Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42603 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Katherine B. Fox, 

Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration—FEMA Resilience, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18150 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[EB Docket No. 04–296, PS Docket No. 15– 

94; FCC 18–102] 

Review of the Emergency Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for partial 

reconsideration; final decision. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) partially denies and 

partially grants a petition for partial 

reconsideration of the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) requirements for certain 

Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellite 

operators jointly filed by PanAmSat 

Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and 

Intelsat, Ltd. 

DATES: Effective September 24, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy 

and Licensing Division, Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 

418–7452, or by email at 

Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration (Order) in EB Docket 

No. 04–296 and PS Docket No. 15–94, 

FCC 18–102, adopted on July 23, 2018, 

and released on July 24, 2018. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis 

1. In the Order, the Commission 

partially denies and partially grants the 

petition for partial reconsideration 

(Petition) of the EAS requirements for 

FSS satellite operators jointly filed by 

PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, 

Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. (Petitioners). 

Specifically, the Commission denies 

Petitioners’ request to shift the EAS 

obligations adopted for Ku band FSS 

licensees to the video programming 

distributors that lease transponder 

capacity from such licensees. The 

Commission also denies Petitioners’ 

alternative request to not apply the FSS 

EAS rules to FSS satellite operations 

subject to satellite capacity lease 

agreements already in place when the 

FSS EAS requirements became effective. 

The Commission does, however, grant 

the Petition to the extent that it adopts 

more specific criteria for determining 

when EAS obligations are triggered for 

FSS licensees whose satellites are used 

to provide programming directed 

primarily to consumers outside the U.S., 

with only incidental reception by 

consumers in the U.S. 

I. Background 

A. The EAS 

2. The EAS is a national public 

warning system through which 

broadcasters, cable systems, and other 

service providers (EAS Participants) 

deliver alerts to the public to warn them 

of impending emergencies and dangers 

to life and property. The primary 

purpose of the EAS is to provide the 

President with ‘‘the capability to 

provide immediate communications and 

information to the general public at the 

national, state and local levels during 

periods of national emergency.’’ The 

EAS also is used by state and local 

governments, as well as the National 

Weather Service, to distribute alerts. 

B. The EAS First Report and Order 

3. In 2005, in recognition that 

consumers were increasingly adopting 

digital technologies as replacements for 

analog broadcast and cable systems that 

were already subject to EAS 

requirements, the Commission adopted 

the First Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First 

Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04– 

296, 70 FR 71023, 71072 (Nov. 25, 

2005), expanding EAS obligations to 

digital television and radio, digital 

cable, and satellite television and radio 

services. The Commission deemed that 

‘‘some level of EAS participation must 

be established for these new digital 

services to ensure that large portions of 

the American public are able to receive 

national and/or regional public alerts 

and warnings.’’ 

4. With respect to satellite video 

services, the Commission, in part 

pursuant to its jurisdiction under 

section 303(v) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), to 

regulate direct-to-home (DTH) satellite 

services, extended EAS obligations to 

DBS services, as defined in section 

25.701(a)(1)–(3) of the Commission’s 

rules. As used in section 25.701(a), the 

definition of DBS includes entities 

licensed to operate FSS satellites in the 

Ku band that ‘‘sell or lease capacity to 

a video programming distributor that 

offers service directly to consumers 

providing a sufficient number of 

channels so that four percent of the total 

applicable programming channels yields 

a set aside of at least one channel of 

non-commercial programming pursuant 

to [section 25.701(e) of the 

Commission’s rules]’’ (hereinafter, 

‘‘DTH–FSS licensees’’). The 

Commission anticipated that this 

definition would ‘‘ensure[ ] that the EAS 

rules apply to the vast majority of 

existing DTH satellite services, 

particularly those for which viewers 

may have expectations as to available 

warnings based on experience with 

broadcast television services.’’ With 

respect to compliance requirements, the 

Commission generally required DBS 

entities to participate in national EAS 

activations, and meet related 

monitoring, testing and equipment 

readiness requirements. 

5. The Commission, however, allowed 

DTH–FSS licensees to delegate their 

EAS obligations to the video 

programming distributors that lease 

capacity on their satellites. Specifically, 

the Commission stated that ‘‘compliance 

with EAS requirements may be 

established based upon a certification 

from a [video programming] distributor 

that expressly states that the distributor 

has complied with the EAS 

obligations.’’ The Commission added 

that the DTH–FSS licensees ‘‘will not be 

required to verify compliance by 

distributors unless there is evidence that 

the distributor has not met its 

obligation.’’ The Commission concluded 

that placing ultimate compliance 

responsibility on the DTH–FSS 

licensees under this scheme was not 

unduly burdensome because the 

‘‘certification requirements can be 

included in satellite carriage and leasing 

contracts,’’ and because it was similar to 

the certification scheme adopted for FSS 

Part 25 licensees to meet their DBS 

public interest obligations. The 

Commission declined to apply EAS 

obligations to Home Satellite Dish 

(HSD) service, which also falls under 

the Commission’s DTH jurisdiction. 

C. The Petition 

6. The Petitioners state that they 

‘‘support the application of the EAS 

requirements to DTH–FSS services,’’ but 

seek reconsideration of three aspects of 

the Commission’s decision adopting 

such requirements. First, the Petition 

requests that the Commission modify 

the FSS EAS requirements adopted in 

the First Report and Order by applying 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

them directly to the video programming 

distributors that lease transponder 

capacity from the DTH–FSS licensees 

instead of applying them to the DTH– 

FSS licensees themselves. Second, in 

the alternative, the Petition requests that 

the Commission not apply the FSS EAS 

rules to satellite transponder(s) that 

were subject to pre-existing satellite 

capacity lease agreements already in 

place when the FSS EAS requirements 

became effective. Third, the Petition 

requests that the Commission ‘‘provide 

an exemption from the EAS 

requirements for DTH–FSS services that 

are directed primarily to consumers 

outside the United States but also are 

made available to consumers in the 

United States.’’ 

7. With respect to their contention 

that responsibility for EAS compliance 

should be shifted from the DTH–FSS 

licensees to their lessee video 

programming distributors, Petitioners 

argue that, for all other services, the 

EAS rules apply to ‘‘the entity that 

delivers programming to the consumer 

and therefore is in a position to 

substitute emergency messages when 

the EAS system is activated.’’ 

Petitioners contend that ‘‘[i]n the case of 

broadcast services, for example, the 

requirements apply to the stations that 

transmit programming to consumers’ 

radio and television receivers.’’ 

Petitioners contend that the 

Commission did not explain why it 

departed from this approach in the 

DTH–FSS case. Petitioners argue that 

DTH–FSS programming distributors are 

best situated to comply with the FSS 

EAS requirements because they are the 

entities that generate and control the 

program content that is delivered via the 

satellite. Petitioners also liken their 

situation to the HSD providers 

exempted from EAS obligations in the 

First Report and Order in that, like HSD 

providers, DTH–FSS licensees do not 

control the programming that is 

transmitted over the satellite to HSD 

consumers. 

8. With respect to the certification 

mechanism through which DTH–FSS 

licensees delegate responsibility for EAS 

obligations to their lessees, Petitioners 

argue that attaching EAS compliance 

obligations to DTH–FSS programming 

distributors through their capacity lease 

agreements with DTH–FSS satellite 

operators is inefficient, and does not 

provide for direct enforcement of 

compliance, but instead subjects 

resolution of compliance questions to 

private contract litigation. 

9. Petitioners also request that the 

FCC exempt DTH–FSS services offered 

primarily outside the U.S., but 

incidentally made available to U.S. 

subscribers. Petitioners contend that 

such exemption is needed because ‘‘[i]t 

is highly improbable that the 

distributors of these services would be 

willing to preempt normal programming 

for announcements from the President 

of the United States.’’ Instead, according 

to Petitioners, these video programming 

distributors would cease marketing their 

services in the U.S., thus depriving the 

public of ‘‘access to valuable 

programming.’’ Petitioners further argue 

that applying EAS requirements in this 

context amounts to regulating the 

content of foreign programming. 

Petitioners thus propose that the 

Commission exempt DTH services 

directed ‘‘primarily in foreign 

countries’’ from EAS obligations, and 

suggest that the Commission ‘‘employ a 

standard of 50% of the area or 

population within a footprint for 

determining whether the primary 

audience for a DTH service is outside 

the United States.’’ 

10. Two parties, EchoStar Satellite 

L.L.C. (EchoStar) and DIRECTV Latin 

America, LLC (DTVLA) filed 

oppositions to the Petition. 

