[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72968-72986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29968]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 10-148; FCC 10-193]


Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television 
Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA); Amendments to Section 340 
of the Communications Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission modifies its satellite 
television ``significantly viewed'' rules to implement Section 203 of 
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). 
Section 203 of the STELA amends Section 340 of the Communications Act, 
which gives satellite carriers the authority to offer out-of-market but 
``significantly viewed'' broadcast television network stations as part 
of their local service to subscribers. The STELA requires the 
Commission to promulgate final rules in this proceeding on or before 
November 24, 2010.

DATES: Effective December 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Baranoff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#521724333c7c103320333c3d3434123431317c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80c5f6e1eeaec2e1f2e1eeefe6e6c0e6e3e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>, 
of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order), FCC 10-193, adopted on 
Nov. 22, 2010, and released on Nov. 23, 2010. The full text of this 
document is available electronically via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or may be downloaded at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs-public/attachmatch/FCC-10-130.pdf. (Documents 
will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by 
sending an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99f9a9accc9cdb99f9a9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a2a7a7f1f4f084a2a7a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a> or calling the Commission's 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)

[[Page 72969]]

418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Summary of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration

I. Introduction

    1. With this Report and Order (``R&O''), we modify our satellite 
television ``significantly viewed'' rules to implement Section 203 of 
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA).\1\ 
Section 203 of the STELA amends Section 340 of the Communications Act 
of 1934 (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), which gives satellite 
carriers the authority to offer out-of-market but ``significantly 
viewed'' broadcast television stations as part of their local service 
to subscribers.\2\ We initiated this proceeding on July 23, 2010 by 
issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'').\3\ We received 20 
comments and reply comments (from 17 parties) in response to our 
NPRM.\4\ With this R&O, we satisfy the STELA's mandate that the 
Commission promulgate final rules in this proceeding on or before 
November 24, 2010.\5\ In addition, in this Order on Reconsideration, we 
dispose of the pending petition for reconsideration of the 2005 SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA) sec. 203, Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010) 
(sec. 203 codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 340, other STELA 
amendments codified in scattered sections of 17 and 47 U.S.C.). The 
STELA was enacted on May 27, 2010 (S. 3333, 111th Cong.). This 
proceeding to implement STELA sec. 203 (titled ``Significantly 
Viewed Stations''), 124 Stat. at 1245, and the related statutory 
copyright license provisions in STELA sec. 103 (titled 
``Modifications to Statutory License for Satellite Carriers in Local 
Markets''), 124 Stat. at 1227-28, is one of a number of Commission 
proceedings that are required to implement the STELA.
    \2\ 47 U.S.C. 340. We note that the nature of SV carriage under 
Section 340 is permissive (and not mandatory), meaning a satellite 
carrier may choose to carry an SV station. The statute also requires 
that the SV station grant consent in order for its signal to be 
carried. Id. 340(d).
    \3\ STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, FCC 10-130, 75 FR 44198, 
July 28, 2010 (NPRM).
    \4\ We identify the list of commenters and reply commenters to 
this docket in Appendix. We also received ex parte submissions in 
this docket. All of the filings made in this docket are available to 
the public both online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (``ECFS'') at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ and during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    \5\ The STELA requires the Commission to implement the 
amendments within 270 days after the date of the enactment. STELA 
sec. 203(b). The STELA establishes February 27, 2010 as its 
effective date or ``date of enactment,'' even though the law was 
enacted by Presidential signature on May 27, 2010. STELA sec. 307. 
Congress passed four short-term extensions of the distant signal 
statutory copyright license (December 19, 2009, March 2, March 25 
and April 15, 2010) before passing STELA to reauthorize the 
compulsory license for distant signal carriage for five years. STELA 
sec. 107(a).
    \6\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, FCC 05-187, 70 
FR 76504, December 27, 2005. See DIRECTV and EchoStar Satellite 
L.L.C. (now Dish) Joint Petition for Reconsideration in MB Docket 
No. 05-49 (filed Jan. 26, 2006) (``2006 DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint 
Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Significantly viewed (``SV'') stations are television broadcast 
stations that the Commission has determined have sufficient over-the-
air (i.e., non-cable or non-satellite) viewing \7\ to be considered 
local for certain purposes and so are not constrained by the boundary 
of the stations' local market or Designated Market Area (``DMA'').\8\ 
The individual TV station, or cable operator or satellite carrier that 
seeks to carry the station, may petition the Commission to obtain 
``significantly viewed'' status for the station,\9\ and placement on 
the SV List.\10\ The designation of ``significantly viewed'' status 
allows a station assigned to one market to be treated as a ``local'' 
station with respect to a particular cable or satellite community \11\ 
in another market, and, thus, enables it to be carried by cable or 
satellite in that community in the other market.\12\ In general, SV 
status applies to only some communities or counties in a DMA and does 
not apply throughout an entire DMA. In contrast, the ``local'' station 
designation based on Nielsen's assignment to a particular DMA applies 
to the entire market.\13\ Whereas cable operators have had carriage 
rights for SV stations since 1972,\14\ satellite carriers have had such 
authority only since 2004\15\ and may only retransmit SV network 
stations to ``eligible'' satellite subscribers.\16\ These satellite 
subscriber eligibility restrictions are intended to prevent satellite 
carriers from favoring an SV network station over the in-market (local) 
station affiliated with the same network.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To qualify for significantly viewed status (i.e., for 
placement on the significantly viewed list or ``SV List,'' see note 
10, infra), an SV station can be either a ``network'' station or an 
``independent'' station, with network stations requiring a higher 
share of viewing hours. 47 CFR 76.5(i)(1) and (2). The Commission's 
rules define network station as one of the ``three major national 
television networks'' (i.e., ABC, CBS or NBC). 47 CFR 76.5(j) and 
(k). Parties may demonstrate that stations are significantly viewed 
either on a community basis or on a county-wide basis. 47 CFR 
76.54(b), (d).
    \8\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(A) (defining ``local market'').
    \9\ See 47 CFR 76.5, 76.7, 76.54. A TV station, cable operator 
or satellite carrier that wishes to have a station designated 
significantly viewed must file a petition pursuant to the pleading 
requirements in 47 CFR 76.7(a)(1) and use the method described in 47 
CFR 76.54 to demonstrate that the station is significantly viewed as 
defined in 47 CFR 76.5(i).
    \10\ The significantly viewed list or ``SV List'' identifies the 
list of stations the Commission has determined to be significantly 
viewed in specified counties and communities. The list applies to 
both cable and satellite providers. The Commission updates this list 
as necessary upon the appropriate demonstrations by stations or 
cable or satellite providers. A station, satellite carrier or cable 
operator may petition the Commission, either to add eligible 
stations or communities pursuant to 47 CFR 76.54, or to restrict 
carriage of eligible stations through application of the 
Commission's network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity rules 
in 47 CFR 76.122(a), (j) and 76.123(a), (k). Generally, a station's 
SV status is only challenged when another station seeks to exercise 
its rights under the network non-duplication or syndicated program 
exclusivity rules, and the SV station asserts its SV status, which 
is an exception to both requirements. See 47 CFR 76.92(f) (SV 
exception in cable network non-duplication rules); 47 CFR 76.106(a) 
(SV exception in cable syndicated program exclusivity rules); 47 CFR 
76.122(j) (SV exception in satellite network non-duplication rules); 
and 47 CFR 76.123(k) (SV exception to satellite syndicated program 
exclusivity rules). If a station's SV status is challenged, and it 
is demonstrated that the station is no longer significantly viewed 
in a particular community or county, the station's listing is 
modified to indicate that it is subject to programming deletions in 
those communities or counties. See SHVERA Significantly Viewed 
Report and Order at para. 14. The current SV List is available on 
the Media Bureau's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/.
    \11\ See 47 CFR 76.5(dd) (defining cable ``community unit'') and 
76.5(gg) (defining a ``satellite community'').
    \12\ For copyright purposes, significantly viewed status means 
that cable and satellite providers may carry the out-of-market but 
SV station with the reduced copyright payment obligations applicable 
to local (in-market) stations. See 17 U.S.C. 111(a), (c), (d), and 
(f), as amended by STELA sec. 104 (relating to cable statutory 
copyright license) and 122(a)(2), as amended by STELA sec. 103 
(relating to satellite statutory copyright license).
    \13\ 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(C) (defining DMA as ``a designated 
market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research and published 
in the 1999-2000 Nielsen Station Index Directory and Nielsen Station 
Index United States Television Household Estimates or any successor 
publication'').
    \14\ See Cable Television Report and Order, FCC 72-108 at para. 
83, 37 FR 3252, February 3, 1972 (adopting the concept of 
``significantly viewed'' signals to differentiate between otherwise 
out-of-market television stations ``that have sufficient audience to 
be considered local and those that do not'').
    \15\ Section 202 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) created Section 340 of the 
Communications Act, which authorized satellite carriage of 
Commission-determined SV stations. See SHVERA sec. 202, Public Law 
108-447, 118 Stat 2809, 3393 (2004) (codified in 47 U.S.C. 340). See 
also SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order.
    \16\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(b) and 47 CFR 76.54(g) and (h). See also 
infra para. 8 (for background).
    \17\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) and (2). See SHVERA Significantly 
Viewed Report and Order at para. 94. The Copyright Act's definitions 
of ``network station'' and ``non-network station'' will apply for 
purposes of determining subscriber eligibility to receive an SV 
network station. See 47 U.S.C. 339(d) and 47 U.S.C 122(j)(4), as 
amended, applying the definitions of such terms in 47 U.S.C 
119(d)(2) and (9). Unlike the definition in the Commission's rules, 
which specifically include only ABC, CBS and NBC (see supra note 7), 
the Copyright Act definition of ``network station'' may include 
other stations. See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order at 
paras. 35-36 and n. 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 203 of the STELA changes the restrictions on subscriber 
eligibility to receive SV network stations from

[[Page 72970]]

satellite carriers.\18\ To implement the STELA, we revise our satellite 
subscriber eligibility rules as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> We find that the local service requirement in amended 
Section 340(b)(1) requires only that a satellite subscriber receive 
local-into-local satellite service as a precondition for that 
subscriber to receive SV stations. We find that the statute no longer 
requires a satellite subscriber to receive the specific local network 
station as a precondition for that subscriber to receive an SV station 
affiliated with the same network.
    <bullet> We find that amended Section 340(b)(2) no longer requires 
that a satellite carrier offer ``equivalent bandwidth'' to the local 
and SV network station pair and instead imposes an ``HD format'' 
requirement. We find that the HD format requirement in amended Section 
340(b)(2) requires that, in order to carry an SV station in high 
definition (HD) format, a satellite carrier must carry the local 
station affiliated with the same network in HD whenever such format is 
available from the local station.
     [cir] The HD format requirement applies only where a satellite 
carrier retransmits to a subscriber the SV station in HD format. This 
requirement does not restrict a satellite carrier from retransmitting 
to a subscriber the SV station in standard definition (SD) format.
     [cir] For purposes of the HD format requirement, the corresponding 
local (in-market) station will be considered ``available'' to the 
satellite carrier when the station: (1) Elects mandatory carriage or 
grants retransmission consent; (2) provides a good quality signal to 
the satellite carrier as required by Section 76.66(g) of the rules; and 
(3) is otherwise in compliance with the ``good faith negotiation'' and 
carriage provisions set forth in Sections 76.65 and 76.66 of the rules. 
However, the HD signal of the corresponding local station will be 
deemed ``available'' despite failure to reach agreement on the terms of 
retransmission if the satellite carrier is not in compliance with 
Section 76.65.
     [cir] The HD format requirement requires satellite carriage of a 
secondary HD stream of a local station's multicast signal if that 
stream is affiliated with the same network as an SV station 
retransmitted in HD to satellite subscribers in the local market.
    <bullet> We modify the Commission's 2005 interpretation of the 
Section 340(b)(3) exception, which is unchanged by the STELA, and find 
that, in the context of the newly revised statute, this exception 
permits a satellite carrier to offer an SV network station to a 
subscriber when there is no local affiliate of the same network present 
in the local market, even if the subscriber does not receive local-
into-local service.

II. Background

    4. In May 2010, Congress passed and the President signed the STELA, 
which amends the 1988 copyright laws \19\ and the Communications Act of 
1934 \20\ to ``modernize, improve and simplify the compulsory copyright 
licenses governing the retransmission of distant and local television 
signals by cable and satellite television operators.'' \21\ Congress 
intended for the STELA to increase competition between cable and 
satellite providers, increase service to satellite subscribers, and 
update the law to reflect the completion of the digital television 
(DTV) transition.\22\ Notably, the STELA reauthorizes the statutory 
copyright license for satellite carriage of SV stations and moves that 
license from the distant signal statutory copyright license provisions 
to the local signal statutory copyright license provisions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 U.S.C. 119 and 122. 17 U.S.C. 119 contains the 
statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of ``distant'' 
network stations (limited to ``unserved households'') and 17 U.S.C. 
122 contains the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage 
of ``local'' stations (generally defined as stations and subscribers 
in the same DMA but which now also includes SV stations, which are 
treated as ``local'' for copyright royalty purposes, even though 
such stations are not in the same DMA as the subscribers and are not 
entitled to mandatory carriage). The STELA also amended 17 U.S.C. 
111, the statutory copyright license for cable carriage of broadcast 
stations.
    \20\ See 47 U.S.C. 325, 338, 339 and 340.
    \21\ See House Judiciary Committee Report dated Oct. 28, 2009, 
accompanying House Bill, H.R. 3570, 111th Cong. (2009), H.R. Rep. 
No. 111-319, at 4 (``H.R. 3570 Report''). See also House Energy and 
Commerce Committee Report dated Dec. 12, 2009, accompanying House 
Bill, H.R. 2994, 111th Cong. (2009), H.R. Rep. No. 111-349, at 16 
(``H.R. 2994 Report''); and Senate Judiciary Committee Report dated 
Nov. 10, 2009, accompanying Senate Bill, S. 1670, 111th Cong. 
(2009), H.R. Rep. No. 111-98, at 5 (``S. 1670 Report''). There was 
no final Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELA 
bill (S. 3333) as it was enacted. See Senate Bill, S. 3333, 111th 
Cong. (2010) (enacted). Therefore, for the relevant legislative 
history, we look to the Reports accompanying the various predecessor 
bills (e.g., H.R. 3570, H.R. 2994, and S. 1670). These Reports 
reflect Congressional intent with respect to the SV provisions, 
which were enacted as drafted in the House and Senate bills. (see 
STELA secs. 203, 103). Finally, also relevant are certain remarks 
made in floor statements in passing the bill (S. 3333). See ``House 
of Representatives Proceedings and Debates of the 111st Congress, 
Second Session,'' 156 Cong. Rec. H3317, H3328-3330 (daily ed. May 
12, 2010) (statements of Reps. Conyers and Smith) (``House Floor 
Debate'') and ``Senate Proceedings and Debates of the 111st 
Congress, Second Session,'' 156 Cong. Rec. S3435 (daily ed. May 7, 
2010) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (``Senate Floor Debate''). We also 
find relevant certain remarks made in floor statements in passing 
the House Bill, H.R. 3570. See Chairmen Waxman's and Boucher's Floor 
Statements on the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act of 2009, 
155 Cong. Rec. H13428, H13441-13442 (Dec. 2, 2009) (``H.R. 3570 
Waxman and/or Boucher Floor Statement(s)'').
    \22\ See H.R. 3570 Report at 5 and H.R. 2994 Report at 16. As of 
the June 12, 2009 statutory DTV transition deadline, all full-power 
television stations stopped broadcasting in analog and are 
broadcasting only digital signals. 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)(A).
    \23\ STELA sec. 103 (moving the SV signal statutory copyright 
license from 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3) to 17 U.S.C. 122 (a)(2)). In doing 
so, Congress now defines SV signals as another type of local signal, 
rather than as an exception to distant signals. The move also means 
that the SV signal license does not expire on December 31, 2014, 
when the distant signal license will expire. STELA sec. 107(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The STELA is the fourth in a series of statutes that address 
satellite carriage of television broadcast stations. In the 1988 
Satellite Home Viewer Act (``1988 SHVA''), Congress established a 
statutory copyright license to enable satellite carriers to offer 
subscribers who could not receive the over-the-air signal of a 
broadcast station access to broadcast programming via satellite.\24\ 
The 1988 SHVA was intended to protect the role of local broadcasters in 
providing over-the-air television by limiting satellite delivery of 
network broadcast programming to subscribers who were ``unserved'' by 
over-the-air signals. The 1988 SHVA also permitted satellite carriers 
to offer distant ``superstations'' to subscribers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 
100-667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988) (codified at 17 U.S.C. 111, 
119). The 1988 SHVA was enacted on November 16, 1988, as an 
amendment to the copyright laws. The 1988 SHVA gave satellite 
carriers a statutory copyright license to offer distant signals to 
``unserved'' households. 17 U.S.C. 119(a).
    \25\ See id. 119(a)(1) (2009). The STELA sec. 102(g) replaces 
the term ``superstation'' with the term ``non-network station.'' 
This change in wording has no substantive impact on our rules. A 
non-network station (previously superstation) is defined as a 
television station, other than a network station, licensed by the 
Commission that is retransmitted by a satellite carrier. As the term 
would suggest, non-network stations are still not considered 
``network stations'' for copyright purposes. See id. 119(d)(9); see 
also supra notes 7 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In the 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (``SHVIA''), 
Congress expanded satellite carriers' ability to retransmit local 
broadcast television signals directly to subscribers.\26\ A key element 
of the SHVIA was the grant to satellite carriers of a statutory 
copyright license to retransmit local broadcast programming, or 
``local-into-local'' service, to subscribers. A satellite carrier

[[Page 72971]]

provides ``local-into-local'' service when it retransmits a local 
television signal back into the local market of that television station 
for reception by subscribers.\27\ Generally, a television station's 
``local market'' is the DMA in which it is located.\28\ Each satellite 
carrier providing local-into-local service pursuant to the statutory 
copyright license is generally obligated to carry any qualified local 
television station in the particular DMA that requests carriage and 
complies with Commission rules, unless the station's programming is 
duplicative of the programming of another station carried by the 
carrier in the DMA or the station does not provide a good quality 
signal to the carrier's local receive facility.\29\ This is commonly 
referred to as the ``carry one, carry all'' requirement. The Commission 
implemented the SHVIA by adopting rules for satellite carriers with 
regard to carriage of broadcast signals, retransmission consent, and 
program exclusivity that generally paralleled the requirements for 
cable service.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), 
Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999). The SHVIA was enacted on 
November 29, 1999, as Title I of the Intellectual Property and 
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPACORA) (relating to 
copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite 
carriers). In the SHVIA, Congress amended both the copyright laws, 
17 U.S.C. 119 and 122, and the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 325, 
338 and 339.
    \27\ 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6).
    \28\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(A); 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1). DMAs, 
which describe each television market in terms of a unique 
geographic area, are established by Nielsen Media Research based on 
measured viewing patterns. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(A) through (C).
    \29\ See 47 U.S.C. 338.
    \30\ See SHVIA Signal Carriage Order, 66 FR 7410, January 23, 
2001; OET SHVIA Report, FCC 00-416 (rel. Nov. 29, 2000); SHVIA 
Satellite Exclusivity Order, 65 FR 68082, November 14, 2000; SHVIA 
Retransmission Consent Enforcement Order; 65 FR 10718, February 29, 
2000; SHVIA Good Faith Retransmission Consent Order, 65 FR 15559, 
March 23, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In the 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization 
Act (SHVERA), Congress established the framework for satellite carriage 
of ``significantly viewed'' stations.\31\ Specifically, the SHVERA 
expanded the statutory copyright license to allow satellite carriers to 
retransmit an out-of-market network station as part of their local 
service to subscribers where the Commission determined that distant 
station to be ``significantly viewed'' (based on over-the-air 
viewing).\32\ In providing this authority to satellite carriers, 
Congress sought to create parity with cable operators, who had already 
had such authority to offer SV stations to subscribers for more than 38 
years.\33\ The Commission implemented the SHVERA's significantly viewed 
provisions by publishing a list of SV stations \34\ and adopting rules 
in the satellite context for stations to attain eligibility for 
significantly viewed status and for subscribers to receive SV stations 
from satellite carriers.\35\ The SHVERA mandated that the Commission 
apply the same station eligibility requirements (i.e., rules and 
procedures for parties to show that a station qualifies for 
significantly viewed status) to satellite carriers that already applied 
to cable operators.\36\ However, to prevent a satellite carrier from 
favoring SV stations over traditional local market stations, the SHVERA 
also imposed subscriber eligibility requirements that applied only to 
satellite carriers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act 
of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004) (codified 
in scattered sections of 17 and 47 U.S.C.). The SHVERA was enacted 
on December 8, 2004 as title IX of the ``Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2005.'' The SHVERA contained additional mandates requiring 
Commission action, but not relevant to this proceeding. See SHVERA 
Reciprocal Bargaining Order, 70 FR 40216, July 13, 2005 (imposing a 
reciprocal good faith retransmission consent bargaining obligation 
on multichannel video programming distributors); SHVERA Section 210 
Order, 70 FR 51658, August 31, 2005 (requiring satellite carriers to 
carry local TV broadcast stations in Alaska and Hawaii); SHVERA 
Procedural Rules Order, 70 FR 21669, April 27, 2005 (adopting 
procedural rules concerning satellite carriers' notifications to TV 
broadcast stations and obligations to conduct signal testing); 
Retransmission Consent and Exclusivity Rules: Report to Congress 
Pursuant to Section 208 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004, dated Sept. 8, 2005, available at 
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/shvera.html (Report analyzing comments 
received in MB Docket No. 05-28 and addressing impact of certain 
rules and statutory provisions on competition in the television 
marketplace).
    \32\ In the SHVERA, Congress again amended both the 
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 325, 338, 339 and 340, and the 
copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. 119 and 122. In creating a statutory 
copyright license for satellite carriers to offer significantly 
viewed stations to subscribers, Congress distinguished between out-
of-market stations that had significant over-the-air viewership in 
another market (i.e., significantly viewed stations) and truly 
``distant'' stations.
    \33\ See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 17280-1, para. 2. In 1972, the Commission adopted the concept 
of ``significantly viewed'' stations for cable television to 
differentiate between out-of-market television stations ``that have 
sufficient audience to be considered local and those that do not.'' 
1972 Cable R&O, 36 FCC 2d at 174, para. 83. The Commission concluded 
at that time that it would not be reasonable if choices on cable 
were more limited than choices over-the-air, and gave cable carriage 
rights to stations in communities where they had significant over-
the-air (non-cable) viewing. Id.
    \34\ See supra note 10 (for background on SV List).
    \35\ See 47 CFR 76.5(ee) (revised), 76.5(gg) (added), 76.54(a) 
through (c) (revised), 76.54(e) through (k) (added), 76.122(a) and 
(j) (revised), and 76.123(a) and (k) (revised).
    \36\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(a). As mandated by the SHVERA, the 
Commission required satellite carriers or broadcast stations seeking 
SV status for satellite carriage to follow the same petition process 
now in place for cable carriage. See 47 CFR 76.5, 76.7 and 76.54(a) 
through (d).
    \37\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b) (2004). The eligibility requirements also 
addressed the different carriage requirements that apply to cable 
(i.e., ``must carry'' for all cable systems) as compared with 
satellite (i.e., ``carry one, carry all''). In the cable context, 
where mandatory carriage rules apply as opposed to satellite's carry 
one, carry all requirements, it was not necessary to include 
subscriber eligibility requirements, as it was presumed that all 
cable subscribers receive local broadcast stations as part of their 
cable package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The SHVERA limited subscribers' eligibility to receive SV 
digital television stations from satellite carriers in two key ways. 
First, the SHVERA allowed a satellite carrier to offer SV stations only 
to subscribers that received the carrier's ``local-into-local'' service 
(the ``local service'' requirement).\38\ The Commission interpreted 
this local service requirement to further require that the subscriber 
receive the local station affiliated with a particular network (as part 
of the carrier's ``local-into-local'' service) in order for that 
subscriber to also receive an SV station affiliated with the same 
network (the ``same network affiliate'' requirement).\39\ Second, the 
SHVERA allowed a satellite carrier to offer an SV digital station to a 
subscriber only if the carrier also provided to that subscriber the 
local station affiliated with the same network in a format that used 
either (1) an ``equivalent'' amount of bandwidth for the local and SV 
network station pair, or (2) the ``entire'' bandwidth of the local 
station (the ``equivalent or entire bandwidth'' requirement).\40\ The 
Commission interpreted this provision to require an objective 
comparison of each station's use of its bandwidth in terms of

[[Page 72972]]

megabits per second (mbps) or bit rate.\41\ The SHVERA provided for two 
exceptions to the local service limitations, contained in 47 U.S.C. 
340(b)(3) and (b)(4). Section 340(b)(3) allows satellite carriage of an 
SV network station to a subscriber when there is no local station 
affiliated with the same television network as the SV station present 
in the local market. Section 340(b)(4) allows a satellite carrier to 
negotiate privately with the local network station to obtain a waiver 
of the subscriber eligibility restrictions in Sections 340(b)(1) and 
340(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Commission found that ``subscriber receipt of `local-
into-local' service [was] unambiguously required by the statute.'' 
SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order at para. 68.
    \39\ Id. at para. 76 (discussing digital service limitations). 
The SHVERA's language differed with respect to the analog and 
digital service limitations. In 2004, television stations were 
transitioning from analog to digital service and most stations were 
broadcasting both analog and digital signals. Consequently, the 
SHVERA specified that certain provisions applied to analog signals 
and other, often different, provisions applied to digital signals. 
See 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) (analog service limitations) and 47 U.S.C. 
340 (b)(2)(A) (digital service limitations) (2004). The Commission 
noted that, ``[u]nlike the ambiguity in its sister analog provision 
[of 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) (2004)], Section 340(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 47 
U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(A) (2004), is clear in requiring a subscriber to 
receive ``the digital signal of a network station in the 
subscriber's local market that is affiliated with the same 
television network.'' Id. See also id. at 17305, para. 70 
(discussing analog service limitations).
    \40\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(B) (2004) (``With respect to a signal 
that originates as a digital signal of a network station, this 
section shall apply only if--* * * (B) either--(i) the 
retransmission of the local network station occupies at least the 
equivalent bandwidth as the digital signal retransmitted pursuant to 
this section; or (ii) the retransmission of the local network 
station is comprised of the entire bandwidth of the digital signal 
broadcast by such local network station.''). Congress sought to 
prevent satellite carriers from offering the local network station's 
digital signal ``in a less robust format'' than the significantly 
viewed affiliate station's digital signal). SHVERA Significantly 
Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 17314, para. 94.
    \41\ See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 17315, para. 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    9. We adopt rules in this R&O to implement the STELA's amendments 
to Section 340(b) of the Communications Act. Our discussion below 
addresses the two substantive changes to Section 340(b)(1) and (b)(2), 
as well as how these amended provisions will work with the existing 
statutory exceptions in Section 340(b)(3) and (b)(4). We decline to 
address here the merits of Dish's petition for further rulemaking filed 
with its comments, as those issues are beyond the scope of this 
proceeding.\42\ Finally, we adopt some non-substantive, 
``housecleaning'' rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Dish requested the Commission to undertake a rulemaking to 
revise the retransmission consent rules as they apply to carriage of 
SV stations. See Dish Comments (Petition) at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The STELA amended Section 340(b) to read as follows: \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b) (2010), as amended by the STELA sec. 
203(a). See also 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2), as amended by STELA sec. 
103(b).

    (1) Service Limited to Subscribers Taking Local-Into-Local 
Service.--This section shall apply only to retransmissions to 
subscribers of a satellite carrier who receive retransmissions of a 
signal from that satellite carrier pursuant to section 338.
    (2) Service Limitations.--A satellite carrier may retransmit to a 
subscriber in high definition format the signal of a station determined 
by the Commission to be significantly viewed under subsection (a) only 
if such carrier also retransmits in high definition format the signal 
of a station located in the local market of such subscriber and 
affiliated with the same network whenever such format is available from 
such station.
    (3) The limitations in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not prohibit a 
retransmission under this section to a subscriber located in a local 
market in which there are no network stations affiliated with the same 
television network as the station whose signal is being retransmitted 
pursuant to this section.
    (4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not prohibit a retransmission of a 
network station to a subscriber if and to the extent that the network 
station in the local market in which the subscriber is located, and 
that is affiliated with the same television network, has privately 
negotiated and affirmatively granted a waiver from the requirements of 
paragraph (1) and (2) to such satellite carrier with respect to 
retransmission of the significantly viewed station to such subscriber.
    11. These amendments simplify the significantly viewed provisions 
in Section 340(b) of the Communications Act to make it easier for 
satellite carriers to offer SV stations to subscribers.\44\ 
Specifically, the STELA made two key changes to Section 340(b).\45\ 
First, the STELA eliminated the language in Section 340(b)(2)(A) that 
had required that subscribers receive the same local network affiliate 
and, instead, retains only the language requiring that the subscriber 
receive local-into-local satellite service in order to be eligible to 
receive SV stations.\46\ Second, the STELA replaces the ``equivalent or 
entire bandwidth'' requirement applicable to digital service, which was 
previously contained in Section 340(b)(2)(B), with an ``HD format'' 
requirement. The STELA did not amend the statutory exceptions in 
Sections 340(b)(3) and (b)(4) to the subscriber eligibility 
restrictions in Sections 340(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See H.R. 3570 Report at 4.
    \45\ STELA sec. 203(a) (amendments to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 
340(b)(1) and (2)). We note that the subscriber eligibility 
limitations in 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) and (2), which are amended by the 
STELA sec. 203, do not apply to cable subscribers. We do not 
substantively amend our significantly viewed rules and procedures 
that satellite carriers share with cable operators. See 47 CFR 
76.54(a) through (d). Furthermore, we note that the STELA sec. 203 
does not amend the significantly viewed provisions in the 
Communications Act governing the eligibility of a television 
broadcast station to qualify for ``significantly viewed'' status. 
See 47 U.S.C. 340(a), (c) through (g). We do not make any 
substantive (non-``housecleaning'') changes to our rules and 
procedures implementing the significantly viewed station eligibility 
requirements. See 47 CFR 76.54(a) through (f), (j) and (k). See 
infra Section III.F. (discussing housecleaning changes).
    \46\ Section 340(b)(1) as amended retains the reference to ``a'' 
signal carried pursuant to Section 338 and the explanatory heading 
referring to ``subscribers taking local-into-local service.'' 
Congress removed from this section the phrase ``that originates as 
an analog signal of a local network station'' following the word 
``signal.'' See DIRECTV Reply at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The STELA Directs the Commission To Create a Workable Framework That 
Will Enable Satellite Carriers To Offer Both the SV and Local Stations 
to Consumers

    12. We find that, in the STELA, Congress intended that the 
Commission create a workable framework for the satellite carriage of SV 
stations.\47\ Congress intended the 2004 SHVERA to promote parity with 
cable,\48\ while protecting localism by preventing satellite carriers 
from favoring an SV network station over the local in-market station 
affiliated with the same TV network.\49\ However, very few SV stations 
made their way into the living rooms of satellite TV consumers.\50\ The 
Satellite Carriers attribute this to the Commission's ``restrictive'' 
interpretation of Section 340(b) in the 2005 SHVERA Significantly 
Viewed Report and Order,\51\ which they maintain made satellite 
carriage of SV

[[Page 72973]]

stations impractical or technically infeasible.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, supra note 3, at 
paras. 2, 11.
    \48\ See, e.g., 2004 House Commerce Committee Report dated July 
22, 2004, accompanying House Bill, H.R. 4501, 108th Cong. (2004), 
H.R. Rep. No. 108-634, at 1 and 9 (2004) (``2004 House Commerce 
Committee Report'') (noting purpose of the SHVERA included 
``increasing regulatory parity by extending to satellite carriers 
the same type of authority cable operators already have to carry 
`significantly viewed' signals into a market''). See also, e.g., 
House of Representatives Floor Debate on the Satellite Home Viewer 
Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, House Bill H.R. 4518, 150 
Cong. Rec. H8210, H8217-8219 (dated Oct. 6, 2004) (``H.R. 4518 Floor 
Debate''). In a statement in the floor debate, Rep. Joe Barton 
(Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee) stated: ``The bill 
[H.R. 4518] would extend to satellite operators the authority to 
carry such significantly viewed signals on comparable terms as cable 
operators.'' Id. at H8219. See also The Honorable Joe Barton, 
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``Floor Statement'' 
on the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 
2004, House Bill H.R. 4518, (dated Oct. 6, 2004) (``Barton Floor 
Statement'') (``In implementing Section 340, the [Commission] should 
treat satellite operators in a comparable fashion to cable operators 
to the greatest extent possible with respect to carriage of 
significantly viewed stations, in terms of both current and future 
significantly viewed rulings.'')
    \49\ See 2004 House Commerce Committee Report at 12 (noting that 
former ``Section 340(b)(2)(B) prevents the satellite operator from 
retransmitting a local affiliate's digital signal in a less robust 
format than a significantly viewed digital signal of a distant 
affiliate of the same network, such as by down-converting the local 
affiliate's signal but not the distant affiliate's signal from high-
definition digital format to analog or standard definition digital 
format'').
    \50\ See DIRECTV Comments at 2 (noting that it has ``offered 
only a handful'' of SV stations since satellite carriage of such 
stations was authorized by SHVERA) and Dish Reply at 5 (noting that 
``when permitted to do so, Dish offered SV stations in certain 
counties of only seven DMAs'').
    \51\ DIRECTV Comments at 1-2 and Dish Reply at 5 (noting that 
``the SV program that Congress spearheaded has not succeeded'').
    \52\ DIRECTV and Dish ex parte (dated Sept. 22, 2010) 
Significantly Viewed Talking Points Appendix at 1 (``DIRECTV and 
Dish Sept. 22 SV Talking Points'') (expressing concern that the 
Commission might adopt rules for SV carriage ``that make it 
impractical to offer such stations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Congress seemed to agree. As stated in one House Report:

    The Commission's implementation of section 340, including its 
interpretation of the ``equivalent bandwidth'' requirement, has 
generally served to discourage satellite carriers from using section 
340 to provide significantly viewed signals to qualified 
households.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ H.R. 2994 Report at 16. The use of the word ``including'' 
implies that Congress' dissatisfaction with the Commission's prior 
implementation of Section 340 was not limited to the ``equivalent 
bandwidth'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To achieve more widespread carriage of SV stations, the STELA 
amends Sections 340(b). As discussed below, Congress eliminated both 
the former Section 340(b)(2)(A), which required that digital local 
service subscribers receive the same network affiliate, and the former 
Section 340(b)(2)(B), which contained the ``equivalent or entire 
bandwidth'' requirement.\54\ Based on these changes to the statutory 
text, Congress intended more than merely to fix a technical 
implementation issue with the equivalent bandwidth requirement, as the 
Broadcaster Associations contend,\55\ but rather sought to simplify the 
law and increase service to satellite subscribers by encouraging SV 
carriage.\56\ In reauthorizing the SHVERA and mostly retaining its 
framework for the carriage of SV stations, the STELA also retains the 
key goals of its predecessor statute -to foster localism and promote 
parity between cable and satellite service.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(A) and (B). See infra Sections 
III.B. and III.C.
    \55\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 4 (arguing STELA's 
statutory changes only ``address a technical implementation 
concern'' with the ``equivalent or entire bandwidth'' requirement).
    \56\ See H.R. 3570 Report at 4 (noting STELA's general intent to 
``increase competition and service to satellite and cable 
consumers'').
    \57\ See e.g., H.R. 2994 Report at 15 (noting that ``the 
`significantly viewed' provision was adopted in SHVERA to create 
parity with cable operators'') and also H.R. 3570 Report at 10. See 
SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 17306-7, 
paras. 71-2 (noting statutory intent ``to protect localism'' by 
citing to the 2004 House Commerce Committee Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The STELA's relocation of the statutory copyright license for 
SV stations into the ``local'' license provisions of the Copyright Act 
indicates that Congress considered the SV compulsory license to be more 
like the local license than like the distant signal license, 
recognizing that the SV station is ``local'' to the community in which 
it is significantly viewed.\58\ SV stations have SV status because they 
have been viewed over-the-air by a sufficient number of households in 
the community in the relevant market. The Senate Report notes that the 
SV provision ``relates to the ability to receive locally-oriented 
programming.'' \59\ Furthermore, satellite TV consumers deserve access 
to the same locally-oriented programming--including SV stations--as 
their cable-subscribing neighbors.\60\ Moreover, providing satellite 
carriers parity with cable was a core goal of the SHVERA in 2004 and it 
remains one today in the STELA.\61\ Therefore, our implementation of 
the statutory changes to Section 340(b) focuses on enabling satellite 
TV consumers to receive both the local in-market and SV stations from 
their carriers, as is the plain intent of Section 340.\62\ To achieve 
this objective, our interpretation of the statute reflects the 
practical realities of satellite local carriage, in accordance with 
Congress's intent to remove barriers to SV carriage.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See S. 1670 Report at 5 (noting ``The [STELA] moves 
locally-oriented provisions out of the distant signal license and 
places them into the permanent local license. These provisions 
include significantly viewed, special exception, and low-power 
stations. Shifting these provisions into the local license will 
ensure that the distant signal license is focused purely on 
providing truly distant signals to consumers unserved by their local 
broadcasters.''). This makes sense given STELA's intent to create 
parity with cable, which characterizes SV signals as those with 
``sufficient audience to be considered local.'' See 1972 Cable R&O, 
36 FCC 2d at 174, para. 83. But see H.R. 3570 Report at 10 (stating 
``Since significantly viewed signals are by definition a subset of 
distant signals, SHVERA included this provision in Section 119, the 
distant signal license. However, since significantly viewed signals 
do not incur royalties, the Committee believes it should be moved to 
Section 122, which governs all other royalty-free satellite 
transmissions under the compulsory license. The bill accordingly 
incorporates the significantly viewed provision, previously in 
Section 119(a)(3), into Section 122(a).''). The Broadcaster 
Associations argue that this statement means STELA considers SV 
signals to be distant by definition. See Broadcaster Associations 
Reply at 18. We disagree that these Congressional characterizations 
are necessarily at odds. The context of the H.R. 3570 Report 
referred to SHVERA's treatment of SV signals. In contrast, STELA 
intended to treat SV signals like ``all other royalty-free satellite 
transmissions,'' i.e., like local signals. The change in license and 
treatment is also consistent with the statutory copyright license 
for cable retransmission of SV signals, which also treats them, for 
royalty purposes, as local signals. See 17 U.S.C. 111(a), (c), (d), 
and (f), as amended by STELA sec. 104.
    \59\ See S. 1670 Report at 4. See also DIRECTV Reply at 1, n.4; 
Dish Reply at 6.
    \60\ See, e.g., H.R. 4518 Floor Debate (on SHVERA bill), supra 
note 48, at H8223 (in which Rep. Conyers states that the SHVERA bill 
[H.R. 4518] ``address[ed] the desires of consumers in that it 
permits the satellite companies to retransmit a significantly viewed 
local signal to a customer''); Id. at H8217 (in which Rep. 
Sensenbrenner states that the SHVERA bill, H.R. 4518, ``changes both 
the copyright and communications acts to ensure, first, that 
consumers will have greater choice in programming; second, that 
satellite providers will have greater freedom to deliver the content 
consumers desire''); and Id. at H8219 (in which Rep. Barton states 
that ``[b]y extending the expiring provisions, increasing parity, 
and promoting further competition, this legislation [H.R. 4518] will 
continue to enhance service to consumers.'')
    \61\ See, e.g., H.R. 3570 Waxman Floor Statement (on STELA 
bill), supra note 21, at H13441 (calling the bill [H.R. 3570] ``an 
important step forward for consumers,'' Chairman Waxman notes, among 
other things, that the ``bill makes changes to the existing rules on 
`significantly viewed' signals in an effort to promote competition 
between satellite and cable companies''); and H.R. 4518 Floor Debate 
(on 2004 SHVERA bill), supra note 48, at H8223 (in which Rep. 
Dingell states that the bill [H.R. 4518] will not only ``increase 
regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers'' but that 
such ``increased parity should help spur greater competition between 
cable and satellite providers and ultimately benefit consumers in 
the form of lower prices and better service''). Contrary to the 
Broadcaster Associations' argument, there is nothing in the record 
to suggest that cable carriage of SV stations has harmed localism 
over more than 30 years. See NAB ex parte (dated Oct. 7, 2010) 
Significantly Viewed Talking Points Appendix at 3 (``NAB Oct. 7 SV 
Talking Points'') (claiming the Satellite Carriers ignore STELA's 
goal to protect localism).
    \62\ As discussed above in supra para. 1, the purpose of Section 
340 is to give satellite carriers the authority to offer SV stations 
as part of their local service to their subscribers.
    \63\ See DIRECTV and Dish ex parte (dated Sept. 20, 2010) 
Significantly Viewed Talking Points Appendix at 1 (``DIRECTV and 
Dish Sept. 20 SV Talking Points'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In the STELA, Congress directs us to implement Section 340 in a 
practical way that will better enable satellite carriers to offer SV 
stations to their subscribers. We find that carriage of both the SV and 
local in-market stations will best foster localism and promote parity 
with cable, and so, in implementing the law we must balance protection 
of local in-market stations against the cost of making SV carriage 
technically infeasible or impractical.

B. The STELA Eliminates the Requirement To Receive a Local Station 
Affiliated With the Same Network as the SV Station and Requires Instead 
That Subscribers Receive Local-Into-Local Service

    16. We adopt our proposal to eliminate the requirement that a 
subscriber receive the local station affiliated with a specific network 
in order for that subscriber to also receive an SV station affiliated 
with the same network, and require instead that the subscriber receive 
local-into-local satellite service.\64\ We clarify, however, that a 
satellite carrier must comply with Section 76.65 of our rules, which 
codifies the requirement for good faith in retransmission consent 
negotiations,

[[Page 72974]]

in order for it to carry an SV station. In the record, the Satellite 
Carriers support our proposal, while the Broadcaster Associations 
oppose it.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, supra note 3, at para. 14.
    \65\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 7 and Reply at 6; 
DIRECTV Comments at 3 and Reply at 3; Dish Comments at 4 and Reply 
at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In the 2004 SHVERA, Congress authorized satellite carriers to 
offer SV stations to subscribers, but crafted Sections 340(b)(1) and 
340(b)(2)(A) of the Act to protect localism by requiring that these 
subscribers also receive the local network affiliate (called the 
``local service'' requirement).\66\ These two provisions, however, 
contained different language. Whereas the analog local service 
requirement in Section 340(b)(1) \67\ required only that the subscriber 
receive local service ``pursuant to Section 338''--referring to the 
``carry one, carry all'' carriage requirements that pertain to local 
stations,\68\ the digital local service requirement in Section 
340(b)(2)(A) \69\ contained additional language that expressly required 
the subscriber to receive the local digital station that was 
``affiliated with the same television network'' as the SV station 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``same network affiliate'' language). 
Thus, while each of these provisions explicitly required a subscriber 
to at least receive the satellite carrier's local-into-local service 
before that subscriber could receive an SV station, it was unclear 
(when considering the two provisions together) whether Section 
340(b)(1) also required a subscriber to receive the specific local 
analog network station before that subscriber could receive the SV 
station affiliated with the same network.\70\ For example, it was 
unclear how the statute applied where there was a local network analog 
station, but such station failed to request local carriage, refused to 
grant retransmission consent, or was otherwise ineligible for local 
carriage.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A) (2004). Congress intended 
for these provisions to protect localism ``by helping ensure that 
the satellite operator cannot retransmit into a market a 
significantly viewed digital signal of a network broadcast station 
from a distant market without also retransmitting into the market a 
digital signal of any local affiliate from the same network.'' 
SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 17306-7, 
paras. 71-2.
    \67\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) (2004), as enacted in 2004, stated: 
``With respect to a signal that originates as an analog signal of a 
network station, this section shall apply only to retransmissions to 
subscribers of a satellite carrier who receive retransmissions of a 
signal that originates as an analog signal of a local network 
station from that satellite carrier pursuant to section 338.''
    \68\ 47 U.S.C. 338. See also supra para. 6 (discussing the 
``carry one, carry all'' requirement).
    \69\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(A) (2004), as enacted in 2004, stated: 
``With respect to a signal that originates as a digital signal of a 
network station, this section shall apply only if--(A) the 
subscriber receives from the satellite carrier pursuant to section 
338 the retransmission of the digital signal of a network station in 
the subscriber's local market that is affiliated with the same 
television network. * * *''
    \70\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
17304-8, paras. 68, 70-73.
    \71\ See id. at 17304, para. 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In the 2005 SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the 
Commission interpreted former Sections 340(b)(1) and 340(b)(2)(A) to 
require that the subscriber receive the specific local station that is 
affiliated with the same network as the SV station, whether the 
station's signal was analog or digital.\72\ Although former Section 
340(b)(1) lacked the express ``same network affiliate'' language as 
that contained in its digital counterpart, the Commission interpreted 
the two provisions together and read the ``same network affiliate'' 
requirement into former Section 340(b)(1), based largely on the concept 
that Congress intended the two provisions to achieve similar ends.\73\ 
Accordingly, the Commission adopted Section 76.54(g) of the rules, 
based on the ``same network affiliate'' language in former Section 
340(b)(2)(A).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id. at 17305 and 17308, paras. 70 and 76. In the 2006 
DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint Petition, the Satellite Carriers challenged 
the Commission's interpretation of the analog service limitation 
provision in 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1). With the end of analog full-power 
broadcasting, this issue is now moot. See infra Section III.G. 
(discussing Order on Reconsideration).
    \73\ See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 17307, para. 72. We note that the Commission also stated that 
its interpretation of Section 340(b)(1) was necessary to give 
meaning to the statutory exceptions in Sections 340(b)(3) and (4); 
see supra para. 10 (for statutory text). As discussed, infra, in 
paras. 46-47 and note 167, we find the statutory exceptions remain 
meaningful to, and are consistent with, our interpretation of 
Section 340(b)(1) as amended by STELA.
    \74\ 47 CFR 76.54(g) states: ``(g) Signals of analog or digital 
significantly viewed television broadcast stations may not be 
retransmitted by satellite carriers to subscribers who do not 
receive local-into-local service, including a station affiliated 
with the same network as the significantly viewed station, pursuant 
to Sec.  76.66 of this chapter; except that a satellite carrier may 
retransmit a significantly viewed signal of a television broadcast 
station to a subscriber who receives local-into-local service but 
does not receive a local station affiliated with the same network as 
the significantly viewed station, if: (1) There is no station 
affiliated with the same television network as the station whose 
signal is significantly viewed; or (2) The station affiliated with 
the same television network as the station whose signal is 
significantly viewed has granted a waiver in accordance with 47 
U.S.C. 340(b)(4).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. As we tentatively concluded in the NPRM, new Section 340(b)(1) 
requires only that the subscriber receive local-into-local satellite 
service and no longer requires carriage of the local affiliate of the 
same network.\75\ New Section 340(b)(1) applies ``only to 
retransmissions to subscribers of a satellite carrier who receive 
retransmissions of a signal from that satellite carrier pursuant to 
Section 338.'' \76\ By providing simply that a subscriber must receive 
``a'' signal from the satellite carrier pursuant to Section 338 before 
receiving a SV signal, the statute removes any precondition that a 
subscriber receive ``the'' local affiliate of the same network as the 
SV station. In drafting new Section 340(b)(1) for the STELA, Congress 
eliminated the ``same network affiliate'' language that appeared in the 
provision enacted as part of the SHVERA in 2004.\77\ Our interpretation 
that the new Section 340(b)(1) requires only that the subscriber 
receive local-into-local service is also consistent with the 
provision's heading: ``Service Limited To Subscribers Taking Local-
Into-Local Service,'' as well as with the statutory copyright license 
for SV stations, which allows a satellite carrier to retransmit SV 
stations to subscribers that receive signals pursuant to the statutory 
copyright license for local signals but says nothing about the 
subscriber having to receive the signal of the local affiliate of the 
same network.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, supra note 3, at para. 14.
    \76\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) (referring to retransmissions 
``pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 338''). Each satellite carrier providing a 
local station pursuant to the statutory copyright license is 
generally obligated to carry any qualified local television station 
in the same DMA that has requested carriage. 47 U.S.C. 338.
    \77\ In STELA, Congress eliminated most references 
distinguishing the treatment of ``analog'' versus ``digital'' 
signals or stations in light of the completion of the digital 
television transition for full power stations. In Section 340, 
Congress eliminated the text of the digital provision (former 
section 340(b)(2)(A), which had said: ``With respect to a signal 
that originates as a digital signal of a network station, this 
section shall apply only if--(A) the subscriber receives from the 
satellite carrier pursuant to section 338 of this title the 
retransmission of the digital signal of a network station in the 
subscriber's local market that is affiliated with the same 
television network; and'' (B) the retransmission complies with 
either the (i) equivalent or (ii) entire bandwidth requirement.'' 
(Emphasis added.)
    \78\ 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2)(A) (providing a statutory copyright 
license to support satellite carriage of SV stations provided the 
subscriber is receiving stations pursuant to the statutory copyright 
license for local stations). See 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Based on the language of the amended text, Congress' purposes 
of facilitating SV carriage and achieving closer parity between cable 
and satellite providers, and the shift of the SV copyright license from 
the distant license to the local license,\79\ we conclude that the best 
interpretation of new Section 340(b)(1) is that the subscriber need 
only receive a local station pursuant to Section 338 in order

[[Page 72975]]

to be eligible to receive SV stations, and that it need not receive the 
network affiliate affiliated with the same network as the SV 
station.\80\ The Broadcaster Associations disagree with the NPRM's 
interpretation of new Section 340(b)(1) and argue that the Commission 
should retain the interpretation it applied to the SHVERA, 
notwithstanding the change in the statutory language as enacted in the 
STELA.\81\ They note that, in implementing the SHVERA in 2005, the 
Commission interpreted the former analog local service provision in 
former Section 340(b)(1) and the former digital local service provision 
in former Section 340(b)(2)(A) to require that a satellite subscriber 
must receive the local affiliate of a specific network in order to be 
eligible to receive the SV station affiliated with the same 
network.\82\ The SHVERA, in contrast to the STELA, included language 
expressly requiring receipt of the ``same network affiliate'' in the 
provision applying to eligibility for a digital SV station.\83\ The 
Commission, relying on the language in the former digital provision, 
applied the requirement to subscriber eligibility for both analog and 
digital SV stations.\84\ The Broadcaster Associations contend that we 
should retain the former interpretation and apply it to the new STELA 
provision despite the removal of the old language.\85\ They argue that 
nothing has materially changed with respect to the local service 
requirement, other than the completion of the DTV transition and, 
therefore, that the Commission's prior interpretation of Section 
340(b)(1) should not change.\86\ They argue that Congress ``re-
enacted'' the Commission's 2005 interpretation of former Section 
340(b)(1) because it did not substantively change that provision, 
thereby giving its ``implicit approval'' of that interpretation.\87\ We 
reject these arguments as they ignore that the STELA does, in fact, 
materially change the SHVERA's local service requirements.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ We note that SV stations are treated as ``local'' for 
copyright purposes in 17 U.S.C. 111 (the cable copyright license). 
See supra note 58.
    \80\ This conclusion affirms our tentative conclusion in the 
NPRM at paras. 14-17. See also DIRECTV Comments at 3-4 and Reply at 
3-8; Dish Comments at 2 and Reply at 7.
    \81\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 8 (arguing that the 
``prior Section 340(b)(1) never contained the `same network 
affiliate' requirement'' and, therefore, ``the same interpretation 
and the same result must apply here.'').
    \82\ See Broadcaster Associations Comments at 8. See also SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order at paras. 71-3.
    \83\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(A).
    \84\ See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 17306-7, paras. 71-2.
    \85\ See Broadcaster Associations Comments at 9.
    \86\ Id. at 8-11 (arguing ``the only substantive change to the 
provision is the removal of references to `analog signal''').
    \87\ Id. at 12 (arguing that ``Congress's failure to expressly 
amend the statute to alter that interpretation * * * is tantamount 
to a legislative re-enactment of that interpretation.'').
    \88\ See DIRECTV Reply at 5-6; Dish Reply at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The Broadcaster Associations assert that we must presume that 
Congress was aware of the Commission's prior interpretation of the 
local service provision.\89\ By the same reasoning, however, we must 
also presume that Congress was aware of the basis for that 
interpretation: Namely, the ``same network affiliate'' language in the 
former digital local service requirement in former Section 
340(b)(2)(A). Congress intentionally removed that requirement when it 
chose to strike that language in favor of the former analog local 
service limitation language. As we said in the NPRM, Congress chose to 
discard the ``same network affiliate'' language in the former digital 
local service requirement in Section 340(b)(2)(A), which the Commission 
had relied upon for its more restrictive interpretation of the former 
analog local service requirement in Section 340(b)(1).\90\ As Dish 
notes: ``Congress' eraser is no less dispositive than its pen.'' \91\ 
Moreover, our interpretation is consistent with Congress' intent to 
facilitate carriage and availability of SV stations for more satellite 
subscribers, and, thereby, to achieve closer parity with cable carriage 
of SV stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 12.
    \90\ See NPRM at para. 16 See NPRM at ] 16 (quoting Russello v. 
United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (``[Where] Congress includes 
particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in 
another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that 
Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion 
or exclusion.'').
    \91\ Dish Reply at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The Broadcaster Associations also argue that because both the 
former and new Section 340(b)(2) contain the ``same network affiliate'' 
language, the need to reconcile these two provisions remains.\92\ 
Moreover, they argue that because three out of four of the Section 
340(b) provisions contain the ``same network affiliate'' language, we 
should read that language into the one that does not: The new local 
service requirement.\93\ We reject both claims. New Section 340(b)(2) 
is a different requirement from the other provisions of Section 340(b), 
and addresses only when a satellite carrier may provide the HD signal 
of an SV station.\94\ Moreover, contrary to the Broadcaster 
Associations' assertion, we find that Congress's inclusion of the 
``same network affiliate'' language in three out of four of the Section 
340(b) provisions and not in the amended digital local service 
provision indicates that such exclusion was intentional.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 8 (claiming ``[t]hat 
requirement appeared in prior Section 340(b)(2), and that very same 
requirement still appears in new Section 340(b)(2).'').
    \93\ Broadcaster Associations Reply at 9-10 (``Congress 
maintained the `same network affiliate' language in three of the 
four subparagraphs'').
    \94\ Dish Reply at 9.
    \95\ See, e.g., Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 173 (2001) 
(quoting Bates v. U.S., 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997)) (``where Congress 
includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits 
it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that 
Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion 
or exclusion''). See also supra note 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We recognize that there may be tension in some circumstances 
between the goals of protecting localism, on the one hand, and 
achieving closer parity between pay television providers and increasing 
SV carriage, on the other. Specifically, our interpretation below of 
the STELA's amendments to Sections 340(b)(1) and (b)(2) makes it 
possible for a satellite carrier to carry an SV network station, even 
in HD format, without also carrying the corresponding local in-market 
affiliate if that local station has not granted retransmission consent. 
The Broadcaster Associations argue that this undermines local 
service.\96\ However, because SV status generally applies to only some 
areas in a DMA and not throughout an entire DMA, we find it unlikely 
that an SV station could permanently substitute for a local in-market 
station, even in the provision of network programming to the 
market.\97\ Moreover, because most viewers want to watch their local 
stations, we do not think that carriage of only SV stations would 
satisfy most subscribers for an extended time. Furthermore, as the 
Broadcaster Associations have noted in a different proceeding, 
retransmission consent impasses resulting in loss of a local station 
are relatively rare \98\ and, when they do occur, they are usually 
short-lived. Although the Broadcaster Associations do provide a few 
examples of markets where they have concerns that satellite carriers 
could rely on

[[Page 72976]]

carriage of an SV station to the exclusion of the local in-market 
station, the record does not reflect instances in which an SV station 
has supplanted an in-market station in the cable or satellite 
context.\99\ Therefore, we will monitor how the rules adopted in this 
order are working to determine if there are abuses, unintended 
consequences, or misuse of the rules that might lead to violations of 
the good faith requirements associated with retransmission consent 
negotiations.\100\ Now that we have established a practical framework 
for satellite carriage of SV stations, we expect Satellite Carriers to 
offer SV stations to consumers wherever possible. However, if our 
implementation of Section 340(b) results in satellite carriers using SV 
stations to supplant, rather than supplement, their carriage of local 
in-market stations, we will reexamine our rules and our statutory 
analysis here in light of Congress' goals. In light of our conclusion 
that the new language in the STELA no longer requires subscriber 
receipt of a specific local station, we revise Section 76.54(g).\101\ 
The amended rule requires that a subscriber receive the satellite 
carrier's local-into-local service as a precondition for the subscriber 
to receive SV stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See Broadcaster Associations Reply at 14. The Commission 
recognized in the SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order that 
``the legislative history repeatedly reflects Congressional concern 
that the amendments permitting carriage of out-of-market 
significantly viewed signals not detract from localism.'' See SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 17306-7, paras. 
71-2 (noting statutory intent ``to protect localism'' by citing to 
the 2004 House Commerce Committee Report).
    \97\ See DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 20 SV Talking Points.
    \98\ See, e.g., Opposition of the Broadcaster Associations in MB 
Docket No. 10-71 (dated May 18, 2010) at vii and 43, n. 148 (citing 
Bernstein Research, Cable and Satellite: Asymmetrical ``Retrans'' 
Leverage Favors Cable over Satellite and Telcos (Mar. 21, 2006) 
(finding that ``negotiating impasses that cause interruptions in 
access to broadcast signals are extremely rare'').
    \99\ See NAB ex parte (dated Oct. 22, 2010) at 1, 3-6 (``NAB 
Oct. 22 ex parte'') (suggesting local stations in four DMAs--Dayton, 
OH; Hartford-New Haven, CT; Lansing, MI; and Sherman, TX-Ada, OK--
are at risk of being overshadowed by a SV station from an adjacent, 
larger market). In its ex parte, NAB provided staff with tables 
``reflecting the extent to which out-of-market duplicating network 
stations are `significantly viewed' in several local markets.'' Id.
    \100\ See 47 CFR 76.65 (requiring broadcasters and MVPDs to 
negotiate in good faith).
    \101\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The STELA Eliminates the ``Equivalent or Entire Bandwidth'' 
Requirement and Replaces it with an ``HD Format'' Requirement

    24. We adopt our proposal to eliminate the ``equivalent or entire 
bandwidth'' requirement and to provide, in its place, that a satellite 
carrier may retransmit the HD signal of an SV station to a subscriber 
only if such carrier also retransmits the HD signal of the local 
station affiliated with the same network whenever that signal is 
available in HD format. Both the Broadcaster Associations and Satellite 
Carriers agree with this conclusion. The commenters disagree, however, 
how to interpret and implement the new ``HD format'' requirement.
    25. In the 2004 SHVERA, Congress enacted the ``equivalent or 
entire'' bandwidth requirement to prevent a satellite carrier from 
using technological means to discriminate against a local network 
station in favor of the SV network affiliate.\102\ The Commission 
codified these requirements in Section 76.54(h) of the rules, which 
tracks the language of SHVERA.\103\ In implementing that provision, the 
Commission strictly interpreted the statutory requirement for 
``equivalent bandwidth.'' As a result, satellite carriers have been 
required to ensure equality between the satellite bandwidth allocated 
to carriage of the local station and the SV stations on virtually a 
minute-by-minute basis, making carriage of SV stations so burdensome 
that they are rarely carried.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2)(B) (2004). The law reflects Congress' 
intent to prevent a satellite carrier from offering the local 
digital station ``in a less robust format'' than the SV digital 
station). SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 17314, para. 94.
    \103\ 47 CFR 76.54(h) states: ``Signals of significantly viewed 
network stations that originate as digital signals may not be 
retransmitted to subscribers unless the satellite carrier 
retransmits the digital signal of the local network station, which 
is affiliated with the same television network as the network 
station whose signal is significantly viewed, in either (1) at least 
the equivalent bandwidth of the significantly viewed station or (2) 
the entire bandwidth of the digital signal broadcast by such local 
station.''
    \104\ See supra para. 13 (quoting H.R. 2994 Report at 16). See 
also Testimony of Bob Gabrielli, Senior Vice President, Broadcasting 
Operations and Distribution, DIRECTV, Inc., before the U.S. House of 
Representatives Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the 
Internet, Hearing on Reauthorization of the of the Satellite Home 
Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, at 9 (Feb. 24, 2009) 
(``Gabrielli Testimony'') (asserting that it is ``infeasible'' for 
DIRECTV to ``carry local stations in the same format as SV stations 
every moment of the day'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The STELA eliminated the ``equivalent or entire bandwidth'' 
requirement from the statute,\105\ and replaced it with ``HD format.'' 
\106\ In doing so, Congress intended to facilitate satellite carriage 
of SV stations, which Congress thought was thwarted by the Commission's 
implementation of the predecessor provision.\107\ The legislative 
history also shows that Congress wanted to simplify the law and 
increase service to satellite consumers.\108\ Congress' principal 
concern was simply to clarify that a satellite carrier may provide an 
SV station in HD format as long as the carrier also carries the 
corresponding local network affiliate in HD format if it is available 
in HD format.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ In the 2006 DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint Petition, the Satellite 
Carriers challenged the Commission's interpretation of the 
``equivalent bandwidth'' requirement. Because the STELA eliminates 
this requirement, this issue is now moot. See infra Section III.G. 
(discussing Order on Reconsideration).
    \106\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2) (2010), as amended by the STELA sec. 
203(a).
    \107\ H.R. 2994 Report at 16 (noting that the Commission's 
implementation of Section 340, including its interpretation of the 
``equivalent bandwidth'' requirement, has generally served to 
discourage satellite carriers from using Section 340 to provide 
significantly viewed signals to qualified households). See also 
Gabrielli Testimony at 9 (``Fixing the `Significantly Viewed Rules' 
will Rescue Congress's Good Idea from the FCC's Implementation 
Mistakes'').
    \108\ See H.R. 3570 Report at 4-5.
    \109\ H.R. 2994 Report at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Accordingly, we revise Section 76.54(h) to eliminate the 
``equivalent or entire bandwidth'' requirement and to provide that a 
satellite carrier may retransmit the HD signal of an SV station to a 
subscriber only if such carrier also retransmits the HD signal of the 
local station affiliated with the same network whenever that signal is 
available in HD format.\110\ This part of the rule tracks the amended 
statutory language.\111\ In addition, as discussed below, we adopt 
additional rules to interpret and implement the new ``HD format'' 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2). We renumber 
former Section 76.54(h) as 76.54(g)(2).
    \111\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ``HD Format'' Requirement Applies Only Where a Satellite Carrier 
Retransmits the SV Station in HD Format
    28. We adopt our tentative conclusion in the NPRM that the ``HD 
format'' requirement in Section 340(b)(2) applies only where a 
satellite carrier retransmits the SV station in HD format and does not 
restrict satellite carriage of the SV station in SD format.\112\ The 
Satellite Carriers support this conclusion, while the Broadcaster 
Associations oppose it.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ NPRM at para. 12. We clarify that this requirement is 
separate from the local service requirement in Section 340(b)(1), 
which imposes restrictions on the satellite carriage of an SV 
station, regardless of format.
    \113\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 14; DIRECTV Comments 
at 4 and Reply at 8; Dish Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The Broadcaster Associations object to the additional language 
in our proposed Section 76.54(g)(2) clarifying that the ``HD format'' 
requirement does not apply to satellite carriage of an SV station in SD 
format.\114\ They argue that the statute requires satellite carriage of 
a local station in SD format if the satellite carrier retransmits the 
SV station in SD format. We disagree. As discussed above, the amended 
local service requirement in Section 340(b)(1) now requires only that a 
satellite subscriber receive the satellite carrier's local-into-local 
service as a precondition for the subscriber to receive SV 
stations.\115\ Moreover, the express

[[Page 72977]]

language of the HD format requirement in Section 340(b)(2) applies only 
when a satellite carrier transmits an SV station in HD format. 
Therefore, in order for a satellite carrier to retransmit to a 
subscriber an SV station in SD format, the statute does not require 
satellite carriage of the local station affiliated with the same 
network in SD format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 14-15.
    \115\ See supra para. 16. See also DIRECTV Reply at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Accordingly, we adopt our tentative conclusion that Section 
340(b)(2) only limits satellite carriage of an SV station in HD format 
and does not apply if the satellite carrier only carries the SV station 
in SD format, and we adopt this requirement in new Section 
76.54(g)(2).\116\ We also adopt our proposal that, for purposes of this 
provision, ``HD format'' refers to a picture quality resolution of 
720p, 1080i, or higher.\117\ We received no opposition to this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2)(i).
    \117\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2)(ii). NPRM at 
para. 12 (citing, e.g., Local Broadcast Signal Carriage First Report 
and Order, 66 FR 16533, March 26, 2001 (discussing several formats 
that are considered ``high definition''); Local Broadcast Signal 
Carriage Second Report and Order, 73 FR 24502, May 5, 2008. See 
also, e.g., Newton's Telecom Dictionary definition of HDTV at 389 
(20th ed. 2004) and the Commission's ``DTV Shopping Guide'' for 
consumers at http://www.dtv.gov/shopgde.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``HD Format'' Requirement Applies When a Local Station Makes Itself 
Technically and Legally ``Available'' to Satellite Carrier
    31. We conclude that, for a local (in-market) station to be 
``available'' for purposes of the ``HD format'' requirement in Section 
340(b)(2), the local station must: (1) Timely request carriage (i.e., 
elect mandatory carriage or grant retransmission consent); (2) provide 
a good quality HD signal to the satellite carrier's local receive 
facility (LRF) in accordance with Section 76.66(g) of the Commission's 
rules; and (3) otherwise comply with Sections 76.65 and 76.66.\118\ We 
believe that the statute's use of the term ``available,'' instead of 
``broadcast'' or ``transmitted,'' signifies that Congress did not 
intend a narrow technical meaning and affords us discretion to create a 
workable framework for satellite carriage of SV stations. Our 
conclusion is supported by Dish and DIRECTV,\119\ while the Broadcaster 
Associations oppose it.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See 47 CFR 76.65 and 76.66. These rules govern, inter 
alia, requirements to negotiate in good faith, procedures for 
requesting carriage, carriage of stations that substantially 
duplicate, and other matters related to satellite carriage of local 
stations.
    \119\ See Dish Comments at 7 and DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 22 SV 
Talking Points at 3.
    \120\ Broadcaster Associations Reply at 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The STELA establishes the new ``HD format'' requirement in 
Section 340(b)(2) to permit a satellite carrier to retransmit an SV 
network station in HD ``only if such carrier also retransmits in high 
definition format the signal of a station located in the local market 
of such subscriber and affiliated with the same network whenever such 
format is available from such station.'' \121\ In the NPRM, we sought 
comment on the significance of this language. We also sought comment on 
whether satellite carriers would face any technical problems in 
complying with our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(2) (2010), as amended by the STELA 
sec. 203(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The STELA does not define the term ``available'' for purposes 
of Section 340.\122\ The legislative history likewise does not explain 
the meaning of the term. The Satellite Carriers and Broadcaster 
Associations offer competing interpretations as to what ``available'' 
should mean in this context. Dish argues that we should interpret this 
language to mean that, ``if the local station has not elected must 
carry and has not signed a retransmission consent agreement, or fails 
to provide a good quality signal in accordance with [Section] 76.66(g), 
then the signal should be deemed not available for purposes of the 
[``HD format'' requirement], and the satellite carrier should be able 
to supply the SV station in HD.'' \123\ Dish argues that this 
interpretation is necessary to prevent a local station from depriving 
satellite subscribers of both the local and the SV station in the event 
of an impasse in retransmission negotiations, which they assert would 
be ``a result directly at odds with Congress' express intent to make SV 
stations more available to satellite subscribers.'' \124\ The 
Broadcaster Associations oppose Dish's proposal, asserting that the 
Satellite Carriers' interpretations of the new ``HD format'' 
requirement ``are motivated by a desire to affect retransmission 
consent negotiations.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The STELA amendments to the Communications Act use the 
word ``available'' with respect to a signal in three different 
contexts: (1) In Section 340 with respect to an HD signal; (2) in 
Section 339 in reference to whether the satellite carrier is 
retransmitting the local station to a subscriber as part of the 
local-into-local service package, see 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 
(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II), (2)(C)(i) and (ii), (2)(D)(iii), (2)(E), and 
(2)(H); and (3) ``availability'' in Section 342 with respect to a 
satellite carrier's ``good quality signal,'' see 47 U.S.C. 
342(e)(2)(A)(i). As discussed, infra, only Section 339 offers a 
definition of ``available'' but expressly limits this definition: 
``for purposes of this paragraph,'' that is, to Section 339(a).
    \123\ Dish Comments at 7-8.
    \124\ Id. at 8.
    \125\ Broadcaster Associations Reply at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Broadcaster Associations argue that the term ``available'' 
should mean ``whenever the television station is transmitting or 
broadcasting the relevant channel in HD format.'' \126\ They argue that 
this interpretation is most consistent with other parts of the statute, 
such as Sections 339 \127\ and 342 \128\ of the Act.\129\ We disagree. 
The Sections cited by the Broadcaster Associations pertain to a 
different use of the term ``available'' in different contexts and are 
expressly limited to those contexts. Moreover, even if we were to rely 
on the definition of ``available'' in Section 339 or the reference to 
``availability'' in Section 342, the term ``available'' in the context 
of SV carriage would remain ambiguous. Section 339 relates to whether a 
satellite carrier's local-into-local package is ``available'' to a 
subscriber. If so, the subscriber is not eligible for distant signals 
(i.e., ``no distant, where local''). In the context of HD signal 
availability in Section 340, ascribing this meaning to the term 
``available'' could support either the Satellite Carriers' 
interpretation that the HD signal is not available if the local station 
does not grant consent for retransmission or the Broadcaster 
Associations' interpretation that the HD signal is available if 
broadcast.\130\ Similarly, Section 342 refers to the ``availability 
level'' of a satellite signal as a means of defining ``good quality 
satellite signal'' for purposes of a satellite carrier's eligibility 
for certification as a ``qualified carrier.'' \131\ We do not see the 
relevance of satellite signal coverage in the context of Section 342 to 
the interpretation of Section 340. Moreover, here again, even by 
strained analogy, signal availability could mean the physical presence 
of the signal, as

[[Page 72978]]

the Broadcaster Associations argue, or the ability to receive and use 
the signal, as the satellite carriers contend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Id. at 15.
    \127\ Section 339(a)(2)(H) of the Act defines the term 
``available'' in this limited context (i.e., ``no distant where 
local''):
    (H) Available defined. For purposes of this paragraph, a 
satellite carrier makes available a local signal to a subscriber or 
person if the satellite carrier offers that local signal to other 
subscribers who reside in the same zip code as that subscriber or 
person.
    47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See also Broadcaster Associations Reply 
at 14-15 (citing 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C)(i)).
    \128\ The Broadcaster Associations also argue that, in the 
qualified satellite carrier certification context in Section 342 of 
the Act, the ``availability level of a satellite signal'' ``means 
that the satellite carrier is retransmitting the satellite signal in 
a manner to satisfy the `good quality satellite signal' 
requirements.'' Broadcaster Associations Reply at 15 (citing 47 
U.S.C. 342(e)(2)(A)(i)).
    \129\ Id. at 15.
    \130\ For example, the definition in Section 339 does not shed 
light on whether the term ``available'' takes into account practical 
considerations or whether it is sufficient for a signal simply to be 
theoretically available.
    \131\ 47 U.S.C. 342 (describing the process and grounds for the 
Commission to issue a ``qualified carrier'' certification pursuant 
to 17 U.S.C. 119(g)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. In contrast to the Broadcaster Associations' attempt to import 
uses of the word from other contexts, the Satellite Carriers describe 
the circumstances in which the HD format requirement is intended to 
apply: When the satellite carrier receives a station's HD signal and 
the permission to retransmit it but chooses not to retransmit the HD 
version and instead converts the HD signal to a standard definition 
(``SD'') signal.\132\ We believe that this interpretation is most 
consistent with common usage of the term ``available.'' In contrast, we 
think it strains the common meaning of the term to consider 
``available'' a signal that the satellite carrier is legally barred 
from carrying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 22 SV Talking Points at 1. ``Every 
broadcast station that has an HD feed and is carried by a satellite 
carrier makes the HD feed `available' to the satellite carrier--even 
if the satellite carrier does not retransmit the HD format of that 
station to its subscribers. This is because, as a technical matter, 
the satellite carrier offers [SD] service in such situations by 
taking the HD signal and downrezzing it to [SD]. Thus, the HD signal 
is `available to the satellite carrier,' but the satellite carrier 
does not `retransmit to a subscriber in [HD] format the signal of 
[such] station'--exactly the situation in which Congress meant to 
restrict the format of [SV] importation. So, if a satellite carrier 
offered an entire market in SD format only, it could not import a 
[SV] station in HD format because the HD format of the in-market 
station is `available to' it.'' ``Downrezzing'' refers to reducing 
the resolution from high definition to standard definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The Satellite Carriers also address the practical impact of 
defining the term ``available'' as suggested by the Broadcaster 
Associations. They explain that they offer local service in some 
markets only in HD.\133\ Therefore, an SV station originating from such 
a market would have one HD feed covering both the station's local 
market and SV area and there would be no technical way for the 
satellite carrier to down-convert the HD feed signal to SD only in the 
SV area. Moreover, a satellite carrier would likely not have the 
capacity on its spot beam to add a duplicative, SD version of the 
station.\134\ Therefore, if a local station withholds retransmission 
consent, the Satellite Carriers would have to either down-convert the 
SV station from HD to SD in its own local market or not carry it as an 
SV station, frustrating the intent of the statute.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 20 SV Talking Points.
    \134\ See id. at 4.
    \135\ DIRECTV Comments 4-5; Reply at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The question then is whether an HD signal is ``available'' for 
purposes of the statute any time a broadcaster is transmitting an HD 
signal, or whether the term ``available'' takes into account practical 
and legal considerations, such as whether the broadcaster is delivering 
a ``good quality signal'' to the satellite carrier \136\ and the 
satellite carrier is legally permitted to carry it (i.e., the 
broadcaster has elected mandatory carriage or granted retransmission 
consent).\137\ We believe the term is ambiguous \138\ and thus should 
be defined in a manner that best effectuates the text, history and 
purposes of the statute.\139\ As discussed above, we believe the 
overriding goal of the legislative changes made in Section 340 is to 
facilitate satellite carriage of SV stations and remove the obstacles 
to carriage created by our interpretation of SHVERA.\140\ With this 
goal in mind, we find that the term ``available'' within the context of 
Section 340(b)(2) is best interpreted by taking into account whether 
the satellite carrier has the legal authority to transmit the local 
broadcaster's signal and has been provided a ``good quality'' signal, 
and we believe that this interpretation is most consistent with common 
usage of the term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(b).
    \137\ See 47 U.S.C. 325(b).
    \138\ See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 571 
F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009) (term ``reasonably available'' is ambiguous 
where statute did not specify how to define the term, so agency is 
permitted to reasonably interpret statute); State of Hawaii ex rel. 
Atty. Gen. v. FEMA, 294 F.3d 1152, 1161-1162 (9th Cir. 2002) 
(observing that ``[a]s the dictionary definitions of the word 
reveal, the term `available' is ambiguous in the current context. * 
* * Under the first definition, `available' takes into account 
practical considerations * * *; under the second definition, the 
term suggests instead a more abstract or theoretical concept without 
regard for cost, risk or uncertainty''). We note that the court 
finds ambiguous the definition from the dictionary on which the 
Broadcaster Associations rely on as being clear. Broadcaster 
Associations Reply at 15 (citing to American Heritage Dictionary of 
the English Language at 127 (3d ed. 1996) (defining available as 
``1. Present and ready for use; at hand; accessible * * * 2. Capable 
of being gotten; obtainable'').
    \139\ See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (where statute's plain terms do 
not directly address precise question at issue and statute is 
ambiguous on the point, courts are required to defer to the 
implementing agency's reasonable construction); see also National 
Cable and Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 
U.S. 967, 980 (2005) (ambiguities in statutes within an agency's 
jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority to the 
agency to fill the statutory gap in a reasonable fashion); Verizon 
Comm'ns Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 539 (2002) (under Chevron 
doctrine, courts generally defer to agency's reasonable 
interpretation of an ambiguous provision in its enabling statute).
    \140\ See supra para. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. We agree with the Broadcaster Associations that our rules must 
protect localism,\141\ but disagree that we must protect the in-market 
station at the cost of making satellite carriage of the SV station 
impractical.\142\ The Broadcaster Associations' argument fails to take 
into account that the SV station is generally not significantly viewed 
throughout an entire market. Indeed, the Satellite Carriers contend 
that stations that are significantly viewed outside of their own 
markets are generally significantly viewed only in small portions of 
neighboring markets, making it unlikely that satellite carriers could 
use SV stations to replace local stations in other markets.\143\ As 
noted above, we also find it unlikely that an SV station could 
permanently substitute for a local in-market station to the 
satisfaction of subscribers throughout the market.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See, e.g., Broadcaster Associations Comments at iv.
    \142\ See, e.g., NAB ex parte (dated Oct. 7, 2010) Significantly 
Viewed Talking Points Appendix at 3 (``NAB Oct. 7 SV Talking 
Points'').
    \143\ DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 22 SV Talking Points at 1. But see 
NAB Oct. 22 ex parte at 1, 3-6 (the Broadcaster Associations 
disagree, and contend that there are some small markets in which 
there is substantial ``overshadowing'' by a SV station from an 
adjacent, larger market (e.g., Dayton, OH; Hartford-New Haven, CT; 
Lansing, MI; and Sherman, TX-Ada, OK DMAs)). Neither side quantifies 
the prevalence of (or potential for) overshadowing. We agree that 
overshadowing is a concern, but the potential for overshadowing 
already exists in the cable context, and there is no evidence that 
overshadowing is currently a problem in the cable context or would 
be more prevalent in the satellite context.
    \144\ See supra para. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. We are persuaded that, if we were to adopt the Broadcaster 
Associations' interpretation that a station's HD signal is 
``available'' even when it has not granted retransmission consent or is 
not providing a ``good quality'' signal, the satellite carrier in many 
cases will have to downconvert the SV station or not carry the SV 
station at all due to limited satellite capacity,\145\ and 
Congressional intent will, again, be thwarted. If, on the other hand, 
we were to conclude that a station's HD signal is not ``available'' 
unless the carrier has the legal right to carry the station and a 
``good quality'' signal is being provided, the satellite carrier will 
be able to carry an SV station and, in the overwhelming majority of 
cases, will continue to have the incentive to reach a retransmission 
consent agreement with the local station. Thus, this interpretation 
will likely result in carriage of both the SV and local stations. We 
acknowledge that this interpretation may affect retransmission consent 
negotiations in some situations by giving a satellite carrier the 
opportunity to provide network programming to some subscribers through 
the SV station. This interpretation may also affect the local

[[Page 72979]]

station's leverage in negotiations because in certain areas of the DMA 
it would no longer be the only source of programming from that network 
to some satellite subscribers. We conclude, however, that this is the 
best interpretation of the statutory language because it ensures that 
the overall intent of the statutory provisions to promote SV carriage 
is carried out.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 20 SV Talking Points at 2 
(``explaining that under the Broadcaster Associations' 
interpretation, ``in the event of a retrans dispute, the satellite 
carrier must downrez or black out the SV station'').
    \146\ DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 22 SV Talking Points at 1 
(``Treating satellite carriers like cable operators with respect to 
significantly viewed service would not give satellite carriers undue 
leverage in retransmission consent negotiations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Therefore, we find that Section 340(b)(2) is best interpreted 
to enable satellite TV consumers to receive both the SV and in-market 
stations as part of their carrier's local service package.\147\ 
Accordingly, we amend Section 76.54(g)(2).\148\ We note, however, that 
our interpretation here assumes that both parties are negotiating in 
good faith in compliance with our rules.\149\ If the local station is 
willing to grant consent and make its HD signal available, but the 
satellite carrier is not negotiating for retransmission consent in good 
faith, as required by Section 76.65, then the local station's HD signal 
will be deemed available. The amended Section 76.54(g)(2) includes this 
condition.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ DIRECTV Reply at 3, 11; DIRECTV Comments at 5. DIRECTV 
agreed with Dish's proposal in their joint ex parte presentations. 
See, e.g., DIRECTV and Dish Sept. 20 SV Talking Points. This 
interpretation of ``available'' applies only with respect to the SV 
provisions in STELA and not to other provisions in STELA, including 
Section 339 (47 U.S.C. 339).
    \148\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2).
    \149\ See 47 CFR 76.65(a).
    \150\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. ``HD Format'' Requirement Applies to a Local Station's HD Multicast 
Signal
    41. We find that the ``HD format'' requirement is best interpreted 
to require carriage of any HD signal of a local station affiliated with 
the same network as the SV station, regardless of whether the local 
station broadcasts the HD signal as a primary or as a secondary 
multicast stream.\151\ The Broadcaster Associations and Dish debate 
whether the statute's use of the term ``signal'' includes a multicast 
stream, with the Broadcaster Associations arguing it does and Dish 
arguing it does not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ A station may be affiliated with more than one network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. In the NPRM, we sought comment on how the ``HD format'' 
requirement in Section 340(b)(2) should apply in the event a satellite 
carrier wants to retransmit an SV network affiliate in HD and there is 
an in-market (local) station that is broadcasting multiple streams of 
programming (``multicasting'') and more than one of the streams is in 
HD format and affiliated with a network. We asked whether the satellite 
carrier is required to carry the secondary stream in HD in order to be 
permitted to retransmit an SV station affiliated with the same network 
in HD, notwithstanding that the in-market station's primary stream is 
affiliated with a different network. In other words, would a satellite 
carrier be required to carry more than one HD programming stream of an 
in-market station if the in-market station is multicasting HD streams 
that are affiliated with different networks in order for the satellite 
carrier to carry an SV station affiliated with each network in HD? We 
also considered whether we could address this situation on a case-by-
case basis. In their comments, both the Broadcaster Associations and 
the Satellite Carriers seek a Commission decision on the multicast 
question.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See Broadcaster Associations Comments at 16 and Dish Reply 
at 11. The Broadcaster Associations contend that case-by-case 
multicast determinations would be discriminatory and would violate 
the STELA. Broadcaster Associations Comments at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. We conclude that the statute's use of the term ``signal'' in 
this context does not differentiate between streams that are primary or 
secondary.\153\ For purposes of carriage of SV signals in HD, the 
question is whether there is an in-market station affiliated with the 
same network as the SV station that makes its HD signal available to 
the satellite carrier. If so, the satellite carrier may not carry the 
SV station in HD format unless it carries the local station affiliated 
with the same network in HD format. Dish argues that Section 340(b)(2) 
does not expressly use the term ``multicast stream,'' but, as noted by 
the Broadcaster Associations, this section also does not expressly use 
the term ``primary stream.'' \154\ Dish notes that, for purposes of the 
broadcast carriage requirements, a satellite carrier is generally only 
required to carry the stream that a station deems its ``primary'' 
stream if the station elects mandatory carriage.\155\ That carriage 
requirement, however, is not determinative of which signal a satellite 
carrier is required to carry in order to carry a particular SV station 
in HD format under Section 340(b)(2). As stated above, when an SV 
station is carried in HD, we interpret Section 340(b)(2) as requiring 
carriage of any available HD signal of a local station affiliated with 
the same network as the SV station. We amend Section 76.54(g)(2) 
accordingly.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ DIRECTV at 5; Broadcaster Associations Reply at 10. For 
example, a local station may be affiliated with two different 
networks and broadcast programming from both networks using its 
digital signal capacity to air two or more signal streams 
simultaneously. If the local station makes an HD signal affiliated 
with a network available to the satellite carrier, and that carrier 
wishes to carry the HD signal of an SV station affiliated with the 
same network, Section 340(b)(2) requires carriage of the local 
station's HD signal, as discussed, infra. We conclude that it is 
irrelevant whether the local affiliate's broadcast of the HD signal 
is aired on a primary or secondary multicast stream, as long as the 
HD signal is available to the satellite carrier.
    \154\ Dish Comments at 6; Broadcaster Associations Comments at 
16.
    \155\ 47 CFR 76.66(b). Dish Reply at 12-13. Satellite carriers 
are required to carry multicast streams only in Alaska and Hawaii. 
See 47 CFR 76.66(b)(2).
    \156\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Though appearing to acknowledge that the ``HD format'' 
requirement applies to multicast channels, DIRECTV expresses concern 
that applying the HD format requirement to multicast streams would make 
carriage of SV stations technically problematic because of what it 
calls the ``mushroom'' problem; that is, ``if a new, [HD] network 
affiliate suddenly appeared on the multicast stream of an existing 
station, [DIRECTV] would have to drop or downrez the [SV] station until 
[DIRECTV] could negotiate carriage and make room for the `new' local 
station.'' \157\ We believe our definition of ``available'' in the HD 
format requirement may alleviate this ``mushroom'' problem in many 
cases because a new HD multicast stream would not be available to the 
satellite carrier until the station grants retransmission consent for 
that stream. Additionally, if the new HD multicast stream is a new 
station, our existing satellite carriage rules already recognize that 
satellite carriers may face technical issues associated with commencing 
carriage of new broadcast signals in a local market.\158\ We recognize, 
however, that a satellite carrier may nonetheless face a ``mushroom'' 
problem where a new HD multicast stream is introduced by an existing 
station in the local market and such station has previously granted 
carriage consent. Furthermore, the satellite carrier may not be able to 
accommodate the new HD multicast stream in the market on its spot beam. 
Therefore, to minimize consumer disruption, we recognize that satellite 
carriers may need additional time to come into compliance with the HD 
format rule without having to drop an

[[Page 72980]]

existing SV station while they make the technical adjustments necessary 
to carry a new HD format network stream.\159\ We will consider special 
circumstances on a case-by-case basis, considering when the satellite 
carrier was informed of the introduction of a multicast stream 
containing HD signals in relation to the existing HD carriage of an SV 
station affiliated with the same network, as well as the carrier's 
compliance with its notice requirements with respect to carriage of SV 
signals.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ DIRECTV Comments at 4-5. DIRECTV explains that, from its 
perspective, ``a new multicast network affiliate can appear as 
quickly as a mushroom on the lawn after a rainy night.'' DIRECTV 
Reply at 12 (explaining ``the moment a new multicast network 
affiliate appeared, DIRECTV would either have to carry it in HD or 
drop an SV station affiliated with the same network that it had been 
carrying'').
    \158\ See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(iii) (providing 90 days for the 
satellite carrier to commence carriage of a new station). See also 
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(iv) (requiring satellite carriage within 90 days 
of receiving a mandatory carriage request in a new local-into-local 
market or upon commencing local-into-local service).
    \159\ We recognize that the HD format rule may require a 
satellite carrier to drop an existing SV station if it is not able 
to accommodate the new HD signal in the market on its spot beam. In 
such cases, the satellite carrier will be afforded a reasonable 
amount of time to inform its subscribers that it will be dropping 
the SV station.
    \160\ See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(iii) and 47 CFR 76.54(e) (requiring 
satellite carriers that intend to carry SV stations to provide 
written 60 days notice to all TV stations assigned to the same local 
market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Statutory Exceptions to the Subscriber Eligibility Limitations

    45. While the STELA revises the subscriber eligibility limitations 
on receipt of SV service in Sections 340(b)(1) and 340(b)(2), it does 
not amend the statutory exceptions to those limitations in Sections 
340(b)(3) and 340(b)(4).\161\ As noted above, the Section 340(b)(3) 
exception permits a satellite carrier to offer an SV network station to 
a subscriber when there is no local network affiliate present in the 
local market,\162\ and the Section 340(b)(4) exception permits a 
satellite carrier to privately negotiate with the local network station 
to obtain a waiver of the eligibility restrictions.\163\ The 
Broadcaster Associations argue that if Section 340(b)(1) were construed 
simply to require receipt of some local-into-local service, rather than 
local-into-local carriage of the local affiliate of the same network as 
the SV station, that reading would render superfluous the exceptions to 
Section 340(b)(1) contained in Sections 340(b)(3) and (b)(4).\164\ To 
support their argument, the Broadcaster Associations rely on the 
Commission's 2005 decision that the ``best reading'' of the SHVERA 
version of Section 340(b)(1) required receipt of the local affiliate of 
the same network because, under any other reading, ``there would be no 
need'' for the Section 340(b)(3) or (b)(4) exceptions to Section 
340(b)(1).\165\ We reject the Broadcaster Associations' argument and 
find that our 2005 interpretation was not necessary to give effect to 
the Section 340(b)(3) and (b)(4) exceptions.\166\ Giving effect to the 
most natural reading of Section 340(b)(1)--which lacks the ``same 
network affiliate'' language found elsewhere in Section 340 and simply 
requires receipt of some local-into-local service as a condition of 
retransmitting SV stations--does not render either Section 340(b)(3) or 
Section 340(b)(4) superfluous. For example, in a situation where a 
satellite carrier does not offer a local-into-local package and thus 
Section 340(b)(1) would otherwise prohibit retransmission of any SV 
network station, Section 340(b)(3) would allow retransmission of an SV 
station to subscribers where there is no local station affiliated with 
the same television network as the SV station in the market (e.g., an 
SV station that is an ABC affiliate could be retransmitted if there is 
no local ABC affiliate). Likewise, if a subscriber does not receive the 
local-into-local package, thereby failing to meet the requirements of 
Section 340(b)(1), retransmission of an SV station to that subscriber 
would nonetheless be permissible under Section (b)(4) if the local 
station affiliated with the same network as the SV station grants a 
waiver from the requirements of Section 340(b)(1) (e.g., the local ABC 
affiliate permits the satellite carrier to retransmit an SV station 
that is an ABC affiliate). These examples show that the exceptions of 
(b)(3) and (b)(4) have meaning even when we read (b)(1) simply to 
require receipt of some local-into-local service as a condition of 
retransmitting SV stations. Further, we reject the Broadcaster 
Associations' argument that because Congress did not amend Sections 
340(b)(3) and (b)(4) when it adopted the STELA in 2010, the Commission 
may not depart from its 2005 interpretation of Section 340(b)(1).\167\ 
This argument ignores that an agency is free within the limits of 
reasoned interpretation to change course so long as it adequately 
justifies the change.\168\ In 2005, the Commission construed what it 
found to be an ambiguous provision in Section 340(b)(1) by adopting a 
reading that the Commission believed would best harmonize Section 
340(b)(1) with Sections 340(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4).\169\ Given the 
modifications to Sections 340(b)(1) and (b)(2) enacted in STELA and 
Congress's intent to ease carriage of SV stations, nothing in that 
legislation suggests that Congress intended to lock in the Commission's 
2005 interpretation of Section 340(b)(1) or restrict the Commission's 
discretion to interpret the revised eligibility requirements. As 
explained above, we now conclude that our earlier reading was not in 
fact necessary to harmonize the various provisions of Section 340(b). 
Moreover, our reading of Section 340(b)(1) here better serves the 
STELA's goals of improving service options for satellite subscribers by 
allowing SV carriage in additional situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(3) and (4). We note that the STELA Sec.  
103 does amend the waiver provision in the corresponding satellite 
statutory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2) to eliminate the 
now out-dated ``sunset'' provision and replace the term 
``superstation'' with ``non-network station,'' consistent with other 
references in the statute (see supra note 25).
    \162\ Id. at 340(b)(3). See supra para. 10 (for statutory text).
    \163\ Id. at 340(b)(4). See supra para. 10 (for statutory text).
    \164\  See NAB ex parte (dated Nov. 18, 2010) at 4-5 (``NAB Nov. 
18 ex parte'').
    \165\ Broadcaster Associations Comments at 10-11; NAB Nov. 18 ex 
parte at 4-5 (citing SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 
20 FCC Rcd at 17305-17306, paras. 70-71).
    \166\ The Satellite Carriers support changing the interpretation 
to comport with the literal language of 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) and 
(b)(3). DIRECTV Comments at 4 and Reply at 8; Dish Comments at 2.
    \167\ NAB Nov. 18 ex parte at 6.
    \168\ See National Cable and Telecommunications Association v. 
Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 980-981 (2005).
    \169\ Compare SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 
FCC Rcd at 17305, para. 70 (``Subscriber receipt of `local-into-
local' service is unambiguously required by the statute'') with id. 
(``Subscriber receipt of a specific local network affiliate * 
*ensp;* is the best reading of 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(1) in the overall 
context of Section 340'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. In the 2005 SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the 
Commission interpreted the Section 340(b)(3) exception to allow a 
satellite carrier to retransmit an SV station to a subscriber when 
there is no local affiliate of the same network present in that market, 
provided that the subscriber subscribes to and receives the carrier's 
local-into-local service.\170\ Under our new interpretation of the 
subscriber eligibility limitations in Section 340(b)(1) and (2), the 
Section 340(b)(3) exception permits a subscriber to receive an SV 
network affiliate, even if he or she does not subscribe to local-into-
local service, if there is no affiliate of that network in his or her 
local market.\171\ In other words, Section 340(b)(3) operates as an 
exception to any limitations on subscriber eligibility to receive a SV 
station if there is no affiliate of the same network as the SV station 
in the local market. Because it gives effect to the language of Section

[[Page 72981]]

340(b)(3), as well as the amended language of the statute's subscriber 
eligibility limitations, and will serve the STELA's overarching goal of 
fostering SV carriage while protecting localism, we conclude that our 
new interpretation represents the best reading of Section 340(b)(3) in 
the context of the statute as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 17309, para. 80.
    \171\ For example, the statutory exceptions in 47 U.S.C. 
340(b)(3) and (4) would still apply where local-into-local service 
is not available to a subscriber for technical reasons (such as the 
spot beam does not cover the entire DMA or its reception is blocked 
for an individual subscriber by terrain or foliage) or if local-
into-local service is not yet offered by the satellite carrier to a 
subscriber's market. See STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, supra note 
3, at para. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. In this respect, we modify the Commission's 2005 interpretation 
of Section 340 and decline to adopt our tentative conclusion in the 
NPRM that the statutory exceptions should continue to apply as before. 
Section 340(b)(3) allows a satellite subscriber to receive an SV 
station notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by Sections 340(b)(1) 
and (b)(2) if there are no network stations affiliated with the same 
network as the SV station. Thus, even if the subscriber does not 
subscribe to local-into-local service, as would otherwise be required 
by Section 340(b)(1), the subscriber can receive an SV station if there 
is no local station affiliated with the same network as that SV 
station. We recognize that the compulsory copyright license, now in 17 
U.S.C. 122(a)(2), limits SV service to markets in which local-into-
local service is offered. However, we disagree that this requires us to 
read a requirement into the Communications Act that is not there. The 
compulsory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2) permits waivers and 
automatically grants them if the in-market station affiliated with the 
same network as the out-of-market SV station does not respond to the 
satellite carrier's waiver request.\172\ As a practical matter, if 
there is no affiliate in the market, then there is no affiliate who can 
respond to a waiver request or grant a waiver under Section 122(a)(2). 
Thus, the satellite carrier could ultimately offer the SV station 
because the waiver request would, inevitably, go unanswered.\173\ 
Accordingly, we interpret the Section 340(b)(3) in accordance with its 
express language. We find it unnecessary to change the text of the rule 
that corresponds to the Section 340(b)(3) exception because the rule 
uses the statutory language and is consistent with the interpretation 
adopted here.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2)(B).
    \173\ As a practical matter, we also agree with the Satellite 
Carriers that there would be no aggrieved party by this 
interpretation. DIRECTV Reply at 9 (noting that ``if the same-
network broadcaster grants a waiver, it has determined that it would 
benefit from the delivery of the neighboring station* * *. If there 
is no such broadcaster, there is nobody to be harmed even in 
theory.''). Our interpretation, however, is limited to the 
provisions of the Communications Act. We do not intend to render any 
opinion with respect to a party's rights under the Copyright Act. 
See 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2)(B).
    \174\ See Appendix B final rule 47 CFR 76.54(g)(3) and (g)(4). 
We renumber Sections 76.54(g)(1) and (g)(2) as Sections 76.54(g)(3) 
and (g)(4), as well as make some other non-substantive changes to 
these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Dish Petition for Further Rulemaking

    48. We decline to consider here Dish's petition for further 
rulemaking (filed with its comments in this docket) as it is not within 
the scope of this proceeding.\175\ The Dish petition seeks two changes 
to the Commission's rules.\176\ First, Dish asks the Commission to 
adopt a rule ``that tying retransmission consent to restrictions on SV 
station carriage'' violates the requirement that parties negotiate 
retransmission consent in good faith.\177\ Dish's first proposal to 
change the retransmission consent rules could have been filed in our 
open proceeding on retransmission consent issues in MB Docket No. 10-
71.\178\ Second, Dish seeks to amend the Commission's rules for 
determining when a station qualifies for ``significantly viewed'' 
status in order to address the ``orphan county'' problem, which refers 
to the situation in which a county in one State is assigned to a 
neighboring State's DMA and there are few, if any, stations assigned to 
that DMA which are licensed to communities located in the State in 
which the county is located.\179\ This proposal is better addressed in 
our proceeding to implement Section 304 of the STELA.\180\ We also 
note, as the Broadcaster Associations point out,\181\ that any changes 
to the Commission's existing rules for determining significantly viewed 
status would be inconsistent with the statute's requirement that we use 
the same rules for making significantly viewed determinations that were 
in effect for cable operators as of April 15, 1976.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See Broadcaster Associations Reply at 17 and 23.
    \176\ See Dish Comments (Petition) at 9.
    \177\ Id. at 9. Section 76.65 of our rules requires TV stations 
and satellite carriers ``to negotiate in good faith the terms and 
conditions of retransmission consent.'' 47 CFR 76.65(a). For 
example, Dish argues that it is not good faith if a local station 
conditions the grant of its retransmission consent in its local 
market on a concession from the satellite carrier that it will not 
carry an SV station affiliated with the same network in the local 
market. Id.
    \178\ See Broadcaster Associations Reply at 17.
    \179\ Id. at 11. Dish seeks changes to Sections 76.5(i) 
(definition of ``significantly viewed'') and 76.54 (rules for 
demonstrating a station qualifies for ``significantly viewed'' 
status). 47 CFR 76.5(i) and 76.54. Several government 
representatives and citizens from southwest Colorado filed comments 
in support of Dish's proposals and any other ways for viewers in the 
counties of La Plata and Montezuma, CO, to receive in-state 
programming (such as from the Denver, CO DMA). See Appendix. The 
counties of La Plata and Montezuma, CO are assigned to the 
Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM DMA.
    \180\ Section 304 of the STELA requires the Commission to 
produce a ``Report on In-State Broadcast Programming,'' due to 
Congress in August 2011, to address the concerns, such as those 
voiced by the southwest Colorado group, that in some DMAs, some 
subscribers are not able to receive stations licensed to communities 
in their state via satellite. STELA sec. 304.
    \181\ See Broadcaster Associations Reply at 24.
    \182\ 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2), as amended by STELA (which retained 
the SHVERA's requirement in the statutory copyright license for SV 
stations (previously 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)) that the Commission use 
the same rules established for cable operators that were in effect 
as of April 15, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Housecleaning Rule Changes

    49. In this section, we make non-substantive changes to update our 
significantly viewed rules. In the NPRM, we sought comment on these 
rule changes. The Broadcaster Associations and Satellite Carriers 
support these changes. Accordingly, we adopt the NPRM's proposed 
housecleaning rule changes.
    50. Section 76.5(i). We amend Section 76.5(i) of the rules to 
replace its references to the term ``non-cable'' with the term ``over-
the-air.'' \183\ In the 2005 SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and 
Order, the Commission made this change to Section 76.54 to reflect the 
rule's true meaning, that being to indicate over-the-air viewing.\184\ 
The Commission explained that, in the 1972 Order, the concept of 
significant viewing was adopted to apply to over-the-air households, 
which at the time essentially meant households without cable (i.e., 
non-cable households).\185\ Thus, amending Section 76.5(i) to change 
``non-cable'' to ``over-the-air'' reflects the true intent of the rule 
as it was in 1976, and is more consistent with the STELA's intent to 
establish parity between cable and satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See Appendix B final rule change to 47 CFR 76.5(i).
    \184\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 17292-3, para. 32.
    \185\ Id. (citing to 1972 Cable R&O, 36 FCC 2d--at 175-6, paras. 
83-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. Section 76.54(c). We amend Section 76.54(c) of the rules to 
strike the outdated reference to the analog Grade B contour.\186\ In 
the 2004 SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the Commission 
revised this rule to add the appropriate service contour relevant for a 
station's digital signal--that being the noise limited service contour 
(``NLSC'').\187\ With the completion of the transition, we now can 
eliminate the reference to the Grade B contour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See Appendix B final rule change to 47 CFR 76.54(c).
    \187\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 17292, para. 31. (The digital NLSC is defined in 47 CFR 
73.622(e).)

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

[[Page 72982]]

G. Order on Reconsideration Dismisses Pending Petition as Moot

    52. In this Order on Reconsideration, we dismiss as moot the 
petition for reconsideration filed jointly by DIRECTV and Dish of the 
Commission's SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order.\188\ The 
petition seeks reconsideration of two decisions in the SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 2006 DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint Petition, at supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. First, the petition challenges the Commission's interpretation 
that the analog ``local service'' requirement in former Section 
340(b)(1) also contains the ``same network affiliate'' 
requirement.\189\ The STELA eliminates former Sections 340(b)(1) and 
(b)(2)(A).\190\ The R&O accompanying this Order on Reconsideration 
revises the satellite television significantly viewed rules to 
eliminate the analog local service requirement, as well as the digital 
``same network affiliate'' requirement.\191\ Accordingly, this issue is 
moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ 2006 DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint Petition at 9. The petition 
does not challenge the Commission's interpretation that the digital 
requirement in former Section 340(b)(2)(A) contains the ``same 
network affiliate'' requirement, essentially conceding the plain 
meaning of that provision.
    \190\ See supra notes 66 and 68 (for former statutory text).
    \191\ See supra Section III.B. (for discussion of new Section 
340(b)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Second, the petition challenges the Commission's interpretation 
of the digital service ``equivalent bandwidth'' requirement in former 
Section 340(b)(2)(B).\192\ The STELA eliminates the ``equivalent 
bandwidth'' requirement in former Section 340(b)(2)(B) \193\ and, in 
the R&O accompanying this Order, we revise the satellite television 
significantly viewed rules to eliminate this requirement.\194\ 
Accordingly, this issue is also moot and we dismiss the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ 2006 DIRECTV-EchoStar Joint Petition at 2.
    \193\ See supra notes 66 and 68 (for former statutory text).
    \194\ See supra Section III.C. (for discussion of new Section 
340(b)(2)). See also supra note 40 (for former statutory text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    55. In this R&O, we implement the STELA amendments to the SV 
provisions that apply to satellite carriers. We have been mindful that 
Congress amended the SV provisions to create a more workable framework 
to facilitate satellite carriage of SV stations and thereby provide 
satellite subscribers with greater choice of programming and to improve 
parity and competition between satellite and cable carriage of 
broadcast stations. We have also considered the importance of localism 
and balanced access to SV stations with the benefits of continued 
carriage of local stations. The rules adopted by this Order will 
advance these goals for the benefit of consumers and the competitive 
market for video distribution.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    56. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA'') \195\ the Commission has prepared this present Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') relating to this Report and 
Order. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (``IRFA'') was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') to this proceeding.\196\ The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment 
on the IRFA.\197\ The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This 
present FRFA conforms to the RFA.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \196\ STELA-Significantly Viewed NPRM, supra note 3, at app. B.
    \197\ Id.
    \198\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rule Changes
    57. This document adopts changes to the Commission's satellite 
television ``significantly viewed'' rules to implement Section 203 of 
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA).\199\ We initiated this proceeding on July 23, 2010 by issuing 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). With this R&O, we satisfy the 
STELA's mandate that the Commission adopt final rules in this 
proceeding on or before November 24, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 
2010 (STELA) sec. 203, Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat 1218, 1245 
(2010) (sec. 203 codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 340, other STELA 
amendments codified in scattered sections of 17 and 47 U.S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Section 203 of the STELA amends Section 340 of the 
Communications Act, which gives satellite carriers the authority to 
offer out-of-market but ``significantly viewed'' broadcast television 
stations as part of their local service to subscribers.\200\ The 
designation of ``significantly viewed'' status allows a station 
assigned to one DMA to be treated as a ``local'' station with respect 
to a particular cable or satellite community in another DMA, and, thus, 
enables cable or satellite carriage into said community in that other 
DMA. Whereas cable operators have had carriage rights for 
``significantly viewed'' (``SV'') stations since 1972, satellite 
carriers have had such authority only since the 2004 Satellite Home 
Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) and may only 
retransmit SV network stations to ``eligible'' satellite subscribers. 
The satellite subscriber eligibility rules impose conditions on when 
satellite carriers may retransmit SV stations to subscribers. These 
conditions are intended to prevent satellite carriers from favoring an 
SV network station over the in-market (local) station affiliated with 
the same network. We note that the nature of SV carriage under Section 
340 is permissive (and not mandatory), meaning the statute applies when 
a satellite carrier chooses to carry an SV station and has obtained 
retransmission consent from such SV station.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ 47 U.S.C. 340.
    \201\ Id. at 340(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. Section 203 of the STELA changes the restrictions on subscriber 
eligibility to receive SV network stations from satellite carriers. To 
implement the STELA, we revise our satellite subscriber eligibility 
rules as follows:
    <bullet> We find that the local service requirement in amended 
Section 340(b)(1) requires only that a satellite subscriber receive 
local-into-local satellite service as a precondition for that 
subscriber to receive SV stations. We find that the statute no longer 
requires a satellite subscriber to receive the specific local network 
station as a precondition for that subscriber to receive an SV station 
affiliated with the same network.
    <bullet> We find that amended Section 340(b)(2) no longer requires 
that a satellite carrier offer ``equivalent bandwidth'' to the local 
and SV network station pair and instead imposes an ``HD format'' 
requirement. We find that the HD format requirement in amended Section 
340(b)(2) requires that, in order to carry an SV station in high 
definition (HD) format, a satellite carrier must carry the local 
station affiliated with the same network in HD whenever such format is 
available from the local station.
    [cir] The HD format requirement applies only where a satellite 
carrier retransmits to a subscriber the SV station in HD format. This 
requirement does not restrict a satellite carrier from

[[Page 72983]]

retransmitting to a subscriber the SV station in standard definition 
(SD) format.
    [cir] For purposes of the HD format requirement, the corresponding 
local (in-market) station will be considered ``available'' to the 
satellite carrier when the station: (1) Elects mandatory carriage or 
grants retransmission consent; (2) provides a good quality signal to 
the satellite carrier as required by Section 76.66(g) of the rules; and 
(3) is otherwise in compliance with the ``good faith negotiation'' and 
carriage provisions set forth in Sections 76.65 and 76.66 of the rules. 
However, the HD signal of the corresponding local station will be 
deemed ``available'' despite failure to reach agreement on the terms of 
retransmission if the satellite carrier is not in compliance with 
Section 76.65.
    [cir] The HD format requirement requires satellite carriage of a 
secondary HD stream of a local station's multicast signal if that 
stream is affiliated with the same network as an SV station 
retransmitted in HD to satellite subscribers in the local market.
    <bullet> We modify the Commission's 2005 interpretation of the 
Section 340(b)(3) exception, which is unchanged by the STELA, and find 
that, in the context of the newly revised statute, this exception 
permits a satellite carrier to offer an SV network station to a 
subscriber when there is no local affiliate of the same network present 
in the local market, even if the subscriber does not receive local-
into-local service.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    60. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    61. 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.\202\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \203\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\204\ 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'').\205\ Below, 
we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate 
of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \203\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \204\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \205\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of 
dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes 
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. 
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television 
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. Satellite Carriers. The term ``satellite carrier'' means an 
entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service 
licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in the 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service 
(FSS) frequencies.\206\ As a general practice (not mandated by any 
regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite 
facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their 
subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often 
lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the 
satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities 
package their own programming and may or may not be Commission 
licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an 
entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to 
subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station 
license.\207\ In the SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the 
Commission concluded that the definition of ``satellite carrier'' 
includes all three of these types of entities.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ The Communications Act defines the term ``satellite 
carrier'' by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in 
title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C. 
119(d)(6). Part 100 of the Commission's rules was eliminated in 2002 
and now both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under 
Part 25 of the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast 
Satellite Service, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148.
    \207\ See, e.g., DIRECTV 5 Blanket Earth Station License, DA 04-
2526, August 12, 2004.
    \208\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
at 17302-3, paras. 59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,'' \209\ which was developed for small wireline firms. Under 
this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\210\ However, the data we have available as a 
basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered 
under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled 
``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The definition of Cable and 
Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity was one with 
$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.\211\ Currently, only two 
entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of 
capital for operation: DIRECTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation 
(``EchoStar'') (marketed as the DISH Network).\212\ Each currently 
offer subscription services. DIRECTV \213\ and EchoStar \214\ each 
report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small 
business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe 
it is unlikely that a small

[[Page 72984]]

entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to 
become a DBS service provider. We seek comments that have data on the 
annual revenues and number of employees of DBS service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007). The 2007 
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines 
the category of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' as follows: 
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single 
technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this 
industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that 
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and 
video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet 
services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' (Emphasis added 
to text relevant to satellite services.) U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 
NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers''; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM.
    \210\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
    \211\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (2002).
    \212\ See Thirteenth Annual Cable/MVPD Competition Report, 74 FR 
11102, March 16, 2009. We note that, in 2007, EchoStar purchased the 
licenses of Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (``Dominion'') (marketed 
as Sky Angel). See Public Notice, ``Policy Branch Information; 
Actions Taken,'' Report No. SAT-00474, 22 FCC Rcd 17776 (IB 2007).
    \213\ As of June 2006, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and 
the second largest MVPD, serving an estimated 16.20% of MVPD 
subscribers nationwide. See id. at 687, Table B-3.
    \214\ As of June 2006, DISH Network is the second largest DBS 
operator and the third largest MVPD, serving an estimated 13.01% of 
MVPD subscribers nationwide. Id. As of June 2006, Dominion served 
fewer than 500,000 subscribers, which may now be receiving ``Sky 
Angel'' service from DISH Network. See id. at 581, para. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. Fixed-Satellite Service (``FSS''). The FSS is a 
radiocommunication service between earth stations at a specified fixed 
point or between any fixed point within specified areas and one or more 
satellites.\215\ The FSS, which utilizes many earth stations that 
communicate with one or more space stations, may be used to provide 
subscription video service. FSS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,'' \216\ which was developed for small wireline firms. Under 
this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\217\ However, the data we have available as a 
basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered 
under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled 
``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The definition of Cable and 
Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity was one with 
$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.\218\ Although a number of 
entities are licensed in the FSS, not all such licensees use FSS 
frequencies to provide subscription services. The two DBS licensees 
(EchoStar and DIRECTV) have indicated interest in using FSS frequencies 
to broadcast signals to subscribers. It is possible that other entities 
could similarly use FSS frequencies, although we are not aware of any 
entities that might do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See 47 CFR 2.1(c).
    \216\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
    \217\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
    \218\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more 
than $14.0 million in annual receipts.\219\ Business concerns included 
in this industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' \220\ The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,392.\221\ According to 
Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, MAPro Television Database 
(``BIA'') as of April 7, 2010, about 1,015 of an estimated 1,380 
commercial television stations \222\ (or about 74 percent) have 
revenues of $14 million or less and, thus, qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 
390.\223\ We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business 
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business 
(control) affiliations \224\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission 
does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on 
the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many 
such stations would qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\  See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (2007).
    \220\ Id. This category description continues, ``These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in 
turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined 
schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources.'' Separate census 
categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in producing 
programming. See Motion Picture and Video Production, NAICS code 
512110; Motion Picture and Video Distribution, NAICS Code 512120; 
Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services, NAICS Code 
512191; and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries, NAICS Code 
512199.
    \221\ See News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of 
December 31, 2009,'' 2010 WL 676084 (F.C.C.) (dated Feb. 26, 2010) 
(``Broadcast Station Totals''); also available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296538A1.pdf.
    \222\ We recognize that this total differs slightly from that 
contained in Broadcast Station Totals, supra, note 33; however, we 
are using BIA's estimate for purposes of this revenue comparison.
    \223\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra, note 33.
    \224\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a 
third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 
13 CFR 121.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are 
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive 
to this extent.
    67. 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,'' \225\ which was 
developed for small wireline firms.\226\ Under this category, the SBA 
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\227\ However, the data we have available as a basis for 
estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a 
superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled ``Cable and 
Other Program Distribution.'' The definition of Cable and Other Program 
Distribution provided that a small entity was one with $12.5 million or 
less in annual receipts.\228\ As of June 2004, there were approximately 
135 members in the Independent Multi-Family Communications Council 
(IMCC), the trade association that represents PCOs.\229\ The IMCC 
indicates that, as of June 2006, PCOs serve about 1 to 2 percent of the 
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) marketplace.\230\ 
Individual PCOs often serve approximately 3,000-4,000 subscribers, but 
the larger operations serve as many as 15,000-55,000 subscribers. In 
total, as of June 2006, PCOs serve approximately 900,000 
subscribers.\231\ Because these operators are not rate regulated, they 
are not required to file financial data with the Commission. 
Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published financial 
information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated number of 
operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest 10 
PCOs, we believe that a substantial number of PCOs may have been

[[Page 72985]]

categorized as small entities under the now superseded SBA small 
business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
    \226\ Although 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).
    \227\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
    \228\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (2002).
    \229\ See Eleventh Annual Cable/MVPD Competition Report, FCC 05-
13 (rel. Feb. 4, 2005).
    \230\ See Thirteenth Annual Cable/MVPD Competition Report.
    \231\ Id.
    \232\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    68. The final rules do not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping 
or other compliance requirements.
5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    69. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. In the NPRM, we invited comment on whether there were any 
alternatives we should consider to our proposed implementation of the 
statutory amendments to Section 340(b) that would minimize any adverse 
impact on small businesses, but which are consistent with the statute 
and its goals and also maintain the benefits of our proposals. We 
explained that STELA's amendments to Section 340(b) intend to 
facilitate satellite carriage of SV stations, with the expectation that 
this will increase satellite TV service to consumers and promote 
regulatory parity between cable and satellite service.\234\ We 
tentatively concluded that our proposed rule changes implement the 
statute in the way that is most consistent with the plain language of 
the statute.\235\ We also noted that the plain language of the statute 
did not appear to give us discretion to treat small entities 
differently from larger ones, but sought comment on this question. We 
received no comments to the IRFA in the NPRM. We, therefore, affirm our 
conclusions in the NPRM's IRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See H.R. 3570 Report at 4-5; H.R. 2994 Report at 16.
    \235\ Our proposed rules are based on, and largely track, the 
amended language of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. We find in the R&O that Congress amended the SV provisions to 
create a more workable framework to facilitate satellite carriage of SV 
stations and, thus, improve parity and competition between satellite 
and cable. Satellite carriers, and the SV stations which they would 
carry,\236\ will certainly benefit from the opportunity for increased 
TV service afforded by the STELA's changes to the SV program. 
Furthermore, consumers of satellite TV service will benefit from 
greater choice of programming. We find that any adverse impact to these 
entities is unlikely because SV carriage under Section 340 is 
permissive (and not mandatory); that is, the satellite carrier chooses 
to carry an SV station and the SV station must grant its consent to be 
carried.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ For example, small broadcast stations will benefit from 
the opportunity to be delivered as an SV station to more viewers.
    \237\ See 47 U.S.C. 340(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. While we have included this complete FRFA, we note that we 
could have certified that this rulemaking will not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' \238\ The 
rules impose compliance requirements only on the two DBS service 
providers, neither of which qualify as a small entity.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \239\ See supra section VIII.A.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Report to Congress
    73. The Commission will send a copy of this R&O, including this 
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act.\240\ In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 
R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 
A copy of the R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\  See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    \241\ See id. 604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    74. This Report and Order has been analyzed with respect to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''),\242\ and does not contain 
any new or modified information collection requirements.\243\ In 
addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law 
104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 
U.S.C.).
    \243\ The Commission does not modify the existing information 
collections that relate to the Commission's significantly viewed 
rules and procedures. See OMB Control Nos. 3060-0311 (47 CFR 76.54), 
3060-0960 (47 CFR 76.122, 76.123, 76.124, 76.127), and 3060-0888 (47 
CFR 76.7). The Commission will maintain these collections.
    \244\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 
(``SBPRA''), Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in 
Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Congressional Review Act

    75. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Information

    76. For more information on this Report and Order, please contact 
Evan Baranoff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fcaf9eee1a1cdeefdeee1e0e9e9cfe9ececa1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="400536212e6e022132212e2f2626002623236e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-2120.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    77. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to Section 203 of the 
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), and 
Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), and 340 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), and 340, this Report and Order 
IS adopted, and the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth 
in the final rule changes appendix (Appendix B) attached to this Report 
and Order.
    78. It is also ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
Sections 203(b) and 307 of the STELA, STELA secs. 203(b) and 307, the 
rules adopted in this Report and Order are adopted and will be 
effective 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.
    79. It is also ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 
and 340 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i) and (j), and 340; and Section 1.429 of our rules, 47 CFR 1.429, 
the petition for reconsideration in MB Docket No. 05-49 which was filed 
jointly by DIRECTV and Dish (formerly Echostar) is dismissed as moot.
    80. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission will send a copy of 
this Report and Order in a report to Congress and the General 
Accounting Office.
    81. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

[[Page 72986]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Satellite television.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the FCC amends 47 CFR part 
76 as follows:

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 
522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 
552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.


0
2. Amend Sec.  76.5(i) by removing the words ``other than cable 
television'' and adding in their place the words ``over-the-air'' and 
in the Note following paragraph (i) remove the word ``noncable'' each 
place it appears and add in its place the words ``over-the-air''.

0
3. Amend Sec.  76.54 by revising the first sentence in paragraph (c), 
revising paragraph (g), removing and reserving paragraph (h), and 
revising paragraph (i), to read as follows:


Sec.  76.54  Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for 
special showings.

* * * * *
    (c) Notice of a survey to be made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section shall be served on all licensees or permittees of television 
broadcast stations within whose predicted noise limited service 
contour, as defined in Sec.  73.622(e) of this chapter, the cable or 
satellite community or communities are located, in whole or in part, 
and on all other system community units, franchisees, and franchise 
applicants in the cable community or communities at least (30) days 
prior to the initial survey period. * * *
* * * * *
    (g) Limitations on satellite subscriber eligibility. A satellite 
carrier may retransmit a significantly viewed network station to a 
subscriber, provided the conditions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of 
this section are satisfied or one of the two exceptions to these 
conditions provided in paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of this section 
apply.
    (1) Local service requirement. A satellite carrier may retransmit 
to a subscriber the signal of a significantly viewed station if:
    (i) Such subscriber receives local-into-local service pursuant to 
Sec.  76.66; and
    (ii) Such satellite carrier is in compliance with Sec.  76.65 with 
respect to the stations located in the local market into which the 
significantly viewed station will be retransmitted.
    (2) HD format requirement. Subject to the conditions in paragraphs 
(g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, a satellite carrier may 
retransmit to a subscriber in high definition (HD) format the signal of 
a significantly viewed station only if such carrier also retransmits in 
HD format the signal of a station located in the local market of such 
subscriber and affiliated with the same network whenever such format is 
available from such station, including when the HD signal is broadcast 
on a multicast stream.
    (i) The requirement in paragraph (g)(2) of this section applies 
only where a satellite carrier retransmits to a subscriber the 
significantly viewed station in HD format, and does not restrict a 
satellite carrier from retransmitting to a subscriber a significantly 
viewed station in standard definition (SD) format.
    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the term 
``HD format'' refers to a picture quality resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 
higher.
    (iii) For purposes of paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the local 
station's HD signal will be considered ``available'' to the satellite 
carrier when the station:
    (A) Elects mandatory carriage or grants retransmission consent;
    (B) Provides a good quality HD signal to the satellite carrier's 
local receive facility (LRF); and
    (C) Complies with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  76.65 and 76.66.
    (iv) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of 
this section, if the local station is willing to grant retransmission 
consent and make its HD signal available to the satellite carrier, but 
the satellite carrier does not negotiate with the local station in good 
faith, as required by Sec.  76.65, then the local station's HD signal 
will be deemed ``available'' for purposes of paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section.
    (3) Exception if no network affiliate in local market. The 
limitations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section will not 
prohibit a satellite carrier from retransmitting a significantly viewed 
network station to a subscriber located in a local market in which 
there are no network stations affiliated with the same television 
network as the significantly viewed station.
    (4) Exception if waiver granted by local station. The limitations 
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section will not apply if, and 
to the extent that, the local network station affiliated with the same 
television network as the significantly viewed station has granted a 
waiver in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 340(b)(4).
* * * * *
    (i) For purposes of paragraph (g) of this section, television 
network and network station are as defined in 47 U.S.C. 339(d).
* * * * *


    Note: The following Appendix will not be included in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix: List of Commenters

    Comments:

1. Atkinson, Ronald; resident of Durango, Colorado
2. Brown, Marilyn T.; League of Women Voters of La Plata County
3. Bruen, Elizabeth; resident of Durango, Colorado
4. Calahan, Michael; Citizens For Colorado TV Access
5. City of Durango; City Manager
6. DIRECTV, Inc. (``DIRECTV'')
7. DISH Network L.L.C. (``Dish'')
8. Dulson, Laurie; resident of southwest Colorado
9. Flatten, Ann; resident of La Plata County, Colorado
10. La Plata County, Colorado; Board of County Commissioners
11. National Association of Broadcasters (``NAB'') and the ABC, CBS, 
FBC (Fox), and NBC Television Affiliates Associations (joint 
comments) (jointly, the ``Broadcaster Associations'')
12. Necchik, Elayne and John; residents of Durango, Colorado
13. Roberts, Ellen; Colorado State Representative, House District 59
14. Salazar, John T.; U.S. House Representative, 3rd District of 
Colorado
15. Schafer, Marie L.; resident of southwest Colorado
16. Staby, Paul and Carolyn; residents of Durango, Colorado
17. Whitehead, Bruce T.; Colorado State Senator, Senate District 6

    Reply Comments:

1. Broadcaster Associations
2. DIRECTV
3. Dish

[FR Doc. 2010-29968 Filed 11-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>