83 FR 15531 - Streamlined Reauthorization Procedures for Assigned or Transferred Television Satellite Stations; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 70 (April 11, 2018)

Page Range		15531-15534
FR Document		2018-07508

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to streamline the process for reauthorizing television satellite stations when they are assigned or transferred in combination with their previously approved parent station. This document continues the Commission's efforts to modernize its regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15531-15534]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07508]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket Nos. 18-63, 17-105; FCC 18-34]

Streamlined Reauthorization Procedures for Assigned or
Transferred Television Satellite Stations; Modernization of Media
Regulation Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes to streamline the process for reauthorizing
television satellite stations when they are assigned or transferred in
combination with their previously approved parent station. This
document continues the Commission's efforts to modernize its
regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements that can impede
competition and innovation in the media marketplace.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 11, 2018 and reply comments
are due on or before May 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments and replies,
identified by MB Docket Nos 18-63, 17-105, by any of the following
methods:
Federal Communications Commission's website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: 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.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Salovaara, Industry Analysis
Division, Media Bureau, FCC, at Julie.Salovaara@fcc.gov or (202) 418-
2330.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18-34, in MB Docket Nos. 18-63, 17-
105, adopted on March 22, 2018, and released on March 23, 2018. The
complete text of this document is available electronically via the
search function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System
(EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The document is
also available for public inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street
SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

1. Introduction: In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to
streamline the process for reauthorizing television satellite stations
when they are assigned or transferred in combination with their
previously approved parent station. In accordance with Note 5 of
section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, authorized television
satellite stations, which generally retransmit some or all of the
programming of their parent station, are excepted from media ownership
limits. In order for the exception to apply, a television station must
obtain authorization as a satellite from the Commission, and it must be
reauthorized as a satellite at the time of assignment or transfer of
control. In response to the Public Notice launching the Commission's
Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, commenters assert that
the reauthorization of the satellite exception can be costly and
burdensome for both the station owner and the Commission. The
Commission proposes to streamline the reauthorization process in order
to eliminate potentially needless regulatory expense and delay. With
this proceeding, the Commission continues its efforts to modernize its
regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements

[[Page 15532]]

that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
2. Background: Regulatory Treatment of Television Satellite
Stations. Television satellite stations are full-power terrestrial
broadcast stations authorized under part 73 of the Commission's rules
that generally retransmit some or all of the programming of another
television station, known as the parent station, which typically is
commonly owned or operated with the satellite station. The Commission
initially authorized television satellite stations in sparsely
populated areas with insufficient economic bases to support full-
service stations and more recently in larger markets when the proposed
satellite could not operate as a full-service station. Television
satellite stations are excepted from the local and national television
multiple ownership limits, but from a practical perspective, the
ownership exception is significant only for purposes of the Local
Television Ownership Rule, which prohibits an entity from owning or
controlling more than two television stations in the same local market.
3. In 1991, the Commission revised the standards for television
stations seeking satellite status and the corresponding ownership
exception. The Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that
stations would qualify for satellite status if: (1) There was no City
Grade overlap between the parent and the satellite station; (2) the
satellite station served an underserved area; and (3) no alternative
operator was ready and able to construct or to purchase and operate the
satellite station as a full-service station. The Commission established
detailed evidentiary standards for meeting the second and third
criteria. If an applicant could not qualify for the presumption, the
Commission would evaluate the proposal on an ad hoc basis and grant the
application if there were compelling circumstances warranting approval.
4. To help encourage satellite stations to air more of their own
programming, the Commission eliminated the previous requirement that no
more than five percent of a station's programming could be locally
originated in order for the station to maintain its satellite status.
The Commission stated that allowing satellite stations to exceed that
limit would promote its diversity and localism goals. It recognized,
however, that its action had potential ramifications for subsequent
transfers or assignments of such stations because a satellite station
could become more like a full-service station based on its origination
of local programming. Accordingly, it required applicants seeking to
transfer or assign a parent/satellite combination that otherwise would
violate the Local Television Ownership Rule to demonstrate that the
conditions that had warranted satellite status continued to exist at
the time of any subsequent transfer or assignment.
5. The transition to digital television service in 2009 complicated
the assessment of the first prong of the Commission's presumptive
standard in that there is no digital counterpart to a station's analog
City Grade contour. Accordingly, in the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review
proceeding, the Commission clarified that, consistent with case law
developed after the transition, it will evaluate requests for new and
continued satellite status on an ad hoc basis, while, as a practical
matter, the second and third prongs of the Commission's presumptive
standard still serve as guidelines under the ad hoc review. This shift
in approach did not change the burden of proof for initial satellite
station authorizations or requests for continued satellite status in
the transfer or assignment context.
6. Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative. In May 2017, the
Commission issued a Public Notice launching a review of its media
regulations to eliminate or modify rules that are outdated,
unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. In response to that Public Notice,
commenters urge the Commission to streamline the process for
demonstrating that a television satellite station remains eligible for
satellite status in connection with an assignment or transfer of the
station. They argue that the current process for reauthorizing a
satellite exception is lengthy, costly, unnecessary, and serves no
rational purpose.
7. Discussion: We tentatively conclude that the process for
reauthorizing satellite status when a television satellite station is
assigned or transferred in combination with its previously approved
parent station should be streamlined. We believe that the existing
process imposes an unnecessary burden on station owners by requiring
them to expend time and resources in demonstrating that a satellite
exception is warranted for a previously approved parent/satellite
station combination where the underlying circumstances have not
materially changed. Further, the time and expense involved in obtaining
a reauthorization may create an artificial disincentive for potential
purchasers of satellite stations, which typically are in rural and
economically depressed areas and often in need of investment. In
addition, the sale of a satellite station does not necessarily indicate
that the underlying conditions warranting the satellite authorization
have changed, as evidenced by the fact that the Commission has never
rejected a request for a continued satellite exception despite the
numerous reauthorization requests it has processed. This approval
record raises questions as to the benefit gained by spending Commission
resources on time-consuming reviews of detailed reauthorization
requests.
8. We seek comment on ways to streamline the reauthorization
process while also ensuring that the process affords the Commission and
the public adequate information to determine whether reauthorization
serves the public interest. We tentatively conclude that the public
interest will be served by permitting a previously approved parent/
satellite station combination to be assigned or transferred without the
reauthorization request that currently is required and without a
written Commission decision granting reauthorization if the following
two conditions are met. First, we propose that the assignment or
transfer application must include a certification by both parties to
the transaction that the underlying circumstances that the Commission
relied upon in granting the current satellite authorization have not
changed materially since the issuance of the most recent authorization.
Second, we propose that the assignment or transfer application must
include a complete copy of the most recent written Commission decision
(e.g., Letter Order) granting the satellite exception for the current
parent/satellite combination. The existing petition to deny/informal
comment process applicable to the assignment or transfer of licenses
would provide interested parties that disagree with the applicants'
certification an opportunity to present their objections. The
applicants could respond within the normal pleading cycle, and the
Commission then would have a record upon which to make a determination.
We believe that this process will provide the Commission and the public
with a sufficient opportunity to review the transaction to ensure that
continued satellite status is warranted. If any objections to the
satellite station's reauthorization are raised, any decision on the
application would require a written decision that would include an
explanation for the reauthorization decision. Absent such objections,
however, the application could be granted without a written decision
(provided that there are no other issues that require designation of

[[Page 15533]]

the application for hearing or otherwise warrant a written decision).
9. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal. For example,
what impact, if any, would the proposal have on small entities? In
addition, what showing should the Commission require in the event that
the Commission's most recent decision granting satellite status, which
may never have been published or put in the public record, is
unavailable or does not specify the facts and circumstances surrounding
the grant? We also seek comment on how the Commission should
memorialize its reauthorization approval when the approval of an
assignment or transfer application is not a written decision explaining
the scope and basis of the Commission's decision but instead is
recorded only on the FCC Form 732. In such circumstances, what
information should the Commission include in the FCC Form 732
authorization regarding the satellite station? In addition, to obtain
reauthorization approval, is it sufficient for applicants to certify
generally that there has been no material change in the circumstances
that warranted the station's most recently authorized satellite status?
What types of changes would be considered material? For example, would
a change in contour be material if the lack of contour overlap was part
of the basis upon which the underlying satellite status was granted? If
the current authorization is not based on a finding that the service
area was underserved or on a finding that the licensee undertook a
diligent but unsuccessful search for a buyer, but instead on
alternative showings, what would constitute a material change in
circumstances? Alternatively, should the Commission require the
applicants to attest to a set of more specific facts relevant to the
Commission's usual considerations in determining satellite status? For
example, where relevant, should the applicants specifically certify
that the service area remains underserved as the Commission has defined
that term? What other specific certifications, if any, would be useful
to require without defeating the purpose of streamlining the
reauthorization process?
10. We also seek comment on whether any streamlined reauthorization
procedures we adopt should be restricted to transactions that involve
the assignment or transfer of a television satellite station in
combination with its previously approved parent station. A commenter
argued that satellite status should not be limited to a particular
parent/satellite combination. The suggestion was that licensees should
have the flexibility to change a satellite station's parent without
needing to repeat the full showing required for an initial satellite
exception. On the other hand, satellite station determinations are fact
specific inquiries that rely in part on the identity of the specific
stations involved. Unlike renewals of previously approved parent/
satellite combinations, the Commission and the public have never had an
opportunity to review the particular circumstances of the new
combination. Given that there may be public interest benefits
associated with a change in parent station and the fact that the public
has the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding a reauthorization
request, we seek comment on whether we should or should not apply any
streamlined process we may adopt to transactions involving a change in
a satellite station's parent.
11. Ultimately, we believe that this proposal to streamline the
reauthorization process for television satellite stations is consistent
with our efforts to modernize our regulations and will encourage
investment in such stations by removing unnecessary constraints on
their transferability. We seek comment on the costs and benefits
associated with our proposals. For example, how much time, effort, and
expense do reauthorization requests usually require now, and what cost
savings could be achieved by allowing licensees to certify that there
have been no material changes, given that a licensee must exercise due
diligence in ascertaining the facts needed to support any such
certification? Are there any benefits other than cost savings that are
likely to occur from streamlining, and if so, how likely are such
benefits to arise from the streamlining proposal we offer for comment?
Based on the Commission's experience processing transactions that
include satellite station reauthorizations, we do not believe that the
proposals herein will impair our, or interested parties', ability to
meaningfully review such transactions. We seek comment, however, on any
negative consequences of streamlining, including whether this proposal
will require applicants or other stakeholders to incur any additional
costs beyond what they currently incur. We also seek comment on any
alternative approaches. Any party advocating for an alternative
approach should be as detailed as possible and should explain the costs
and benefits of any recommended approach.

Procedural Matters

12. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-
comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that the
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
13. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how to streamline
the process for reauthorizing television satellite stations when they
are assigned or transferred in combination with their previously
approved parent station. The potential rule changes discussed in the
NPRM stem from a Public Notice issued by the Commission in May 2017
launching an initiative to modernize the Commission's media
regulations. Commenters in the proceeding argued that the Commission
should streamline the process for demonstrating that a television
satellite station remains eligible for satellite status in connection
with an assignment or transfer of the station because, they contend,
the current process is lengthy, costly, unnecessary, and serves no
rational purpose. The proposals upon which the NPRM seeks comment are
intended to reduce unnecessary regulation and regulatory burdens that
can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
14. The Commission estimates that the rule changes proposed in this
NPRM, if adopted, would reduce the time and expense associated with
reauthorizing television satellite stations when they are assigned or
transferred in combination with their previously approved parent
station. For example, the NPRM proposes that, instead of needing to
make the same type of showing that was required for the station's
initial satellite authorization, the parties to the proposed
transaction could certify that there has been no material change in the
underlying circumstances since the current satellite authorization was
granted by the Commission. In addition, a complete copy of the written
Commission decision granting the current satellite exception would need
to be provided with the assignment or transfer application. The NPRM
seeks comment

[[Page 15534]]

on various aspects of the streamlining proposal and on any alternative
approaches.
15. The Commission believes that the proposals on which it seeks
comment in this NPRM would reduce costs and burdens currently
associated with transactions involving television satellite stations,
including those that are small entities. As transactions involving
television satellite stations usually comprise a very small percentage
of the total number of television transactions processed by the
Commission and originate from a similarly small segment of the overall
industry, the number of small entities impacted would not be
substantial for RFA purposes. Therefore, the Commission certifies that
the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy of this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also be published
in the Federal Register.
16. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: The document contains
proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection requirements contained in the
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
17. Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (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. 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
18. Comments and Replies: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated
above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
19. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
24. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
25. Availability of Documents: Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
26. People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
27. Additional Information: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Julie Salovaara of the Industry Analysis Division,
Media Bureau, at Julie.Salovarra@fcc.gov or (202) 418-2330.
28. Ordering Clauses: Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to
the authority found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 309, and 310 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 303(r), 309, and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
29. 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 Act Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07508 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

15532 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules

that can impede competition and Accordingly, it required applicants does not necessarily indicate that the
innovation in the media marketplace. seeking to transfer or assign a parent/ underlying conditions warranting the
2. Background: Regulatory Treatment satellite combination that otherwise satellite authorization have changed, as
of Television Satellite Stations. would violate the Local Television evidenced by the fact that the
Television satellite stations are full- Ownership Rule to demonstrate that the Commission has never rejected a request
power terrestrial broadcast stations conditions that had warranted satellite for a continued satellite exception
authorized under part 73 of the status continued to exist at the time of despite the numerous reauthorization
Commission’s rules that generally any subsequent transfer or assignment. requests it has processed. This approval
retransmit some or all of the 5. The transition to digital television record raises questions as to the benefit
programming of another television service in 2009 complicated the gained by spending Commission
station, known as the parent station, assessment of the first prong of the resources on time-consuming reviews of
which typically is commonly owned or Commission’s presumptive standard in detailed reauthorization requests.
operated with the satellite station. The that there is no digital counterpart to a
Commission initially authorized station’s analog City Grade contour. 8. We seek comment on ways to
television satellite stations in sparsely Accordingly, in the 2010/2014 streamline the reauthorization process
populated areas with insufficient Quadrennial Review proceeding, the while also ensuring that the process
economic bases to support full-service Commission clarified that, consistent affords the Commission and the public
stations and more recently in larger with case law developed after the adequate information to determine
markets when the proposed satellite transition, it will evaluate requests for whether reauthorization serves the
could not operate as a full-service new and continued satellite status on an public interest. We tentatively conclude
station. Television satellite stations are ad hoc basis, while, as a practical that the public interest will be served by
excepted from the local and national matter, the second and third prongs of permitting a previously approved
television multiple ownership limits, the Commission’s presumptive standard parent/satellite station combination to
but from a practical perspective, the still serve as guidelines under the ad be assigned or transferred without the
ownership exception is significant only hoc review. This shift in approach did reauthorization request that currently is
for purposes of the Local Television not change the burden of proof for required and without a written
Ownership Rule, which prohibits an initial satellite station authorizations or Commission decision granting
entity from owning or controlling more requests for continued satellite status in reauthorization if the following two
than two television stations in the same the transfer or assignment context. conditions are met. First, we propose
local market. 6. Modernization of Media Regulation that the assignment or transfer
3. In 1991, the Commission revised Initiative. In May 2017, the Commission application must include a certification
the standards for television stations issued a Public Notice launching a by both parties to the transaction that
seeking satellite status and the review of its media regulations to the underlying circumstances that the
corresponding ownership exception. eliminate or modify rules that are Commission relied upon in granting the
The Commission adopted a rebuttable outdated, unnecessary, or unduly current satellite authorization have not
presumption that stations would qualify burdensome. In response to that Public changed materially since the issuance of
for satellite status if: (1) There was no Notice, commenters urge the the most recent authorization. Second,
City Grade overlap between the parent Commission to streamline the process we propose that the assignment or
and the satellite station; (2) the satellite for demonstrating that a television transfer application must include a
station served an underserved area; and satellite station remains eligible for complete copy of the most recent
(3) no alternative operator was ready satellite status in connection with an
written Commission decision (e.g.,
and able to construct or to purchase and assignment or transfer of the station.
Letter Order) granting the satellite
operate the satellite station as a full- They argue that the current process for
exception for the current parent/satellite
service station. The Commission reauthorizing a satellite exception is
combination. The existing petition to
established detailed evidentiary lengthy, costly, unnecessary, and serves
deny/informal comment process
standards for meeting the second and no rational purpose.
third criteria. If an applicant could not 7. Discussion: We tentatively applicable to the assignment or transfer
qualify for the presumption, the conclude that the process for of licenses would provide interested
Commission would evaluate the reauthorizing satellite status when a parties that disagree with the applicants’
proposal on an ad hoc basis and grant television satellite station is assigned or certification an opportunity to present
the application if there were compelling transferred in combination with its their objections. The applicants could
circumstances warranting approval. previously approved parent station respond within the normal pleading
4. To help encourage satellite stations should be streamlined. We believe that cycle, and the Commission then would
to air more of their own programming, the existing process imposes an have a record upon which to make a
the Commission eliminated the previous unnecessary burden on station owners determination. We believe that this
requirement that no more than five by requiring them to expend time and process will provide the Commission
percent of a station’s programming resources in demonstrating that a and the public with a sufficient
could be locally originated in order for satellite exception is warranted for a opportunity to review the transaction to
the station to maintain its satellite previously approved parent/satellite ensure that continued satellite status is
status. The Commission stated that station combination where the warranted. If any objections to the
allowing satellite stations to exceed that underlying circumstances have not satellite station’s reauthorization are
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

limit would promote its diversity and materially changed. Further, the time raised, any decision on the application
localism goals. It recognized, however, and expense involved in obtaining a would require a written decision that
that its action had potential reauthorization may create an artificial would include an explanation for the
ramifications for subsequent transfers or disincentive for potential purchasers of reauthorization decision. Absent such
assignments of such stations because a satellite stations, which typically are in objections, however, the application
satellite station could become more like rural and economically depressed areas could be granted without a written
a full-service station based on its and often in need of investment. In decision (provided that there are no
origination of local programming. addition, the sale of a satellite station other issues that require designation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM 11APP1

15534 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules

on various aspects of the streamlining presentation. If the presentation are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
proposal and on any alternative consisted in whole or in part of the deliveries must be held together with
approaches. presentation of data or arguments rubber bands or fasteners. Any
15. The Commission believes that the already reflected in the presenter’s envelopes and boxes must be disposed
proposals on which it seeks comment in written comments, memoranda or other of before entering the building.
this NPRM would reduce costs and filings in the proceeding, the presenter
burdens currently associated with 23. Commercial overnight mail (other
may provide citations to such data or
transactions involving television arguments in his or her prior comments, than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
satellite stations, including those that memoranda, or other filings (specifying and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
are small entities. As transactions the relevant page and/or paragraph Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
involving television satellite stations numbers where such data or arguments 20701.
usually comprise a very small can be found) in lieu of summarizing 24. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
percentage of the total number of them in the memorandum. Documents Express, and Priority mail must be
television transactions processed by the shown or given to Commission staff addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Commission and originate from a during ex parte meetings are deemed to Washington, DC 20554.
similarly small segment of the overall be written ex parte presentations and
industry, the number of small entities must be filed consistent with rule 25. Availability of Documents:
impacted would not be substantial for 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Comments, reply comments, and ex
RFA purposes. Therefore, the rule 1.49(f) or for which the parte submissions will be available for
Commission certifies that the proposals Commission has made available a public inspection during regular
in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have method of electronic filing, written ex business hours in the FCC Reference
a significant economic impact on a parte presentations and memoranda Center, Federal Communications
substantial number of small entities. summarizing oral ex parte Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY–
The Commission will send a copy of the presentations, and all attachments A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
NPRM, including a copy of this Initial thereto, must be filed through the documents will also be available via
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to electronic comment filing system ECFS. Documents will be available
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the available for that proceeding, and must electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
SBA. This initial certification will also be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
be published in the Federal Register. .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
16. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 26. People With Disabilities: To
in this proceeding should familiarize
Analysis: The document contains request materials in accessible formats
themselves with the Commission’s ex
proposed modified information parte rules. for people with disabilities (Braille,
collection requirements. The 18. Comments and Replies: Pursuant large print, electronic files, audio
Commission, as part of its continuing to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, or call the FCC’s Consumer and
invites the general public and the Office 1.419, interested parties may file Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
of Management and Budget (OMB) to comments and reply comments on or 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
comment on the information collection before the dates indicated above. (TTY).
requirements contained in the Comments may be filed using the 27. Additional Information: For
document, as required by the Paperwork Commission’s Electronic Comment additional information on this
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic proceeding, contact Julie Salovaara of
13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Filing of Documents in Rulemaking the Industry Analysis Division, Media
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Bureau, at Julie.Salovarra@fcc.gov or
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 19. Electronic Filers: Comments may
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on be filed electronically using the internet (202) 418–2330.
how we might further reduce the by accessing the ECFS: http:// 28. Ordering Clauses: Accordingly, it
information collection burden for small fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
business concerns with fewer than 25 20. Paper Filers: Parties who choose found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r),
employees. to file by paper must file an original and 309, and 310 of the Communications
17. Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding one copy of each filing. If more than one Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but- docket or rulemaking number appears in 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 309, and 310, this
disclose’’ proceeding in accordance the caption of this proceeding, filers Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
with the Commission’s ex parte rules. must submit two additional copies for adopted.
Persons making ex parte presentations each additional docket or rulemaking
must file a copy of any written number. 29. It is further ordered that the
presentation or a memorandum 21. Filings can be sent by hand or Commission’s Consumer and
summarizing any oral presentation messenger delivery, by commercial Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
within two business days after the overnight courier, or by first-class or Information Center, shall send a copy of
presentation (unless a different deadline overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
applicable to the Sunshine period filings must be addressed to the including the Initial Regulatory
applies). Persons making oral ex parte Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Flexibility Act Certification, to the Chief
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

presentations are reminded that Secretary, Federal Communications Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
memoranda summarizing the Commission. Business Administration.
presentation must (1) list all persons 22. All hand-delivered or messenger- Federal Communications Commission.
attending or otherwise participating in delivered paper filings for the
Marlene Dortch,
the meeting at which the ex parte Commission’s Secretary must be
presentation was made, and (2) delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 Secretary.
summarize all data presented and 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, [FR Doc. 2018–07508 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
arguments made during the Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM 11APP1

Document Created: 2018-04-10 23:59:38
Document Modified: 2018-04-10 23:59:38

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 11, 2018 and reply comments are due on or before May 29, 2018.
Contact		Julie Salovaara, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, FCC, at [email protected] or (202) 418- 2330.
FR Citation		83 FR 15531