II. Discussion 

11. The Commission denies the 

Petition’s request to apply the FSS EAS 

requirements directly to the video 

programming distributors that lease 

transponder capacity from DTH–FSS 

licensees instead of applying them to 

the DTH–FSS licensees themselves. As 

a practical matter, the Commission’s 

ability to enforce the EAS requirements 

in this satellite context could be 

compromised if ultimate compliance 

responsibility were not placed on the 

DTH–FSS licensees. As the Commission 

observed in the DBS public interest 

certification proceeding (which 

implemented a certification regime 

upon which the DTH–FSS EAS 

certification scheme is modeled), the 

Commission has greater enforcement 

powers under the Act over satellite 

licensees than direct-to-home, nonlicensee programmers, and it also has 

greater ownership information about 

such licensees than it has about these 

programmers. With respect to the DBS 

public interest certification scheme, the 

Commission concluded that ‘‘placing 

the ultimate compliance responsibility 

on the satellite licensees is not unduly 

burdensome.’’ The Commission arrives 

at the same conclusion in the context of 

DTH–FSS EAS obligations. The 

Commission observes that over the past 

decade during which the DTH–FSS EAS 

rules have been in effect, the 

Commission has not been apprised by 

DTH–FSS licensees of any significant 

problems associated with their 

implementation. That the DTH–FSS 

licensees lease the use of their satellites 

to video programming distributors and 

other entities is a business model choice 

of their own making that the EAS 

certification regime for DTH–FSS 

licensees attempts to accommodate. 

12. Petitioners contend that, in all 

cases but Petitioners’, the Commission 

has applied the requirements associated 

with disseminating authorized EAS 

alerts ‘‘to the entity that delivers 

programming to the consumer,’’ and 

that DTH–FSS has been treated 

dissimilarly without explanation. The 

Commission finds that this comparison 

is inaccurate and thus rejects 

Petitioners’ request to shift the 

compliance burden to program 

suppliers. As Petitioners themselves 

point out, for broadcast services, 

broadcast licensees must disseminate 

authorized EAS alerts and follow other 

related requirements. Similarly, in the 

case of cable services, the cable operator 

is responsible for following these EAS 

requirements. These EAS obligations, in 

either instance, do not attach to the 

entity that supplies the programming. In 

the case of DTH–FSS satellites, it is the 

FSS satellite transponders—not the 

program suppliers—that transmit the 

programming to consumer receivers, 

and are thus similarly situated to the 

other types of entities that participate in 

the EAS, and consequently, are 

appropriately subject to these EAS 

requirements. 

13. The Commission also denies the 

Petition’s alternative request that the 

Commission not apply the FSS EAS 

rules in instances where satellite 

transponders are subject to preexisting 

capacity lease agreements that were in 

effect before the FSS EAS obligations 

became effective. The FSS EAS 

obligations were adopted on November 

10, 2005, but were not made effective 

until May 31, 2007. Petitioners argue 

that ‘‘[t]he FSS satellite operators have 

no means [ ] of requiring EAS 

compliance in connection with capacity 

agreements that were entered into prior 

to the effective date of the R&O.’’ 

Petitioners subsequently argued that 

‘‘many DTH–FSS capacity agreements 

are long-term contracts with terms 

extending beyond 2007.’’ Petitioners did 

not specify how far beyond 2007 their 

capacity agreements entered into prior 

to the adoption of the FSS EAS 

requirements in 2005 might extend, and 

it is unclear whether any such 

agreements are still in effect today. That 

said, licensees in a regulated industry 

remain subject to new rules deemed by 

the Commission to be appropriate and 

in the public interest. As to the 

particular circumstances here, the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42605 

Commission expects that such private 

arrangements would have included 

accommodations to account for changes 

in the regulatory or statutory framework. 

And, had such implementation issues 

persisted beyond that time frame, the 

Commission would have expected to see 

other indicia of such difficulties. In any 

event, the Commission observes that the 

FSS EAS certification regime was 

adopted as an optional mechanism 

through which DTH–FSS licensees can 

delegate the performance of EAS 

obligations for which they are 

ultimately responsible to their DTH– 

FSS video programming distributor 

lessees. While the Commission 

contemplated this as one option for 

meeting these obligations, it did not 

suggest that it would be the only one 

available. Accordingly, those DTH FSS 

licensees that do not consider it feasible 

or efficient to delegate performance of 

these obligations to their DTH–FSS 

video programming distributor lessees 

always have the option of relying on 

their own devices to meet these 

obligations themselves. 

14. With respect to Petitioners’ 

request that they be exempted from EAS 

requirements DTH–FSS services that are 

directed primarily to consumers outside 

the U.S., but incidentally received by 

consumers in the U.S., the Commission 

agrees with Petitioners that EAS 

obligations should not apply in such 

cases. The Commission does not believe 

it was intended for EAS obligations 

adopted in the First Report and Order to 

be applied to DTH–FSS-based services 

that are directed to consumers outside 

the U.S., but which incidentally include 

geographic overlap with the U.S. by 

virtue of the satellite transponder’s 

footprint. In adopting the DBS service 

definition in section 25.701(a), the 

Commission emphasized that this 

definition would capture those services 

‘‘for which viewers may have 

expectations as to available warnings 

based on experience with broadcast 

television services.’’ Such expectations 

are unlikely to be shared by viewers 

outside the U.S. The Commission also 

observed that ‘‘extending national level 

EAS requirements to DBS providers 

serves the public interest by ensuring 

that the significant portion of the 

American public that are DBS 

subscribers have access to this critical 

emergency information.’’ To require that 

programming intended for consumers 

outside of the U.S. comply with the EAS 

rules would significantly increase 

regulatory burdens on DTH–FSS service 

providers without delivering a 

measurable benefit to an unintended 

U.S. audience that is unlikely to be 

watching the DTH–FSS programming. 

Such a result would be inconsistent 

with the Commission’s stated rationales 

and intent for extending EAS 

obligations to DBS services. At the same 

time, the Commission is mindful that 

U.S. consumers who have a reasonable 

basis to expect that EAS alerts will be 

offered over such DTS–FSS services 

receive alerts consistent with those 

expectations. 

15. Accordingly, in balancing these 

policy objectives, the Commission 

grants partial reconsideration of its EAS 

rules to Petitioners to ensure that DTH– 

FSS licensees deliver EAS alerts to 

DTH–FSS service consumers within the 

United States that have an expectation 

that they will receive EAS alerts, rather 

than to U.S.-based consumers who 

incidentally receive such DTH–FSS 

services. Petitioners have argued that 

the DTH–FSS EAS obligations should be 

triggered based on the U.S. territory 

encompassed within the FSS licensee’s 

transponder footprint and propose a 

trigger based on whether 50% of the 

area or population within the DTH–FSS 

transponder footprint is within the 

contiguous United States (CONUS). The 

Commission agrees that the geographic 

area covered by the DTH–FSS 

transponder footprint is an appropriate 

measure of whether the DTH–FSS is 

focused on U.S. consumers, but 

disagrees that it should be the sole 

measure. Use of geographic area 

coverage area alone could exclude 

substantial portions of the U.S. from 

receiving EAS alerts where consumers 

could reasonably expect EAS to be 

provided. For example, under 

Petitioners’ suggestion, a DTH–FSS 

transponder could be centered on a U.S. 

city on the border with Mexico and have 

DTH–FSS service that is marketed 

actively to U.S. consumers in that city, 

but would be exempt from the EAS 

rules if more than 50% of the 

transponder footprint covered Mexico. 

The Commission does not find such a 

result to be in the public interest. 

16. The Commission therefore 

establishes multiple criteria by which it 

will determine whether the DTH–FSS 

programing is directed to a United 

States audience for purposes of 

determining EAS obligations, or is 

merely incidentally received: (1) 

Whether the center of the footprint of 

the antenna beam associated with the 

transponder used to provide the DTH– 

FSS service is within the United States; 

(2) whether at least 50 percent of the 

footprint of the antenna beam associated 

with the transponder used to provide 

DTH–FSS covers territory within the 

United States; or (3) whether the DTH– 

FSS service is marketed to U.S. 

consumers, either through advertising 

campaigns or promotional materials that 

are focused on potential subscribers 

located within the United States. If any 

of these three factors is present, the 

Commission finds that it is likely that 

the DTH–FSS service is focused on U.S. 

consumers, and therefore is within the 

intended scope of the Commission’s 

EAS rules. 

17. Finally, with respect to the DTH– 

FSS EAS obligation triggering criteria 

that the video program distributor’s 

service include a sufficient number of 

channels such that four percent of the 

total applicable programming channels 

yields a set aside of at least one channel 

of non-commercial programming, the 

Commission observes that the 

Commission previously has clarified 

that this four percent set aside threshold 

is not triggered until at least 25 channels 

of video programming are being offered. 

To the extent it was not clear that this 

earlier finding also applies in the FSS 

EAS context, the Commission 

incorporates it here. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Accessible Formats 

18. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

B. Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

19. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in EB Docket No. 

04–296, 69 FR 52843 (Aug. 30, 2004). 

The Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comments on the IRFA. No 

comments were filed addressing the 

IRFA. The Commission included a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

in the First Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(First Report and Order) in EB Docket 

No. 04–296, 70 FR 71023, 71072 (Nov. 

25, 2005). This Supplemental Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(Supplemental FRFA) supplements the 

FRFA to reflect the actions taken in this 

Order and conforms to the RFA. 

1. Need for, and Objective of, the Order 

20. In the First Report and Order, the 

Commission extended Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) obligations to digital 

television and radio, digital cable, and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42606 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

satellite television and radio services. 

Among other things, the Commission 

extended EAS obligations to Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services, as 

defined in section 25.701(a)(1)–(3) of the 

Commission’s rules. As used in section 

25.701(a), the definition of DBS 

includes entities licensed to operate 

Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellite in 

the Ku band that ‘‘sell or lease capacity 

to a video programming distributor that 

offers service directly to consumers 

providing a sufficient number of 

channels so that four percent of the total 

applicable programming channels yields 

a set aside of at least one channel of 

non-commercial programming pursuant 

to [section 25.701(e) of the 

Commission’s rules]’’ (hereinafter, 

‘‘DTH–FSS licensees’’). 

21. In this Order, the Commission 

grants, to the extent described herein, a 

petition for partial reconsideration of 

the First Report and Order jointly filed 

in 2005 by PanAmSat Corporation, SES 

Americom, Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. 

(collectively, Petitioners). In particular, 

the Commission denies all the specific 

requests made by Petitioners, and 

clarifies the criteria triggering when the 

EAS obligations apply to DTH–FSS 

licensees. 

2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

22. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

3. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

23. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and to provide a 

detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rule(s) as a result of 

those comments. 

24. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule(s) in this proceeding. 

4. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Would Apply 

25. 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 herein. 

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

26. As noted above, a FRFA was 

incorporated into the First Report and 

Order. In that analysis, the Commission 

described in detail the small entities 

that might be significantly affected by 

the rules adopted in the First Report and 

Order. In this Order, the Commission 

hereby incorporates by reference the 

descriptions and estimates of the 

number of small entities from the 

previous FRFA in this proceeding. 

5. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

27. The data, information and 

document collection required by the 

First Report and Order as described in 

the previous FRFA in this proceeding is 

hereby incorporated by reference. The 

actions taken in this Order do not 

amend or otherwise revise those 

requirements, except to refine the 

criteria that determine when DTH–FSS 

licensees are subject to EAS obligations. 

More specifically, the Commission finds 

that the criteria triggering DTH–FSS 

EAS obligations only applies in 

instances where the FSS capacity sold 

or leased to the video programming 

distributor is effected over a DTH–FSS 

transponder for which (1) the center of 

the footprint of the antenna beam 

associated with the transponder used to 

provide the DTH–FSS service is within 

the United States, (2) at least 50 percent 

of the footprint of the antenna beam 

associated with the transponder used to 

provide DTH–FSS covers territory 

within the United States, or (3) where 

the DTH–FSS service is marketed to 

U.S. consumers, either through 

advertising campaigns or promotional 

materials that are focused on potential 

subscribers located within the United 

States. If any of these three factors is 

present, the Commission finds that it is 

likely that the DTH–FSS service is 

focused on U.S. consumers. This aspect 

of the decision is consistent with the 

Commission’s intent expressed in the 

First Report and Order for extending 

EAS alert delivery to American 

subscribers of DBS services. 

6. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

28. 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) and exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

29. The analysis of the Commission’s 

efforts to minimize the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities as described in the previous 

FRFA in this proceeding is hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

Report to Congress 

30. The Commission will not send a 

copy of this Order, including this 

Supplemental FRFA, in a report to 

Congress pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act. In addition, the 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Order, including this Supplemental 

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of this 

Order and Supplemental FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

D. Additional Information 

31. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

32. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Gregory Cooke of 

the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing 

Division, gregory.cooke@fcc.gov, (202) 

418–2351. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

33. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 

303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 

624(g),706, and 715 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 

335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, this 

Order on Reconsideration is adopted, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42607 

and the petition for partial 

reconsideration filed by PanAmSat 

Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and 

Intelsat, Ltd. is hereby granted as 

described herein, and otherwise denied. 

34. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration, 

including the Supplemental Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18151 Filed 8–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 150121066–5717–02] 

RIN 0648–XG366 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

General category retention limit 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 

Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General 

category daily retention limit from three 

large medium or giant BFT per vessel 

per day/trip to one large medium or 

giant BFT per vessel per day/trip for the 

remainder of the June through August 

2018 subquota period. This action is 

based on consideration of the regulatory 

determination criteria regarding 

inseason adjustments and applies to 

Atlantic Tunas General category 

(commercial) permitted vessels and 

Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 

Charter/Headboat category permitted 

vessels with a commercial sale 

endorsement when fishing 

commercially for BFT. 

DATES: Effective August 23, 2018, 

through August 31, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin or Dianne Stephan, 

978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by 

persons and vessels subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 

635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. 

BFT quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

among the various domestic fishing 

categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Atlantic 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan (2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, 

October 2, 2006) and amendments, and 

in accordance with implementing 

regulations. NMFS is required under 

ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

provide U.S. fishing vessels with a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

ICCAT-recommended quota. 

The current baseline U.S. quota is 

1,058.9 mt (not including the 25 mt 

ICCAT allocated to the United States to 

account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic 

longline fisheries in the Northeast 

Distant Gear Restricted Area). See 

§ 635.27(a). The current baseline 

General category quota is 466.7 mt. Each 

of the five General category time periods 

(‘‘January,’’ June through August, 

September, October through November, 

and December) is allocated a portion of 

the annual General category quota. 

Although it is called the ‘‘January’’ 

subquota, the regulations allow the 

General category fishery under this 

quota to continue until the subquota is 

reached or March 31, whichever comes 

first. The current baseline subquotas for 

each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt 

(5.3 percent) for January; 233.3 mt (50 

percent) for June through August; 123.7 

mt (26.5 percent) for September; 60.7 mt 

(13 percent) for October through 

November; and 24.3 mt (5.2 percent) for 

December. Any unused General category 

quota rolls forward within the fishing 

year, which coincides with the calendar 

year, from one time period to the next, 

and is available for use in subsequent 

time periods. This action would adjust 

the daily retention limit for the 

remainder of the second time period in 

2018, which ends August 31, 2018. 

Although NMFS has published a 

proposed rule (83 FR 31517, July 6, 

2018) to increase the baseline U.S. 

bluefin tuna quota from 1,058.79 mt to 

1,247.86 mt and subquotas for 2018 

(including an expected increase in 

General category quota from 466.7 mt to 

555.7 mt, consistent with the annual 

bluefin tuna quota calculation process 

established in § 635.27(a)), NMFS does 

not anticipate that the final rule will be 

effective until September 2018. 

Adjustment of General Category Daily 

Retention Limit 

The default General category retention 

limit is one large medium or giant BFT 

(measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved 

fork length (CFL) or greater) per vessel 

per day/trip (§ 635.23(a)(2)). 

Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may 

increase or decrease the daily retention 

limit of large medium and giant BFT 

over a range of zero to a maximum of 

five per vessel based on consideration of 

the relevant criteria provided under 

§ 635.27(a)(8). On May 11, 2018, NMFS 

adjusted the daily retention limit for the 

beginning of the June through August 

2018 subquota period from the default 

level of one large medium or giant BFT 

to three large medium or giant BFT (83 

FR 21936). NMFS has considered the 

relevant regulatory determination 

criteria and their applicability to the 

General category BFT retention limit for 

the remainder of the June through 

August 2018 subquota time period. 

These considerations include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

Regarding the usefulness of 

information obtained from catches in 

the particular category for biological 

sampling and monitoring of the status of 

the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological 

samples collected from BFT landed by 

General category fishermen and 

provided by BFT dealers continue to 

provide NMFS with valuable data for 

ongoing scientific studies of BFT age 

and growth, migration, and reproductive 

status. Prolonged opportunities to land 

BFT over the longest time-period 

allowable would support the collection 

of a broad range of data for these studies 

and for stock monitoring purposes. 

NMFS also considered the catches of 

the General category quota to date 

(including landings and catch rates 

during the last several years) and the 

likelihood of closure of that segment of 

the fishery if no adjustment is made 

(§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii) and (ix)). Commercialsize BFT are currently readily available 

to vessels fishing under the General 

category quota. As of August 17, 2018, 

the General category has landed 

approximately 271.9 mt, which is 58 

and 57 percent of the annual base and 

adjusted 2018 General category quotas, 

respectively. Landings since June 1, 

2018, are 212.6 mt, representing 91 

percent of the General category 

subquota for the June 1 through August 

31 period. If current catch rates 

continue with the three-fish daily limit, 

the available subquota for June 1 

through August 31 period could be 

reached or exceeded, and NMFS would 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES