Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 9153

1 58 FR 12917 (Mar. 8, 1993); 8 FCC Rcd 1589

(1993).

2 Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835

F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993).

3Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC, 93

F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1996); petition for rehearing

pending.

4See DBS Public Interest NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd 1589

at ¶¶ 21–28.

5 Id. at ¶ 29.

Terms’’ (INCOTERMS) published by the

International Chamber of Commerce.

(3) Total loading and discharge time

includes the addition of a factor to

account for delays and days not worked.

(4) One extra port day is included at

each anticipated bunkering port.

(5) An allowance shall be included for

canal transits, when appropriate.

(6) Transit time shall be based on the

average speed of vessels in the category

plus an additional five percent to

account for weather conditions.

(f) Determination of cargo carried.

The amount of cargo tonnage and the

category of costs used to calculate the

rate shall be based on the tender offer

or charter party terms. In instances

when separate parcels of preference

cargo are booked or considered for

booking on the same vessel, whether

under a single program or different

programs, a guideline rate shall be

provided based on the combined

voyage.

(g) Total rate. The guideline rate shall

be the total of the operating cost

component, the capital cost component,

the port and cargo handling cost

component, and the broker’s

commission and overhead component.

The fair and reasonable rate can be

expressed as total voyage revenue or be

divided by the amount of cargo to be

carried, as prescribed in paragraph (f) of

this section, and expressed as cost per

ton, whichever MARAD deems most

appropriate.

§ 382.4 Waiver.

In special circumstances and for good

cause shown, the procedures prescribed

in this part may be waived in keeping

with the circumstances of the present,

so long as the procedures adopted are

consistent with the Act and with the

intent of this part.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5017 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MM Docket No. 93–25] [FCC 97–24]

DBS Public Interest Rulemaking

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; additional

comments sought.

SUMMARY: The Commission solicits

updated comments in this proceeding to

reflect changed circumstances in the

DBS industry since the release in 1993

of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

to implement section 25 of the 1992

Cable Act. Among the issues on which

the Commission seeks revised public

comment are how sections 312(a)(7) and

315 of the Communications Act should

be applied to DBS providers, how the

requirement to reserve 4–7 percent of

channel capacity for non-commercial

programming should be implemented,

and what public interest or other

requirements, if any, should be imposed

on DBS providers in addition to the

minimum specified requirements.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 31, 1997. Replies must

be submitted on or before April 30,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Stern, International Bureau, (202) 418–

0746 or Brian Carter, International

Bureau, (202) 418–2119.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Section 25 of the Cable Television

Consumer Protection and Competition

Act of 1992 (‘‘1992 Cable Act’’) added

a new Section 335 to the

Communications Act of 1934 that

directed the Commission to initiate a

rulemaking to impose public interest or

other requirements for providing video

programming on direct broadcast

satellite (‘‘DBS’’) service providers. On

March 2, 1993, the Commission released

a Notice of Proposed Rule Making

seeking comment on its proposals to

implement the different provisions of

section 25 (‘‘DBS Public Interest

NPRM’’).1 On September 16, 1993, after

the Commission had received comments

and reply comments in this proceeding,

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia held that section 25

of the 1992 Cable Act was

unconstitutional.2 This ruling

effectively froze the DBS Public Interest

NPRM pending the Commission’s

appeal of the decision. Nearly three

years later, on August 30, 1996, the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit reversed the

District Court and held that section 25

was constitutional.3

2. In light of the relatively long

interval between release of the DBS

Public Interest NPRM and the Court’s

recent decision upholding section 25,

the Commission, by this public notice,

seeks to update and refresh the record

in this proceeding. The DBS industry

has grown and changed dramatically

over the last four years. Accordingly, the

Commission requests new and revised

comments on each of the issues raised

in the DBS Public Interest Rulemaking

and on any other issues relevant to

implementation of section 25.

Section 25(a) of the 1992 Cable Act

(47 U.S.C. 335(a)) states:

The Commission shall, within 180 days

after the date of enactment of this section,

initiate a rulemaking proceeding to impose,

on providers of direct broadcast satellite

service, public interest or other requirements

for providing video programming. Any

regulations prescribed pursuant to such

rulemaking shall, at a minimum, apply the

access to broadcast time requirement of

section 312(a)(7) and the use of facilities

requirements of section 315 to providers of

direct broadcast satellite service providing

video programming. Such proceeding also

shall examine the opportunities that the

establishment of direct broadcast satellite

service provides for the principle of localism

under this Act, and the methods by which

such principle may be served through

technological and other developments in, or

regulation of, such service.

3. With respect to this section of the

statute we seek updated comments on

issues that include but are not limited

to the following: How should the

requirements of sections 312(a)(7) and

315 of the Communications Act be

applied to DBS providers? 4 What

‘‘public interest or other requirements’’,

if any, should be imposed on DBS

providers in addition to the minimum

requirements described above? In the

1993 DBS Public Interest NPRM we

tentatively proposed not to adopt

additional public service requirements,

based on ‘‘the flexible regulatory

approach taken for DBS and its early

stage of development.’’ 5 Should the

rapid deployment of the DBS industry

over the last several years, including

technological advances that may in the

near future allow DBS providers to offer

some local programming alter this

conclusion? If so, how?

4. We also seek updated comments on

how we should apply the separate

requirements imposed by section 25(b)

of the 1992 Cable Act. Section 25(b)(1)

mandates that a DBS provider ‘‘reserve

a portion of its channel capacity, equal

to not less than 4 percent nor more than
9154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

6 Id. at ¶ 44.

7 Id. at ¶ 43. 8See Id. at ¶¶ 37–51.

7 percent, exclusively for

noncommercial programming of an

educational or informational nature.’’

Among the questions we asked in our

NPRM on this section were whether,

and if so how, we should define the

term ‘‘noncommercial’’ programming.6

Pursuant to section 25(b)(3), this

channel capacity must be made

available, to ‘‘national educational

programming suppliers, upon

reasonable prices, terms, and

conditions.’’ What other entities, if any,

must be afforded access to channel

capacity under this provision? 7 How

should the term ‘‘reasonable prices,

terms, and conditions’’ be defined? How

should these section 25(b) provisions be

interpreted and implemented? 8

5. Because DBS, as a satellite service,

is likely to be delivered on a regional

rather than national basis, we seek

comment on the international

ramifications of any public interest

obligations we may adopt. Finally, we

seek comment on any other issues

relevant to the implementation of

section 25.

6. Comments filed in response to this

Public Notice should be filed on or

before March 31, 1997 and replies

should be filed on or before April 30,

1997. Commenters should note that

while this Public Notice references the

original docket number (MM Docket No.

93–25), this proceeding will be handled

by the International Bureau. Copies of

relevant documents can be obtained in

the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M

Street, NW., Room 239, Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037. For

further information contact John Stern

at (202) 418–0746 or Brian Carter at

(202) 418–2119.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Equal employment opportunity,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William S. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5090 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P