[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19594-19611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08435]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 15-71; FCC 15-34]


Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes satellite television 
market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite 
Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 
2014 (``STELAR''). The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the 
Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial 
television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of 
satellite carriage rights. In this document, the Commission proposes to 
revise the current cable market modification rule to apply also to 
satellite carriage, while adding provisions to address the unique 
nature of satellite television service. The document also proposes to 
make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and 
considers whether to make any other changes to the current market 
modification rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 13, 2015; reply comments are 
due on or before May 28, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before June 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by MB 
Docket No. 15-71, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and 
Priority mail must be addressed to the FCC Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. 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.
    <bullet> Hand or Messenger Delivery: All hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the FCC Secretary must be 
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084e4b4b3d383c486e6b6b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90d6d3d3a5a0a4d0f6f3f3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530; or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the section IV. ``PROCEDURAL 
MATTERS'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f2f2d3e3f191c1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e0e0c1f1e383d3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a> and to Nicholas A. 
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._

[[Page 19595]]

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35734754465047755a58571b505a451b525a43">[email protected]</a> or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cf8ab9aea1e18daebdaea1a0a9a98fa9acace1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7f4c5b5414785b485b54555c5c7a5c5959145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Media 
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e7e7c6f6e484d4d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de8e8c9f9eb8bdbdf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a> 
or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, adopted and released on March 
26, 2015. The full text of this document is available electronically 
via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at 
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC's Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, 
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available 
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are 
available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65030606505551250306064b020a13">[email protected]</a> 
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Document Summary

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose 
satellite television ``market modification'' rules to implement section 
102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) 
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (``STELA Reauthorization Act'' or 
``STELAR'').\1\ The STELAR amended the Communications Act 
(``Communications Act'' or ``Act'') and the Copyright Act to give the 
Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast 
station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage 
rights.\2\ The Commission previously had such authority to modify 
markets only in the cable carriage context.\3\ With section 102 of the 
STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order to 
promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television 
programming.\4\ Congress' intent through this provision of STELAR, and 
the Commission's actions in this NPRM, seek to address satellite 
subscribers' inability to receive in-state programming in certain 
areas, sometimes called ``orphan counties.'' \5\ In this NPRM, 
consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the 
satellite market modification process on the current cable market 
modification process, we propose to implement section 102 of the STELAR 
by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, 
to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the 
rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\6\ 
In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, 
section 102 of the STELAR directs us to consider whether we should make 
changes to the current cable market modification rules,\7\ and it also 
makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification 
statutory provision.\8\ Accordingly, as part of our implementation of 
the STELAR, we propose to make conforming changes to the cable market 
modification rules and consider whether we should make any other 
changes to the current cable market modification rules. The STELAR 
requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or 
before September 4, 2015.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, 
Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 
5728, 113th Cong.). This proceeding implements STELAR sec. 102 
(titled ``Modification of television markets to further consumer 
access to relevant television programming''), 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 
and the related statutory copyright license provisions in STELAR 
sec. 204 (titled ``Market determinations''), 128 Stat. at 2067 
(codified at 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E)).
    \2\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067. STELAR 
sec. 102(a) amends section 338 of the Act by adding a new paragraph 
(l). 47 U.S.C. 338(l) (titled ``Market Determinations''). STELAR 
sec. 102(b) also makes conforming amendments to the cable market 
modification provision at 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). STELAR sec. 204 
amends the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of 
``local'' stations in 17 U.S.C. 122 to cover market modifications in 
accordance with 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E). We note 
that, like the cable provision, the STELAR provision pertains only 
to ``commercial'' stations, thus excluding noncommercial stations 
from seeking market modifications. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
    \3\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). This section was added to the 
Act by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 
of 1992, Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), as part of the 
cable must-carry/retransmission consent regime for carriage of local 
television stations. See also 47 CFR 76.59.
    \4\ See title of STELAR sec. 102, ``Modification of Television 
Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television 
Programming.'' See also 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (directing 
the Commission to consider whether a market modification would 
``promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals 
that originate in their State of residence''). There was no final 
Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELAR bill (H. 
R. 5728, 113th Cong.) as it was enacted. Because section 102 of the 
STELAR was added from the Senate predecessor bill (S. 2799, the 
Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA)), we 
therefore look to the Senate Report No. 113-322 (dated December 12, 
2014) accompanying this predecessor bill for the relevant 
legislative history for this provision. See Report from the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 
2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (``Senate Commerce 
Committee Report'').
    \5\ We note that the Commission has sometimes referred to the 
situation in which a county in one state is assigned to a 
neighboring state's local television market and, therefore, 
satellite subscribers residing in such county cannot receive some or 
any broadcast stations that originate in-state as the ``orphan 
county'' problem. The inability of satellite subscribers located in 
``orphan counties'' to access in-state programming has been the 
subject of some congressional interest. See, e.g., Orphan County 
Telecommunications Rights Act, H.R. 4635, 113th Cong. (2014); 
Colorado News, Emergency, Weather, and Sports Act, S. 2375, 113th 
Cong. (2014); Four Corners Television Access Act, H.R. 4469, 112th 
Cong. (2012); Letting Our Communities Access Local Television Act, 
S. 3894, 111th Cong. (2010); Local Television Freedom Act, H.R. 
3216, 111th Cong. (2009).
    \6\ See 47 CFR 76.59. As discussed herein, we propose to revise 
section 76.59 of our rules to apply to both cable systems and 
satellite carriers. We note Congress' intent that the process 
established by the Commission under the section 102 of the STELAR be 
``modeled'' on the current cable market modification process. See 
Senate Commerce Committee Report at 10. However, the STELAR 
recognizes the inherent difference between cable and satellite 
television service with provisions specific to satellite. See 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A), (5).
    \7\ STELAR sec. 102(d) directs the Commission to consider as 
part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and 
consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 
534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made 
by this section, and update what it considers to be a community for 
purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.''
    \8\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).
    \9\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    2. The STELAR, enacted December 4, 2014, is the latest in a series 
of statutes that have amended the Communications Act and Copyright Act 
to set the parameters for the satellite carriage of television 
broadcast stations. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) first 
established a ``distant'' statutory copyright license to enable 
satellite carriers to offer subscribers who could not receive the over-
the-air signal of a broadcast station access to broadcast

[[Page 19596]]

programming via satellite.\10\ The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act (SHVIA) established a ``local'' statutory copyright 
license and expanded satellite carriers' ability to offer broadcast 
television signals directly to subscribers by permitting carriers to 
offer ``local'' broadcast signals.\11\ The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer 
Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) reauthorized the distant 
signal statutory copyright license until December 31, 2009 and expanded 
that license to allow satellite carriers to carry ``significantly 
viewed'' stations.\12\ The 2010 Satellite Television Extension and 
Localism Act (STELA) extended the distant signal statutory copyright 
license through December 31, 2014, moved the significantly viewed 
signal copyright provisions to the local statutory copyright license 
(which does not expire), and revised the ``significantly viewed'' 
provisions to facilitate satellite carrier use of that option.\13\ With 
the STELAR, Congress extends the distant signal statutory copyright 
license for another five years, through December 31, 2019 and, among 
other things, authorizes market modification in the satellite carriage 
context and revises the market modification provisions for cable to 
promote parity for satellite and cable subscribers and competition 
between satellite and cable operators.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 
100-667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988); 17 U.S.C. 119 (distant 
statutory copyright license).
    \11\ The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), 
Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 17 U.S.C. 122 (local 
statutory copyright license).
    \12\ The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act 
of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004).
    \13\ The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA), Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010). See also 
Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension 
and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), MB Docket No. 10-148, Report and 
Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-193, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 
29, 2010 (STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order).
    \14\ In section 102 of the STELAR, Congress intended to ``create 
a television market modification process for satellite carriers 
similar to the one already used for cable operators.'' Senate 
Commerce Committee Report at 6. The STELAR also makes a variety of 
reforms to the video programming distribution laws and regulations 
that are not relevant here to our implementation of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 338 of the Act authorizes satellite carriage of local 
broadcast stations into their local markets, which is called ``local-
into-local'' service.\15\ Specifically, a satellite carrier provides 
``local-into-local'' service when it retransmits a local television 
signal back into the local market of that television station for 
reception by subscribers.\16\ Generally, a television station's ``local 
market'' is defined by the Designated Market Area (DMA) in which it is 
located, as determined by the Nielsen Company (Nielsen).\17\ DMAs 
describe each television market in terms of a unique geographic area 
(group of counties) and are defined by Nielsen based on measured 
viewing patterns.\18\ The United States is divided into 210 DMA 
markets. (DMAs frequently cross state lines and thus may include 
counties from multiple states.) Unlike cable operators, satellite 
carriers are not required to carry local broadcast television stations. 
However, if a satellite carrier chooses to carry a local station in a 
particular DMA in reliance on the statutory copyright license, it 
generally must carry any qualified local station in the same DMA that 
makes a timely election for retransmission consent or mandatory 
carriage.\19\ This is commonly referred to as the ``carry one, carry 
all'' requirement. If a broadcaster elects retransmission consent, the 
satellite carrier and broadcaster negotiate the terms of a 
retransmission consent agreement. With respect to those stations 
electing mandatory carriage, satellite carriers are generally not 
required to carry a station if the station's programming 
``substantially duplicates'' that of another station carried by the 
satellite carrier in the DMA, and satellite carriers are not required 
to carry more than one network affiliate station in a DMA (even if the 
affiliates do not substantially duplicate their programming), unless 
the stations are licensed to communities in different states.\20\ 
Satellite carriers are also not required to carry an otherwise 
qualified station if the station fails to provide a good quality signal 
to the satellite carrier's local receive facility.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1).
    \16\ 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6).
    \17\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2); 47 CFR 76.66(e) (defining a 
television broadcast station's local market for purposes of 
satellite carriage as the DMA in which the station is located). We 
note that a commercial television broadcast station's local market 
for purposes of cable carriage is also generally defined as the DMA 
in which the station is located. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C); 47 CFR 
76.55(e)(2).
    \18\ The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by 
assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) 
to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and by 
MVPD distribution.
    \19\ See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1).
    \20\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h). See also 
Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: 
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Retransmission Consent Issues, CS 
Docket Nos. 00-96 and 99-363, Report and Order, FCC 00-417, 66 FR 
7410, at para. 80, Jan. 23, 2001 (DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and 
Order).
    \21\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Section 102 of the STELAR, which adds section 338(l) of the Act, 
creates a satellite market modification regime very similar to that in 
place for cable, while adding provisions to address the unique nature 
of satellite television service.\22\ Market modification, which has 
been available in the cable carriage context since 1992, will allow the 
Commission to modify the local television market of a commercial 
television broadcast station to enable those broadcasters and satellite 
carriers to better serve the interests of local communities.\23\ Market 
modification provides a means to avoid rigid adherence to DMA 
designations and to promote consumer access to in-state and other 
relevant television programming.\24\ To better reflect market realities 
and effectuate the purposes of this provision, section 338(l), like the 
corresponding cable provision in section 614(h)(1)(C), permits the 
Commission to add communities to or delete communities from a station's 
local television market following a written request.\25\ Furthermore, 
as in the cable carriage context, the Commission may determine that 
particular communities are part of more than one television market.\26\ 
Similar to the cable carriage context, when the Commission modifies a 
station's market to add a community for purposes of carriage rights, 
the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory 
copyright license and may assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission 
consent) by the applicable satellite

[[Page 19597]]

carrier in the local market.\27\ Likewise, if the Commission modifies a 
station's market to delete a community, the station is considered 
``distant'' and loses its right to assert mandatory carriage (or 
retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the 
local market. We note that, in the cable carriage context, market 
modifications pertain to specific stations in specific cable 
communities and apply to the specific cable system named in the 
petition.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C).
    \23\ See In-State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress 
Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension and 
Localism Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 10-238, Report, DA 11-1454, at 
para. 55-59 (MB rel. Aug. 29, 2011) (``In-State Programming 
Report'') (stating that ``market modifications could potentially 
address special situations in underserved areas and facilitate 
greater access to local information''). See also Broadcast Localism, 
MB Docket No. 04-233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218, 73 FR 8255 at paras. 49-50, Feb. 
13, 2008 (``Broadcast Localism Report'').
    \24\ Broadcast Localism Report at para. 50. The Commission has 
observed that, in some cases, general reliance on DMAs to define a 
station's market may not provide viewers with the most local 
programming. Certain DMAs cross state borders and, in such cases, 
current Commission rules sometimes require carriage of the broadcast 
signal of an out-of-state station rather than that of an in-state 
station. The Commission has observed that such cases may weaken 
localism, since viewers are often more likely to receive information 
of local interest and relevance--particularly local weather and 
other emergency information and local news and electoral and public 
affairs--from a station located in the state in which they live. Id. 
at paras. 49-50.
    \25\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1), 534(h)(1)(C).
    \26\ Id. 338(l)(2)(A).
    \27\ Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local statutory 
copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 so that when the Commission 
modifies a station's market for purposes of satellite carriage 
rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local 
statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E); 47 U.S.C. 
338. See also 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(4) (defining ``local service area of 
a primary transmitter'' for cable carriage copyright purposes); 47 
U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C).
    \28\ See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer 
Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage 
Issues, MM Docket No. 92-259, Report and Order, FCC 93-144, 58 FR 
17350, at para. 47, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) (stating that 
``the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's 
market to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Section 338(l) states that, in deciding requests for market 
modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the 
value of localism by taking into account the following five factors:
    <bullet> Whether the station, or other stations located in the same 
area--have been historically carried on the cable system or systems 
within such community; and have been historically carried on the 
satellite carrier or carriers serving such community;
    <bullet> whether the television station provides coverage or other 
local service to such community;
    <bullet> whether modifying the local market of the television 
station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station 
signals that originate in their State of residence;
    <bullet> whether any other television station that is eligible to 
be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of 
the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of 
concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting 
and other events of interest to the community; and
    <bullet> evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe 
and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video 
programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel 
video programming distributors in such community.\29\ These statutory 
factors largely mirror those originally set forth for cable in section 
614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the extent the factors differ from the 
previous factors applicable to cable, section 102 of the STELAR makes 
conforming changes to the cable factors.\30\ These include adding a 
fifth factor (inserted as factor number three) to section 
614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to ``promote consumers' access to television broadcast 
station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' \31\ 
Thus, STELAR creates parallel factors for satellite and cable.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v).
    \30\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by STELAR sec. 
102(b).
    \31\ See id. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (``whether modifying the 
market of the television station would promote consumers' access to 
television broadcast station signals that originate in their State 
of residence'').
    \32\ Upon completion of this rulemaking proceeding, we will 
implement section 102(c) of the STELAR by creating a consumer guide 
that will explain the market modification rules and procedures as 
revised and adopted in this proceeding, and by posting such guide on 
the Commission's Web site. Section 102(c) requires the Commission to 
``make information available to consumers on its Web site that 
explains the market modification process.'' STELAR 102(c); 47 
U.S.C.A. 338 Note. Such information must include: ``(1) who may 
petition to include additional communities within, or exclude 
communities from, a--(A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) 
of title 17, United States Code); or (B) television market (as 
determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the 
Commission takes into account when responding to a petition 
described in paragraph (1).'' See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through 
(v); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The STELAR, however, provides a unique exception applicable only 
in the satellite context, providing that a market modification shall 
not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if 
it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to 
accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the 
time of the determination.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also unique to satellite, the STELAR provides that a market 
modification will not have ``any effect on the eligibility of 
households in the community affected by such modification to receive 
distant signals pursuant to section 339 [of the Act].'' \34\ Like the 
cable provision, section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 days to act on 
a request for market modification and does not allow a carrier to 
delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station 
during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).
    \35\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    7. Consistent with the STELAR's goal of regulatory parity, we 
propose to amend section 76.59 of our rules--the current cable market 
modification rule--to apply to the satellite context.\36\ We also 
propose to amend section 76.59 to reflect the STELAR provisions that 
uniquely apply to satellite carriers. The STELAR also directs us to 
update our definition of a ``community'' for purposes of market 
modification and, below, we seek comment in this regard. We seek 
comment on the specific rule proposals and tentative conclusions 
contained herein. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 47 CFR 76.59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Requesting Market Modification

    8. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, 
we propose to allow either the affected commercial broadcast station or 
satellite carrier to file a satellite market modification request.\37\ 
Section 338(l)(1) of the Act contains very similar language to the 
corresponding cable statutory provision in section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of 
the Act.\38\ Like the cable provision, section 338(l)(1) permits the 
Commission to modify a local television market ``following a written 
request,'' but does not specify the appropriate party to make such 
requests.\39\ Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR further directs the 
Commission to ensure in both the cable and satellite contexts that 
``procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request . . 
. fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this 
section.'' \40\ The Commission found in the cable context that the 
involved broadcaster and cable operator are the only appropriate 
parties to file market

[[Page 19598]]

modification requests.\41\ The Commission reasoned that ``the fact that 
Congress made must carry an elective choice for broadcasters diminishes 
the argument that third parties have standing to demand carriage of a 
broadcast station on a cable system. A subscriber's ability to receive 
the benefits provided from must carry is predicated upon a station's 
election to exercise its rights under the statute. No statute or 
Commission rule requires a broadcaster to allow its signal to be 
carried on a local cable system because another party wishes to view 
it. Instead, broadcasters are given a choice whether to demand carriage 
under must carry, to negotiate carriage under the retransmission 
consent provisions, or not to be carried on a particular cable system 
at all.'' \42\ Thus, only these entities have carriage rights or 
obligations at stake, giving them a legitimate basis for filing such 
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 47 CFR 76.59(a) (allowing either a broadcast station or 
a cable system to file market modification requests).
    \38\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (``Following a written request, the 
Commission may, with respect to a particular commercial television 
broadcast station, include additional communities within its local 
market or exclude communities from such station's local market to 
better effectuate the purposes of this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(i) (``For purposes of this section, a broadcasting 
station's market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation 
or order using, where available, commercial publications which 
delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, 
following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a 
particular television broadcast station, include additional 
communities within its television market or exclude communities from 
such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes 
of this section . . . .'').
    \39\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
    \40\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission to consider as 
part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and 
consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 
534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made 
by this section.'' See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.
    \41\ See John Wiegand v. Post Newsweek Pacifica Cable, Inc., CSR 
4179-M, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-239 (rel. Aug. 24, 
2001) (``Wiegand v. Post Newsweek'') (limiting standing in the must 
carry and market modification contexts to the affected broadcaster 
or cable operator); Must Carry Order, at para. 46.
    \42\ See Must Carry Order, at para. 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Without the active participation of the affected broadcaster, 
modifying the market of a particular television station, in itself, 
would not result in consumer access to that station.\43\ This reasoning 
appears to apply to the satellite context as well. Thus, a market 
modification would serve little purpose without the cooperation of the 
involved broadcaster or MVPD having carriage rights or obligations. We 
seek comment on our proposal and these tentative conclusions. We also 
seek comment on any alternative approaches. We note, for example, that 
some local governments have previously sought the ability to petition 
for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.\44\ We recognize 
that seeking and providing carriage is a business decision by the 
involved broadcaster and satellite carrier and, therefore, we 
tentatively conclude to limit the participation of local governments 
and individuals to filing comments in support of, or in opposition to, 
particular market modification requests, for the reasons discussed in 
this and the preceding paragraph. We, nevertheless, seek comment on 
this tentative conclusion and how else satellite subscribers or their 
representatives can meaningfully advocate for the receipt of in-state 
programming via satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, at para. 11(``[t]he granting 
of a request to expand the market of a television station merely 
allows a broadcaster the option to seek must carry status on cable 
systems added to its market. A broadcaster is not required to seek 
carriage of its signal on all of the cable systems in its 
market.'').
    \44\ See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, 
we propose to require broadcasters and satellite carriers to file 
market modification requests for satellite carriage purposes in 
accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in 
section 76.7 of the rules.\45\ Consistent with section 76.7, we propose 
that a petitioner must serve a copy of its market modification request 
on any MVPD operator, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or 
other interested party who is likely to be directly affected if the 
relief requested is granted, and we propose to amend section 
76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to reference ``any MVPD operator.'' \46\ We 
seek comment on our proposal. Because, as noted above, some local 
governments have expressed interest in orphan county issues, we also 
seek comment on whether franchising authorities \47\ or certain local 
government entities (such as cities, counties or towns) that may 
represent subscribers and local viewers in affected communities should 
be considered ``interested parties'' and served with market 
modification requests. We seek specific comment on whether to require 
petitioners seeking only a satellite carriage market modification to 
serve the relevant franchising authority. We note that while the 
Commission has found that a franchising authority represents the 
interests of subscribers and other local viewers in the cable 
context,\48\ franchising authorities currently have no role in 
satellite regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally required for the filing 
of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, 1.1117, 76.7. We remind 
filers that Special Relief petitions must be submitted 
electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of Mandatory 
Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show 
Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing System, Public 
Notice, DA 11-2095 (MB rel. Dec. 30, 2011). Petitions must be 
initially filed in MB Docket No. 12-1. Id.
    \46\ See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3). While our rules currently state that 
documents that are required to be served must be served in paper 
form unless the parties agree to another method of service, 47 CFR 
1.47(d), we take notice of the Commission's broader efforts to 
modernize our procedures where possible. See, e.g., Amendment of 
Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure 
and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, GC Docket No. 10-44, 
Order, FCC 14-183, 80 FR 1586, para. 26, Jan. 13, 2015 (authorizing 
Commission staff to accept secs. 214 and 215 filings in electronic 
form); Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of 
Practice and Procedure Relating to the Filing of Formal Complaints 
Under Section 208 of the Communications Act and Pole Attachment 
Complaints Under Section 224 of the Communications Act, GC Docket 
No. 10-44, Order, FCC 14-179, 79 FR 73844, para. 2, Dec. 12, 2014 
(mandating electronic filing of secs. 208 and 224 complaints). 
Service of market modification requests seems ripe for modernization 
as well. In the near term, the Commission will explore whether and 
how this and other types of required filings might transition to 
electronic form.
    \47\ We recognize, for example, that in several states, the 
state acts as the franchising authority instead of a local 
government.
    \48\ See KMSO-TV, Inc., CSR-883, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
58 FCC2d 414, 415, para. 3 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary Requirements

    11. As discussed above, the purpose of market modifications is to 
permit adjustments to a particular station's local television market 
(which is initially defined by the DMA in which it is located) to 
better reflect localism and ensure that satellite subscribers receive 
the broadcast stations most relevant to them.\49\ To this end, the 
STELAR requires the Commission to consider five statutory factors when 
evaluating market modification requests. As noted, the STELAR added a 
fifth factor (inserted as the new third statutory factor) for both 
cable and satellite to ``promote consumers' access to television 
broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' 
\50\ The legislative history indicates Congress' concern that ``many 
consumers, particularly those who reside in DMAs that cross State lines 
or cover vast geographic distances,'' may ``lack access to local 
television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.'' \51\ 
The legislative history further indicates Congress' intent that the 
Commission ``consider the plight of these consumers when judging the 
merits of a [market modification] petition . . . , even if granting 
such modification would pose an economic challenge to various local 
television broadcast stations.'' \52\ We tentatively conclude that this 
new third statutory factor is intended to favor a market modification 
to add a community if doing so would increase consumer access to in-
state programming. We also tentatively conclude, however, that this new 
third statutory factor is not intended to bar a market modification 
simply because it would not result in increased consumer access to in-
state programming. In such cases, we believe this new third

[[Page 19599]]

statutory factor would be inapplicable.\53\ We seek comment on these 
tentative conclusions and any alternative interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the 
Commission to ``afford particular attention to the value of 
localism'' by taking into account the five statutory factors).
    \50\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). We will 
refer to this new factor as the ``third statutory factor.''
    \51\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ We note that this is similar to how we apply the fourth 
statutory factor (``whether any other television station that is 
eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in 
fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news 
coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage 
or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the 
community''). 47 U.S.C.534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). The Commission has 
found that this fourth factor (previously the third factor) is not 
intended to operate as a bar to a station's market modification 
request whenever other stations could also be shown to serve the 
communities at issue. See e.g., Great Trails Broadcasting Corp., DA 
95-1700, para. 23 (MB rel. Aug. 11, 1995); Paxson San Jose License, 
Inc., DA 97-2276, para. 13 (MB rel. Oct. 30, 1997). Rather, the 
fourth factor is intended to enhance a station's market modification 
request where it could be shown that other stations do not provide 
news coverage of issues of concern to the communities at issue. See 
id. Likewise, we believe the new third statutory factor is intended 
to enhance a station's market modification request where it could be 
shown that such modification would promote consumer access to in-
state programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. We tentatively conclude that the evidentiary requirements 
currently required in section 76.59 continue to be appropriate to 
support and evaluate market modification petitions. Specifically, we 
propose that market modification requests for both satellite carriers 
and cable system operators must include the following evidence:
    <bullet> A map or maps illustrating the relevant community 
locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable 
system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, 
terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between 
the community and the television station transmitter site, 
transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope 
of the market;
    <bullet> Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) 
or Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's 
technical service area and showing the location of the cable system 
headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities 
in relation to the service areas.
    <bullet> Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local 
market.
    <bullet> Television station programming information derived from 
station logs or the local edition of the television guide.
    <bullet> Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or 
other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide 
listings.
    <bullet> Published audience data for the relevant station showing 
its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over 
Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD 
households or other specific audience indicia, such as station 
advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(1) through (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, the Commission adopted this standardized evidence approach 
for market modifications in the cable context in an effort to promote 
administrative efficiency, given the 120-day time period for Commission 
action on such petitions.\55\ We seek comment on whether to do the same 
for satellite and on whether any of these evidentiary requirements are 
not relevant in the satellite context. We further seek comment on 
whether any other evidence should be required to evaluate the statutory 
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television 
Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, CS Docket No. 95-178, Order on 
Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 99-116, 64 FR 
33788, para. 44, Jun. 24, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In particular, we seek comment on what evidence could be used 
to demonstrate the new ``third statutory factor,'' which seeks to 
promote consumer access to in-state programming.\56\ For example, in 
situations in which this third statutory factor would apply, should we 
require the petitioner to show that the station at issue is licensed to 
a community within the state in which the modification is requested and 
that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state 
stations? We note that the current rule already requires a petitioner 
to provide television station programming information. Would this 
information provide sufficient evidence of whether the station at issue 
offers programming (e.g., news, sports, weather, political, talk shows, 
etc.) specifically covering in-state issues? Should we require a 
petitioner to provide a list of advertisers, which would show that the 
station is used to attract viewers to local businesses? In addition, 
are there any satellite-specific evidentiary showings that we should 
require separate and apart from the six evidentiary showings described 
above?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In addition, we tentatively conclude to revise section 
76.59(b)(2) of the rules to add a reference to the digital noise-
limited service contour (NLSC), which is the relevant service contour 
for a station's digital signal.\57\ Section 76.59(b)(2) requires 
petitioners seeking a market modification to provide Grade B contour 
maps delineating the station's technical service area; \58\ however the 
Grade B contour defines an analog television station's service 
area.\59\ Since the completion of the full power digital television 
transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog 
stations and, therefore, the Commission uses the NLSC set forth in 47 
CFR 73.622(e),\60\ in place of the analog Grade B contour set forth in 
47 CFR 73.683(a), to describe a full power station's technical service 
area.\61\ Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has required full 
power stations to provide NLSC maps, in place of Grade B contour maps, 
for purposes of cable market modifications.\62\ Therefore, we 
tentatively conclude that section 76.59(b)(2) should be updated for 
purposes of market modifications in both the cable and satellite 
contexts. However, we propose to retain the reference in the rule to 
the Grade B contour because that reference may still have relevance 
with respect to low power television (LPTV) stations.\63\ We

[[Page 19600]]

seek comment on these tentative conclusions. (We are also updating 
section 76.59(b)(6) of the rules to reflect the change from ``evidence 
of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households . . .'' to 
``evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not 
subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming 
distributors'' in the fifth statutory factor (emphasis added).\64\ We 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).
    \58\ 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).
    \59\ See 47 CFR 73.683(a).
    \60\ As set forth in section 73.622(e), a full-power station's 
DTV service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited 
contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-
limited service level. See 47 CFR 73.622(e).
    \61\ See STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 
51 (2010) (stating that the digital NLSC is ``the appropriate 
service contour relevant for a station's digital signal''); 2010 
Quadrennial Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast 
Ownership Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 09-182, Notice of 
Inquiry, FCC 10-92, 75 FR 33227, para. 103, June 11, 2010 (stating 
that the Commission developed the digital NLSC to approximate the 
same probability of service as the Grade B contour and has stated 
that the two are roughly equivalent); Report To Congress: The 
Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Reauthorization Act of 2004; 
Study of Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing 
Procedures; ET Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199, para. 111 (rel. Dec. 
9, 2005). Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has used the 
digital NLSC in place of the analog Grade B contour in cable 
contexts in addition to market modifications. See, e.g., KXAN, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-589, para. 8 n.32 (MB rel. Apr. 
1, 2010) (using the NLSC in place of the Grade B contour for 
purposes of the cable network non-duplication and syndicated program 
exclusivity rules). Congress has also acted on the presumption that 
the two standards are roughly equivalent, by adopting parallel 
definitions for households that are ``unserved'' by analog (measured 
by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) broadcasters in the STELA 
legislation enacted after the DTV transition. See 17 U.S.C. 
119(d)(10)(A)(i).
    \62\ See, e.g., Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, DA 10-824, para. 6, n.14 (MB rel. May 12, 2010) 
(stating, in a market modification order, that the Commission has 
treated a digital station's NLSC as the functional equivalent of an 
analog station's Grade B contour); Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 04-1414, para. 7, n.27 (MB rel. May 
20, 2004).
    \63\ We note that the Commission has tentatively concluded that 
it should extend the September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline 
for LPTV stations. See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the 
Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power 
Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations, 
MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-
151, 79 FR 70824, para. 4, Nov. 28., 2014. Although LPTV stations 
are not entitled to mandatory satellite carriage, see 47 U.S.C. 
338(a)(3), LPTV stations may be entitled to mandatory cable 
carriage, but only in limited circumstances. Both the Communications 
Act and the Commission's rules mandate that only a minimum number of 
qualified low power stations must be carried by cable systems, see 
47 U.S.C. 534(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.56(b)(3), and, in order to qualify, 
such stations must meet several criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(2)(A)-(F); 47 CFR 76.55(d)(1)-(6).
    \64\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that 
satellite market modification requests that do not include the required 
evidence also be dismissed without prejudice and may be supplemented 
and re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.\65\ In 
addition, consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that, 
during the pendency of a market modification petition before the 
Commission, satellite carriers will also be required to maintain the 
status quo with regard to signal carriage and must not delete from 
carriage the signal of an affected commercial television station.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See 47 CFR 76.59(c).
    \66\ See 47 CFR 76.59(d). See also 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), 
534(h)(1)(C)(iii); Must Carry Order, at para. 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Market Determinations

    16. Consistent with the cable carriage context, we interpret the 
statute to require that market modifications in the satellite carriage 
context must be limited to the specific station or stations identified 
in the market modification request and to the specific satellite 
community or communities referenced in the request.\67\ This reading is 
based on the statute's language granting authority to modify markets 
``with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast 
station.'' \68\ This also makes sense because market modification 
determinations are highly fact-specific and turn on whether a 
particular commercial television broadcast station serves the needs of 
a specific community. We also propose to consider market modification 
requests separately in the cable and satellite contexts. We believe 
this proposal makes sense given the service area differences between 
satellite carriers and cable systems and the potential difference 
between a cable and satellite community, given that the former is 
defined as ``a separate and distinct community or municipal entity'' 
and we consider defining the latter using one or more five-digit zip 
codes.\69\ We also propose that market modification requests will only 
apply to the satellite carrier or carriers named in the request.\70\ 
For example, a modification may not always appropriately apply to both 
carriers because their spot beams may be different, even though they 
are serving the same market and thus one may have an infeasibility 
defense while the other may not. We seek comment on these proposals. We 
also seek comment on any alternative approaches. For example, should 
market determinations apply for purposes of both cable and satellite 
carriage and what procedures or definitional changes would be needed to 
implement such an approach? How would such an alternative approach 
account for the STELAR's exception for satellite carriage that would 
not be ``technically and economically feasible'' (discussed below)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Must Carry Order, at para. 47, n.139 (stating that 
``the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's 
market to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59. We note 
that this is also consistent with the Commission's previous 
determination that stations may make a different retransmission 
consent/mandatory carriage election in the satellite context than 
that made in the cable context. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report 
and Order, at para. 23.
    \68\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
    \69\ See id. at 1930, para. 24.
    \70\ This is also consistent with the satellite carriage 
election process. See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, CS Docket 
No. 00-96, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-249, 66 FR 49124, para. 
62, Sept. 26., 2001 (DBS Must Carry Reconsideration Order) (``where 
there is more than one satellite carrier in a local market area, a 
television station can elect retransmission consent for one 
satellite carrier and elect must carry for another satellite 
carrier'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Prior Determinations. Because market modification 
determinations are so highly fact-specific, we tentatively conclude 
that prior market determinations made with respect to cable carriage 
will not automatically apply to the satellite context. It appears that 
the inherent differences between cable and satellite service would make 
such automatic application inadvisable. We note, however, that historic 
carriage is one of the five factors the Commission would consider in 
evaluating market modification requests and could carry weight in 
determining a market modification in the satellite context.\71\ We seek 
comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any 
alternative approaches. For example, should prior market determinations 
in the cable context carry a presumption of approval in the satellite 
context or automatically apply to the satellite context? We note, 
however, that any presumption or automatic application would have to be 
subject to the STELAR's exception for satellite carriers if the 
resulting carriage would not be ``technically and economically 
feasible.'' Would such alternative approaches impose a significant 
burden on satellite carriers who would have to evaluate the feasibility 
of carriage resulting from all prior determinations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i)(I) (whether the station, or 
other stations located in the same area-- ``have been historically 
carried on the cable system or systems within such community'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Carriage after a market modification. We tentatively conclude 
that television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory 
carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to section 76.66 
of the rules) by virtue of a change in the market definition (by 
operation of a market modification pursuant to section 76.59 of the 
rules) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, 
elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such 
carrier. We further tentatively conclude that a satellite carrier must 
commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the request for carriage 
from the television broadcast station. These proposals are consistent 
with our cable rules, as well as with existing satellite carriage 
procedures, including those involving new television stations.\72\ In 
addition, we tentatively conclude that the carriage election must be 
made in accordance with section 76.66(d)(1).\73\ We seek comment on 
these tentative conclusions

[[Page 19601]]

and on any other procedural requirements we should consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5), 76.66(d)(1) and (d)(3).
    \73\ See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1). Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that 
an election request made by a television station must be in writing 
and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by 
certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). 
The rule requires that a television station's written notification 
shall include the following information: (1) Station's call sign; 
(2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station's 
address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) 
Station's community of license; (5) Station's DMA assignment; and 
(6) Station's election of mandatory carriage or retransmission 
consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). The rule also requires that, 
within 30 days of receiving the request for carriage from the 
television broadcast station, a satellite carrier must notify the 
station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with 
the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the 
station. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility Exception for Satellite Carriers

    19. We propose to include the statutory language of section 
338(l)(3) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek 
comment on this implementation. section 338(l)(3) provides that ``[a] 
market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage 
obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and 
economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by 
means of its satellites in operation at the time of the 
determination.'' \74\ The legislative history indicates that Congress 
recognized ``that there are technical and operational differences that 
may make a particular television market modification difficult for a 
satellite carrier to effectuate.'' \75\ The legislative history also 
indicates ``that claims of the existence of such difficulties should be 
well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission] as part 
of the petition consideration process.'' \76\ Based on the language of 
the provision and the legislative history, we tentatively conclude that 
the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate technical or 
economic infeasibility. We further interpret the statutory text as 
requiring a satellite carrier to raise any technical or economic 
impediments in the market modification proceeding and we propose to 
address this issue in the market modification proceeding. This reading 
is consistent with the language of the statute (that we consider 
whether the carrier can accomplish carriage ``at the time of the 
determination''). Moreover, this will be most efficient for all 
parties. We seek comment on this proposal and whether the satellite 
carrier should be deemed to have waived technical or economic 
infeasibility arguments if not raised in response to the market 
modification request (and, thus, be prohibited from raising such a 
claim after a market determination, such as in response to a station's 
request for carriage). We also seek comment on any alternative 
approaches. In addition, we propose to grant a meritorious market 
modification request, even if such grant would not create a new 
carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to a finding of 
technical or economic infeasibility.\77\ This would ensure that, if 
there is a change in circumstances such that it later becomes 
technically and economically feasible for the satellite carrier to 
carry the station, then the station could assert its carriage rights 
pursuant to the earlier market modification.\78\ We seek comment on 
this proposal or if, alternatively, we should deny a market 
modification request that would not create a new carriage obligation at 
the time of the determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3).
    \75\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \76\ See id.
    \77\ We note that this is consistent with the cable carriage 
context, in which the Commission might grant a market modification, 
even if such grant would not result in a new carriage obligation at 
that time, for example, due to the station being a duplicating 
signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5).
    \78\ This concept is similar to the duplicating signals 
situation, in which a satellite carrier must add a television 
station to its channel line-up if such station no longer duplicates 
the programming of another local television station. See 47 CFR 
76.66(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. We also invite comment on the types of technical or economic 
impediments contemplated by this provision and the type of evidence 
needed to prove such infeasibility claims. Are there any objective 
criteria by which the Commission could determine technical or economic 
infeasibility? For example, the Commission has recognized that spot 
beam coverage limitations, in the provision of local-into-local service 
context, may be a legitimate technical impediment.\79\ Under what 
circumstances would the limitations or coverage of a spot beam be a 
sufficient basis for a satellite carrier to prove that carriage of a 
station in the community at issue is not technically and economically 
feasible? Should we require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility 
due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour 
diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a 
particular community? We also seek specific comment from satellite 
carriers on the complexities and expense that may be associated with 
reconfiguring a spot beam to cover additional communities added to the 
market served by the spot beam by operation of the market modification 
process. In addition, in the event of a Commission finding of technical 
or economic infeasibility, we seek comment on whether we should impose 
a reporting requirement on satellite carriers to notify the affected 
broadcaster if circumstances change at a later time making it 
technically and economically feasible for the carrier to carry the 
station. Would such changes in circumstances be sufficiently public so 
as to not necessitate the burden of such a reporting requirement? If 
not notified by the carrier, how else could a broadcaster find out 
about such a change in the feasibility of carriage? To the extent that 
a satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to some, but not 
all, subscribers in the community, should we allow or require the 
carrier to deliver the station to subscribers in the community who are 
capable of receiving the signal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, at para. 42 
(allowing satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to provide 
local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not cover the 
entire market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. We note that compiling the standardized evidence necessary to 
demonstrate that a market modification should be granted may not be, in 
some instances, a simple or inexpensive process. In this regard, should 
the Commission, in the case of satellite market modifications, require 
or encourage stations seeking market modifications to contact a 
satellite carrier before filing a market modification request in order 
to get an initial determination on whether the carrier considers the 
request technically and economically feasible? Such an initial inquiry 
might save some broadcasters the time and expense of compiling the 
standardized evidence for a modification that is not technically and 
economically feasible by alerting them to the technical or economic 
issue, which they could then take into account in deciding whether to 
file the request. We seek comment on this issue.

E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive Distant Signals via Satellite

    22. We propose to include the statutory language of section 
338(l)(5) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek 
comment on any further guidance we can give for its implementation.\80\ 
Section 338(l)(5) provides that ``[n]o modification of a commercial 
television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this subsection 
shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community 
affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to 
section 339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.'' \81\ 
There are two key restrictions on a satellite subscriber's eligibility 
to receive ``distant'' (out-of-market) signals.\82\ First, subscribers 
are generally eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite 
carrier only if the subscriber is ``unserved'' over the air by

[[Page 19602]]

a local station of the same network.\83\ Second, even if ``unserved,'' 
a subscriber is not eligible to receive a distant station from a 
satellite carrier if the carrier is making ``available'' to such 
subscriber a local station of the same network.\84\ We believe section 
338(l)(5) is largely intended as an exception to these two subscriber 
eligibility requirements. In other words, under this reading, the 
addition of a new local station to a local television market by 
operation of a market modification (which might otherwise restrict a 
subscriber's eligibility to receive a distant station) would not 
disqualify an otherwise eligible satellite subscriber from receiving a 
distant station of the same network. For example, a subscriber may be 
receiving a distant station because the subscriber resides in a ``short 
market,'' \85\ has obtained a waiver from the relevant network 
station,\86\ or is otherwise eligible to receive distant signals 
pursuant to section 339. That subscriber will continue to be eligible 
to receive the distant station after a market modification that adds a 
new local station of the same network. We seek comment on our proposed 
reading of this provision. We also seek comment on any alternative 
interpretations. We invite comment on the specific situations intended 
to be covered by section 338(l)(5). We seek comment on whether section 
338(l)(5) also means that the deletion of a local station from a local 
television market by operation of a market modification would not make 
otherwise ineligible subscribers now eligible to receive a distant 
station of the same network. We also seek comment on any other rule 
changes necessary to implement this statutory provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a station is 
considered ``distant'' with respect to a subscriber if such station 
originates from outside of the subscriber's local television market 
(or DMA). See id.
    \83\ The Copyright Act defines an ``unserved household,'' with 
respect to a particular television network, as ``a household that 
cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air 
signal containing the primary stream, or, on or after the qualifying 
date, the multicast stream, originating in that household's local 
market and affiliated with that network--(i) if the signal 
originates as an analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the 
Federal Communications Commission in section 73.683(a) of title 47, 
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or 
(ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal, intensity defined 
in the values for the digital television noise-limited service 
contour, as defined in regulations issued by the Federal 
Communications Commission (section 73.622(e) of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations), as such regulations may be amended from time 
to time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved household can also be 
one that is subject to one of four statutory waivers or exemptions. 
See id. 119(d)(10)(B) through (E).
    \84\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3). This second 
restriction on eligibility is commonly referred to as the ``no 
distant where local'' rule. A satellite carrier makes ``available'' 
a local signal to a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier 
offers that local signal to other subscribers who reside in the same 
zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See 
also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F).
    \85\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). By a 
``short market,'' we refer to a market in which one of the four 
major television networks is not offered on the primary stream of a 
local broadcast station, thus permitting satellite carriers to 
deliver a distant station affiliated with that missing network to 
subscribers in that market.
    \86\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Definition of Community

    23. As directed by the STELAR, we consider how to define a 
``community'' for purposes of market modification in both the cable and 
satellite contexts.\87\ With respect to a ``satellite community,'' we 
generally invite comment on how to define a ``satellite community,'' 
and seek specific comment on two alternate proposals for this 
definition below. With respect to a ``cable community,'' we tentatively 
conclude that our existing definition of a ``cable community'' (in 
section 76.5(dd) of the rules) has worked well in cable market 
modifications for more than 20 years and should not be changed. While 
we continue to believe the cable definition best effectuates the cable 
market modification provision, we nevertheless invite comment on 
whether we need to update this definition, such as whether to allow 
cable modifications on a county basis. Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR 
requires the Commission to ``update what it considers to be a community 
for purposes of a modification of a market'' in both the satellite and 
cable contexts.\88\ The legislative history indicates Congress' intent 
for the Commission ``to consider alternative definitions for community 
that could make the market modification process more effective and 
useful.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.
    \88\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) (``MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION.--As 
part of the rulemaking required by paragraph (1), the Commission 
shall . . . update what it considers to be a community for purposes 
of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) 
of the Communications Act of 1934''); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.
    \89\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The concept of a ``community'' is important in the market 
modification context, because the term describes the geographic area 
that will be added to or deleted from a station's local television 
market, which in turn determines the stations that must be carried by a 
cable operator (or, in the future, a satellite carrier) to subscribers 
in that community.\90\ Because of the localized nature of cable 
systems, cable communities are easily defined by the geographic 
boundaries of a given cable system, which are often, but not always, 
coincident with a municipal boundary and may vary as determined on a 
case-by-case basis.\91\ In the cable carriage context, the Commission 
considers market modification requests on a community-by-community 
basis \92\ and defines a community unit in terms of a ``distinct 
community or municipal entity'' where a cable system operates or will 
operate.\93\ A ``satellite community,'' however, is not as easily 
defined as a cable community. Unlike cable service, which reaches 
subscribers in a defined local area via local franchises, satellite 
carriers offer service on a national basis, with no connection to a 
particular local community or municipality. Moreover, satellite service 
is sometimes offered in areas of the country that do not have cable 
service, and thus cannot be defined by cable communities. The 
Commission previously faced the question of how to define a satellite 
community in 2005, after the SHVERA added significantly viewed 
provisions for the satellite carriage context.\94\ In the significantly 
viewed context, the Commission, seeking regulatory parity, defined a 
satellite community in the same way as a cable community in most 
situations.\95\ However, the Commission

[[Page 19603]]

allowed a satellite carrier to define a satellite community ``by one or 
more adjacent five-digit zip code areas'' in the limited situation in 
which there was no previously defined cable community and the area was 
unincorporated.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1).
    \91\ See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations with Respect to the Definition of a Cable Television 
System and the Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No. 
20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77-205, para. 20, n. 5 (rel. Apr. 
6, 1977) (1977 Cable Order).
    \92\ See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that the cable 
carriage rules apply ``on a community-by-community basis''). See 
also 47 CFR 76.5(dd), 76.59.
    \93\ 47 CFR 76.5(dd) defines ``community unit'' as: ``A cable 
television system, or portion of a cable television system, that 
operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or 
municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within 
unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated 
areas).'' A cable system community is assigned a community unit 
identifier number (``CUID'') when registered with the Commission, 
pursuant to section 76.1801 of the rules. 47 CFR 76.1801.
    \94\ See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension 
and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of 
the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, Report and Order, FCC 
05-187, 70 FR 76504, para. 51, December 27, 2005 (SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order). The SHVERA defined the term 
``community'' for purposes of the significantly viewed rules, as 
either ``(A) a county or a cable community, as determined under the 
rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Commission applicable 
to determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are 
significantly viewed; or (B) a satellite community, as determined 
under such rules, regulations, and authorizations (or revisions 
thereof) as the Commission may prescribe in implementing the 
requirements of this section.'' 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(3).
    \95\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg) (defining a ``satellite community'' as 
``[a] separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including 
unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including 
single, discrete unincorporated areas). The boundaries of any such 
unincorporated community may be defined by one or more adjacent 
five-digit zip code areas. Satellite communities apply only in areas 
in which there is no pre-existing cable community, as defined in 
76.5(dd).''). See also SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, 
at para. 50. We note, however, that the SHVERA required satellite 
carriers to use the existing defined cable communities on the 
significantly viewed list. See 47 U.S.C. 340(a)(1); 340(i)(3)(A). 
This provision, in part, caused the Commission to favor the use of 
cable communities to define future communities, except for 
unincorporated areas, to promote consistent rules and significantly 
viewed listings for both satellite and cable. See SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 51 (stating that the 
``definition will also make it more likely that a cable system 
subsequently built in such an area would serve a `community' similar 
to the satellite community, thus making the [Significantly Viewed] 
List more easily used by both cable and satellite providers''). This 
reasoning does not necessarily apply to the market modification 
context if we adopt our proposal to separately consider and apply 
market modifications in the cable and satellite contexts.
    \96\ 47 CFR 76.5(gg). The Commission required satellite carriers 
to use zip codes that were adjacent to each other ``to prevent 
carriers from cherry-picking their service to these areas.'' SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. We seek comment on whether we should use the definition of 
``satellite community'' in section 76.5(gg) for satellite market 
modifications.\97\ Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should 
use one or more adjacent five-digit zip codes to form the basis of a 
``satellite community'' for satellite market modifications.\98\ Would 
allowing satellite carriers to use one or more adjacent five-digit zip 
code areas (notwithstanding the presence of a cable community) in the 
market modification context better effectuate the STELAR's goal to 
promote consumer access to relevant television programming? What other 
possible definitions of satellite community should we consider? Would 
another definition be more technically and economically feasible for 
satellite carriers to apply and, thus, facilitate successful market 
modifications? \99\ For example, it might not be technically and 
economically feasible for a satellite carrier to retransmit a station 
to an entire cable community (as defined in 76.5(dd)), but it might be 
feasible for the carrier to retransmit the station to particular 
portions of that community, such as to certain zip codes within such 
community. What definition of community will most effectively promote 
consumer access to in-state programming? \100\ For example, is it 
appropriate to consider county-based modifications in the satellite 
context, particularly in situations in which the county is assigned to 
an out-of-state DMA? \101\ If we allow modifications on a county basis 
in the satellite context, should we also allow such modifications in 
the cable context?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg).
    \98\ We note that the Commission used zip codes in lieu of 
community units to define the various zones of protection afforded 
under the satellite exclusivity rules applicable to nationally 
distributed superstations. See 47 CFR 76.122, 76.123; Implementation 
of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Application of 
Network Non-Duplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout 
Rules to Satellite Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals, CS Docket 
No. 00-2, Report and Order, FCC 00-388, 65 FR 68082, para. 28, Nov. 
14, 2000, recon. granted in part, denied in part, Order on 
Reconsideration, FCC 02-287, 67 FR 68944, Nov. 14, 2002.
    \99\ We note that the two satellite carriers previously favored 
the use of zip codes in the significantly viewed context to offer 
``greater certainty to consumers.'' See SHVERA Significantly Viewed 
Report and Order, at para. 52.
    \100\ We take particular note here of Congress' concern that 
consumers in an out-of-state DMA may ``lack access to local 
television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.'' 
Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \101\ See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\102\ the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). 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 provided on the 
first page of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).\103\ In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \103\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \104\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes
    27. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
proposes satellite television ``market modification'' rules to 
implement section 102 of the STELAR.\105\ The STELAR amended the 
Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission 
authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local 
television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.\106\ The 
Commission currently has the authority to modify markets only in the 
cable carriage context.\107\ With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress 
provides regulatory parity in this regard in order ``to further 
consumer access to relevant television programming.'' \108\ In this 
NPRM, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the 
satellite market modification process on the current cable market 
modification process, the Commission proposes to implement section 102 
of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, 
section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding 
provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite 
television service.\109\ In addition to establishing rules for 
satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs the 
Commission to consider whether it should make changes to the current 
cable market modification rules,\110\ and it also makes certain 
conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory 
provision.\111\ Accordingly, as part of the implementation of the 
STELAR, the Commission proposes to make conforming changes to the cable 
market modification rules and considers whether it should make any 
other changes to the current cable market modification rules. The 
STELAR requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding 
on or before September 4, 2015.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, 
Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 
5728, 113th Cong.).
    \106\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067.
    \107\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 76.59.
    \108\ See title of STELAR sec. 102, ``Modification of Television 
Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television 
Programming.'' See also Report from the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th 
Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (``Senate Commerce Committee 
Report'').
    \109\ See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission proposes to revise 
section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both cable systems and 
satellite carriers.
    \110\ STELAR sec. 102(d).
    \111\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).
    \112\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Legal Basis
    28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to section 102 of 
the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Pub. L. 113-200, 128 
Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as

[[Page 19604]]

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    29. 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.\113\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \114\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\115\ 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.\116\ The rule changes proposed herein will 
directly affect small television broadcast stations and small MVPD 
systems, which include cable system operators and satellite carriers. 
Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an 
estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \114\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \115\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \116\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of 
dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes 
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. 
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television 
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired 
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in 
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that 
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony 
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.'' \117\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census 
category of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, 
a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\118\ 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated 
for the entire year.\119\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 
1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\120\ 
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of 
businesses can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. Examples of this category are: broadband Internet 
service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers 
(wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance 
telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (``CCTV'') 
services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired 
telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system 
(``DTH'') services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite 
television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint 
distribution services (``MMDS'').
    \118\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \119\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \120\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined 
above.\121\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\122\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\123\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\124\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that 
the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \122\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \123\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \124\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed 
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small 
cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide.\125\ According to SNL Kagan, there are 1,258 cable 
operators.\126\ Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are 
small under this size standard.\127\ In addition, under the 
Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 
or fewer subscribers.\128\ Current Commission records show 4,584 cable 
systems nationwide.\129\ Of this total, 4,012 cable systems have fewer 
than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 subscribers or 
more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate 
that most cable systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size 
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or 
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate 
Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, MM Docket No. 93-215, Sixth Report 
and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, FCC 95-196, 60 FR 
35854, July 12, 1995.
    \126\ Data provided by SNL Kagan to Commission Staff upon 
request on March 25, 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. See Annual Assessment 
of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video 
Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, FCC 13-99, at 
para. 24 (rel. July 22, 2013) (15th Annual Competition Report).
    \127\ SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). 
We note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer 
subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14 MVPD 
operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Competition Report, 
at paras. 27-28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The 
Commission applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its 
implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial 
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, 
Report and Order, FCC 11-182, 77 FR 40276, July 9, 2012 (CALM Act 
Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one serving 
400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011).
    \128\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
    \129\ The number of active, registered cable systems comes from 
the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) 
database on July 1, 2014. A cable system is a physical system 
integrated to a principal headend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications

[[Page 19605]]

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.'' \130\ The Commission has determined that an operator 
serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate.\131\ Based on available data, we find that all but 10 
incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard.\132\ 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.\133\ 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 to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
    \131\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New 
Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01-
158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001) (establishing the 
threshold for determining whether a cable operator meets the 
definition of small cable operator at 677,000 subscribers and 
stating that this threshold will remain in effect for purposes of 
section 76.901(f) until the Commission issues a superseding public 
notice). We note that current industry data indicates that there are 
approximately 54 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the 
United States today and that this updated number may be considered 
in developing size standards in a context different than section 
76.901(f). NCTA, Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base (June 2014), 
https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited June 25, 2014).
    \132\ See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014).
    \133\ The 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 Sec.  76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 
76.901(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Satellite Carriers. The term ``satellite carrier'' means an 
entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service 
licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in the 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service 
(FSS) frequencies.\134\ As a general practice (not mandated by any 
regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite 
facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their 
subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often 
lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the 
satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities 
package their own programming and may or may not be Commission 
licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an 
entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to 
subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station 
license.\135\ The Commission has concluded that the definition of 
``satellite carrier'' includes all three of these types of 
entities.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The Communications Act defines the term ``satellite 
carrier'' by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in 
title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C.119(d)(6). 
Part 100 of the Commission's rules was eliminated in 2002 and now 
both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under Part 25 of 
the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Service, FCC 02-110, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148.
    \135\ See, e.g., Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, 
Request For Special Temporary Authority for the DIRECTV 5 Satellite; 
Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request for Blanket 
Authorization for 1,000,000 Receive Only Earth Stations to Provide 
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the U.S. using the Canadian 
Authorized DIRECTV 5 Satellite at the 72.5[deg] W.L. Broadcast 
Satellite Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04-2526 
(Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004).
    \136\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at paras. 
59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,\137\ which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under 
this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\138\ Census data for 2007 shows that there 
were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\139\ Of this total, 
3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or 
more employees.\140\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority 
of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have 
available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities 
were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard 
formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The 
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a 
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.\141\ 
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a 
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH 
Network.\142\ Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and 
DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the 
threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires 
significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as 
defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS 
service provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \138\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \139\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \140\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \141\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002).
    \142\ See 15th Annual Competition Report, at para. 27. As of 
June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second 
largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 
million subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator 
and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 million 
subscribers. Id. at paras. 27, 110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known 
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video 
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without 
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple 
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial 
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV 
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census 
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\143\ which was developed 
for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a 
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\144\ 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms

[[Page 19606]]

that operated for the entire year.\145\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\146\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of 
such businesses can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \144\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \145\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \146\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish 
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home 
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of 
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band 
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are 
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of 
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from 
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt 
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD 
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.\147\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\148\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\149\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\150\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that 
the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \148\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \149\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \150\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Open Video Services. 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.\151\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for the 
distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. 
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\152\ OVS falls 
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, 
which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\153\ The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such 
businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\154\ Census data for 2007 
shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\155\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\156\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be 
considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has 
certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.\157\ 
Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only 
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.\158\ 
The Commission does not have financial or employment information 
regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not 
yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may 
qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See Annual Assessment of 
the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video 
Programming, MB Docket No. 06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, FCC 07-
206, 74 FR 11102, para. 135, March 16, 2009 (Thirteenth Annual Cable 
Competition Report).
    \152\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
    \153\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \154\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \155\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \156\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \157\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
    \158\ See Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report, at para. 
135. BSPs are newer businesses that are building state-of-the-art, 
facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services 
over a single network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Wireless cable systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational 
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) \159\ and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) \160\ to 
transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 
BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard 
as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 
million in the previous three calendar years.\161\ The BRS auctions 
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the 
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 
61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business 
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees 
that are considered small entities.\162\ After adding the number of 
small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees 
not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 
BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA 
or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 
86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.\163\ The Commission 
offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed 
$40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 
15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) 
received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder

[[Page 19607]]

with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 
percent discount on its winning bid.\164\ Auction 86 concluded in 2009 
with the sale of 61 licenses.\165\ Of the 10 winning bidders, two 
bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one 
bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and 
two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service 
(MMDS). See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules 
with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution 
Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and 
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--
Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Report and Order, FCC 95-230, 60 FR 36524, para. 7, Jul. 17, 1995.
    \160\ EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS). See id.
    \161\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).
    \162\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to 
incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-
auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business 
size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees.
    \163\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, 
Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, 
Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for 
Auction 86, AU Docket No. 09-56, Public Notice, DA 09-1376 (WTB rel. 
Jun. 26, 2009).
    \164\ Id. at 8296.
    \165\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, 
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 
23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to 
Deny Period, Public Notice, DA 09-2378 (WTB rel. Nov. 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television 
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\166\ 
which was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\167\ Census data 
for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\168\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\169\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be 
considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's 
internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 
active EBS licenses.\170\ The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 
licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions 
and school districts, which are by statute defined as small 
businesses.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \167\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \168\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \169\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \170\ http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp.
    \171\ The term ``small entity'' within SBREFA applies to small 
organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions 
(cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and 
special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 
601(4) through (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included 
in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.\172\ Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business 
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\173\ Census data for 
2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\174\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\175\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \173\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \174\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \175\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A 
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' \176\ The SBA's Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local 
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because 
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope.\177\ We have therefore 
included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, 
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \177\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, 
SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small 
Business Act contains a definition of ``small-business concern,'' 
which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small 
business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 
601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern'' 
to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 CFR 
121.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local 
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for these service providers. 
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\178\ Under this category, the SBA 
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\179\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\180\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\181\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of 
such businesses can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \179\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \180\ U.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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \181\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' \182\ The SBA has created the following small 
business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million 
or less in annual receipts.\183\ 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.\184\ Because the Census has

[[Page 19608]]

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 
broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``515120 
Television Broadcasting,'' at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, ``These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in 
turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined 
schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources.''
    \183\ 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.
    \184\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390 
stations.\185\ 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.\186\ NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities.\187\ Therefore, we estimate that the majority of 
television broadcast stations are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2014, 
Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) (Broadcast Station Totals) at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331381A1.pdf.
    \186\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
    \187\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations \188\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include 
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not 
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to 
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, 
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not 
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business 
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a 
third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 
13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that 
applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of 
Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, 
as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As 
noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size 
standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in 
annual receipts.\189\ The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed Class A television stations to be 431.\190\ The Commission has 
also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.\191\ 
Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120.
    \190\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
    \191\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    48. The NPRM proposes to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply 
it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV 
broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to 
modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for 
purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under section 76.59 of the 
rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may 
already file such requests for market modification for purposes of 
cable carriage rights. Consistent with the current cable requirement in 
section 76.59, the proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast 
stations and satellite carriers to file market modification requests 
and/or responsive pleadings in accordance with the procedures for 
filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.\192\ 
Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, the 
proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast stations and 
satellite carriers to provide specific forms of evidence to support 
market modification petitions, should they chose to file such 
petitions. The proposed rules would also require a satellite carrier to 
provide specific evidence to demonstrate its claim that satellite 
carriage resulting from a market modification would be technically or 
economically infeasible. The NPRM does not otherwise propose any new 
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to oppose 
market modification requests would need to file responsive pleadings 
in accordance with 47 CFR 76.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    49. 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.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Consistent with the statute's goal of promoting regulatory 
parity between cable and satellite service, the NPRM proposes to apply 
the existing cable market modification rule to the satellite context. 
The proposed rules would not change the market modification process 
currently applicable to small television stations and small cable 
systems, although the proposed rules would for the first time allow 
stations to request market modifications for purposes of satellite 
carriage. Small TV stations that choose to file satellite market 
modification petitions must comply with the associated filing and 
evidentiary requirements; however, the filing of such petitions is 
voluntary. In addition, small TV stations may want to respond to a 
petition to modify its market (or the market of a competitor station) 
filed by a satellite carrier or a competitor station; however, there 
are no standardized evidentiary requirements associated with such 
responsive pleadings. Through a market modification process, a small TV 
station may gain or lose carriage rights with respect to a particular 
community, based on the five statutory factors, to better reflect 
localism.\194\ We do not

[[Page 19609]]

have data to measure whether small TV stations on the whole are more or 
less likely to benefit from market modifications, so we invite small TV 
stations to comment on this issue. In addition, we invite comment on 
whether there are any alternatives we should consider to the 
Commission's proposed implementation of section 102 of the STELAR that 
would minimize any adverse impact on small TV stations, but which are 
consistent with the statute and its goals, such as promoting localism 
and regulatory parity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Section 338(l) of the Act provides that, in deciding 
requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford 
particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account 
the following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or other 
stations located in the same area--(a) have been historically 
carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and 
(b) have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or 
carriers serving such community; (2) whether the television station 
provides coverage or other local service to such community; (3) 
whether modifying the local market of the television station would 
promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals 
that originate in their State of residence; (4) whether any other 
television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite 
carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this 
section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such 
community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other 
events of interest to the community; and (5) evidence of viewing 
patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the 
services offered by multichannel video programming distributors 
within the areas served by such multichannel video programming 
distributors in such community. 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through 
(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. The proposed rules, for the first time, would allow satellite 
carriers to request market modifications. As previously discussed, only 
two entities--DIRECTV and DISH Network--provide direct broadcast 
satellite (DBS) service, which requires a great investment of capital 
for operation. As noted in section C of this IRFA, neither one of these 
two entities qualify as a small entity and small businesses do not 
generally have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of 
the high implementation costs associated with satellite services.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See IRFA para. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule
    52. None.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    53. This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements.\196\ 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 (PRA).\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See OMB Control Number 3060-0546.
    \197\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Public and agency comments are due June 12, 2015. Comments 
should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.\198\ In 
addition, we seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
    \199\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), 
Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of 
title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request 
(ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web 
page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under 
Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from 
the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click 
the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and 
(6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for 
the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary 
Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control 
number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC 
submission to OMB will be displayed.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0546.
    Title: Section 76.59, Market Modification of Broadcast Television 
Stations for Purposes of the Cable and Satellite Mandatory Television 
Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents and 100 
responses.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 4 to 40 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. 
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 
section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public 
Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 
and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534.
    Total Annual Burden: 976 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $1,277,300.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of 
confidentiality provided to respondents.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: On March 26, 2015, the Commission released a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, in MB Docket No. 15-71, 
proposing satellite television market modification rules to implement 
section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act 
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). To implement section 102 of the 
STELAR, the NPRM proposes to revise 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules to apply 
it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV 
broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to 
modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for 
purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules, 
commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already 
file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable 
carriage rights.

C. Ex Parte Rules

    56. The proceeding this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules.\200\ Ex parte presentations are 
permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except 
during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or 
otherwise, are generally prohibited. 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. Memoranda must 
contain

[[Page 19610]]

a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely 
a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence 
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 
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 section 1.1206(b) 
of the rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See 47 CFR 1.1206 (Permit-but-disclose proceedings); see 
also id. Sec. Sec.  1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Filing Requirements

    57. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules,\201\ interested parties may file comments and reply comments on 
or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS).\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419.
    \202\ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 63 FR 24121, 
May 1, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] 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.
    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.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    58. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="50363333656064103633337e373f26">[email protected]</a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    59. Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be 
publically available online via ECFS.\203\ These documents will also be 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at 
FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 
Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through 
Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 
a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Documents will generally be available electronically in 
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eda89b8c83c3af8c9f8c83828b8bad8b8e8ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbfecddad595f9dac9dad5d4ddddfbddd8d895dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-
7142. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.

V. Ordering Clauses

    61. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 102 of the 
STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 
Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 
338 and 534, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted and notice 
is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    62. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Cable television, Satellite television, Broadcast television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 
521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 
549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.

0
2. Section 76.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.7  General special relief, waiver, enforcement, complaint, 
show cause, forfeiture, and declaratory ruling procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Certificate of service. Petitions and Complaints shall be 
accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system 
operator, multichannel video programming distributor, franchising 
authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other 
interested person who is likely to be directly affected if the relief 
requested is granted.
* * * * *
    3. Section 76.59 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), 
(b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (d) and by adding new paragraphs (e) and 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  76.59  Modification of television markets.

    (a) The Commission, following a written request from a broadcast 
station, cable system or satellite carrier, may deem that the 
television market, as defined either by Sec.  76.55(e) or Sec.  
76.66(e), of a particular commercial television broadcast station 
should include additional communities within its television market or 
exclude communities from such station's

[[Page 19611]]

television market. In this respect, communities may be considered part 
of more than one television market.
    (b) * * *
    (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and 
geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or 
satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features 
that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and 
the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any 
other evidence contributing to the scope of the market.
    (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) or 
Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's 
technical service area and showing the location of the cable system 
headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities 
in relation to the service areas.
* * * * *
    (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or 
other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide 
listings.
    (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its 
average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over 
Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD 
households or other specific audience indicia, such as station 
advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.
* * * * *
    (d) A cable operator or satellite carrier shall not delete from 
carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the 
pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this section.
    (e) A market determination under this section shall not create 
additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not 
technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish 
such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of 
the determination.
    (f) No modification of a commercial television broadcast station's 
local market pursuant to this section shall have any effect on the 
eligibility of households in the community affected by such 
modification to receive distant signals from a satellite carrier 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 339.
0
4. Section 76.66 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(6) and 
revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  76.66  Satellite broadcast signal carriage.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Carriage after a market modification. Television broadcast 
stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a 
satellite carrier (pursuant to Sec.  76.66) due to a change in the 
market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to 
Sec.  76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new 
definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with 
respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage 
within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television 
broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the 
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Market definitions. (1) A local market, in the case of both 
commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations, is the 
designated market area in which a station is located, unless such 
market is amended pursuant to Sec.  76.59, and
* * * * *

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-08435 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


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