See id. \83\ The Copyright Act defines an ``unserved household,'' with respect to a particular television network, as ``a household that cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air signal containing the primary stream, or, on or after the qualifying date, the multicast stream, originating in that household's local market and affiliated with that network--(i) if the signal originates as an analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the Federal Communications Commission in section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or (ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal, intensity defined in the values for the digital television noise-limited service contour, as defined in regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (section 73.622(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations), as such regulations may be amended from time to time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved household can also be one that is subject to one of four statutory waivers or exemptions. See id. 119(d)(10)(B) through (E). \84\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3). This second restriction on eligibility is commonly referred to as the ``no distant where local'' rule. A satellite carrier makes ``available'' a local signal to a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier offers that local signal to other subscribers who reside in the same zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F). \85\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). By a ``short market,'' we refer to a market in which one of the four major television networks is not offered on the primary stream of a local broadcast station, thus permitting satellite carriers to deliver a distant station affiliated with that missing network to subscribers in that market. \86\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Definition of Community 23. As directed by the STELAR, we consider how to define a ``community'' for purposes of market modification in both the cable and satellite contexts.\87\ With respect to a ``satellite community,'' we generally invite comment on how to define a ``satellite community,'' and seek specific comment on two alternate proposals for this definition below. With respect to a ``cable community,'' we tentatively conclude that our existing definition of a ``cable community'' (in section 76.5(dd) of the rules) has worked well in cable market modifications for more than 20 years and should not be changed. While we continue to believe the cable definition best effectuates the cable market modification provision, we nevertheless invite comment on whether we need to update this definition, such as whether to allow cable modifications on a county basis. Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR requires the Commission to ``update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market'' in both the satellite and cable contexts.\88\ The legislative history indicates Congress' intent for the Commission ``to consider alternative definitions for community that could make the market modification process more effective and useful.'' \89\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \87\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. \88\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) (``MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION.--As part of the rulemaking required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall . . . update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934''); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. \89\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. The concept of a ``community'' is important in the market modification context, because the term describes the geographic area that will be added to or deleted from a station's local television market, which in turn determines the stations that must be carried by a cable operator (or, in the future, a satellite carrier) to subscribers in that community.\90\ Because of the localized nature of cable systems, cable communities are easily defined by the geographic boundaries of a given cable system, which are often, but not always, coincident with a municipal boundary and may vary as determined on a case-by-case basis.\91\ In the cable carriage context, the Commission considers market modification requests on a community-by-community basis \92\ and defines a community unit in terms of a ``distinct community or municipal entity'' where a cable system operates or will operate.\93\ A ``satellite community,'' however, is not as easily defined as a cable community. Unlike cable service, which reaches subscribers in a defined local area via local franchises, satellite carriers offer service on a national basis, with no connection to a particular local community or municipality. Moreover, satellite service is sometimes offered in areas of the country that do not have cable service, and thus cannot be defined by cable communities. The Commission previously faced the question of how to define a satellite community in 2005, after the SHVERA added significantly viewed provisions for the satellite carriage context.\94\ In the significantly viewed context, the Commission, seeking regulatory parity, defined a satellite community in the same way as a cable community in most situations.\95\ However, the Commission [[Page 19603]] allowed a satellite carrier to define a satellite community ``by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas'' in the limited situation in which there was no previously defined cable community and the area was unincorporated.\96\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \90\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). \91\ See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with Respect to the Definition of a Cable Television System and the Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No. 20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77-205, para. 20, n. 5 (rel. Apr. 6, 1977) (1977 Cable Order). \92\ See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that the cable carriage rules apply ``on a community-by-community basis''). See also 47 CFR 76.5(dd), 76.59. \93\ 47 CFR 76.5(dd) defines ``community unit'' as: ``A cable television system, or portion of a cable television system, that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas).'' A cable system community is assigned a community unit identifier number (``CUID'') when registered with the Commission, pursuant to section 76.1801 of the rules. 47 CFR 76.1801. \94\ See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, Report and Order, FCC 05-187, 70 FR 76504, para. 51, December 27, 2005 (SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order). The SHVERA defined the term ``community'' for purposes of the significantly viewed rules, as either ``(A) a county or a cable community, as determined under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Commission applicable to determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are significantly viewed; or (B) a satellite community, as determined under such rules, regulations, and authorizations (or revisions thereof) as the Commission may prescribe in implementing the requirements of this section.'' 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(3). \95\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg) (defining a ``satellite community'' as ``[a] separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas). The boundaries of any such unincorporated community may be defined by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas. Satellite communities apply only in areas in which there is no pre-existing cable community, as defined in 76.5(dd).''). See also SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 50. We note, however, that the SHVERA required satellite carriers to use the existing defined cable communities on the significantly viewed list. See 47 U.S.C. 340(a)(1); 340(i)(3)(A). This provision, in part, caused the Commission to favor the use of cable communities to define future communities, except for unincorporated areas, to promote consistent rules and significantly viewed listings for both satellite and cable. See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 51 (stating that the ``definition will also make it more likely that a cable system subsequently built in such an area would serve a `community' similar to the satellite community, thus making the [Significantly Viewed] List more easily used by both cable and satellite providers''). This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the market modification context if we adopt our proposal to separately consider and apply market modifications in the cable and satellite contexts. \96\ 47 CFR 76.5(gg). The Commission required satellite carriers to use zip codes that were adjacent to each other ``to prevent carriers from cherry-picking their service to these areas.'' SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. We seek comment on whether we should use the definition of ``satellite community'' in section 76.5(gg) for satellite market modifications.\97\ Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should use one or more adjacent five-digit zip codes to form the basis of a ``satellite community'' for satellite market modifications.\98\ Would allowing satellite carriers to use one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas (notwithstanding the presence of a cable community) in the market modification context better effectuate the STELAR's goal to promote consumer access to relevant television programming? What other possible definitions of satellite community should we consider? Would another definition be more technically and economically feasible for satellite carriers to apply and, thus, facilitate successful market modifications? \99\ For example, it might not be technically and economically feasible for a satellite carrier to retransmit a station to an entire cable community (as defined in 76.5(dd)), but it might be feasible for the carrier to retransmit the station to particular portions of that community, such as to certain zip codes within such community. What definition of community will most effectively promote consumer access to in-state programming? \100\ For example, is it appropriate to consider county-based modifications in the satellite context, particularly in situations in which the county is assigned to an out-of-state DMA? \101\ If we allow modifications on a county basis in the satellite context, should we also allow such modifications in the cable context? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \97\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg). \98\ We note that the Commission used zip codes in lieu of community units to define the various zones of protection afforded under the satellite exclusivity rules applicable to nationally distributed superstations. See 47 CFR 76.122, 76.123; Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Application of Network Non-Duplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals, CS Docket No. 00-2, Report and Order, FCC 00-388, 65 FR 68082, para. 28, Nov. 14, 2000, recon. granted in part, denied in part, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 02-287, 67 FR 68944, Nov. 14, 2002. \99\ We note that the two satellite carriers previously favored the use of zip codes in the significantly viewed context to offer ``greater certainty to consumers.'' See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52. \100\ We take particular note here of Congress' concern that consumers in an out-of-state DMA may ``lack access to local television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.'' Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. \101\ See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),\102\ the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\103\ In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\104\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \102\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). \103\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). \104\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes 27. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission proposes satellite television ``market modification'' rules to implement section 102 of the STELAR.\105\ The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.\106\ The Commission currently has the authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.\107\ With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order ``to further consumer access to relevant television programming.'' \108\ In this NPRM, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, the Commission proposes to implement section 102 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\109\ In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs the Commission to consider whether it should make changes to the current cable market modification rules,\110\ and it also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision.\111\ Accordingly, as part of the implementation of the STELAR, the Commission proposes to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and considers whether it should make any other changes to the current cable market modification rules. The STELAR requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.\112\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \105\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). \106\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067. \107\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 76.59. \108\ See title of STELAR sec. 102, ``Modification of Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television Programming.'' See also Report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (``Senate Commerce Committee Report''). \109\ See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission proposes to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers. \110\ STELAR sec. 102(d). \111\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). \112\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Legal Basis 28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Pub. L. 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as [[Page 19604]] amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534. 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\113\ The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \114\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act.\115\ 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.\116\ The rule changes proposed herein will directly affect small television broadcast stations and small MVPD systems, which include cable system operators and satellite carriers. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \113\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). \114\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6). \115\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in 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.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3). \116\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' 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. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.'' \117\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\118\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\119\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\120\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \117\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. Examples of this category are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (``CCTV'') services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (``DTH'') services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (``MMDS''). \118\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \119\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \120\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above.\121\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\122\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\123\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\124\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \121\ See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \122\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \123\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \124\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.\125\ According to SNL Kagan, there are 1,258 cable operators.\126\ Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard.\127\ In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.\128\ Current Commission records show 4,584 cable systems nationwide.\129\ Of this total, 4,012 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \125\ 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. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, MM Docket No. 93-215, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, FCC 95-196, 60 FR 35854, July 12, 1995. \126\ Data provided by SNL Kagan to Commission Staff upon request on March 25, 2014. Depending upon the number of homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable operators use one or more cable systems to provide video service. See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, FCC 13-99, at para. 24 (rel. July 22, 2013) (15th Annual Competition Report). \127\ SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). We note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14 MVPD operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Competition Report, at paras. 27-28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The Commission applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, Report and Order, FCC 11-182, 77 FR 40276, July 9, 2012 (CALM Act Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011). \128\ 47 CFR 76.901(c). \129\ The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database on July 1, 2014. A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications [[Page 19605]] 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.'' \130\ The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.\131\ Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard.\132\ We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.\133\ Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under this definition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \130\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3. \131\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01- 158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001) (establishing the threshold for determining whether a cable operator meets the definition of small cable operator at 677,000 subscribers and stating that this threshold will remain in effect for purposes of section 76.901(f) until the Commission issues a superseding public notice). We note that current industry data indicates that there are approximately 54 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today and that this updated number may be considered in developing size standards in a context different than section 76.901(f). NCTA, Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base (June 2014), https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited June 25, 2014). \132\ See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). \133\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by- case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to Sec. 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. Satellite Carriers. The term ``satellite carrier'' means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) frequencies.\134\ As a general practice (not mandated by any regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities package their own programming and may or may not be Commission licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station license.\135\ The Commission has concluded that the definition of ``satellite carrier'' includes all three of these types of entities.\136\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \134\ The Communications Act defines the term ``satellite carrier'' by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C.119(d)(6). Part 100 of the Commission's rules was eliminated in 2002 and now both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under Part 25 of the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 02-110, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148. \135\ See, e.g., Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request For Special Temporary Authority for the DIRECTV 5 Satellite; Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request for Blanket Authorization for 1,000,000 Receive Only Earth Stations to Provide Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the U.S. using the Canadian Authorized DIRECTV 5 Satellite at the 72.5[deg] W.L. Broadcast Satellite Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04-2526 (Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004). \136\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at paras. 59-60. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35. 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, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\137\ which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\138\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\139\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\140\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.\141\ Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.\142\ Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \137\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \138\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \139\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \140\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. \141\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002). \142\ See 15th Annual Competition Report, at para. 27. As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 million subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 million subscribers. Id. at paras. 27, 110-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\143\ which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\144\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms [[Page 19606]] that operated for the entire year.\145\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\146\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \143\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \144\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \145\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \146\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\147\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\148\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\149\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\150\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \147\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \148\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \149\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \150\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38. Open Video Services. The open video system (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.\151\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\152\ OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\153\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\154\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\155\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\156\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.\157\ Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.\158\ The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \151\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, FCC 07- 206, 74 FR 11102, para. 135, March 16, 2009 (Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report). \152\ See 47 U.S.C. 573. \153\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \154\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \155\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \156\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. \157\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html. \158\ See Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report, at para. 135. BSPs are newer businesses that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39. Wireless cable systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) \159\ and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) \160\ 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.\161\ 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, we estimate 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.\162\ After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find 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.\163\ 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 [[Page 19607]] 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.\164\ Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.\165\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \159\ BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS). See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act-- Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, FCC 95-230, 60 FR 36524, para. 7, Jul. 17, 1995. \160\ EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). See id. \161\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). \162\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre- auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. \163\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, AU Docket No. 09-56, Public Notice, DA 09-1376 (WTB rel. Jun. 26, 2009). \164\ Id. at 8296. \165\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, DA 09-2378 (WTB rel. Nov. 6, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40. 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. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\166\ which was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\167\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\168\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\169\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses.\170\ The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.\171\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \166\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \167\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \168\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \169\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. \170\ http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp. \171\ The term ``small entity'' within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 601(4) through (6). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\172\ Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\173\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\174\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\175\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \172\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \173\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \174\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \175\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' \176\ The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope.\177\ We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \176\ 15 U.S.C. 632. \177\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of ``small-business concern,'' which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern'' to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 CFR 121.102(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43. 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. These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\178\ Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\179\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\180\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\181\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \178\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. \179\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. \180\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. \181\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' \182\ The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.\183\ The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 808 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 709 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 had annual receipts of more than $25,000,000.\184\ Because the Census has [[Page 19608]] no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \182\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``515120 Television Broadcasting,'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, ``These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' \183\ 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120. \184\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 (515120), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390 stations.\185\ Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395.\186\ NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.\187\ Therefore, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \185\ See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) (Broadcast Station Totals) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331381A1.pdf. \186\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. \187\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations \188\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are 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 does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \188\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.\189\ The Commission has estimated the number of licensed Class A television stations to be 431.\190\ The Commission has also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.\191\ Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \189\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120. \190\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. \191\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 48. The NPRM proposes to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under section 76.59 of the rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable carriage rights. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, the proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file market modification requests and/or responsive pleadings in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.\192\ Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, the proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to provide specific forms of evidence to support market modification petitions, should they chose to file such petitions. The proposed rules would also require a satellite carrier to provide specific evidence to demonstrate its claim that satellite carriage resulting from a market modification would be technically or economically infeasible. The NPRM does not otherwise propose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \192\ Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to oppose market modification requests would need to file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 CFR 76.7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 49. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.\193\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \193\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50. Consistent with the statute's goal of promoting regulatory parity between cable and satellite service, the NPRM proposes to apply the existing cable market modification rule to the satellite context. The proposed rules would not change the market modification process currently applicable to small television stations and small cable systems, although the proposed rules would for the first time allow stations to request market modifications for purposes of satellite carriage. Small TV stations that choose to file satellite market modification petitions must comply with the associated filing and evidentiary requirements; however, the filing of such petitions is voluntary. In addition, small TV stations may want to respond to a petition to modify its market (or the market of a competitor station) filed by a satellite carrier or a competitor station; however, there are no standardized evidentiary requirements associated with such responsive pleadings. Through a market modification process, a small TV station may gain or lose carriage rights with respect to a particular community, based on the five statutory factors, to better reflect localism.\194\ We do not [[Page 19609]] have data to measure whether small TV stations on the whole are more or less likely to benefit from market modifications, so we invite small TV stations to comment on this issue. In addition, we invite comment on whether there are any alternatives we should consider to the Commission's proposed implementation of section 102 of the STELAR that would minimize any adverse impact on small TV stations, but which are consistent with the statute and its goals, such as promoting localism and regulatory parity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \194\ Section 338(l) of the Act provides that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area--(a) have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and (b) have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community; (2) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (3) whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence; (4) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (5) evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community. 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51. The proposed rules, for the first time, would allow satellite carriers to request market modifications. As previously discussed, only two entities--DIRECTV and DISH Network--provide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. As noted in section C of this IRFA, neither one of these two entities qualify as a small entity and small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with satellite services.\195\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \195\ See IRFA para. 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule 52. None. B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 53. This document contains proposed information collection requirements.\196\ The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\197\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \196\ See OMB Control Number 3060-0546. \197\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104- 13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54. Public and agency comments are due June 12, 2015. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.\198\ In addition, we seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.\199\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \198\ See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). \199\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55. To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward- pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. OMB Control Number: 3060-0546. Title: Section 76.59, Market Modification of Broadcast Television Stations for Purposes of the Cable and Satellite Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules. Form Number: Not applicable. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities. Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents and 100 responses. Estimated Time Per Response: 4 to 40 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534. Total Annual Burden: 976 hours. Total Annual Costs: $1,277,300. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents. Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s). Needs and Uses: On March 26, 2015, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, in MB Docket No. 15-71, proposing satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). To implement section 102 of the STELAR, the NPRM proposes to revise 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules to apply it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable carriage rights. C. Ex Parte Rules 56. The proceeding this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.\200\ Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must contain [[Page 19610]] a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 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) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \200\ See 47 CFR 1.1206 (Permit-but-disclose proceedings); see also id. Sec. Sec. 1.1200 et seq. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Filing Requirements 57. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,\201\ interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).\202\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \201\ See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419. \202\ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy 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. [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. [ssquf] 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. [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. 58. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (tty). 59. Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be publically available online via ECFS.\203\ These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \203\ Documents will generally be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60. For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418- 7142. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. V. Ordering Clauses 61. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted and notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 62. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 Cable television, Satellite television, Broadcast television. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows: PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 0 1. The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573. 0 2. Section 76.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: Sec. 76.7 General special relief, waiver, enforcement, complaint, show cause, forfeiture, and declaratory ruling procedures. (a) * * * (3) Certificate of service. Petitions and Complaints shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system operator, multichannel video programming distributor, franchising authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested person who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted. * * * * * 3. Section 76.59 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (d) and by adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: Sec. 76.59 Modification of television markets. (a) The Commission, following a written request from a broadcast station, cable system or satellite carrier, may deem that the television market, as defined either by Sec. 76.55(e) or Sec. 76.66(e), of a particular commercial television broadcast station should include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's [[Page 19611]] television market. In this respect, communities may be considered part of more than one television market. (b) * * * (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market. (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) or Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas. * * * * * (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings. (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records. * * * * * (d) A cable operator or satellite carrier shall not delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this section. (e) A market determination under this section shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination. (f) No modification of a commercial television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this section shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals from a satellite carrier pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 339. 0 4. Section 76.66 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(6) and revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage. * * * * * (d) * * * (6) Carriage after a market modification. Television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to Sec. 76.66) due to a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to Sec. 76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. * * * * * (e) Market definitions. (1) A local market, in the case of both commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations, is the designated market area in which a station is located, unless such market is amended pursuant to Sec. 76.59, and * * * * * Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director. [FR Doc. 2015-08435 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![19594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
final rule will be withdrawn and all of encryption, and be free of any defects current cable market modification rule
public comments received will be or viruses. to apply also to satellite carriage, while
addressed in a subsequent final rule Docket: All documents in the adding provisions to address the unique
based on this proposed rule. EPA will electronic docket are listed in the nature of satellite television service. The
not institute a second comment period. www.regulations.gov index. Although document also proposes to make
Any parties interested in commenting listed in the index, some information is conforming changes to the cable market
on this action should do so at this time. not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other modification rules and considers
DATES: Comments must be received in information whose disclosure is whether to make any other changes to
writing by May 13, 2015. restricted by statute. Certain other the current market modification rules.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
material, such as copyrighted material, DATES: Comments are due on or before
identified by Docket ID Number EPA– is not placed on the Internet and will be May 13, 2015; reply comments are due
R03–OAR–2013–0593 by one of the publicly available only in hard copy on or before May 28, 2015. Written
following methods: form. Publicly available docket comments on the Paperwork Reduction
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the materials are available either Act proposed information collection
on-line instructions for submitting electronically in www.regulations.gov or requirements must be submitted by the
comments. in hard copy during normal business public, Office of Management and
B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. hours at the Air Protection Division, Budget (OMB), and other interested
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0593, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, parties on or before June 12, 2015.
David Campbell, Associate Director, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, submit comments, identified by MB
Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of Docket No. 15–71, by any of the
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 following methods:
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. • Federal Communications
19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://
listed EPA Region III address. Such
email at talley.david@epa.gov. fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
deliveries are only accepted during the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
instructions for submitting comments.
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made further information, please see the • Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class,
for deliveries of boxed information. information provided in the direct final Express, and Priority mail must be
Instructions: Direct your comments to action, with the same title, that is addressed to the FCC Secretary, Office
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ of the Secretary, Federal
0593. EPA’s policy is that all comments section of this Federal Register Communications Commission, 445 12th
received will be included in the public publication. Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
docket without change, and may be Commercial overnight mail (other than
Dated: March 25, 2015.
made available online at U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
William C. Early, Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East
www.regulations.gov, including any Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
personal information provided, unless Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD
the comment includes information
[FR Doc. 2015–08414 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 20743.
claimed to be Confidential Business BILLING CODE 6560–50–P • Hand or Messenger Delivery: All
Information (CBI) or other information hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. paper filings for the FCC Secretary must
Do not submit information that you FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
consider to be CBI or otherwise COMMISSION 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
protected through www.regulations.gov Washington, DC 20554.
47 CFR Part 76 • People with Disabilities: Contact
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, [MB Docket No. 15–71; FCC 15–34] the FCC to request reasonable
which means EPA will not know your accommodations (accessible format
identity or contact information unless Television Market Modification; documents, sign language interpreters,
you provide it in the body of your Statutory Implementation CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
comment. If you send an email AGENCY: Federal Communications or phone: 202–418–0530; or TTY: 202–
comment directly to EPA without going Commission. 418–0432.
through www.regulations.gov, your ACTION: Proposed rule. For detailed instructions for
email address will be automatically submitting comments and additional
captured and included as part of the SUMMARY: In this document, the information on the rulemaking process,
comment that is placed in the public Commission proposes satellite see the section IV. ‘‘PROCEDURAL
docket and made available on the television market modification rules to MATTERS’’ heading of the
Internet. If you submit an electronic implement section 102 of the Satellite SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
comment, EPA recommends that you Television Extension and Localism Act this document. In addition to filing
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
include your name and other contact (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 comments with the Secretary, a copy of
information in the body of your (‘‘STELAR’’). The STELAR amended the any comments on the Paperwork
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM Communications Act and the Copyright Reduction Act information collection
you submit. If EPA cannot read your Act to give the Commission authority to requirements contained herein should
comment due to technical difficulties modify a commercial television be submitted to the Federal
and cannot contact you for clarification, broadcast station’s local television Communications Commission via email
EPA may not be able to consider your market for purposes of satellite carriage to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A.
comment. Electronic files should avoid rights. In this document, the Fraser, Office of Management and
the use of special characters, any form Commission proposes to revise the Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19597
carrier in the local market.27 Likewise, section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the current cable market modification
if the Commission modifies a station’s extent the factors differ from the rule—to apply to the satellite context.36
market to delete a community, the previous factors applicable to cable, We also propose to amend section 76.59
station is considered ‘‘distant’’ and loses section 102 of the STELAR makes to reflect the STELAR provisions that
its right to assert mandatory carriage (or conforming changes to the cable uniquely apply to satellite carriers. The
retransmission consent) by the factors.30 These include adding a fifth STELAR also directs us to update our
applicable satellite carrier in the local factor (inserted as factor number three) definition of a ‘‘community’’ for
market. We note that, in the cable to section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to ‘‘promote purposes of market modification and,
carriage context, market modifications consumers’ access to television below, we seek comment in this regard.
pertain to specific stations in specific broadcast station signals that originate We seek comment on the specific rule
cable communities and apply to the in their State of residence.’’ 31 Thus, proposals and tentative conclusions
specific cable system named in the STELAR creates parallel factors for contained herein. We also seek
petition.28 satellite and cable.32 comment on any alternative approaches.
5. Section 338(l) states that, in 6. The STELAR, however, provides a
deciding requests for market unique exception applicable only in the A. Requesting Market Modification
modifications, the Commission must satellite context, providing that a market
8. Consistent with the current cable
afford particular attention to the value modification shall not create additional
requirement in section 76.59, we
of localism by taking into account the carriage obligations for a satellite carrier
propose to allow either the affected
following five factors: if it is not technically and economically
• Whether the station, or other commercial broadcast station or satellite
feasible for such carrier to accomplish
stations located in the same area—have carrier to file a satellite market
such carriage by means of its satellites
been historically carried on the cable modification request.37 Section 338(l)(1)
in operation at the time of the
system or systems within such determination.33 of the Act contains very similar
community; and have been historically Also unique to satellite, the STELAR language to the corresponding cable
carried on the satellite carrier or carriers provides that a market modification will statutory provision in section
serving such community; not have ‘‘any effect on the eligibility of 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.38 Like the
• whether the television station households in the community affected cable provision, section 338(l)(1)
provides coverage or other local service by such modification to receive distant permits the Commission to modify a
to such community; signals pursuant to section 339 [of the local television market ‘‘following a
• whether modifying the local market Act].’’ 34 Like the cable provision, written request,’’ but does not specify
of the television station would promote section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 the appropriate party to make such
consumers’ access to television days to act on a request for market requests.39 Section 102(d)(2) of the
broadcast station signals that originate modification and does not allow a STELAR further directs the Commission
in their State of residence; carrier to delete from carriage the signal to ensure in both the cable and satellite
• whether any other television station of a commercial television station contexts that ‘‘procedures for the filing
that is eligible to be carried by a satellite during the pendency of any market and consideration of a written request
carrier in such community in fulfillment modification proceeding.35 . . . fully effectuate the purposes of the
of the requirements of this section amendments made by this section.’’ 40
provides news coverage of issues of III. Discussion The Commission found in the cable
concern to such community or provides 7. Consistent with the STELAR’s goal context that the involved broadcaster
carriage or coverage of sporting and of regulatory parity, we propose to and cable operator are the only
other events of interest to the amend section 76.59 of our rules—the appropriate parties to file market
community; and
• evidence of viewing patterns in 30 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by 36 See 47 CFR 76.59.
households that subscribe and do not STELAR sec. 102(b). 37 See 47 CFR 76.59(a) (allowing either a
31 See id. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (‘‘whether modifying
subscribe to the services offered by broadcast station or a cable system to file market
the market of the television station would promote modification requests).
multichannel video programming consumers’ access to television broadcast station 38 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (‘‘Following a written
distributors within the areas served by signals that originate in their State of residence’’). request, the Commission may, with respect to a
such multichannel video programming 32 Upon completion of this rulemaking
particular commercial television broadcast station,
distributors in such community.29 proceeding, we will implement section 102(c) of the include additional communities within its local
STELAR by creating a consumer guide that will market or exclude communities from such station’s
These statutory factors largely mirror explain the market modification rules and local market to better effectuate the purposes of this
those originally set forth for cable in procedures as revised and adopted in this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i) (‘‘For
proceeding, and by posting such guide on the purposes of this section, a broadcasting station’s
27 Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local Commission’s Web site. Section 102(c) requires the market shall be determined by the Commission by
statutory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 so that Commission to ‘‘make information available to regulation or order using, where available,
when the Commission modifies a station’s market consumers on its Web site that explains the market commercial publications which delineate television
for purposes of satellite carriage rights, the station modification process.’’ STELAR 102(c); 47 U.S.C.A. markets based on viewing patterns, except that,
is considered local and is covered by the local 338 Note. Such information must include: ‘‘(1) who following a written request, the Commission may,
statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. may petition to include additional communities with respect to a particular television broadcast
122(j)(2)(E); 47 U.S.C. 338. See also 17 U.S.C. within, or exclude communities from, a—(A) local station, include additional communities within its
111(f)(4) (defining ‘‘local service area of a primary market (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, television market or exclude communities from
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
transmitter’’ for cable carriage copyright purposes); United States Code); or (B) television market (as such station’s television market to better effectuate
47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the the purposes of this section . . . .’’).
28 See Implementation of the Cable Television Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 39 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the 40 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, MM Docket No. Commission takes into account when responding to to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the
92–259, Report and Order, FCC 93–144, 58 FR a petition described in paragraph (1).’’ See 47 U.S.C. ‘‘procedures for the filing and consideration of a
17350, at para. 47, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v); 47 U.S.C. written request under sections 338(l) and
(stating that ‘‘the statute is intended to permit the 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V). 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
33 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A).
modification of a station’s market to reflect its U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the
individual situation’’); 47 CFR 76.59. 34 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).
purposes of the amendments made by this section.’’
29 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). 35 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4). See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/4.svg)
![19598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
modification requests.41 The and how else satellite subscribers or only a satellite carriage market
Commission reasoned that ‘‘the fact that their representatives can meaningfully modification to serve the relevant
Congress made must carry an elective advocate for the receipt of in-state franchising authority. We note that
choice for broadcasters diminishes the programming via satellite. while the Commission has found that a
argument that third parties have 10. Consistent with the current cable franchising authority represents the
standing to demand carriage of a requirement in section 76.59, we interests of subscribers and other local
broadcast station on a cable system. A propose to require broadcasters and viewers in the cable context,48
subscriber’s ability to receive the satellite carriers to file market franchising authorities currently have
benefits provided from must carry is modification requests for satellite no role in satellite regulation.
predicated upon a station’s election to carriage purposes in accordance with
the procedures for filing Special Relief B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary
exercise its rights under the statute. No Requirements
statute or Commission rule requires a petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.45
broadcaster to allow its signal to be Consistent with section 76.7, we 11. As discussed above, the purpose
carried on a local cable system because propose that a petitioner must serve a of market modifications is to permit
another party wishes to view it. Instead, copy of its market modification request adjustments to a particular station’s
broadcasters are given a choice whether on any MVPD operator, station licensee, local television market (which is
to demand carriage under must carry, to permittee, or applicant, or other initially defined by the DMA in which
negotiate carriage under the interested party who is likely to be it is located) to better reflect localism
retransmission consent provisions, or directly affected if the relief requested is and ensure that satellite subscribers
not to be carried on a particular cable granted, and we propose to amend receive the broadcast stations most
system at all.’’ 42 Thus, only these section 76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to relevant to them.49 To this end, the
entities have carriage rights or reference ‘‘any MVPD operator.’’ 46 We STELAR requires the Commission to
obligations at stake, giving them a seek comment on our proposal. Because, consider five statutory factors when
legitimate basis for filing such requests. as noted above, some local governments evaluating market modification
9. Without the active participation of have expressed interest in orphan requests. As noted, the STELAR added
the affected broadcaster, modifying the county issues, we also seek comment on a fifth factor (inserted as the new third
market of a particular television station, whether franchising authorities 47 or statutory factor) for both cable and
in itself, would not result in consumer certain local government entities (such satellite to ‘‘promote consumers’ access
access to that station.43 This reasoning as cities, counties or towns) that may to television broadcast station signals
represent subscribers and local viewers that originate in their State of
appears to apply to the satellite context
in affected communities should be residence.’’ 50 The legislative history
as well. Thus, a market modification
considered ‘‘interested parties’’ and indicates Congress’ concern that ‘‘many
would serve little purpose without the
served with market modification consumers, particularly those who
cooperation of the involved broadcaster
requests. We seek specific comment on reside in DMAs that cross State lines or
or MVPD having carriage rights or
whether to require petitioners seeking cover vast geographic distances,’’ may
obligations. We seek comment on our
‘‘lack access to local television
proposal and these tentative 45 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally required for programming that is relevant to their
conclusions. We also seek comment on the filing of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, everyday lives.’’ 51 The legislative
any alternative approaches. We note, for 1.1117, 76.7. We remind filers that Special Relief
history further indicates Congress’
example, that some local governments petitions must be submitted electronically using the
intent that the Commission ‘‘consider
have previously sought the ability to Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces the plight of these consumers when
petition for market modifications on Commencement of Mandatory Electronic Filing for judging the merits of a [market
behalf of their citizens.44 We recognize Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show
modification] petition . . . , even if
that seeking and providing carriage is a Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing
System, Public Notice, DA 11–2095 (MB rel. Dec. granting such modification would pose
business decision by the involved 30, 2011). Petitions must be initially filed in MB an economic challenge to various local
broadcaster and satellite carrier and, Docket No. 12–1. Id. television broadcast stations.’’ 52 We
therefore, we tentatively conclude to 46 See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3). While our rules
tentatively conclude that this new third
limit the participation of local currently state that documents that are required to
be served must be served in paper form unless the statutory factor is intended to favor a
governments and individuals to filing parties agree to another method of service, 47 CFR market modification to add a
comments in support of, or in 1.47(d), we take notice of the Commission’s broader community if doing so would increase
opposition to, particular market efforts to modernize our procedures where possible.
consumer access to in-state
modification requests, for the reasons See, e.g., Amendment of Certain of the
Commission’s Part 1 Rules of Practice and programming. We also tentatively
discussed in this and the preceding Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission conclude, however, that this new third
paragraph. We, nevertheless, seek Organization, GC Docket No. 10–44, Order, FCC 14– statutory factor is not intended to bar a
comment on this tentative conclusion 183, 80 FR 1586, para. 26, Jan. 13, 2015 (authorizing
market modification simply because it
Commission staff to accept secs. 214 and 215 filings
41 See John Wiegand v. Post Newsweek Pacifica
in electronic form); Amendment of Certain of the would not result in increased consumer
Cable, Inc., CSR 4179–M, Memorandum Opinion
Commission’s Part 1 Rules of Practice and access to in-state programming. In such
Procedure Relating to the Filing of Formal cases, we believe this new third
and Order, FCC 01–239 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) Complaints Under Section 208 of the
(‘‘Wiegand v. Post Newsweek’’) (limiting standing in Communications Act and Pole Attachment
the must carry and market modification contexts to Complaints Under Section 224 of the
48 See KMSO–TV, Inc., CSR–883, Memorandum
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the affected broadcaster or cable operator); Must Communications Act, GC Docket No. 10–44, Order, Opinion and Order, 58 FCC2d 414, 415, para. 3
Carry Order, at para. 46. FCC 14–179, 79 FR 73844, para. 2, Dec. 12, 2014 (1976).
42 See Must Carry Order, at para. 46. 49 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)
(mandating electronic filing of secs. 208 and 224
43 See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, at para.
complaints). Service of market modification (requiring the Commission to ‘‘afford particular
11(‘‘[t]he granting of a request to expand the market requests seems ripe for modernization as well. In attention to the value of localism’’ by taking into
of a television station merely allows a broadcaster the near term, the Commission will explore whether account the five statutory factors).
the option to seek must carry status on cable 50 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III).
and how this and other types of required filings
systems added to its market. A broadcaster is not might transition to electronic form. We will refer to this new factor as the ‘‘third
required to seek carriage of its signal on all of the 47 We recognize, for example, that in several statutory factor.’’
cable systems in its market.’’). states, the state acts as the franchising authority 51 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
44 See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58. instead of a local government. 52 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19601
and on any other procedural This would ensure that, if there is a so as to not necessitate the burden of
requirements we should consider. change in circumstances such that it such a reporting requirement? If not
later becomes technically and notified by the carrier, how else could
D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility
economically feasible for the satellite a broadcaster find out about such a
Exception for Satellite Carriers
carrier to carry the station, then the change in the feasibility of carriage? To
19. We propose to include the station could assert its carriage rights the extent that a satellite carrier can
statutory language of section 338(l)(3) pursuant to the earlier market provide the station at issue to some, but
within section 76.59 to implement this modification.78 We seek comment on not all, subscribers in the community,
provision, and we seek comment on this this proposal or if, alternatively, we should we allow or require the carrier
implementation. section 338(l)(3) should deny a market modification to deliver the station to subscribers in
provides that ‘‘[a] market determination request that would not create a new the community who are capable of
. . . shall not create additional carriage carriage obligation at the time of the receiving the signal?
obligations for a satellite carrier if it is determination. 21. We note that compiling the
not technically and economically 20. We also invite comment on the standardized evidence necessary to
feasible for such carrier to accomplish types of technical or economic demonstrate that a market modification
such carriage by means of its satellites impediments contemplated by this should be granted may not be, in some
in operation at the time of the provision and the type of evidence instances, a simple or inexpensive
determination.’’ 74 The legislative needed to prove such infeasibility process. In this regard, should the
history indicates that Congress claims. Are there any objective criteria Commission, in the case of satellite
recognized ‘‘that there are technical and by which the Commission could market modifications, require or
operational differences that may make a determine technical or economic encourage stations seeking market
particular television market infeasibility? For example, the modifications to contact a satellite
modification difficult for a satellite Commission has recognized that spot carrier before filing a market
carrier to effectuate.’’ 75 The legislative beam coverage limitations, in the modification request in order to get an
history also indicates ‘‘that claims of the provision of local-into-local service initial determination on whether the
existence of such difficulties should be context, may be a legitimate technical carrier considers the request technically
well substantiated and carefully impediment.79 Under what and economically feasible? Such an
examined by the [Commission] as part circumstances would the limitations or initial inquiry might save some
of the petition consideration process.’’ 76 coverage of a spot beam be a sufficient
Based on the language of the provision broadcasters the time and expense of
basis for a satellite carrier to prove that
and the legislative history, we compiling the standardized evidence for
carriage of a station in the community
tentatively conclude that the satellite a modification that is not technically
at issue is not technically and
carrier has the burden to demonstrate and economically feasible by alerting
economically feasible? Should we
technical or economic infeasibility. We them to the technical or economic issue,
require satellite carriers claiming
further interpret the statutory text as which they could then take into account
infeasibility due to insufficient spot
requiring a satellite carrier to raise any in deciding whether to file the request.
beam coverage to provide spot beam
technical or economic impediments in We seek comment on this issue.
contour diagrams to show whether a
the market modification proceeding and particular spot beam can be used to E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive
we propose to address this issue in the cover a particular community? We also Distant Signals via Satellite
market modification proceeding. This seek specific comment from satellite
reading is consistent with the language carriers on the complexities and 22. We propose to include the
of the statute (that we consider whether expense that may be associated with statutory language of section 338(l)(5)
the carrier can accomplish carriage ‘‘at reconfiguring a spot beam to cover within section 76.59 to implement this
the time of the determination’’). additional communities added to the provision, and we seek comment on any
Moreover, this will be most efficient for market served by the spot beam by further guidance we can give for its
all parties. We seek comment on this operation of the market modification implementation.80 Section 338(l)(5)
proposal and whether the satellite process. In addition, in the event of a provides that ‘‘[n]o modification of a
carrier should be deemed to have Commission finding of technical or commercial television broadcast
waived technical or economic economic infeasibility, we seek station’s local market pursuant to this
infeasibility arguments if not raised in comment on whether we should impose subsection shall have any effect on the
response to the market modification a reporting requirement on satellite eligibility of households in the
request (and, thus, be prohibited from carriers to notify the affected community affected by such
raising such a claim after a market broadcaster if circumstances change at a modification to receive distant signals
determination, such as in response to a later time making it technically and pursuant to section 339,
station’s request for carriage). We also economically feasible for the carrier to notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this
seek comment on any alternative carry the station. Would such changes section.’’ 81 There are two key
approaches. In addition, we propose to in circumstances be sufficiently public restrictions on a satellite subscriber’s
grant a meritorious market modification eligibility to receive ‘‘distant’’ (out-of-
request, even if such grant would not time, for example, due to the station being a market) signals.82 First, subscribers are
create a new carriage obligation at that duplicating signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5). generally eligible to receive a distant
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
time, for example, due to a finding of 78 This concept is similar to the duplicating station from a satellite carrier only if the
technical or economic infeasibility.77 signals situation, in which a satellite carrier must subscriber is ‘‘unserved’’ over the air by
add a television station to its channel line-up if
such station no longer duplicates the programming
74 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). 80 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).
of another local television station. See 47 CFR
75 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 76.66(h)(4). 81 Id.
76 See id. 79 See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, 82 See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a
77 We note that this is consistent with the cable at para. 42 (allowing satellite carriers to use spot station is considered ‘‘distant’’ with respect to a
carriage context, in which the Commission might beam technology to provide local-into-local service, subscriber if such station originates from outside of
grant a market modification, even if such grant even if the spot beam did not cover the entire the subscriber’s local television market (or DMA).
would not result in a new carriage obligation at that market). See id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/8.svg)
![19602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
a local station of the same network.83 that the deletion of a local station from by-case basis.91 In the cable carriage
Second, even if ‘‘unserved,’’ a a local television market by operation of context, the Commission considers
subscriber is not eligible to receive a a market modification would not make market modification requests on a
distant station from a satellite carrier if otherwise ineligible subscribers now community-by-community basis 92 and
the carrier is making ‘‘available’’ to such eligible to receive a distant station of the defines a community unit in terms of a
subscriber a local station of the same same network. We also seek comment ‘‘distinct community or municipal
network.84 We believe section 338(l)(5) on any other rule changes necessary to entity’’ where a cable system operates or
is largely intended as an exception to implement this statutory provision. will operate.93 A ‘‘satellite community,’’
these two subscriber eligibility however, is not as easily defined as a
F. Definition of Community
requirements. In other words, under this cable community. Unlike cable service,
reading, the addition of a new local 23. As directed by the STELAR, we which reaches subscribers in a defined
station to a local television market by consider how to define a ‘‘community’’ local area via local franchises, satellite
operation of a market modification for purposes of market modification in carriers offer service on a national basis,
(which might otherwise restrict a both the cable and satellite contexts.87 with no connection to a particular local
subscriber’s eligibility to receive a With respect to a ‘‘satellite community,’’ community or municipality. Moreover,
distant station) would not disqualify an we generally invite comment on how to satellite service is sometimes offered in
otherwise eligible satellite subscriber define a ‘‘satellite community,’’ and areas of the country that do not have
from receiving a distant station of the seek specific comment on two alternate cable service, and thus cannot be
same network. For example, a proposals for this definition below. defined by cable communities. The
subscriber may be receiving a distant With respect to a ‘‘cable community,’’ Commission previously faced the
station because the subscriber resides in we tentatively conclude that our question of how to define a satellite
a ‘‘short market,’’ 85 has obtained a existing definition of a ‘‘cable community in 2005, after the SHVERA
waiver from the relevant network community’’ (in section 76.5(dd) of the added significantly viewed provisions
station,86 or is otherwise eligible to rules) has worked well in cable market for the satellite carriage context.94 In the
receive distant signals pursuant to modifications for more than 20 years significantly viewed context, the
section 339. That subscriber will and should not be changed. While we Commission, seeking regulatory parity,
continue to be eligible to receive the continue to believe the cable definition defined a satellite community in the
distant station after a market best effectuates the cable market same way as a cable community in most
modification that adds a new local modification provision, we nevertheless situations.95 However, the Commission
station of the same network. We seek invite comment on whether we need to
comment on our proposed reading of update this definition, such as whether 91 See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission’s
this provision. We also seek comment to allow cable modifications on a county Rules and Regulations with Respect to the
basis. Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR Definition of a Cable Television System and the
on any alternative interpretations. We Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No.
invite comment on the specific requires the Commission to ‘‘update 20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77–205, para.
situations intended to be covered by what it considers to be a community for 20, n. 5 (rel. Apr. 6, 1977) (1977 Cable Order).
section 338(l)(5). We seek comment on purposes of a modification of a market’’ 92 See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that
whether section 338(l)(5) also means in both the satellite and cable the cable carriage rules apply ‘‘on a community-by-
community basis’’). See also 47 CFR 76.5(dd),
contexts.88 The legislative history 76.59.
83 The Copyright Act defines an ‘‘unserved indicates Congress’ intent for the 93 47 CFR 76.5(dd) defines ‘‘community unit’’ as:
household,’’ with respect to a particular television Commission ‘‘to consider alternative ‘‘A cable television system, or portion of a cable
network, as ‘‘a household that cannot receive, definitions for community that could television system, that operates or will operate
through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air signal within a separate and distinct community or
containing the primary stream, or, on or after the make the market modification process
municipal entity (including unincorporated
qualifying date, the multicast stream, originating in more effective and useful.’’ 89 communities within unincorporated areas and
that household’s local market and affiliated with 24. The concept of a ‘‘community’’ is including single, discrete unincorporated areas).’’ A
that network—(i) if the signal originates as an important in the market modification cable system community is assigned a community
analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the unit identifier number (‘‘CUID’’) when registered
Federal Communications Commission in section
context, because the term describes the
with the Commission, pursuant to section 76.1801
73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, geographic area that will be added to or of the rules. 47 CFR 76.1801.
as in effect on January 1, 1999; or (ii) if the signal deleted from a station’s local television 94 See Implementation of the Satellite Home
originates as a digital signal, intensity defined in market, which in turn determines the Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004,
the values for the digital television noise-limited
service contour, as defined in regulations issued by
stations that must be carried by a cable Implementation of Section 340 of the
operator (or, in the future, a satellite Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05–49, Report
the Federal Communications Commission (section and Order, FCC 05–187, 70 FR 76504, para. 51,
73.622(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations), carrier) to subscribers in that December 27, 2005 (SHVERA Significantly Viewed
as such regulations may be amended from time to community.90 Because of the localized Report and Order). The SHVERA defined the term
time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved
household can also be one that is subject to one of
nature of cable systems, cable ‘‘community’’ for purposes of the significantly
communities are easily defined by the viewed rules, as either ‘‘(A) a county or a cable
four statutory waivers or exemptions. See id. community, as determined under the rules,
119(d)(10)(B) through (E). geographic boundaries of a given cable regulations, and authorizations of the Commission
84 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3).
system, which are often, but not always, applicable to determining with respect to a cable
This second restriction on eligibility is commonly coincident with a municipal boundary system whether signals are significantly viewed; or
referred to as the ‘‘no distant where local’’ rule. A (B) a satellite community, as determined under
satellite carrier makes ‘‘available’’ a local signal to and may vary as determined on a case- such rules, regulations, and authorizations (or
a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier offers revisions thereof) as the Commission may prescribe
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
that local signal to other subscribers who reside in 87 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. in implementing the requirements of this section.’’
the same zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 88 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) (‘‘MATTERS FOR 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(3).
U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F). CONSIDERATION.—As part of the rulemaking 95 See 47 CFR 76.5(gg) (defining a ‘‘satellite
85 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall community’’ as ‘‘[a] separate and distinct
By a ‘‘short market,’’ we refer to a market in which . . . update what it considers to be a community community or municipal entity (including
one of the four major television networks is not for purposes of a modification of a market under unincorporated communities within
offered on the primary stream of a local broadcast section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the unincorporated areas and including single, discrete
station, thus permitting satellite carriers to deliver Communications Act of 1934’’); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 unincorporated areas). The boundaries of any such
a distant station affiliated with that missing Note. unincorporated community may be defined by one
network to subscribers in that market. 89 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12.
or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas. Satellite
86 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E). 90 See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). communities apply only in areas in which there is
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19603
allowed a satellite carrier to define a economically feasible for a satellite STELAR amended the Communications
satellite community ‘‘by one or more carrier to retransmit a station to an Act and the Copyright Act to give the
adjacent five-digit zip code areas’’ in the entire cable community (as defined in Commission authority to modify a
limited situation in which there was no 76.5(dd)), but it might be feasible for the commercial television broadcast
previously defined cable community carrier to retransmit the station to station’s local television market for
and the area was unincorporated.96 particular portions of that community, purposes of satellite carriage rights.106
25. We seek comment on whether we such as to certain zip codes within such The Commission currently has the
should use the definition of ‘‘satellite community. What definition of authority to modify markets only in the
community’’ in section 76.5(gg) for community will most effectively cable carriage context.107 With section
satellite market modifications.97 promote consumer access to in-state 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides
Alternatively, we seek comment on programming? 100 For example, is it regulatory parity in this regard in order
whether we should use one or more appropriate to consider county-based ‘‘to further consumer access to relevant
adjacent five-digit zip codes to form the modifications in the satellite context, television programming.’’ 108 In this
basis of a ‘‘satellite community’’ for particularly in situations in which the NPRM, consistent with Congress’ intent
satellite market modifications.98 Would county is assigned to an out-of-state that the Commission model the satellite
allowing satellite carriers to use one or DMA? 101 If we allow modifications on market modification process on the
more adjacent five-digit zip code areas a county basis in the satellite context, current cable market modification
(notwithstanding the presence of a cable should we also allow such process, the Commission proposes to
community) in the market modification modifications in the cable context? implement section 102 of the STELAR
context better effectuate the STELAR’s by revising the current cable market
goal to promote consumer access to IV. Procedural Matters
modification rule, section 76.59, to
relevant television programming? What A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act apply also to satellite carriage, while
other possible definitions of satellite Analysis adding provisions to the rules to address
community should we consider? Would 26. As required by the Regulatory the unique nature of satellite television
another definition be more technically Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended service.109 In addition to establishing
and economically feasible for satellite (RFA),102 the Commission has prepared rules for satellite market modifications,
carriers to apply and, thus, facilitate this Initial Regulatory Flexibility section 102 of the STELAR directs the
successful market modifications? 99 For Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible Commission to consider whether it
example, it might not be technically and significant economic impact on small should make changes to the current
entities by the policies and rules cable market modification rules,110 and
no pre-existing cable community, as defined in
76.5(dd).’’). See also SHVERA Significantly Viewed
proposed in this Notice of Proposed it also makes certain conforming
Report and Order, at para. 50. We note, however, Rule Making (NPRM). Written public amendments to the cable market
that the SHVERA required satellite carriers to use comments are requested on this IRFA. modification statutory provision.111
the existing defined cable communities on the Comments must be identified as Accordingly, as part of the
significantly viewed list. See 47 U.S.C. 340(a)(1);
340(i)(3)(A). This provision, in part, caused the
responses to the IRFA and must be filed implementation of the STELAR, the
Commission to favor the use of cable communities by the deadlines for comments provided Commission proposes to make
to define future communities, except for on the first page of the item. The conforming changes to the cable market
unincorporated areas, to promote consistent rules Commission will send a copy of the modification rules and considers
and significantly viewed listings for both satellite
and cable. See SHVERA Significantly Viewed NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief whether it should make any other
Report and Order, at para. 51 (stating that the Counsel for Advocacy of the Small changes to the current cable market
‘‘definition will also make it more likely that a cable Business Administration (SBA).103 In modification rules. The STELAR
system subsequently built in such an area would addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or requires the Commission to issue final
serve a ‘community’ similar to the satellite
community, thus making the [Significantly Viewed] summaries thereof) will be published in rules in this proceeding on or before
List more easily used by both cable and satellite the Federal Register.104 September 4, 2015.112
providers’’). This reasoning does not necessarily
apply to the market modification context if we 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 2. Legal Basis
adopt our proposal to separately consider and apply Proposed Rule Changes
market modifications in the cable and satellite 28. The proposed action is authorized
contexts. 27. In this Notice of Proposed pursuant to section 102 of the STELA
96 47 CFR 76.5(gg). The Commission required Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR),
satellite carriers to use zip codes that were adjacent proposes satellite television ‘‘market Pub. L. 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014),
to each other ‘‘to prevent carriers from cherry- modification’’ rules to implement
picking their service to these areas.’’ SHVERA and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614
Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52.
section 102 of the STELAR.105 The of the Communications Act of 1934, as
97 See 47 CFR 76.5(gg).
98 We note that the Commission used zip codes 100 We take particular note here of Congress’
106 STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060–62,
in lieu of community units to define the various concern that consumers in an out-of-state DMA may
‘‘lack access to local television programming that is 2067.
zones of protection afforded under the satellite 107 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR
exclusivity rules applicable to nationally relevant to their everyday lives.’’ Senate Commerce
Committee Report at 11. 76.59.
distributed superstations. See 47 CFR 76.122, 108 See title of STELAR sec. 102, ‘‘Modification of
101 See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58.
76.123; Implementation of the Satellite Home
102 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Application of
Network Non-Duplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, et seq., has been amended by the Contract With Relevant Television Programming.’’ See also Report
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals, CS Docket 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th
No. 00–2, Report and Order, FCC 00–388, 65 FR the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Cong., S. Rep. No. 113–322 (2014) (‘‘Senate
68082, para. 28, Nov. 14, 2000, recon. granted in Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). Commerce Committee Report’’).
103 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 109 See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission proposes
part, denied in part, Order on Reconsideration, FCC
02–287, 67 FR 68944, Nov. 14, 2002. 104 See id. to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both
99 We note that the two satellite carriers 105 The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 cable systems and satellite carriers.
110 STELAR sec. 102(d).
previously favored the use of zip codes in the (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113–200, 128 Stat.
111 See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C.
significantly viewed context to offer ‘‘greater 2059, 2060–62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)).
certainty to consumers.’’ See SHVERA Significantly The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).
Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). 112 STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/10.svg)
![19608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
no additional classifications that could licensees in these television services. As 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
serve as a basis for determining the noted above, the SBA has created the Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
number of stations whose receipts following small business size standard Significant Alternatives Considered
exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we for this category: those having $38.5 49. The RFA requires an agency to
conclude that the majority of television million or less in annual receipts.189 describe any significant alternatives that
broadcast stations were small under the The Commission has estimated the it has considered in reaching its
applicable SBA size standard. number of licensed Class A television proposed approach, which may include
45. Apart from the U.S. Census, the stations to be 431.190 The Commission the following four alternatives (among
Commission has estimated the number others): (1) the establishment of
has also estimated the number of
of licensed commercial television differing compliance or reporting
licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.191
stations to be 1,390 stations.185 Of this requirements or timetables that take into
total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 Given the nature of these services, we
will presume that these licensees account the resources available to small
percent) had revenues of $38.5 million entities; (2) the clarification,
or less, according to Commission staff qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. consolidation, or simplification of
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media compliance or reporting requirements
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 4. Description of Projected Reporting, under the rule for small entities; (3) the
July 2, 2014. In addition, the Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance use of performance, rather than design,
Commission has estimated the number Requirements standards; and (4) an exemption from
of licensed noncommercial educational coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
(NCE) television stations to be 395.186 48. The NPRM proposes to revise for small entities.193
NCE stations are non-profit, and section 76.59 of the rules to apply it to 50. Consistent with the statute’s goal
therefore considered to be small the satellite television context, thus of promoting regulatory parity between
entities.187 Therefore, we estimate that permitting commercial TV broadcast cable and satellite service, the NPRM
the majority of television broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file proposes to apply the existing cable
stations are small entities. petitions seeking to modify a market modification rule to the satellite
46. We note, however, that in commercial TV broadcast station’s local context. The proposed rules would not
assessing whether a business concern change the market modification process
television market for purposes of
qualifies as small under the above currently applicable to small television
satellite carriage rights. Under section
definition, business (control) stations and small cable systems,
76.59 of the rules, commercial TV
affiliations 188 must be included. Our although the proposed rules would for
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the broadcast stations and cable system
operators may already file such requests the first time allow stations to request
number of small entities that might be market modifications for purposes of
affected by our action because the for market modification for purposes of
cable carriage rights. Consistent with the satellite carriage. Small TV stations that
revenue figure on which it is based does choose to file satellite market
not include or aggregate revenues from current cable requirement in section
modification petitions must comply
affiliated companies. In addition, an 76.59, the proposed rules would require
with the associated filing and
element of the definition of ‘‘small commercial TV broadcast stations and evidentiary requirements; however, the
business’’ is that the entity not be satellite carriers to file market filing of such petitions is voluntary. In
dominant in its field of operation. We modification requests and/or responsive addition, small TV stations may want to
are unable at this time to define or pleadings in accordance with the respond to a petition to modify its
quantify the criteria that would procedures for filing Special Relief market (or the market of a competitor
establish whether a specific television petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.192 station) filed by a satellite carrier or a
station is dominant in its field of Consistent with the current cable competitor station; however, there are
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of requirement in section 76.59, the no standardized evidentiary
small businesses to which rules may proposed rules would require requirements associated with such
apply does not exclude any television commercial TV broadcast stations and responsive pleadings. Through a market
station from the definition of a small satellite carriers to provide specific modification process, a small TV station
business on this basis and is therefore forms of evidence to support market may gain or lose carriage rights with
possibly over-inclusive to that extent. modification petitions, should they respect to a particular community,
47. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. chose to file such petitions. The based on the five statutory factors, to
The same SBA definition that applies to better reflect localism.194 We do not
proposed rules would also require a
television broadcast stations would
satellite carrier to provide specific
apply to licensees of Class A television 193 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).
evidence to demonstrate its claim that
stations and low power television 194 Section 338(l) of the Act provides that, in
(LPTV) stations, as well as to potential satellite carriage resulting from a market deciding requests for market modifications, the
modification would be technically or Commission must afford particular attention to the
States: 2007 (515120), http://factfinder2.census.gov/ economically infeasible. The NPRM value of localism by taking into account the
following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or
faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml? does not otherwise propose any new other stations located in the same area—(a) have
pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table. reporting, recordkeeping or other
185 See Broadcast Station Totals as of December
been historically carried on the cable system or
compliance requirements. systems within such community; and (b) have been
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers
(Broadcast Station Totals) at http:// serving such community; (2) whether the television
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- station provides coverage or other local service to
331381A1.pdf. 189 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120. such community; (3) whether modifying the local
186 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
190 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. market of the television station would promote
187 See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
191 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. consumers’ access to television broadcast station
188 ‘‘[Business concerns] are affiliates of each signals that originate in their State of residence; (4)
192 Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to
other when one concern controls or has the power whether any other television station that is eligible
to control the other or a third party or parties oppose market modification requests would need to to be carried by a satellite carrier in such
controls or has to power to control both.’’ 13 CFR file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 community in fulfillment of the requirements of
21.103(a)(1). CFR 76.7. this section provides news coverage of issues of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/15.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19611
television market. In this respect, § 76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage. reporting procedures. It also includes
communities may be considered part of * * * * * requirements for the installation and
more than one television market. (d) * * * operation of enhanced mobile
(b) * * * (6) Carriage after a market transceiver units for vessel monitoring,
(1) A map or maps illustrating the modification. Television broadcast carrying observers on vessels, reporting
relevant community locations and stations that become eligible for of transshipments taking place on the
geographic features, station transmitter mandatory carriage with respect to a high seas, and protection of vulnerable
sites, cable system headend or satellite satellite carrier (pursuant to § 76.66) due marine ecosystems. This proposed rule
carrier local receive facility locations, to a change in the market definition (by has been prepared to minimize
terrain features that would affect station operation of a market modification duplication and to be consistent with
reception, mileage between the pursuant to § 76.59) may, within 30 other established requirements.
community and the television station days of the effective date of the new DATES: Written comments must be
transmitter site, transportation routes definition, elect retransmission consent received by May 13, 2015.
and any other evidence contributing to or mandatory carriage with respect to ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
the scope of the market. such carrier. A satellite carrier shall action, identified by NOAA–NMFS–
(2) Noise-limited service contour commence carriage within 90 days of 2015–0052, may be submitted by any of
maps (for digital stations) or Grade B receiving the carriage election from the the following methods:
contour maps (for analog stations) television broadcast station. The • Electronic Submission: Submit all
delineating the station’s technical election must be made in accordance electronic public comments via the
service area and showing the location of with the requirements in paragraph Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
the cable system headends or satellite (d)(1) of this section. www.regulations.gov/
carrier local receive facilities and * * * * * #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-
communities in relation to the service (e) Market definitions. (1) A local 0052, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
areas. market, in the case of both commercial complete the required fields, and enter
* * * * * and noncommercial television broadcast or attach your comments. Mail: Mark
(5) Cable system or satellite carrier stations, is the designated market area in Wildman, Trade and Marine
channel line-up cards or other exhibits which a station is located, unless such Stewardship Division, Office for
establishing historic carriage, such as market is amended pursuant to § 76.59, International Affairs and Seafood
television guide listings. and Inspection, NMFS, 1315 East-West
* * * * * Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
(6) Published audience data for the
Comments must be submitted by one
relevant station showing its average all Federal Communications Commission. of the above methods to ensure that the
day audience (i.e., the reported Marlene H. Dortch, comments are received, documented,
audience averaged over Sunday- Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of and considered by NMFS. Comments
Saturday, 7 a.m.–1 a.m., or an the Managing Director. sent by any other method, to any other
equivalent time period) for both [FR Doc. 2015–08435 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] address or individual, or received after
multichannel video programming
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P the end of the comment period may not
distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD
be considered. All comments received
households or other specific audience
are a part of the public record and will
indicia, such as station advertising and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE generally be posted for public viewing
sales data or viewer contribution
on www.regulations.gov without change.
records. National Oceanic and Atmospheric All personal identifying information
* * * * * Administration (such as name or address) submitted
(d) A cable operator or satellite carrier voluntarily by the sender will be
shall not delete from carriage the signal 50 CFR Parts 300, 600, 660, and 665 publicly accessible. Do not submit
of a commercial television station confidential business information, or
[Docket No. 070516126–5292–03]
during the pendency of any proceeding otherwise sensitive or protected
pursuant to this section. RIN 0648–AV12 information. NMFS will accept
(e) A market determination under this anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
section shall not create additional International Affairs; High Seas the required fields if you wish to remain
carriage obligations for a satellite carrier Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting anonymous).
if it is not technically and economically and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Written comments regarding the
feasible for such carrier to accomplish Fishing Vessels burden-hour estimates or other aspects
such carriage by means of its satellites AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries of the collection-of-information
in operation at the time of the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and requirements contained in this proposed
determination. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), rule may be submitted to Mark
(f) No modification of a commercial Commerce. Wildman, NMFS, Office for
television broadcast station’s local ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
International Affairs and Seafood
market pursuant to this section shall comments. Inspection (see address above) and by
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
have any effect on the eligibility of email to OIRA_Submission@
households in the community affected SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulatory omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–7285.
by such modification to receive distant changes to improve the administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
signals from a satellite carrier pursuant of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Mark Wildman, Trade and Marine
to 47 U.S.C. 339. Act program and the monitoring of U.S. Stewardship Division, Office for
■ 4. Section 76.66 is amended by adding fishing vessels operating on the high International Affairs and Seafood
a new paragraph (d)(6) and revising seas. The proposed rule includes, for all Inspection, NMFS (phone 301–427–
paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to U.S. fishing vessels operating on the 8386 or email mark.wildman@
read as follows: high seas, adjustments to permitting and noaa.gov).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:39 Apr 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM 13APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19664/page/18.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 11:22:32
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 11:22:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments are due on or before May 13, 2015; reply comments are due on or before May 28, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before June 12, 2015. | |
| Contact | For additional information on this proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 19594 | |
| CFR Associated | Cable Television; Satellite Television and Broadcast Television |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR