Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16347 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

redesignation request for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area, including the PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for 2025 submitted by 

Tennessee into the State’s SIP (under 

section 175A). The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all 

of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as 

part of today’s action, EPA is describing 

the status of its adequacy determination 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 

under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 

months from the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the MVEBs 

or the effective date for the final rule 

approving the MVEBs into the 

Tennessee SIP, whichever is earlier, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81 from 

nonattainment to attainment. 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of 

Tennessee’s redesignation request 

would change the legal designation of 

Hamilton County in Tennessee for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. Approval of TDEC’s request 

would also incorporate a plan for 

maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area through 2025 into the Tennessee 

SIP. The maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for 

evaluation of potential violations. The 

maintenance plan also includes NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area. Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the NOX and PM2.5

MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1). 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06963 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[CS Docket No. 98–120; FCC 15–29] 

Carriage of Digital Television 

Broadcast Signals 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by the 

American Cable Association (‘‘ACA’’) 

requesting, among other things, that the 

Commission extend for an additional 

three years the exemption from the 

requirement to carry high definition 

(‘‘HD’’) broadcast signals under the 

‘‘material degradation’’ provisions of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’) that it granted to 

certain small cable systems in the 2012 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See American Cable Association Petition for 

Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 98–120 (filed Jan. 27, 

2015) (‘‘Petition’’). 

2See 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(4)(A), 535(g)(2) (material 

degradation requirements relating to signals of local 

commercial and noncommercial television stations, 

respectively). 

3See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast 

Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s 

rules, Docket No. CS 98–120, Fifth Report and 

Order, 77 FR 36178 (2012) (‘‘Fifth Report and 

Order’’). 

4See section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 

534(b)(4)(A)). See also Section 615(g)(2) of the Act. 

See 47 U.S.C. 535(g)(2). See also 47 CFR 76.62(b) 

through (d), (h). 

5See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast 

Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s 

rules, Docket No. CS 98–120, Third Report and 

Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 73 FR 6043 (2007) (‘‘Viewability 

Order’’). 

6See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast 

Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s 

rules, Docket No. CS 98–120, Fourth Report and 

Order, 73 FR 61742 (2008) (‘‘Fourth Report and 

Order’’). 

Fifth Report and Order. This exemption 

is slated to expire on June 12, 2015 

absent further action by the 

Commission. We tentatively conclude 

that the public interest would be served 

by extending the HD carriage exemption 

for three years, or until June 12, 2018. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 16, 2015; reply comments are due 

on or before April 27, 2015. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act potential information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CS Docket No. 98–120, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

potential information collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via email 

to PRA@fcc.gov. For detailed 

instructions for submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, 

Media Bureau at (202) 418–2120 or 

Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at 

(202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fifth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘Fifth FNPRM’’), FCC 15–29, adopted 

on March 11, 2015 and released on 

March 12, 2015. The full text is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

The complete text may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

The Fifth FNPRM seeks comment on 

potential information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any information collection 

requirements, the Commission will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

inviting the public to comment on the 

requirements, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

through 3520). In addition, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ The Commission, as part of 

its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and 

agency comments are due May 26, 2015. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Fifth FNPRM, we seek 

comment on a Petition for Rulemaking 

filed by the American Cable Association 

(‘‘ACA’’) 1 requesting, among other 

things, that the Commission extend for 

an additional three years the exemption 

from the requirement to carry high 

definition (‘‘HD’’) broadcast signals 

under the ‘‘material degradation’’ 

provisions of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) 2 that 

it granted to certain small cable systems 

in the Fifth Report and Order (‘‘HD 

carriage exemption’’).3 This exemption 

is slated to expire on June 12, 2015 

absent further action by the 

Commission. As discussed below, we 

tentatively conclude that the public 

interest would be served by extending 

the HD carriage exemption for three 

years, or until June 12, 2018. We set 

forth below a brief history of the HD 

carriage exemption and a summary of 

ACA’s arguments in support of its 

Petition, and seek comment on our 

tentative conclusion to grant ACA’s 

proposal. 

II. Background 

2. Sections 614(b)(4)(A) and 615(g)(2) 

of the Act require that cable operators 

carry signals of commercial and 

noncommercial broadcast television 

stations, respectively, ‘‘without material 

degradation.’’ 4 In the context of the 

carriage of digital signals, the 

Commission has interpreted this 

requirement: (i) To prohibit cable 

operators from discriminating in their 

carriage between broadcast and nonbroadcast signals; and (ii) to require 

cable operators to carry HD broadcast 

signals to their viewers in HD.5 In 

response to concerns from small cable 

operators about cost and technical 

capacity, the Commission, in the 2008 

Fourth Report and Order, granted a 

three-year exemption from the HD 

carriage requirement to certain small 

cable systems.6 Specifically, the 

Commission exempted small cable 

systems with 2,500 or fewer subscribers 

that are not affiliated with a cable 

operator serving more than 10 percent of 

all MVPD subscribers, and those with an 

activated channel capacity of 552 MHz 

or less. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16349 

7 Id., para. 5. The Commission concluded that 

cable operators, regardless of system size, need not 

carry an SD digital version of a broadcast station’s 

signal, in addition to the analog version, to satisfy 

the material degradation requirement, because both 

an SD digital version and an analog version of the 

digital broadcast signal received at the headend 

should have the same 480i resolution; thus, there 

should be no perceivable difference between the 

two versions of the signal. Id. 

8See id., para. 11. See also Carriage of Digital 

Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 

76 of the Commission’s rules, Docket No. CS 98– 

120, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Declaratory Order, 77 FR 9187 (2012) (‘‘Fourth 

Further Notice’’). The exemption would have 

expired on February 17, 2012, if Congress had not 

delayed the DTV transition date from February 17, 

2009 until June 12, 2009. Id. In the 2012 Declaratory 

Order accompanying the Fourth Further Notice, the 

Commission clarified that the HD carriage 

exemption was effective until June 12, 2012 because 

the HD exemption was intended to remain in effect 

for three full years from the DTV transition date. Id. 

9See id., para. 3. 

10See id. The Commission extended the 

exemption based on its finding that the same 

financial and capacity constraints that confronted 

small cable operators when it initially granted the 

exemption in 2008 continued to exist. Id., para. 21. 

In particular, the Commission found that the 

exemption ‘‘remains necessary to protect the 

viability of small systems and their service to rural 

and smaller market consumers.’’ Id. 

11 Id., para. 22. The Commission declined to 

restrict the exemption further by eliminating its 

application to systems that carry any signal in HD, 

as suggested by the National Association of 

Broadcasters (‘‘NAB’’). In so doing, the Commission 

reasoned that the exemption had already been 

crafted narrowly to excuse only a limited number 

of systems with certain capacity constraints or low 

subscribership, and that a small system’s ability to 

offer some HD service did not necessarily render 

that system capable of offering additional HD 

service. Id., para. 23. The Commission also 

expressed concern that restricting the exemption 

further would create a disincentive for systems to 

offer more HD programming incrementally. Id. 

12See Petition at 1–2, 18. 

13 Id. at 2. 

14ACA conducted an online survey of its 

members from October 2 through October 22, 2014 

to determine the number of systems still relying on 

the HD carriage exemption. Id. at 4, n.8. ACA 

represents approximately 840 independent MVPDs 

that serve about 7.4 million video subscribers 

primarily in smaller markets and rural areas. ACA’s 

members range from family-run operations that 

serve a single town to multiple system operators 

with small systems. The median number of video 

subscribers per ACA member is 1,060. Id. at 4, n.9. 

15 Id. at 4–5. 

16 Id. at 5. ACA asserts that the survey further 

indicates that: (i) Those systems offer an average of 

2.3 must-carry stations in a down-converted format 

only; (ii) only 20.5% of those systems offer some 

HD television services; and (iii) 38.5% of those 

systems offer broadband service. Id. and Table 1. 

17ACA reports that all 117 of the systems with 

a capacity of 552 MHz or less also have fewer than 

2,500 subscribers, and that 81.8% of the systems 

with fewer than 2,500 subscribers also have a 

capacity of 552 MHz or less. See Petition at 5–6 and 

Tables 1, 2. 

18 Id. at 6. ACA asserts that the survey further 

indicates that: (i) Those systems offer an average of 

2.5 must-carry stations in a down-converted format 

only; (ii) only 25.9% of those systems offer some 

HD television services; and (iii) 54.4% of those 

systems offer broadband service. Id. and Table 2. 19 Id. Although ACA does not define ‘‘downconverted format,’’ we assume this term refers to a 

cable system’s conversion of a high definition 

broadcast signal to standard definition when 

retransmitting the signal to subscribers. 20 Id. at 3. 21 Id. at 7–8. 22 Id. at 8 and Table 4. According to ACA, the 

decrease in unused channel capacity has resulted 

from the need of operators to accommodate nonbroadcast programmers that demand carriage of 

additional channels in exchange for access to, or 

less drastic rate increases for, popular nonbroadcast channels. Id. at 8–9. ACA also attributes 

this decrease in capacity to the need of operators 

to allocate capacity for broadband services. Id. at 9. 

23ACA asserts that the most common reason 

reported for no change in channel capacity was that 

the system was channel locked three years ago and 

remains the same today due to a lack of financial 

resources for capacity expansion or the absence of 

a business case to support such expansion. Id. 

24 Id. and Table 5. 

25 Id. at 10. ACA reports that 45.2% of survey 

respondents in this category would shut down their 

systems; 14.3% would drop existing channels; and 

19% would risk Commission enforcement action 

rather than comply with an HD carriage 

requirement. Id. 

3. The exemption from this material 

degradation requirement permits such 

systems to carry broadcast signals in 

standard definition (‘‘SD’’) digital and/ 

or analog format, even if the signals are 

broadcast in HD, so long as all 

subscribers can receive and view the 

signal.7 The Commission provided that 

the exemption would expire three years 

after the conclusion of the DTV 

transition, but stated that it would 

consider whether to extend the 

exemption in its final year.8 After 

conducting that review,9 the 

Commission, in the 2012 Fifth Report 

and Order, extended for an additional 

three years, or until June 12, 2015, the 

HD carriage exemption for certain small 

cable systems.10 The Commission stated 

that the exemption was not intended to 

be permanent and that its purpose was 

‘‘to provide small systems additional 

time to upgrade and, where necessary, 

expand their systems to come into full 

compliance with the material 

degradation provisions . . . by carrying 

HD versions of all HD broadcast signals 

without having to make relatively large 

expenditures over a short period of 

time.’’ 11

4. On January 28, 2015, ACA filed its 

Petition requesting that the 

Commission: (i) Commence a 

rulemaking proceeding to extend for an 

additional three years the HD carriage 

exemption; and (ii) clarify that analogonly cable systems are not required, and 

have never been required, to transmit 

must-carry signals in HD.12 In general, 

ACA contends that the HD carriage 

exemption has worked as intended by 

providing eligible systems with 

additional time to provide must-carry 

signals in HD, but that the exemption is 

still needed to protect a small number 

of systems and their subscribers from 

the potential costs and service 

disruptions that would result from 

immediate compliance with an HD 

carriage requirement.13 In support of its 

request for an extension, ACA points to 

data from a recent survey 14 that shows 

that roughly 6%, or 53 of its members, 

continue to rely on it.15

5. With respect to the category of 

small systems that have a capacity of 

552 MHz or less, ACA reports that 42 

respondents (that account for at least 

117 systems serving a total of 35,758 

subscribers, or an average of 306 

subscribers per system) continue to rely 

on the HD carriage exemption.16

Similarly, with respect to the category of 

systems that serve 2,500 or fewer 

subscribers and that are not affiliated 

with an operator serving more than 10 

percent of all MVPD subscribers, ACA 

reports that 53 respondents (that 

account for 143 systems serving a total 

of 49,790 subscribers, or an average of 

348 subscribers per system) 17 still rely 

on the exemption.18 The survey reveals 

further that these systems offer an 

average of 2.5 must-carry stations in a 

‘‘down-converted’’ format only.19 Given 

this data, ACA asserts, imposing an HD 

carriage requirement at this time would 

be as detrimental to small systems today 

as it was when the Commission initially 

granted the exemption.20

6. ACA argues that applying the HD 

carriage exemption to cable systems 

with 552 MHz or less of channel 

capacity is still justified because such 

systems continue to face significant 

bandwidth constraints that affect their 

ability to provide must-carry signals in 

both analog and HD format.21 To 

support its assertion, ACA points to 

survey data demonstrating that for 81% 

of respondents with a capacity of 552 

MHz or less, the amount of unused 

channel capacity that is available for 

new channels or services either has 

decreased 22 or remained the same 23 in 

the past three years. ACA asserts further 

that a substantial majority of survey 

respondents in this category report that 

they cannot deliver HD signals without 

changing existing channels or services, 

and that it would be burdensome for 

them to make available channel capacity 

for HD signals.24 ACA contends that 

imposing an HD carriage requirement at 

this time would harm subscribers of 

these systems by forcing such systems: 

(i) To drop channels; (ii) to continue 

providing signals only in a downconverted format, thereby risking 

Commission enforcement action; or (iii) 

to cease operations entirely.25

7. ACA contends that extending the 

HD carriage exemption to cable systems 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

26 Id. at 11–12. 

27 Id. at 12–13 and Table 6. 

28 Id. at 13–14. 

29 Id. at 14. ACA reports that 37.3% of cable 

systems in this category would shut down their 

systems rather than invest in the equipment needed 

to comply with an HD carriage requirement; 22% 

would risk Commission enforcement action; and 

35.6% would absorb or pass along to their 

subscribers the cost of the requisite equipment. Id. 

30 Id. at 3, 15. 

31 Id. at 15. 

32 Id. at 15–16. We note, however, that the 

number of ACA members reporting that they rely 

on the HD exemption has increased from 52 to 53. 

See Fifth Report and Order, 77 FR 36178 (2012). 

33Petition at 15–16. 

34 Id. at 16. 

35As noted above, section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act 

requires that cable operators transmit local 

broadcast signals ‘‘without material degradation’’ 

and directs the Commission to ‘‘adopt carriage 

standards to ensure that, to the extent technically 

feasible, the quality of signal processing and 

carriage provided . . . will be no less than that 

provided . . . for the carriage of any other type of 

signal.’’ See 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(4)(A) (emphasis 

added). 

36See Petition at 17. 

37 Id. 

38 Id. ACA also asserts that in some cases, allanalog systems provide a locally operated, lower 

cost service that allows customers to receive basic 

cable programming without the need for set-top 

boxes. Id. 

39 Id. at 4–5. 

40As noted above, the Commission, in the Fifth 

Report and Order, declined to eliminate application 

of the HD carriage exemption to systems that carry 

any signal in HD on the grounds that a system’s 

ability to offer some HD service did not refute an 

argument that offering additional HD service was 

burdensome, and that not allowing such systems to 

invoke the exemption would discourage them from 

taking incremental steps to offer more HD 

programming to subscribers. 

41Petition at 5–6. 

42 Id. at 5–7 and Tables 2, 3. 

with 2,500 or fewer subscribers (and 

that are not affiliated with an operator 

serving more than 10 percent of all 

MVPD subscribers) also remains 

justified because such systems still lack 

the financial resources necessary to 

purchase equipment needed to provide 

HD signals.26 To support its assertion, 

ACA points to survey data showing that 

an overwhelming number of systems in 

this category reported that their net 

income from video services has 

declined over the last three years.27

ACA contends, based on its survey, that 

many such systems would need to 

purchase additional equipment to offer 

must-carry signals in HD, and that doing 

so would be financially burdensome for 

them.28 ACA argues that requiring these 

systems to transmit HD signals would 

force them to absorb the equipment 

costs or pass such costs on to 

subscribers, and that these harms far 

outweigh any benefits derived from an 

HD carriage mandate.29 ACA also 

highlights concerns about cost and 

compliance that may result from the 

upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive 

auction because the auction could result 

in fewer stations and/or channel 

sharing.30

8. Moreover, ACA asserts that the 

number of cable systems relying on the 

HD carriage exemption is declining and 

will continue to decline over the next 

three years.31 In particular, ACA claims 

that more than 200 fewer systems are 

using the HD exemption today than in 

2012, and that by June 2018, only 73 of 

the 143 systems that are currently 

relying on the exemption are expected 

to still be in operation and meet the 

criteria for taking advantage of the 

exemption.32 ACA anticipates that this 

decline in the number of systems will 

result from system shutdowns or system 

upgrades to increase channel capacity.33

ACA argues that ‘‘[g]iven . . . the trend 

of decreasing reliance . . . it is 

appropriate to extend the HD exemption 

for the relatively few remaining 

operators that continue to rely on the 

exemption.’’ 34

9. Finally, ACA seeks a clarification 

that cable systems that offer video 

programming only in analog are not 

required, and have never been required, 

to transmit must-carry signals in HD 

because such carriage is not 

‘‘technically feasible’’ within the 

meaning of section 614(b)(4)(A) of the 

Act and its implementing rules.35 In 

particular, ACA contends that: 

analog-only systems are unable to carry any 

HD signals. If an analog-only system had the 

capability of carrying an HD signal, which 

can only be done in digital format, the system 

would no longer be, by definition, an analogonly system. It would be a hybrid analog/

digital system.36

ACA claims that a small number of 

cable systems that rely on the HD 

carriage exemption would benefit from 

the requested clarification, and that this 

number is decreasing.37 Even so, ACA 

asserts, some analog-only systems will 

remain in operation, and many of those 

systems provide the only available 

video service in rural areas where overthe-air reception of broadcast signals is 

infeasible.38

III. Discussion 

10. We tentatively conclude that it 

would serve the public interest to 

extend the HD carriage exemption for an 

additional three years as requested by 

ACA. Based on the results of ACA’s 

survey, we tentatively conclude that the 

exemption is still necessary to protect 

the subscribers of small cable systems 

from the costs and service disruptions 

that may result from requiring those 

systems to deliver HD signals in HD 

beginning in June 2015. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

We also seek comment on whether we 

should retain or revise the definition of 

the category of small cable systems 

eligible for the exemption. The fact that 

small operators that continue to rely on 

the exemption have, on average, only 

348 subscribers per system 39 suggests 

that our current definition of ‘‘small 

system’’ is overly broad. To the extent 

parties assert that we should restrict 

further the category of small systems 

eligible for the exemption, what is the 

appropriate small system standard? 

What, if any, harms would accrue to 

small systems if we were to narrow 

further the category of systems eligible 

for the exemption? What, if any, benefits 

would result from narrowing the 

exemption? 

11. We seek comment on whether any 

circumstances have changed since 

release of the Fifth Report and Order 

that weigh in favor of revisiting our 

decision not to eliminate the HD 

carriage exemption for systems carrying 

any signal in HD.40 As noted, ACA’s 

data indicate that at least 20 percent of 

systems relying on the exemption are 

currently offering some HD digital 

television services.41 In particular, we 

request comment on whether there is 

any evidence that exempt systems that 

provide HD programming have 

discriminated unfairly against mustcarry HD signals in favor of other HD 

signals. We also request comment on 

whether systems that carry a significant 

amount of HD programming, such as ten 

HD channels, should continue to be able 

to qualify for the exemption. 

12. In addition, we seek comment on 

the costs and benefits of the exemption 

for broadcasters and cable subscribers. 

Commenters should quantify any 

asserted costs or benefits. We also 

request comment on whether any 

claimed benefits to small cable systems 

of extending the exemption for another 

three years would outweigh the costs to 

broadcasters and cable subscribers. How 

many, if any, small systems relying on 

the exemption have received complaints 

from subscribers about the absence or 

amount of HD programming available to 

them? ACA’s data also reveal that some 

systems relying on the exemption 

currently provide broadband service.42

How many, if any, such systems would 

reduce or eliminate such service if 

required to carry HD signals in June 

2015? 

13. We also invite comment on 

whether an additional three years will 

provide adequate time for eligible 

systems to upgrade their facilities to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16351 

43Although ACA states that ‘‘some systems that 

relied on the HD exemption in the past no longer 

rely upon it because a business case materialized 

for an upgrade to occur,’’ ACA also asserts that 

‘‘system shutdowns [will be] the primary reason 

that there will be fewer systems relying on the HD 

exemption’’ in the next three years. Petition at 16 

and n.33. ACA thus contends that ‘‘the benefit of 

the HD exemption is not only in avoiding the 

hastening of system closings, but in giving systems 

time to make upgrades possible.’’ Id. 

44 Id. at 15–16. 

45Section 73.682(d) of the Commission’s rules 

prescribes that digital broadcast television signals 

must comply with certain privately developed 

engineering protocols that the rule incorporates by 

reference. See 47 CFR 73.682(d). The channel 

identification data that a station transmits, for 

example, must comply with ‘‘ATSC A/65C: ‘ATSC 

Program and System Information Protocol for 

Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable, Revision C With 

Amendment No. 1 dated May 9, 2006,’ (January 2, 

2006).’’ Id. 

46See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 

through 612, has been amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’), Pub. L. 104–121, Title II, 110 

Stat. 857 (1996). 

47See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

48See id. 

49See Fifth FNPRM at paras. 10–15. 

50 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

provide HD signals. Although ACA’s 

data indicate that at least 200 fewer 

cable systems are relying on the HD 

exemption today than did in 2012, the 

data also indicate that the number of 

ACA cable operator members relying on 

the HD exemption has not changed 

significantly. Therefore, do these data 

points reflect actual progress of ACA 

members coming into compliance with 

the HD carriage requirement? For 

example, to what extent is the decrease 

in the number of systems relying on the 

exemption attributable to the fact that 

some operators have expanded system 

capacity to provide signals in HD (thus 

rendering them ineligible for the 

exemption), or the fact that systems 

have ceased operations? 43 In addition, 

ACA estimates that more than 70 of the 

143 systems that currently invoke the 

exemption are expected to be eligible for 

the exemption in June 2018.44 To the 

extent some systems expect that they 

still will be unable to provide HD 

signals in three years, when would such 

systems likely be able to comply with an 

HD carriage requirement? That is, we 

invite comment on the plans of these 

small systems to upgrade to HD. We 

seek comment on whether there are any 

systems for which the costs of providing 

HD signals likely will outweigh the 

benefits for the indefinite future, and, if 

so, the projected number of such 

systems. We invite comment on any 

other issues that are relevant to our 

determination whether to extend the HD 

carriage exemption for small cable 

systems. We also seek comment on any 

other approach to this issue that would 

appropriately balance the interest of 

broadcast stations in being carried in 

HD and the technical and financial 

limitations some small cable operators 

face. In addition, we request comment 

on whether there is any merit to ACA’s 

argument that requiring small systems 

to provide HD signals at this time would 

be inequitable given the uncertainty 

surrounding the broadcast spectrum 

incentive auction. 

14. We note that the HD exemption 

was not intended to be permanent and 

that, based on ACA’s survey, a number 

of systems must make greater progress 

in complying with the HD carriage 

requirement. Assuming we were to 

adopt our tentative conclusion to extend 

the exemption for three more years, we 

seek comment on what steps we can 

take to facilitate such compliance 

within that time period. For example, 

should we require individual cable 

systems that rely on the exemption to 

file information with the Commission 

indicating such, so that we can better 

understand the particular technical and 

financial challenges faced by these 

systems and track each system’s 

progress for coming into compliance 

with the HD carriage requirement? 

15. Finally, we seek comment on 

ACA’s request for clarification that allanalog systems are not subject to the HD 

carriage requirement because such 

carriage is technically infeasible under 

Section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act and its 

implementing rules. How many cable 

systems that currently rely on the 

exemption are all-analog systems? To 

what extent are all-analog systems 

capable of passing the ATSC45 digital 

broadcast signal through to their 

customers for reception on digital 

televisions? What upgrades, if any, to an 

all-analog system’s cable amplifiers and 

other equipment outside the headend 

would be required to support passing 

through the ATSC signal on a cable 

channel? What upgrades would be 

required in the headend? 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

16. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘RFA’’),46 the Commission has 

prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the 

possible economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the actions proposed in this Fifth 

FNPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the Fifth FNPRM as 

indicated on its first page. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Fifth FNPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’).47 In addition, the Fifth FNPRM 

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register.48

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rule Changes 

17. In the accompanying Fifth 

FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on, among other things, 

whether to extend for an additional 

three years the exemption from the 

requirement to carry high definition 

(‘‘HD’’) broadcast signals under the 

‘‘material degradation’’ provisions of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, that it granted to certain small 

cable systems in the 2012 Fifth Report 

and Order (‘‘HD carriage exemption’’).49

The Fifth FNPRM stems from a Petition 

for Rulemaking filed by the American 

Cable Association principally requesting 

that the Commission extend this 

exemption, which will expire on June 

12, 2015 without action by the 

Commission. In the Fifth FNPRM, the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

the public interest would be served by 

extending the HD carriage exemption for 

three years, or until June 12, 2018. In 

particular, the Commission tentatively 

concludes that the HD carriage 

exemption is still necessary to protect 

the subscribers of small cable systems 

from the costs and service disruptions 

that may result from requiring those 

systems to deliver HD signals in HD 

beginning in June 2015. The exemption 

applies to operators of cable systems 

with 2,500 or fewer subscribers that are 

not affiliated with a cable operator 

serving more than 10% of all MVPD 

subscribers, and to those with an 

activated channel capacity of 552 MHz 

or less. 

2. Legal Basis 

18. The authority for the action 

proposed in this rulemaking is 

contained in sections 4, 303, 614, and 

615 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 534, 

and 535. 

3. Description and Estimates of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

19. The RFA directs the Commission 

to provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

proposed actions if adopted.50 The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

51 5 U.S.C. 601(b). 

52 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 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.’’ 

53 15 U.S.C. 632. 

54 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined 

that this size standard equates approximately to a 

size standard of $100 million or less in annual 

revenues. 

55NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable 

Operators and Systems, http://www.ncta.com/

Statistics.aspx (visited October 13, 2014). 

Depending upon the number of homes and the size 

of the geographic area served, cable operators use 

one or more cable systems to provide video service. 

56See SNL Kagan, ‘‘Top Cable MSOs—12/12 Q’’; 

available at http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/

TopCableMSOs.aspx?period=2012Q4&sort

col=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc. 

57 47 CFR 76.901(c). 

58The number of active, registered cable systems 

comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and 

Licensing System (COALS) database on October 10, 

2014. A cable system is a physical system integrated 

to a principal headend. 

59 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 

1–3. 60See NCTA, Industry Data, Cable’s Customer 

Base, http://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited 

October 13, 2014). 61 47 CFR 76.901(f). 62See NCTA, Industry Data, Top 25 Multichannel 

Video Service Customers (2012), http://

www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited Aug. 30, 

2013). 63The Commission does receive such information 

on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals 

a local franchise authority’s finding that the 

operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 

pursuant to Section 76.901(f) of the Commission’s 

rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f). 

64 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). 

65See 47 U.S.C. 573. 

66See 13 CFR 121.201, 2012 NAICS code 517110. 

This category of Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is defined in part 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.’’ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS 

Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications 

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

naics/naicsrch. 

67 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 517110. 

68U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 

‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: 

Employment Size of Establishments for the United 

States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 

517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

51SSSZ5&prodType=table. 

69 Id. 

70U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘515120 Television Broadcasting,’’ at http:// 

www.census.gov./cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 

71 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120. 

72U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 (515120), http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 

faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?

pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 51 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.52 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).53

The action proposed herein will affect 

small cable system operators and small 

television broadcast stations. A 

description of these small entities, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, is provided below. 

20. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has developed its own 

small business size standards for the 

purpose of cable rate regulation. Under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving 400,000 or 

fewer subscribers nationwide.54

Industry data indicate that there are 

currently 660 cable operators.55 Of this 

total, all but ten cable operators 

nationwide are small under this size 

standard.56 In addition, under the 

Commission’s rate regulation rules, a 

‘‘small system’’ is a cable system serving 

15,000 or fewer subscribers.57 Current 

Commission records show 4,629 cable 

systems nationwide.58 Of this total, 

4,057 cable systems have less than 

20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems 

have 20,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard, we estimate that most cable 

systems are small entities. 

21. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ 59 There are 

approximately 54 million cable video 

subscribers in the United States today.60

Accordingly, an operator serving fewer 

than 540,000 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate.61 Based on available data, we 

find that all but ten incumbent cable 

operators are small entities under this 

size standard.62 We note that the 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million.63 Although it 

seems certain that some of these cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at 

this time to estimate with greater 

precision the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators under the definition in 

the Communications Act. 

22. Open Video Systems. The open 

video system (OVS) framework was 

established in 1996, and is one of four 

statutorily recognized options for the 

provision of video programming 

services by local exchange carriers.64

The OVS framework provides 

opportunities for the distribution of 

video programming other than through 

cable systems. Because OVS operators 

provide subscription services,65 OVS 

falls within the SBA small business size 

standard covering cable services, which 

is ‘‘Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers.’’ 66 The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: All such businesses 

having 1,500 or fewer employees.67

Census data for 2007 shows that there 

were 3,188 firms that operated for that 

entire year.68 Of this total, 2,940 firms 

had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 

firms had 100 or more employees.69

Therefore, under this size standard, we 

estimate that the majority of these 

businesses can be considered small 

entities. 

23. Television Broadcasting. This 

economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ 70 The SBA has created the 

following small business size standard 

for such businesses: Those having $38.5 

million or less in annual receipts.71 The 

2007 U.S. Census indicates that 808 

firms in this category operated in that 

year. Of that number, 709 had annual 

receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 

had annual receipts of more than 

$25,000,000.72 Because the Census has 

no additional classifications that could 

serve as a basis for determining the 

number of stations whose receipts 

exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we 

conclude that the majority of television 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16353 

73See Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 

2014, Press Release (MB rel. July 9, 2014) 

(Broadcast Station Totals) at https://apps.fcc.gov/

edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC–328096A1.pdf. 74See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 75See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). 76 ‘‘[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 the power to control both.’’ 13 CFR 

21.103(a)(1). 

77 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4). 

78Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’), 

Pub. L. 104–13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in 

Chapter 35 of Title 44 U.S.C.). 

79The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002 (SBPRA), Pub. L. 107–198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) 

(codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

80 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

81See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419. 

broadcast stations were small under the 

applicable SBA size standard. 

24. Apart from the U.S. Census, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial television 

stations to be 1,387 stations.73 Of this 

total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 

percent) had revenues of $38.5 million 

or less, according to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 

Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 

July 2, 2014. In addition, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed noncommercial educational 

(NCE) television stations to be 395.74

NCE stations are non-profit, and 

therefore considered to be small 

entities.75 Based on these data, we 

estimate that the majority of television 

broadcast stations are small entities. 

25. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as ‘‘small’’ under the above 

definition, business (control) 

affiliations 76 must be included. Because 

we do not include or aggregate revenues 

from affiliated companies in 

determining whether an entity meets the 

revenue threshold noted above, our 

estimate of the number of small entities 

affected is likely overstated. In addition, 

we note that one element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that an 

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 broadcast station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

our estimate of small television stations 

potentially affected by the proposed 

rules includes those that could be 

dominant in their field of operation. For 

this reason, such estimate likely is overinclusive. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

26. The accompanying Fifth FNPRM 

seeks comment on, among other things, 

whether to extend for an additional 

three years the HD carriage exemption, 

which would affect small cable system 

operators and television broadcast 

stations. The exemption benefits small 

cable system operators by providing 

them with continued flexibility, and 

imposes no new regulatory compliance 

burdens on small television broadcast 

stations who need take no action as a 

result of the proposed extension. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

27. 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.77 We seek comment 

on the applicability of any of these 

alternatives to affected small entities. 

28. Extending the HD carriage 

exemption likely would not have an 

adverse economic impact on any small 

entities, and would have a positive 

economic impact on small cable system 

operators that choose to take advantage 

of the exemption. In addition, extending 

the exemption would not impose any 

significant burdens on small television 

stations. We invite small entities to 

submit comment on the impact of 

extending the HD carriage exemption, 

and on how the Commission could 

minimize any potential burdens on 

small entities. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

29. None. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

30. This document seeks comment on 

potential information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

potential information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13.78 In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

potential information collection burden 

for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees.79

C. Ex Parte Rules 

31. The proceeding this document 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules.80

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

D. Filing Requirements 

32. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules,81

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

document. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

33. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

34. 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). 

35. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

36. For Additional Information: 

Contact Raelynn Remy of the Policy 

Division, Media Bureau, at 

raelynn.remy@fcc.gov or (202) 418– 

2936. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

37. It is Ordered that, pursuant to the 

authority found in sections 4, 303, 614, 

and 615 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 

534, and 535, this Fifth FNPRM is 

adopted. 

38. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Fifth FNPRM, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06943 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 350 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0470] 

State Inspection Programs for 

Passenger-Carrying Vehicles; 

Listening Session 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

session. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will 

hold a public listening session on April 

14, 2015, to solicit information 

concerning section 32710 of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21). This provision requires 

FMCSA to complete a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider requiring States 

to establish a program for annual 

inspections of commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to 

transport passengers. Additionally, 

under MAP–21, FMCSA must assess the 

risks associated with improperly 

maintained or inspected CMVs designed 

or used to transport passengers; the 

effectiveness of existing Federal 

standards for the inspection of such 

vehicles in mitigating the risks 

associated with improperly maintained 

vehicles and ensuring the safe and 

proper operation condition of such 

vehicles; and the costs and benefits of 

a mandatory inspection program. Any 

data regarding this topic would be 

appreciated. The session will be held at 

the Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance’s (CVSA) workshop in 

Jacksonville, Florida. All comments will 

be transcribed and placed in the docket 

referenced above for FMCSA’s 

consideration. The entire proceeding 

will be webcast. 

DATES: The listening session will be 

held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, from 

3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Local Time. 

ADDRESSES: The listening session will 

be held at the Hyatt Regency 

Jacksonville Riverfront, 225 East 

Coastline Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32202, 

in the Clearwater Ballroom. In addition 

to attending the session in person, the 

Agency offers several ways to provide 

comments, as enumerated below. 

Internet Address for Live Webcast. 

FMCSA will post specific information 

on how to participate via the Internet on 

the FMCSA Web site at 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov in advance of the 

listening sessions. 

You may submit comments identified 

by Docket Number FMCSA–2014–0470 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Each submission must include the 

Agency name and the docket number for 

this notice. Note that DOT posts all 

comments received, without change, to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information included in a 

comment. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading below. To avoid duplication, 

please use only one of these four 

methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation 

and Request for Comments’’ portion of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

• Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to www.regulations.gov at 

any time or visit Room W12–140 on the 

ground level of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The online Federal document 

management system is available 24 

hours each day, 365 days each year. If 

you would like acknowledgment that 

the Agency received your comments, 

please include a self-addressed, 

stamped envelope or postcard or print 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS