19594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by May 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0593 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0593, 

David Campbell, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0593. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08414 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or phone: 202–418–0530; or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

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 PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19595 

1The 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)). 

2STELAR 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). 

3See 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. 

4See 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’’). 

5We 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 instate 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). 

6See 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). 

7STELAR 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.’’ 

8See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 

534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). 

9STELAR sec. 102(d)(1). 

Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202– 

395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, 

Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, 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 PRA@fcc.gov 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10The 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). 

11The 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). 

12The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 

108–447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004). 

13The 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. 

15See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1). 

16 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6). 

17See 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). 

18The 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. 

19See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 

76.66(b)(1). 

20See 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). 

21See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1). 

22See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C). 

23See 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’’). 

24Broadcast 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 instate 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). 

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

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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19597 

27Section 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). 

28See 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. 

29 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). 

30See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by 

STELAR sec. 102(b). 

31See 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’’). 

32Upon 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). 

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

34 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5). 

35 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4). 

36See 47 CFR 76.59. 

37See 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). 

40STELAR 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. 

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

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: 

• 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; 

• whether the television station 

provides coverage or other local service 

to such community; 

• 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; 

• 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 

• 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

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

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

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

41See 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. 

42See Must Carry Order, at para. 46. 

43See 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.’’). 

44See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58. 

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. 

46See 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. 

47We recognize, for example, that in several 

states, the state acts as the franchising authority 

instead of a local government. 

48See KMSO–TV, Inc., CSR–883, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 58 FCC2d 414, 415, para. 3 

(1976). 49See 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.’’ 51Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 

52 Id. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19599 

53We 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. 

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

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. 

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

57See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). 

58 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). 

59See 47 CFR 73.683(a). 

60As 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). 

61See 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 nonduplication 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). 

62See, 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). 

63We 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 

Continued 

statutory factor would be inapplicable.53

We seek comment on these tentative 

conclusions and any alternative 

interpretations. 

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: 

• 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; 

• 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. 

• Available data on shopping and 

labor patterns in the local market. 

• Television station programming 

information derived from station logs or 

the local edition of the television guide. 

• Cable system or satellite carrier 

channel line-up cards or other exhibits 

establishing historic carriage, such as 

television guide listings. 

• 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

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. 

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) instate 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? 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

64See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V). 

65See 47 CFR 76.59(c). 

66See 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. 

67See 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). 

69See id. at 1930, para. 24. 

70This 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’’). 

71See 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’’). 

72See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5), 76.66(d)(1) and (d)(3). 

73See 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). 

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.) 

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

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)? 

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? 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19601 

74 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). 75Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 

76See id. 

77We 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). 

78This 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). 

79See 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). 

80 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5). 

81 Id. 

82See 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. 

and on any other procedural 

requirements we should consider. 

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. 

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? 

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-ofmarket) 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

83The 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). 

84See 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). 

85See 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. 

86See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E). 

87STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. 88STELAR 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. 89Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12. 90See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). 

91See 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). 

92See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that 

the cable carriage rules apply ‘‘on a community-bycommunity 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. 

94See 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). 

95See 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 

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. 

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

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 caseby-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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19603 

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 cherrypicking their service to these areas.’’ SHVERA 

Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52. 

97See 47 CFR 76.5(gg). 

98We 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. 

99We 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. 

100We 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. 101See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58. 102See 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). 

103See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

104See id. 

105The 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.). 

106STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060–62, 

2067. 

107See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 

76.59. 

108See 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’’). 

109See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission proposes 

to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both 

cable systems and satellite carriers. 

110STELAR sec. 102(d). 

111See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 

534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). 

112STELAR sec. 102(d)(1). 

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

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? 

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

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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

117U.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. 

119U.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. 

121See 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. 

123U.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. 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). 

127SNL 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). 

129The 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

33. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19605 

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). 

132See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable 

MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/

TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). 

133The Commission does receive such 

information on a case-by-case basis if a cable 

operator appeals a local franchise authority’s 

finding that the operator does not qualify as a small 

cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the 

Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f). 

134The 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. 

135See, 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° W.L. Broadcast Satellite 

Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04– 

2526 (Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004). 

136SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and 

Order, at paras. 59–60. 

137This 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. 

139U.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). 

142See 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. 

143This 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

145U.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. 

147This 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. 

149U.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. 

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). 152See 47 U.S.C. 573. 153This 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. 155U.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. 157A list of OVS certifications may be found at 

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html. 158See 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. 159BRS 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. 

160EBS 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. 163Auction 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). 

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. 

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 Cband 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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19607 

164 Id. at 8296. 

165Auction 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. 

166This 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. 

168U.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. 

170http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/ 

results.jsp. 

171The 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). 

172This 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. 

174U.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. 

176 15 U.S.C. 632. 

177Letter 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). 

178This 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. 

180U.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. 

182U.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. 

184U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United 

Continued 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 

185See 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/DOC331381A1.pdf. 

186See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 

187See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). 

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). 

189 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120. 

190See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 

191See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 

192Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to 

oppose market modification requests would need to 

file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 

CFR 76.7. 

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

194Section 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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19609 

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). 

195See IRFA para. 10. 

196See OMB Control Number 3060–0546. 

197The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 

Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified 

in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.). 

198See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). 

199The 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). 

200See 47 CFR 1.1206 (Permit-but-disclose 

proceedings); see also id. §§ 1.1200 et seq. 

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. 

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

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

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

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 forprofit 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

201See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419. 

202See Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97–113, 

Report and Order, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

203 Documents will generally be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or 

Adobe Acrobat. 

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. 

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

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D 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. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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. 

D 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. 

D 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 

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. 

60. For additional information, 

contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@

fcc.gov, 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 76.7 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 76.55(e) or § 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 SundaySaturday, 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. 

■ 4. Section 76.66 is amended by adding 

a new paragraph (d)(6) and revising 

paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 76.66) due 

to a change in the market definition (by 

operation of a market modification 

pursuant to § 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 § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300, 600, 660, and 665 

[Docket No. 070516126–5292–03] 

RIN 0648–AV12 

International Affairs; High Seas 

Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting 

and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas 

Fishing Vessels 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulatory 

changes to improve the administration 

of the High Seas Fishing Compliance 

Act program and the monitoring of U.S. 

fishing vessels operating on the high 

seas. The proposed rule includes, for all 

U.S. fishing vessels operating on the 

high seas, adjustments to permitting and 

reporting procedures. It also includes 

requirements for the installation and 

operation of enhanced mobile 

transceiver units for vessel monitoring, 

carrying observers on vessels, reporting 

of transshipments taking place on the 

high seas, and protection of vulnerable 

marine ecosystems. This proposed rule 

has been prepared to minimize 

duplication and to be consistent with 

other established requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by May 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0052, may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0052, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. Mail: Mark 

Wildman, Trade and Marine 

Stewardship Division, Office for 

International Affairs and Seafood 

Inspection, NMFS, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Comments must be submitted by one 

of the above methods to ensure that the 

comments are received, documented, 

and considered by NMFS. Comments 

sent by any other method, to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the end of the comment period may not 

be considered. All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(such as name or address) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Mark 

Wildman, NMFS, Office for 

International Affairs and Seafood 

Inspection (see address above) and by 

email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wildman, Trade and Marine 

Stewardship Division, Office for 

International Affairs and Seafood 

Inspection, NMFS (phone 301–427– 

8386 or email mark.wildman@

noaa.gov). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS