Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66149 

1We will permit any notice sent by verified email 

to be provided to subscribers via a weblink 

contained in the text of the email. In addition, we 

will permit information about rates and channel 

line-ups contained in paper-delivered annual 

notices to contain the full text or list a website 

address that contains such information. 

2See Commission Launches Modernization of 

Media Regulation Initiative, Public Notice, 32 FCC 

Rcd 4406 (MB 2017) (initiating a review of rules 

applicable to media entities to eliminate or modify 

regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or 

unduly burdensome). 

3 47 CFR 76.1601 et seq. The specific Subpart T 

rules at issue are discussed in more detail in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this 

proceeding. Electronic Delivery of MVPD 

Communications, Modernization of Media 

Regulation Initiative, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10755 at 10755–10757, 

para. 2 (2017) (addressing §§ 76.1601, 76.1602, 

76.1603, 76.1604, 76.1618, 76.1620, 76.1621, and 

76.1622) (NPRM). 

4Public Law 102–385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) (1992 

Cable Act). 

5 47 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). 

6See National Cable & Telecommunications 

Association and American Cable Association, 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Declaratory Ruling, 

32 FCC Rcd 5269 (2017) (2017 Declaratory Ruling). 

The Declaratory Ruling granted a petition for 

declaratory ruling filed by NCTA—The Internet and 

Television Association (NCTA) and the American 

Cable Association (ACA). See Petition for 

Declaratory Ruling of National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association and American 

Cable Association, MB Docket No. 16–126 (filed 

Mar. 7, 2016) (requesting clarification that the 

written information that cable operators must 

provide to their subscribers pursuant to Section 

76.1602(b) of the Commission’s rules may be 

provided via electronic distribution). 

7See 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 

5269, para. 6. See 47 CFR 76.1602(b) (requiring 

cable operators to provide certain written 

information about their service offerings to 

subscribers annually, at the time of installation, and 

at any time upon request). 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[FCC 18–166] 

Electronic Delivery of MVPD 

Communications; Modernization of 

Media Regulation Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) provides that certain 

written notices from MVPDs to 

subscribers may be provided 

electronically via verified email, so long 

as the MVPD complies with certain 

consumer safeguards. In addition, we 

authorize cable operators to respond to 

consumer requests and complaints via 

email in certain circumstances, and 

eliminate a portion of our rules because 

they are outdated. As set forth below, 

we conclude that these changes will 

help the environment and provide 

flexibility to MVPD operators while 

ensuring that consumers continue to 

receive required notices and other 

important information. 

DATES: Effective January 25, 2019, 

except for new § 76.1600 and the 

amendments to §§ 76.1614 and 76.1619, 

which are delayed. We will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of those 

amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Lyle 

Elder, Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division (202) 418–2120. 

Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at 

(202) 418–8165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 18–166, adopted on 

November 15, 2018 and released on 

November 16, 2018, and the Erratum to 

that Order, adopted on November 30, 

2018 and released on December 4, 2018. 

The full text of these documents is 

available electronically via the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) website at http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the 

FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing 

System (ECFS) website at http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (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, 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. 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 

fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Report and Order, we 

modernize our rules regarding certain 

information that cable operators 

currently are required to provide to their 

subscribers on paper. As explained 

below, we will permit these notices to 

instead be provided electronically via 

verified email, so long as the cable 

operator complies with certain 

consumer safeguards.1 We also permit 

electronic delivery of subscriber privacy 

information that cable operators and 

other multichannel video programming 

distributors (MVPDs) are required to 

provide. In addition, we authorize cable 

operators to respond to consumer 

requests and complaints via email in 

certain circumstances, and eliminate 

§§ 76.1621 and 76.1622 of our rules 

because they are outdated. Through this 

proceeding, the Commission continues 

its efforts to modernize its regulations 

and reduce unnecessary requirements 

that can impede competition and 

innovation in the media marketplace.2

II. Background 

2. The rules at issue in this 

proceeding are set forth in Subpart T of 

Part 76 and require cable operators to 

communicate certain information to 

their subscribers in writing.3 The 

Subpart T rules were adopted to 

implement Congress’s directive, in the 

Cable Television Consumer Protection 

and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 

Cable Act), that the Commission adopt 

customer service standards for cable 

operators.4 In the 1992 Cable Act, 

Congress amended section 632 of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (Act) to 

require the Commission to ‘‘establish 

standards by which cable operators may 

fulfill their customer service 

requirements’’ and specified that 

‘‘[s]uch standards shall include, at a 

minimum, requirements governing . . . 

communications between the cable 

operator and the subscriber (including 

standards governing bills and 

refunds).’’ 5

3. In June 2017, the Commission 

issued a Declaratory Ruling that 

interpreted the written communication 

requirement of one section of Subpart T 

to be satisfied by electronic delivery of 

written material to subscribers.6

Specifically, the Commission 

determined that cable operators may 

comply with § 76.1602(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, which requires 

cable operators to provide annual 

notices containing a variety of 

information about their service 

offerings, by distributing notices via 

email to a verified email address so long 

as the operator provides a mechanism 

for customers to opt out of email 

delivery and continue to receive paper 

notices.7 The Commission concluded 

that emails, ‘‘by their very nature, 

convey information in writing’’ and 

therefore it is reasonable to interpret the 

term ‘‘written information’’ in 

§ 76.1602(b) to include information 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66150 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. at para. 7 (citing 47 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)). 11NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 10755. 12 Id. at 10759–10764, paras. 6–18. 13The general notice rules in Subpart T of Part 

76 are §§ 76.1601 (channel deletion/repositioning); 

76.1602 (annual notices, which can already be sent 

via email pursuant to the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 

and signal quality complaint procedures/local 

franchise authority contact information); 76.1603 

(rate and service change notices); 76.1604 (notice of 

charge for frequent change of service tiers); 76.1618 

(basic tier information where applicable); 76.1620 

(list of broadcast signals not available without a 

converter box); and 76.1621 and 76.1622 (dealing 

with equipment compatibility, but see infra Section 

III.D, eliminating these sections). 

14 47 U.S.C. 551(a)(1), 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a). 

15NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10760, 10761–10764, 

paras. 8, 11–17. 

16 Id. at 10764–10765, paras. 19–21. 

17 Id. § 76.1621. 

18NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765–10766, para. 22. 

19 47 CFR 76.1622. 

20NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766–10767, paras 23– 

24. The NPRM also sought comment on how to 

update the requirement in §§ 76.64 and 76.44 of the 

Commission’s rules that requires broadcast 

television stations to send carriage election notices 

via certified mail. Id. at 10755, 10767–10769, paras. 

1, 25–27. That issue is not addressed in this Report 

and Order and will be addressed in a subsequent 

Report and Order in this docket. 

21See Appendix A, Final Rules (47 CFR 76.1600). 

22See supra note 12. 

23 Verizon argues that ‘‘LFAs should be barred 

from requiring paper delivery or imposing more 

stringent requirements for electronic delivery that 

are inconsistent with the regulations adopted by the 

Commission.’’ Verizon Comments at 11–13. This 

proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding, 

and we decline to address it. 

24NCTA Comments at 2; See also ACA Comments 

at 1–2, DISH Comments at 1, Verizon Comments 

at 1. 

25AT&T Comments at 1. 

26NCTA Comments at 1–2. 

27 Id. at 3–4, citing 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 

FCC Rcd at 5269, para. 6. 

28See, e.g., NCTA Comments at 5, AT&T 

Comments at 2. 

29NCTA Comments at 7. See also NCTA April 30, 

2018 Ex Parte at 1, n.1 (describing a meeting 

between NCTA, Comcast Corp., Charter 

Communications, Inc. (Charter), and FCC Media 

Bureau staff). 

30NCTA Comments at 7 (internal citations 

omitted). See also generally NCTA April 30, 2018 

Ex Parte. 

delivered by email.8 The Commission 

also found that the benefits of 

permitting email delivery include the 

positive environmental aspects of saving 

substantial amounts of paper annually, 

increased efficiency, and enabling 

customers to more readily access 

accurate information regarding their 

service options.9 In addition, the 

Commission found that section 632(b) of 

the Act ‘‘provides the Commission with 

broad authority to ‘establish standards 

by which cable operators may fulfill 

their customer service 

requirements.’ ’’ 10 In the wake of this 

Declaratory Ruling, a number of 

commenters in the Media 

Modernization proceeding asked the 

Commission to consider permitting 

electronic delivery of the information 

required to be provided to cable 

subscribers in other Subpart T rules, as 

well as to consider other changes to the 

rules in Subpart T. 

4. In response to the proposals in the 

Media Modernization proceeding, the 

Commission adopted the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this 

proceeding in December 2017.11 The 

NPRM proposed to allow additional 

types of Subpart T communications 

from cable operators to subscribers to be 

delivered electronically, if they are sent 

to a verified email address and the cable 

operator complies with other consumer 

safeguards.12 These rules cover, among 

other things, information about channel 

deletions; service change notices; 

contact information for local franchise 

authorities; notice of charges for various 

services and service changes; and 

information about the basic service tier, 

broadcast signal availability, and 

consumer equipment compatibility.13 In 

addition, the NPRM tentatively 

concluded that we should adopt a new 

rule permitting electronic delivery of 

certain statutorily required subscriber 

privacy notifications. Section 631 of the 

Act requires a cable operator to 

‘‘provide notice in the form of a 

separate, written statement to such 

subscriber which clearly and 

conspicuously informs the subscriber 

of’’ certain privacy protections. Section 

338(i) of the Act imposes the same 

requirement on satellite providers, and 

section 653(c)(1)(A) of the Act imposes 

this requirement on Open Video System 

(OVS) providers.14 The NPRM sought 

comment on approaches for permitting 

electronic delivery of all of these written 

communications.15 The Commission 

also proposed to permit cable operators 

to reply to consumer requests or 

complaints by email in certain 

circumstances.16

5. Finally, the NPRM proposed to 

eliminate § 76.1621 of the Commission’s 

rules,17 which requires cable operators 

to offer and provide upon request to 

subscribers equipment that will enable 

the simultaneous reception of multiple 

signals,18 and sought comment on how 

best to modernize, and the extent to 

which we should eliminate, § 76.1622,19

which requires cable operators to 

provide a consumer education program 

on equipment and signal compatibility 

matters to subscribers upon initial 

subscription and annually thereafter.20

III. Discussion 

6. We adopt the Commission’s 

proposal to permit electronic delivery of 

all general subscriber notices required 

under Subpart T, if they are sent to a 

verified email address and the cable 

operator complies with other consumer 

safeguards. In order to harmonize our 

existing customer notice rules with the 

statutory privacy notice obligations 

noted above, we extend the same 

verified email delivery option to those 

privacy notices.21 In addition, we adopt 

the proposal to allow cable operators to 

respond to consumer requests or billing 

dispute complaints by email, if the 

consumer used email to make the 

request or complaint or if the consumer 

specifies email as the preferred response 

method. Finally, we eliminate 

§§ 76.1621 and 76.1622. 

A. Electronic Distribution of Notices to 

Subscribers 

7. We find verified email to be a 

reasonable means of delivering the 

general subscriber notices required 

under Subpart T,22 and adopt a rule to 

permit such delivery. This approach 

will ensure that consumers continue to 

receive required notices while also 

providing more flexibility for cable 

operators and helping the 

environment.23

8. Every commenter addressing the 

issue agrees that cable operators 

‘‘should be allowed to use verified 

email’’ 24 for all Subpart T general 

customer notifications because 

‘‘consumers increasingly prefer . . . 

communicating electronically with their 

service providers’’ 25 and because it will 

‘‘reduce the economic and 

administrative burden’’ of paper 

mailings.26 The record also indicates 

that these reduced paper mailings will 

save ‘‘substantial amounts of paper 

annually,’’ an environmental benefit 

that the Commission found compelling 

in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling.27

Commenters also do not dispute the 

Commission’s authority to permit 

electronic delivery of Subpart T 

subscriber notices.28 NCTA argues that 

we should go beyond verified emails, 

and permit cable operators to 

communicate with subscribers using 

any ‘‘reasonable’’ electronic means.29

NCTA argues that ‘‘means of 

communicating with customers will 

continue to evolve over time just as 

customer preferences will evolve’’ and 

that ‘‘[c]able operators should not be 

locked into a single mode of electronic 

communications . . . when these 

changes are foreseeable.’’ 30 NCTA 

suggests that any electronic method 

‘‘reasonably intended’’ or ‘‘reasonably 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66151 

31NCTA Comments at 2, 7. 

32See supra note 12. 

33While we reject NCTA’s suggested standard, we 

seek comment in the attached Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on the feasibility of 

permitting additional means of electronic delivery 

of these notices to subscribers. See supra Section 

IV. 

34See infra para. 13 (permitting paper-based 

weblinks for specific subparts of the annual notices 

required under Section 76.1602). 

35 47 U.S.C. 552(b) (providing the Commission 

with broad authority to ‘‘establish standards by 

which cable operators may fulfill their customer 

service requirements,’’ including a requirement 

relating to ‘‘communications between the cable 

operator and the subscriber’’); 47 U.S.C. 552(c) 

(stating that ‘‘[a] cable operator may provide notice 

of service and rate changes to subscribers using any 

reasonable written means at its sole discretion’’). 

The resulting Subpart T notice rules themselves are 

all very similar without being totally identical. For 

example, one requires that cable operators ‘‘provide 

written notice’’ (47 CFR 76.1601), while another 

requires that operators ‘‘shall notify such 

subscribers’’ (47 CFR 76.1620) and a third requires 

that ‘‘[c]ustomers will be notified . . . in writing’’ 

(47 CFR 76.1603). 

36For instance, the NPRM: Tentatively concluded 

that we should allow broadcast signal deletion 

notices to be sent to a verified email unless a 

subscriber opts out (Id. at 10761–10762, para. 12, 

based on Section 76.1601’s requirement that cable 

operators ‘‘shall provide written notice’’); sought 

comment on whether rate changes should be sent 

to a verified email address only after a subscriber 

opts in (Id. at 10762, para. 13, based on Section 

76.1603’s requirement that ‘‘[c]ustomers will be 

notified . . . in writing’’); and sought comment on 

whether basic tier information could be provided 

simply by being posted on the cable operator’s 

website (Id. at 10762–10763, para. 15, based on 

Section 76.1618’s requirement that cable operators 

‘‘provide written notification’’). 

37 Verizon Comments at 6. 

38 Verizon Reply at 3–4. 

39NCTA Comments at 4–5. See also ACA 

Comments at 6 (‘‘subscribers benefit from a 

consistent approach to the delivery of electronic 

notices’’). 

40As discussed above, 47 U.S.C. 552(b) gives us 

broad authority to establish standards relating to 

‘‘communications between the cable operator and 

the subscriber,’’ and Section § 552(c) gives an 

operator the choice of ‘‘any reasonable written 

means at its sole discretion.’’ We find that verified 

email is reasonable within this context. See also 

2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5272, para. 

6. 

41NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10761–10762, paras. 11– 

12, 14. See also ACA Comments at 5. Although it 

supports the use of electronic delivery, ACA argues 

that any change to our rules must not ‘‘increase the 

odds of customers not receiving notices,’’ and 

therefore ‘‘supports application of the consumer 

safeguards adopted in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling,’’ 

including the strict definition of what constitutes a 

‘‘verified email,’’ to additional Subpart T notice 

requirements. 

42 Id. at 10761, para. 11. 

43 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5275, 

para. 10. 44ACA Reply at 2. 

45NCTA Comments at 4. 

46 Verizon Reply at 3. 

47As AT&T notes, it is important to clarify that 

we are exempting all of the notices approved for 

electronic delivery in this Order from ‘‘the consent 

requirements of the E-Sign Act.’’ AT&T Comments 

at 5. Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and 

National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), information 

that a statute or regulation requires be provided to 

a consumer in writing can be delivered 

electronically if the sender follows all of the E-Sign 

Act requirements, including the requirement that a 

consumer ‘‘has affirmatively consented.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

7001(c)(1). However, the E-Sign Act preserves a 

federal regulatory agency’s rulemaking authority, 

allows federal agencies to interpret the E-Sign Act 

with respect to a statute that it implements, and 

allows a federal agency to exempt a specified 

category or type of record from the consent 

requirements in the E-Sign Act ‘‘if such exemption 

is necessary to eliminate a substantial burden on 

electronic commerce and will not increase the 

material risk of harm to consumers.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

7004(b), (d). As discussed above, commenters argue 

persuasively that it would be impractical and 

unnecessary for MVPDs to attempt to receive 

permission from each individual customer prior to 

initiating electronic delivery of these general 

notices. Therefore, we exempt all the notices 

referenced in new § 76.1600 of our rules from the 

consent requirements of the E-Sign Act. See 

Appendix A, Final Rules (47 CFR 76.1600). 48NCTA Comments at 8; NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex 

Parte at 2; ACA Comments at 5. 

49See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Verizon 

Comments at 7–8. 

calculated’’ to reach subscribers should 

be permissible.31

9. We find it appropriate at this time 

to extend to all general Subpart T 

notices 32 the same level of flexibility 

adopted in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling 

and will permit these notices to be 

provided to subscribers via email sent to 

a verified email address, so long as the 

cable operator complies with certain 

consumer safeguards. In the 2017 

Declaratory Ruling, the Commission 

rejected the ‘‘reasonably calculated’’ 

standard, and we do not find any reason 

to change that conclusion here. We 

therefore decline to adopt NCTA’s 

suggestion that we adopt such a 

standard in this proceeding.33

10. We will apply the same approach 

to electronic delivery uniformly across 

all Subpart T general notice rules, with 

one minor exception described below.34

The notice requirements contained in 

Subpart T stem from several different 

statutory provisions,35 and in the 

NPRM, the Commission asked whether 

it should take different approaches to 

modernizing the rules based on the 

varying sources of statutory authority 

and the content of the notices 

required.36 Several commenters contend 

that having varying standards would be 

problematic. Verizon notes that a ‘‘mixand-match-regime’’ 37 ‘‘would simply 

cause consumer confusion and 

undermine the Commission’s efforts to 

streamline the notification 

procedures.’’ 38 NCTA contends that 

‘‘different treatment’’ for different types 

of notices ‘‘would unnecessarily inject 

confusion and complications into what 

otherwise is intended to be an effort to 

simplify, streamline, and modernize the 

process.’’ 39 We agree with these 

comments. After review of the record, 

we find that adopting a consistent 

approach, rather than requiring different 

approaches and decisions based on the 

content of the messages, is simpler and 

more intuitive for consumers, as well as 

more efficient for cable operators. To do 

otherwise risks confusing consumers 

who are understandably unlikely to be 

well versed in the variety of cable 

notices at issue. We also conclude that 

our approach satisfies the terms of each 

of the relevant statutory provisions.40

11. We find that the general proconsumer approach adopted in the 2017 

Declaratory Ruling with respect to 

§ 76.1602(b) electronic notices is 

appropriate for all general Subpart T 

notice rules.41 First, cable operators 

must send notices to a verified email 

address. This email address may be: (1) 

One that the subscriber has provided to 

the cable operator (and not vice versa) 

for purposes of receiving 

communication, (2) one that the 

subscriber regularly uses to 

communicate with the cable operator, or 

(3) one that has been confirmed by the 

subscriber as an appropriate vehicle for 

the delivery of notices.42

12. Second, to enable subscribers to 

opt for paper delivery at any time, cable 

operators must ‘‘include an opt-out 

telephone number that is clearly and 

prominently presented to customers in 

the body of the originating email that 

delivers the notices, so that it is readily 

identifiable as an opt-out option.’’ 43

ACA advocates a ‘‘uniform ‘opt-out’ 

approach,’’ 44 and no commenter 

supports an ‘‘opt-in’’ regime for any 

notice type, arguing that the burden of 

an opt-in regime would ‘‘defeat the 

purpose of the modernization effort’’ 45

and is ‘‘unnecessary for these types of 

routine notices.’’ 46 As in the 2017 

Declaratory Ruling, we agree that an 

opt-in requirement is unnecessary. The 

information these notices provide is 

generic in nature and does not contain 

confidential information specific to an 

individual subscriber. Indeed, it is 

already publicly available in many cases 

on a cable operator’s or local franchising 

authority’s website.47 Commenters 

support allowing subscribers to request 

paper copies of any notice, and none 

dispute the need for an opt-out, paper 

notice option.48 Some commenters 

argue for greater flexibility with respect 

to the opt-out mechanism provided, 

claiming that they should not be 

required to offer an opt-out telephone 

number and should be permitted to offer 

subscribers other opt-out methods 

instead.49 While the NPRM asked about 

the use of an opt-out electronic link as 

an alternative to a phone number, we 

conclude that there is no reason to 

deviate from the approach adopted in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66152 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

50 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, 

para. 10. 

51 Verizon Comments at 7. 

52See 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 

5276, para. 10. 

53NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10762, para. 14 (citing 

2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 

11, n.46). For commenter support, see e.g., NTCA 

Comments at 3; ACA Comments at 6. 

54NCTA Comments at 8; NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex 

Parte at 2. See also NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10763– 

4, para. 16 (discussing the possibility of placing a 

website link inside a paper bill). 

55See supra note 12 and infra section III.B, but 

see infra para. 14 (discussing variable and cable 

system-specific information about channel lineups 

and rates). 

56NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10763–10764, para. 16 

(citing 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 

5276, para. 11). 

57 47 CFR 76.1602(b)(2), (5), (7), and (8). 

58See generally Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte 

and NCTA October 31, 2018 Ex Parte. 

59See, e.g., Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte 

(‘‘For example, in Q1 of 2018, Charter had 84 

programming changes, and, of those, 51 affected 

between 24%–100% of [its] channel line-ups’’). 

60 Id. Charter maintains that allowing this 

information to be provided via a weblink to all 

customers would enable consumers to receive ‘‘the 

most up-to-date and targeted information about 

their rates and channel line-ups.’’ Id. Charter also 

claims that its customers already regularly obtain 

this information through its website. Id. 

Specifically, Charter explains that its customers can 

obtain up-to-date and targeted rate and channel 

lineup information through a Charter ‘‘web page 

that asks for their zip code and address.’’ Id. 

61We find that there are not corresponding 

benefits to subscribers in making the less targeted 

Subpart T notices available in this manner. 

Furthermore, while Section 76.1602 requires the 

sending of a complete list of channels and specific 

rate information once per year, §§ 76.1601 and 

76.1603 of our rules separately require that cable 

operators notify subscribers of any changes to this 

information. 47 CFR 76.1601 and 76.1603. Notices 

issued pursuant to these rules are distinct from 

those sent under Section 76.1602, because they are 

intended to provide targeted and immediate 

information about a single event rather than a 

comprehensive catalog of information. We note that 

the Commission intends to further address cable 

operators’ obligations to notify subscribers of 

changes in channel positions, including deletions of 

channels, under §§ 76.1601 and/or 76.1603(b) in a 

later proceeding. 

62Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte at 2. Any 

subscriber who opts for paper delivery of Section 

76.1602 annual notices after receiving the entire 

notice electronically must be provided with the 

entire notice on paper. An operator would not be 

permitted to merely send printed rate and channel 

weblinks to such a subscriber, who has already 

demonstrated a clear preference for printed annual 

notice information. See infra Appendix A. 

63NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10762–10763, paras. 15– 

16. Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on 

whether information required under §§ 76.1602 

(annual notice) and 76.1618 (basic tier information) 

could be provided to subscribers by posting online 

instead of providing such notice to subscribers via 

U.S. mail or electronic delivery to a verified email 

address. Id. Under this approach, no link, reminder, 

or other information would have been sent to 

subscribers to indicate that there were new notices 

available for their review. The weblink approach 

approved above, however, requires timely and 

active provision of notifications to subscribers 

either in a paper notice or through a verified email. 

Unlike the specific annual rate and channel 

information discussed above, see infra, para. 14, the 

record provides no compelling reason for treating 

the full annual notice or a subscriber’s basic tier 

information any differently than other Subpart T 

notices. 

64 Verizon Comments at 8–10 (also arguing for the 

sufficiency of placing notices in an ‘‘electronic 

message center’’ that is accessible only via a 

subscriber’s television screen). We find that the 

benefits Verizon ascribes to the online-only posting 

of this information, such as around-the-clock 

consumer accessibility and reduced costs for cable 

operators, also can be achieved by posting the 

notices online and emailing links to subscribers. 

See supra, para. 13; see also Verizon Comments at 

8–9. 

65 47 U.S.C. 551(a)(1), 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a). 

the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, which 

found that providing an opt-out 

telephone number ‘‘would be the means 

most universally accessible to customers 

that prefer not to receive their notices 

electronically.’’ 50 Verizon argues that 

we should not ‘‘limit the [opt-out] 

options available to MVPDs and 

subscribers,’’ 51 and we agree. While 

providing an opt-out telephone number 

is a minimum requirement, we 

emphasize that cable operators may 

choose to offer additional choices to 

their customers that are clearly and 

prominently presented in the body of 

the originating email.52

13. For information delivered via 

verified email, cable operators may 

include either the notice itself or a 

weblink to the notice. Paper 

notifications must include the full text 

of the required notices, with the narrow 

exception discussed below. Commenters 

support the NPRM’s tentative 

conclusion that it would be reasonable 

for cable operators to provide a website 

link to an electronic notice, rather than 

the notice itself, so long as the link 

remains active until superseded by a 

subsequent notice.53 We adopt this 

approach. NCTA advocates that we 

provide additional flexibility, arguing 

that a website link to this information 

should be considered sufficient even if 

it were only printed on a paper bill or 

notice.54 We find that, with respect to 

most Subpart T notices,55 printing 

website addresses on paper 

communications, directing subscribers 

to the notice online, would not be a 

reasonable means of delivery. As stated 

in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, we 

continue to believe that this approach to 

providing notice ‘‘could create an undue 

risk that subscribers will not receive the 

required notices.’’ 56

14. With respect to the rate and 

channel listing elements of the annual 

notice, however,57 we will permit cable 

operators to provide a weblink to the 

subscriber, whether the notice is 

delivered by paper or in a verified 

email.58 We allow cable operators more 

flexibility with regard to this particular 

information because it is more specific 

to the actual location of the subscriber 

and it changes more frequently than the 

more generally-applicable information 

required in other Subpart T rules.59 As 

Charter explains, these portions of the 

annual notices are uniquely unsuited to 

paper delivery because ‘‘the long leadtime involved in preparing, printing, 

and mailing . . . millions of copies’’ 

means this information ‘‘often becomes 

outdated before it even reaches the 

customer.’’ 60 We believe that the 

benefits to subscribers in being able to 

access the most accurate and up-to-date 

information regarding their rates and 

channel line-ups outweighs the burden 

of requiring them to take an additional 

step to access this rapidly changing 

information.61 To ensure that 

subscribers are aware of and have easy 

access to this information, we require 

any cable operator taking advantage of 

this flexibility to display prominently, 

on the front or first page of its printed 

annual notice, website links in a form 

that is short, simple, and easy to 

remember, such as 

‘‘www.[homepage].com/Rates’’ or 

‘‘www.[homepage].com/Channels.’’ In 

the same location, the cable operator 

must prominently display a single 

phone number to call to opt for a paper 

version of all information available via 

both weblinks, as proposed by 

Charter.62

15. We will not, however, permit 

notices to be simply placed online 

without any separate subscriber 

notifications. The NPRM sought 

comment on, but expressed concern 

about, permitting a narrow class of 

notices to be made available this way.63

Under such an approach, subscribers 

would need to not only be 

independently aware of the existence of 

the notices, but also actively seek them 

out without any prompting from the 

cable operator. Although one 

commenter supports this approach,64

we decline to approve it because we 

find that it creates an unacceptably high 

risk that subscribers will never see the 

required notices. 

B. Privacy Notifications 

16. We will also permit delivery via 

verified email of the privacy notices that 

MVPDs must send to subscribers. As 

noted above, the requirements on cable 

operators, satellite providers, and Open 

Video System providers to supply 

privacy notifications are statutory.65 In 

order to harmonize our existing 

customer notice rules with the privacy 

notice obligations, our new Subpart T 

rule clarifies that such notices may be 

delivered by MVPDs via paper or 

verified email just like general Subpart 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66153 

66AT&T Comments at 2. See also NPRM, 32 FCC 

Rcd at 10764, para. 18. 

67 DISH Comments at 2–3. See also ACA 

Comments at 3–6, Verizon Comments at 4–5, NCTA 

Comments at 5. 

68The privacy provisions require cable operators, 

satellite providers, and Open Video System 

providers to ‘‘provide notice in the form of a 

separate, written statement.’’ Notices that conform 

to the requirements established in this Order will 

also comply with these statutory requirements. See 

supra note 38, citing 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 

FCC Rcd at 5272, para. 6. 

69NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10764–10765, paras. 19– 

21. See also Appendix A, Final Rules. 

70 47 CFR 76.1614, 76.1619. 

71 Id. § 76.1614. 

72 Id. § 76.1619. 73 Verizon Reply Comments at 2; see also ACA 

Comments at 2; ACA Reply Comments at 6 (stating 

that ‘‘[n]o commenters have objected’’ to this 

proposal); AT&T Reply Comments at 1 

(emphasizing that ‘‘[n]o commenter opposes’’ this 

proposal); NCTA Comments at 10; Verizon 

Comments at 2. 74ACA Comments at 7. 75ACA Comments at 7–8. 76 Verizon Reply Comments at 5. 77 Verizon Comments at 10 (citing 47 CFR 

1.735(f)). 

78NCTA Comments at 11. NCTA also suggests 

that the Commission expand the proposal in the 

NPRM to allow cable operators to respond via email 

to consumers that have ‘‘provided an email address 

on complaint submissions via the Commission’s 

Consumer Help Center website (unless the 

consumer expressly specifies a different preferred 

delivery method).’’ NCTA Comments at 10. This 

proposal is outside the scope of the NPRM, and we 

therefore decline to address it in this proceeding. 

79NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765–66, para. 22. 

80 47 CFR 76.1621. 

81NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766–67, para. 23. 

82Charter also proposes ‘‘clarifications’’ to 47 

CFR 76.1603(b) and the elimination of § 76.1603(c) 

and (d), a proposal which was opposed by 

Northwest Broadcasting Inc (Northwest). Charter 

Comments at 3, 6; Letter from Dennis P. Corbett and 

Jessica DeSimone Gyllstrom, Telecommunications 

Law Professionals PLLC, to the FCC, MB Docket No. 

17–317, at 1 (filed Apr. 20, 2018) (Northwest Ex 

Parte). As Northwest points out, and Charter 

acknowledges, these proposals are beyond the 

scope of this proceeding. Therefore, we decline to 

address them. Northwest Ex Parte; Charter 

Comments at 1, n. 2. 

83 47 CFR 76.1621. See also supra para. 5. 

84 Id. at § 76.1621(a). 

85 47 U.S.C. 544a. 

T notices. Every commenter who 

addresses privacy notification issues 

agrees with the Commission’s tentative 

conclusion that MVPDs should be 

allowed to send these notices 

electronically. AT&T ‘‘urges the 

Commission to adopt its tentative 

conclusion that cable operators, DBS 

providers, and Open Video System 

(OVS) providers should be permitted to 

deliver privacy notifications to 

subscribers via verified email 

addresses,’’ and that ‘‘[n]othing in 

sections 631, 338 or 653 limits the 

Commission’s authority to specify the 

manner by which these classes of 

providers may deliver such notices to 

their subscribers.’’ 66 DISH also supports 

the tentative conclusion, arguing that 

‘‘[e]lectronic delivery of these notices is 

consistent with how certain other 

relevant customer communications are 

delivered and therefore would provide 

consumers convenient access to this 

information.’’ 67 We agree that 

permitting verified email delivery of 

this information, just like we do for 

existing Subpart T cable consumer 

notifications, is beneficial for both 

consumers and MVPDs and will serve 

the public interest.68

C. Responses to Consumer Requests or 

Complaints by Email 

17. We adopt the proposal in the 

NPRM to allow cable operators to 

respond to certain consumer requests or 

billing dispute complaints by email, if 

the consumer used email to make the 

request or complaint or if the consumer 

specifies email as the preferred delivery 

method in the request or complaint.69

Sections 76.1614 and 76.1619 of 

Subpart T require written responses to 

requests or complaints.70 Specifically, 

Section 76.1614 requires cable operators 

to respond in writing within 30 days to 

any written request by any person for 

the identification of the signals carried 

on its system in fulfillment of the mustcarry requirements of § 76.56.71 Section 

76.1619 requires cable operators to 

respond to a written complaint from a 

subscriber within 30 days if there is a 

billing dispute.72

18. All commenters that address this 

proposal support it, expressing their 

belief that the Commission should 

permit ‘‘MVPDs to communicate by 

email with subscribers who agree to the 

use of email for inquiries and 

complaints.’’ 73 ACA agrees with the 

NPRM statement that adopting this 

proposal would ‘‘allow cable operators 

to respond more efficiently to requests 

and complaints.’’ 74 ACA also argues 

that doing so would enable consumers 

to receive these communications ‘‘by 

their preferred method’’ and ‘‘extend 

many of the same benefits provided by 

the Commission’s decision to allow 

electronic delivery of subscriber 

notices.’’ 75 Verizon notes that today’s 

‘‘consumers are accustomed to email as 

a routine form of communications[,]’’ 

and adopting this proposal would allow 

the Commission’s rules to ‘‘reflect that 

reality.’’ 76 Further supporting the 

proposal, Verizon also notes that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission has already determined 

that use of email for communications 

about actions of regulated entities is 

permissible, for example, in formal 

complaint proceedings.’’ 77 NCTA also 

suggests that adopting this proposal 

‘‘would be consistent with consumer 

expectations’’ that ‘‘contact[ing] cable 

operators by electronic means or 

provid[ing] an email address in such 

communications’’ will result in ‘‘a 

response via email.’’ 78

19. As we stated in the NPRM, we 

believe that permitting cable operators 

to respond electronically using the same 

method as the consumer or the method 

chosen by the consumer gives both 

parties the opportunity to communicate 

via their method of choice and will 

allow cable operators to respond more 

efficiently to requests and complaints. 

Therefore, we revise §§ 76.1614 and 

76.1619 and will allow cable operators 

to respond to consumer requests or 

billing dispute complaints by email 

where the consumer either used email 

to make the request or complaint or 

specified email as the preferred method 

of response in the request or complaint. 

D. Other Subpart T Requirements 

20. We will eliminate §§ 76.1621 and 

76.1622 of our rules. The NPRM 

proposed to delete § 76.1621,79 which 

requires certain cable operators to offer 

subscribers ‘‘special equipment that will 

enable the simultaneous reception of 

multiple signals.’’ 80 We agree with the 

commenters that, given today’s digital 

technologies, it is no longer necessary to 

promote the ‘‘special equipment’’ 

referred to in this rule. In addition, the 

NPRM sought comment on how to 

update § 76.1622 to reflect the current 

state of technology, and whether any 

part of the rule is ‘‘no longer necessary 

given changes in technology and, 

therefore, should be eliminated.’’ 81

Commenters make a convincing case 

that changes in technology and 

consumer awareness have rendered the 

entire rule ‘‘no longer necessary,’’ and 

that it should be eliminated in its 

entirety. We take these actions in light 

of changes in the television marketplace 

and consumer equipment technology 

since the rules were originally adopted 

and, in so doing, reduce burdens on 

cable operators.82

21. Section 76.1621 requires cable 

operators ‘‘that use scrambling, 

encryption or similar technologies’’ to 

offer and provide upon request to 

subscribers ‘‘special equipment that will 

enable the simultaneous reception of 

multiple signals.’’ 83 The offer of special 

equipment must be made to new 

subscribers at the time they subscribe 

and to all subscribers at least once each 

year.84 This rule was adopted in 1994 

pursuant to section 624A of the Act,85

which Congress enacted to resolve 

‘‘compatibility problems that arise 

between the provision of cable service 

and current consumer electronics 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66154 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

86 Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and Competition 

Act of 1992; Compatibility Between Cable Systems 

and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 8495, 8495, para. 

3 (1993). 

87 Id. 

88 Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and Competition 

Act of 1992; Compatibility Between Cable Systems 

and Consumer Electronics Equipment, First Report 

and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1981, 1989–90, para. 47 

(1994). See also Implementation of Section 17 of the 

Cable Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992; Compatibility Between 

Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics 

Equipment, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 

FCC Rcd 4121 (1996). 

89NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765–66, para. 22. 

90 Id. 

91 47 CFR 76.1622. 

92 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2)(B). 

93NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766–67, para. 23. 

94 Id. 

95See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, 

Public Law 115–141, at Division P, Title IV, 

§ 402(i)(10), 132 Stat. 348 (2018). Congress removed 

the language in Section 624A(b)(1) that required the 

Commission to issue a report to Congress on 

compatibility within ‘‘1 year after October 5, 1992’’ 

and to adopt rules regarding compatibility ‘‘within 

180 days’’ after the submission of the report to 

Congress. 

96 47 U.S.C. 544A(b)(1). 

97 47 U.S.C. 544A(c)(2) (emphasis added). 

98 47 U.S.C. 544A(d). 

99 Verizon Comments at 10–11 (Section 76.1621 

requires notices to subscribers regarding 

compatibility between cable systems and 

equipment that is ‘‘prehistoric from the standpoint 

of 2018.’’), ACA Comments at 9 (technical issues 

that gave rise to the requirements in Section 

76.1621 ‘‘have dissipated’’), NCTA Comments at 11 

(‘‘the rule no longer serves any legitimate purpose 

and should be eliminated’’). See also ACA Reply 

Comments at 7 and Verizon Reply comments at 4– 

5. 

100NCTA Comments at 11. 

101 Id. 

102ACA Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 11, 

and NCTA Comments at 12. See also ACA Reply 

Comments at 7 and Verizon Reply Comments at 4– 

5. 

103NCTA Comments at 12. 

equipment.’’ 86 These problems 

included ‘‘difficulties in the use of VCRs 

to record programming and in the 

operation of special features of TV 

receivers such as ‘Picture-inPicture.’ ’’ 87 The Commission adopted 

the requirement that cable operators 

offer subscribers special equipment with 

multiple tuners to address ‘‘cases where 

cable systems use scrambling 

technology and set-top boxes that do not 

deliver all authorized signals ‘in the 

clear’’’ such that subscribers need 

‘‘supplemental equipment to enable the 

operation of extended features and 

functions of TV receivers and VCRs that 

make simultaneous use of multiple 

signals.’’ 88 As the Commission noted in 

the NPRM, consumers today widely use 

digital video recorders (DVRs), rather 

than VCRs or television receivers, for 

recording features, and ‘‘picture-inpicture’’ features in television receivers 

are not prevalent.89 Accordingly, the 

Commission proposed to eliminate 

§ 76.1621, tentatively concluding that, 

given today’s digital technologies, it is 

no longer necessary to promote the 

‘‘special equipment that will enable the 

simultaneous reception of multiple 

signals’’ referred to in the rule.90

22. Section 76.1622 of our rules 

requires cable operators to provide a 

consumer education program on 

equipment and signal compatibility 

matters to their subscribers in writing at 

the time they subscribe and at least once 

a year thereafter.91 Specifically, it 

requires cable operators to educate their 

customers about compatibility issues 

that may arise with respect to TV 

receivers, VCRs, and remote controls. 

This provision was enacted pursuant to 

Congress’s directive in section 624A 

that the Commission adopt rules 

requiring cable operators ‘‘offering 

channels whose reception requires a 

converter box . . . to notify subscribers 

that they may be unable to benefit from 

the special functions of their television 

receivers and video cassette 

recorders.’’ 92 As discussed in the 

NPRM, parties filing comments in the 

Media Modernization proceeding 

argued that a requirement to educate 

consumers on the interoperability of 

VCRs no longer makes sense as concerns 

about TV receiver and VCR 

compatibility are no longer relevant to 

consumers today.93 Accordingly, we 

sought comment in the NPRM on 

whether there are parts of § 76.1622 that 

should be eliminated or modified in 

light of changes to technology since the 

rule was adopted.94

23. On March 23, 2018, after the 

NPRM was adopted, Congress revised 

section 624A to eliminate certain 

deadlines in that provision for 

Commission action, which have long 

since passed.95 We conclude that 

Congress’ recent revisions to section 

624A do not limit the Commission’s 

authority to eliminate these rules. 

Congress retained the language in 

section 624A(b)(1), providing that the 

Commission shall adopt regulations ‘‘as 

are necessary’’ to assure compatibility 

between television receivers and video 

cassette recorders and cable systems.96

In addition, Congress did not revise 

section 624A(c)(2), which provides that 

the ‘‘regulations prescribed by the 

Commission under this section shall 

include such regulations as are 

necessary’’ to achieve certain 

objectives.97 Finally, Congress did not 

revise section 624A(d), which provides 

that the ‘‘Commission shall periodically 

review and, if necessary, modify the 

regulations issued pursuant to this 

section in light of any actions taken in 

response to such regulations and to 

reflect improvements and changes in 

cable systems, television receivers, 

video cassette recorders, and similar 

technology.’’ 98 These provisions give 

the Commission ample authority to 

eliminate §§ 76.1621 and 76.1622 in 

light of the changes in technology since 

the rules were adopted. 

24. All commenters that address the 

issue support eliminating § 76.1621, 

arguing generally that advances in 

technology since the VCR have made 

the rule unnecessary and irrelevant.99 In 

fact, NCTA notes that VCRs are no 

longer being manufactured today.100

ACA argues that, to the extent that 

consumers continue to use VCRs to 

record television programming, ‘‘they 

are surely aware by now of any lingering 

compatibility issues and have long since 

obtained the equipment necessary to 

operate those devices to their 

satisfaction.’’ 101 We agree with 

commenters that § 76.1621 is no longer 

necessary in light of changes in 

technology since that rule was adopted 

and, therefore, that it is appropriate to 

eliminate that rule as proposed in the 

NPRM. 

25. Commenters make a similar 

argument with respect to § 76.1622. 

Specifically, ACA, Verizon, and NCTA 

argue that this section should also be 

eliminated because it requires cable 

operators to educate consumers about 

antiquated technology.102 No 

commenters indicate that continued 

application of this rule is beneficial to 

consumers, or support its retention. 

NCTA argues that ‘‘remote control’’ is 

the only technology referenced in 

§ 76.1622 that is still in ‘‘widespread 

use,’’ and that ‘‘[c]able operators have 

every incentive in this competitive 

marketplace to provide their customers 

with the information they need to obtain 

service using a variety of different 

devices.’’ 103 We agree with commenters 

that § 76.1622 is no longer necessary in 

light of changes in technology and the 

marketplace since that rule was adopted 

and, therefore, it is appropriate to 

eliminate the rule in its entirety. 

Although we recognize that remote 

control units are still widely used, we 

conclude that a notice requirement 

about the availability of third-party 

remotes is no longer necessary. Thirdparty remotes have become widely 

available in the 24 years since this rule 

was originally adopted and can be easily 

purchased from many retail outlets, 

including big box stores and online. 

Furthermore, now that they have been 

in existence for many years, consumers 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66155 

104See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of 

the Contract With America Advancement Act of 

1996 (CWAAA). 

105See In the Matter of Electronic Delivery of 

MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media 

Regulation Initiative, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10755 (2017) (NPRM). 

106See 5 U.S.C. 604. 

107Commission Launches Modernization of 

Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket No. 17–105, 

Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (MB 2017) 

(initiating a review of rules applicable to media 

entities to eliminate or modify regulations that are 

outdated, unnecessary or unduly burdensome). 

108 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

109 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

110 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (cross-referencing 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). 

111 15 U.S.C. 632. 

112 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 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report 

and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 

10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995). 

113These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, 

Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, ‘‘Top 25 

Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A–8 & C–2 (data 

current as of June 30, 2005); Warren 

Communications News, Television & Cable 

Factbook 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable Systems in the 

United States,’’ pages D–1805 to D–1857. 

114 47 CFR 76.901(c). 

115Warren Communications News, Television & 

Cable Factbook 2008, ‘‘U.S. Cable Systems by 

Subscriber Size,’’ page F–2 (data current as of Oct. 

2007). The data do not include 851 systems for 

which classifying data were not available. 

116 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47 CFR 76.901(f) 

& nn.1–3. 

117 47 CFR 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New 

Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable 

Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable 

Services Bureau 2001). 

118These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, 

Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, ‘‘Top 25 

Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A–8 & C–2 (data 

current as of June 30, 2005); Warren 

Communications News, Television & Cable 

Factbook 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable Systems in the 

United States,’’ pages D–1805 to D–1857. 

119The 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 § 76.901(f) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

120See 47 U.S.C. 573. 

are generally aware that they may 

purchase such remotes. Finally, there is 

no evidence in the record that the lack 

of awareness about compatibility that 

spurred the original rule is an issue 

today, given the plethora of remote 

controls available in the marketplace. 

26. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis.—As required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA),104 an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this proceeding.105 The 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. We 

received no comments specifically 

directed toward the IRFA. This Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

conforms to the RFA.106

27. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Report and Order 

28. In this Report and Order, we 

modernize our rules regarding certain 

notices required to be provided by 

MVPDs in writing to their subscribers to 

permit the provision of these 

notifications via verified email, if the 

cable operator complies with certain 

consumer safeguards. Specifically, we 

extend this flexibility to §§ 76.1601, 

76.1602, 76.1603, 76.1604, 76.1618, and 

76.1620, as well as subscriber privacy 

notifications required pursuant to 

sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. In addition, we eliminate 

§§ 76.1621 and 76.1622 of our rules to 

reflect the current state of technology 

and the market. Finally, we authorize 

cable operators to respond to consumer 

requests and complaints by email in 

certain circumstances. These steps 

further our continuing efforts to 

modernize our regulations and reduce 

unnecessary requirements that can 

impede competition and innovation in 

the media marketplace.107

29. Summary of Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments in Response 

to the IRFA 

30. No comments were filed in 

response to the IRFA. 

31. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

32. 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.108 The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 109 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.110 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.111 Below, we provide a 

description of such small entities, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, where feasible. 

33. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation Standard). The 

Commission has also developed its own 

small business size standards, for the 

purpose of cable rate regulation. Under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving 400,000 or 

fewer subscribers, nationwide.112

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 11 

are small under this size standard.113 In 

addition, under the Commission’s rules, 

a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.114

Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 

systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have 

under 10,000 subscribers, and an 

additional 302 systems have 10,000– 

19,999 subscribers.115 Thus, under this 

second size standard, the Commission 

believes that most cable systems are 

small. 

34. Cable System Operators. The Act 

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.’’ 116 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.117 Industry data indicate that, 

of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all 

but 10 are small under this size 

standard.118 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,119 and therefore 

we are unable to estimate more 

accurately the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

under this size standard. 

35. Open Video Services. Open Video 

Service (OVS) systems provide 

subscription services.120 The open video 

system framework was established in 

1996, and is one of four statutorily 

recognized options for the provision of 

video programming services by local 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66156 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

121 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3)–(4). See 13th Annual 

Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606, para. 135. 

122See 47 U.S.C. 573. 

123U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 

517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, http:// 

www.census.gov/naics/2012/def/ND517110.HTM

#N517110. 

124 13 CFR 201.121, NAICS code 517110 (2012). 

125See U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ 

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none. 

126A list of OVS certifications may be found at 

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html. 

127See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606– 

07 para. 135. BSPs are newer firms that are building 

state-of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide 

video, voice, and data services over a single 

network. 

128See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/currentfilings-certification-open-video-systems (current as 

of July 2012). 

129See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 

(2012). 

130Although SMATV systems often use DBS 

video programming as part of their service package 

to subscribers, they are not included in Section 

340’s definition of ‘‘satellite carrier.’’ See 47 U.S.C. 

340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6). 

131 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012). 

132U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ 

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none. 

133See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS 

Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers,’’ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ 

naics/naicsrch. 134NAICS Code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201. 135See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. 

EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series—Estab 

& Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 

2012; 2012 Economic Census of the United States, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/ 

pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_

US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 136See Annual Assessment of the Status of 

Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video 

Programming, MB Docket No. 12–203, Fifteenth 

Report, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10507, para. 27 (2013). 

exchange carriers.121 The OVS 

framework provides opportunities for 

the distribution of video programming 

other than through cable systems. 

Because OVS operators provide 

subscription services,122 OVS falls 

within the SBA small business size 

standard covering cable services, which 

is ‘‘Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers.’’ 123 The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: all such firms having 

1,500 or fewer employees.124 To gauge 

small business prevalence for the OVS 

service, the Commission relies on data 

currently available from the U.S. Census 

for the year 2012. According to that 

source, there were 3,117 firms that in 

2012 were Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Of these, 3,059 operated with 

less than 1,000 employees. Based on 

this data, the majority of these firms can 

be considered small.125 In addition, we 

note that the Commission has certified 

some OVS operators, with some now 

providing service.126 Broadband service 

providers (‘‘BSPs’’) are currently the 

only significant holders of OVS 

certifications or local OVS franchises.127

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, at least some 

of the OVS operators may qualify as 

small entities. The Commission further 

notes that it has certified approximately 

45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, 

and some of these are currently 

providing service.128 Affiliates of 

Residential Communications Network, 

Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate 

OVS systems in New York City, Boston, 

Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN 

has sufficient revenues to assure that 

they do not qualify as a small business 

entity. Little financial information is 

available for the other entities that are 

authorized to provide OVS and are not 

yet operational. Given that some entities 

authorized to provide OVS service have 

not yet begun to generate revenues, the 

Commission concludes that up to 44 

OVS operators (those remaining) might 

qualify as small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

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,’’ 129 which was developed for 

small wireline firms.130 Under this 

category, the SBA deems a wireline 

business to be small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees.131 Census data for 

2012 indicate that in that year there 

were 3,117 firms operating businesses as 

wired telecommunications carriers. Of 

that 3,117, 3,059 operated with 999 or 

fewer employees. Based on this data, we 

estimate that a majority of operators of 

SMATV/PCO companies were small 

under the applicable SBA size 

standard.132

37. 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 is now included in SBA’s 

economic census category ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

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 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.133

The SBA determines that a wireline 

business is small if it has fewer than 

1500 employees.134 Census data for 

2012 indicate that 3,117 wireline 

companies were operational during that 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees.135

Based on that data, we conclude that the 

majority of wireline firms are small 

under the applicable standard. 

However, currently only two entities 

provide DBS service, which requires a 

great deal of capital for operation: 

DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH 

Network.136 DIRECTV and DISH 

Network each report annual revenues 

that are in excess of the threshold for a 

small business. Accordingly, we must 

conclude that internally developed FCC 

data are persuasive that in general DBS 

service is provided only by large firms. 

38. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

39. The rule changes adopted in the 

Report and Order will reduce reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements for MVPDs which, prior to 

our action today, were required to 

provide certain notifications to 

subscribers in writing on paper. The 

Report and Order permits provision of 

these notifications electronically if the 

cable operator complies with certain 

consumer safeguards. This action will 

reduce the costs and burdens of 

providing such notices. In addition, the 

Report and Order eliminates §§ 76.1621 

and 76.1622 of our rules to more closely 

reflect current technology and the state 

of the market. Finally, the Report and 

Order also authorizes cable operators to 

respond to consumer requests and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66157 

137 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). 

complaints by email in certain 

circumstances. The Commission 

anticipates that these changes will lead 

to a long-term reduction in reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements on all cable operators, 

including small entities. 

40. Steps Taken To Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

41. 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 and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such 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.’’ 137

42. The Commission has found that 

electronic delivery of notices will 

greatly ease the burden of complying 

with notification requirements for 

MVPDs, including small MVPDs. The 

NPRM proposed to allow written 

communications from cable operators 

(and in some case satellite carriers and 

OVS operators) to subscribers to be sent 

instead to a verified email address, 

subject to certain consumer protections, 

and the Report and Order adopts this 

proposal. This approach reduces the 

burdens associated with providing these 

notifications. Overall, we believe the 

Report and Order appropriately 

balances the interests of the public 

against the interests of the entities who 

are subject to the rules, including those 

that are small entities. 

43. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

44. None. 

45. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis.—This Order contains 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. The 

requirements will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. The Commission will 

publish a separate document in the 

Federal Register at a later date seeking 

these comments. In addition, we note 

that, pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission previously sought 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

We have described impacts that might 

affect small businesses, which includes 

most businesses with fewer than 25 

employees, in the FRFA above. 

46. Congressional Review Act.—The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Order in a report to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

47. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 325, 338, 624A, 631, 

632, and 653 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i), 154(j), 325, 338, 544A, 551, and 

573, the Report and Order is adopted 

and will become effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

48. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s rules are hereby amended 

and such rule amendments shall be 

effective January 25, 2019, except for 

§ 76.1600 and amendments to 

§§ 76.1614 and 76.1619, which are 

delayed. We will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of those amendments. 

49. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

50. It is further ordered that the 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Report and Order in a report to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cable television, Equal 

employment opportunity, Political 

candidates, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as 

follows: 

PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO 

AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 

■ 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. 

§ 76.630 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 76.630 is amended by 

removing Notes 1 and 2. 

■ 3. Add § 76.1600 to subpart T to read 

as follows: 

§ 76.1600 Electronic delivery of notices. 

(a) Written information provided by 

cable operators to subscribers or 

customers pursuant to §§ 76.1601, 

76.1602, 76.1603, 76.1604, 76.1618, and 

76.1620 of this Subpart T, as well as 

subscriber privacy notifications required 

by cable operators, satellite providers, 

and open video systems pursuant to 

sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the 

Communications Act, may be delivered 

electronically by email to any subscriber 

who has not opted out of electronic 

delivery under paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section if the entity: 

(1) Sends the notice to the 

subscriber’s or customer’s verified email 

address; 

(2) Provides either the entirety of the 

written information or a weblink to the 

written information in the notice; and 

(3) Includes, in the body of the notice, 

a telephone number that is clearly and 

prominently presented to subscribers so 

that it is readily identifiable as an optout mechanism that will allow 

subscribers to continue to receive paper 

copies of the written material. 

(b) For purposes of this section, a 

verified email address is defined as: 

(1) An email address that the 

subscriber has provided to the cable 

operator (and not vice versa) for 

purposes of receiving communication; 

(2) An email address that the 

subscriber regularly uses to 

communicate with the cable operator; or 

(3) An email address that has been 

confirmed by the subscriber as an 

appropriate vehicle for the delivery of 

notices. 

(c) Cable operators that provide 

written Subpart T notices via paper 

copy may provide certain portions of 

the § 76.1602 annual notices 

electronically, to any subscriber who 

has not opted out of electronic delivery 

under paragraphs (a)(3) or (c)(3) of this 

section, by prominently displaying the 

following on the front or first page of the 

printed annual notice: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66158 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 49 CFR 1.94. 

2 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A). 

3 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B). 

4 49 CFR 555.7(a). 

(1) A weblink in a form that is short, 

simple, and easy to remember, leading 

to written information required to be 

provided pursuant to § 76.1602(b)(2), 

(7), and (8); 

(2) A weblink in a form that is short, 

simple, and easy to remember, leading 

to written information required to be 

provided pursuant to § 76.1602(b)(5); 

and 

(3) A telephone number that is readily 

identifiable as an opt-out mechanism 

that will allow subscribers to continue 

to receive paper copies of the entire 

annual notice. 

(d) If the conditions for electronic 

delivery in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section are not met, or if a subscriber 

opts out of electronic delivery, the 

written material must be delivered by 

paper copy to the subscriber’s physical 

address. 

■ 4. Revise § 76.1614 to read as follows: 

§ 76.1614 Identification of must-carry 

signals. 

A cable operator shall respond in 

writing within 30 days to any written 

request by any person for the 

identification of the signals carried on 

its system in fulfillment of the mustcarry requirements of § 76.56. The 

required written response may be 

delivered by email, if the consumer 

used email to make the request or 

complaint directly to the cable operator, 

or if the consumer specifies email as the 

preferred delivery method in the request 

or complaint. 

■ 5. Section 76.1619 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 76.1619 Information on subscriber bills. 

* * * * * 

(b) In case of a billing dispute, the 

cable operator must respond to a written 

complaint from a subscriber within 30 

days. The required response may be 

delivered by email, if the consumer 

used email to make the request or 

complaint directly to the cable operator, 

or if the consumer specifies email as the 

preferred delivery method in the request 

or complaint. 

* * * * * 

§§ 76.1621 and 76.1622 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 6. Remove and reserve §§ 76.1621 and 

76.1622. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27601 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 555 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0103] 

RIN 2127–AL97 

Temporary Exemption From Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends 

NHTSA’s regulation on temporary 

exemption from the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and 

bumper standards to expedite the 

publishing of notices soliciting public 

comment on exemption petitions. It 

does so by eliminating the provision 

calling for the Agency to determine that 

a petition is complete before the Agency 

publishes a notice summarizing the 

petition and soliciting public comments 

on it. As amended, the regulation 

continues to provide that the Agency 

will, as it does now, determine whether 

a petition contains adequate 

justification in deciding whether to 

grant or deny the petition. The intended 

effect of these changes is to enable the 

Agency to solicit public comments more 

quickly. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 25, 2019. 

Petitions for reconsideration of this 

final rule must be received not later 

than February 11, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this final rule, 

contact Stephen Wood, NCC–200, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle 

Rulemaking and Harmonization, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

telephone (202) 366–5240; email 

Steve.Wood@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 

authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to exempt, on a 

temporary basis, under specified 

circumstances, and on terms the 

Secretary deems appropriate, motor 

vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for 

implementing this section to NHTSA.1

The exercise of NHTSA’s authority to 

grant, in whole or in part, a temporary 

exemption to a vehicle manufacturer is 

conditioned upon the Agency’s making 

specified findings. The Agency must 

comprehensively evaluate the request 

for exemption and find that the 

exemption is consistent with the public 

interest and with the objectives of the 

Vehicle Safety Act.2 In addition, the 

Agency must make one of the following 

more focused findings: 

(i) compliance with the standard[s] [from 

which exemption is sought] would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried to comply with 

the standard[s] in good faith; 

(ii) the exemption would make easier the 

development or field evaluation of a new 

motor vehicle safety feature providing a 

safety level at least equal to the safety level 

of the standard; 

(iii) the exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a lowemission motor vehicle easier and would not 

unreasonably lower the safety level of that 

vehicle; or 

(iv) compliance with the standard would 

prevent the manufacturer from selling a 

motor vehicle with an overall safety level at 

least equal to the overall safety level of 

nonexempt vehicles.3

To provide procedures for 

implementing these statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions, 

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. 

The requirements in 49 CFR 555.5 state 

that a petitioner must set forth the basis 

of its petition by providing the 

information required under 49 CFR 

555.6, and explaining why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of the Safety Act. In addition, 

the petitioner must submit data and 

analysis supporting the making of one of 

the four findings specified above. 

Section 555.7 describes the steps that 

NHTSA is to take after it receives an 

exemption petition. If the Agency 

determines that a petition is complete, 

it publishes a notice in the Federal 

Register summarizing the petition and 

inviting public comment on whether it 

should be granted or denied.4 However, 

if NHTSA finds that a petition does not 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES