Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6099 

§ 401.710 Operating requirements for 

holders of Certificates of Authorization 

* * * * * 

(f) Comply with all accounting 

procedures and the reporting 

requirements in this chapter; 

(g) Make available to the Commandant 

all of its financial and operating records; 

(h) Comply immediately and 

professionally with all lawful requests 

and directions received from U.S. and 

Canadian Coast Guard units and 

personnel, vessel traffic service 

personnel, and other lawful authority; 

and 

(i) A violation of any of these 

provisions may be punished in 

accordance with 46 CFR 401.500 and be 

grounds for the suspension or 

revocation of a pilot association’s 

certificate of authorization to operate a 

pool pursuant to 46 CFR 401.335. 

Dated: January 29, 2008. 

Brian M. Salerno, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Marine Safety, Security & 

Stewardship. 

[FR Doc. 08–474 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[CS Docket No. 98–120; FCC 07–170] 

Carriage of Digital Television 

Broadcast Signals 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: While the Third Report and 

Order resolves the major questions 

about material degradation and 

viewability after the transition, we now 

seek comment on a number of related 

issues which were not specifically 

raised in the Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Now that the 

general rules are in place, the 

Commission believes it is appropriate to 

move toward an expeditious resolution 

of these outstanding matters so that all 

parties will have sufficient time to 

prepare for compliance with these new 

rules. 

DATES: Comment Date: March 3, 2008. 

Reply Comment Date: March 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, please contact Lyle Elder, 

Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov, or Eloise Gore, 

Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(Third FNPRM) in CS Docket No. 98–

120, FCC 07–170, adopted September 

11, 2007, and released November 30, 

2007. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Summary of the Third Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making 

A. Issues Related to Downconversion 

1. Channel Placement: Section 

614(b)(6) generally provides that 

commercial television stations carried 

pursuant to the mandatory carriage 

provision are entitled to be carried on a 

cable system on the same channel 

number on which the station broadcasts 

over-the-air. Under Section 615(g)(5) 

noncommercial television stations 

generally have the same right. The Act 

also permits commercial and 

noncommercial television stations to 

negotiate a mutually beneficial channel 

position with the cable operator. In the 

First Report and Order, the Commission 

found that it was unnecessary to place 

broadcast signals on a specific 

frequency in order to ensure 

nondiscriminatory treatment of 

television stations by cable operators. 

Instead, the Commission required that 

channel mapping information be passed 

through as part of the program and 

system information protocol (‘‘PSIP’’), 

linking the digital channel number with 

the appropriate primary video and 

program-related content. How should 

these channel positioning rules apply to 

operators carrying more than one 

version of a station’s signal? We seek 

comment on this question. For systems 

that provide analog service, we propose 

that the analog version be physically 

located on the appropriate channel as 

determined by the channel placement 

rules, and that the version as broadcast 

appear on that same channel for digital 

subscribers who can view it. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We also seek 

comment on whether it will be 

technically possible for multiple digital 

versions to appear on the same channel 

from a subscriber perspective (e.g., 

channel 35 in HD for subscribers with 

HD, and the same channel 35 in SD for 

subscribers with SD). If so, should we 

adopt such a requirement? 

2. Format: NAB and MSTV raise the 

point that ‘‘[w]hen digital programming 

is broadcast in a 16:9 format, 

downconversion of the signal to analog 

generally requires that the program be 

reformatted to fit the 4:3 analog aspect 

ratio.’’ Broadcasters may broadcast not 

only in different resolutions—HD, ED, 

SD—but also in different formats—16:9 

or 4:3. When a digital signal is 

downconverted, particularly from HD to 

analog, it is likely to be a 16:9 signal 

being adjusted for display on a 4:3 

screen. However, at times, particularly 

during the early years of the posttransition period, even HD broadcasters 

are likely to occasionally show images 

in a 4:3 aspect ratio, adding static bars 

to the edge of the broadcast picture to 

compensate. How should the 

downconverted signal be adjusted 

(letterboxing, centering, etc.), and if the 

Commission does not adopt a rule, who 

should make that decision? NAB 

proposes that, for signals converted at 

the headend, broadcasters make the 

determination, and for signals converted 

at a converter box, the boxes be required 

to allow the consumer to determine the 

format (as in the NTIA boxes). NCTA 

responds with a proposal to allow 

operators to determine the format of 

downconverted signals, arguing that 

operators are best able to determine how 

to ‘‘serve the needs of their analog 

viewing customers.’’ We seek comment 

on the appropriate approach for the 

Commission to take, and the costs and 

benefits of these proposals and any 

others offered by commenters. 

B. Material Degradation Issues 

3. As NAB and MSTV note, the 

Commission found in 1993 that the 

material degradation rules apply equally 

to must carry stations and 

retransmission consent stations. They 

argue that this should be the case after 

the transition as well. NCTA, however, 

notes that in the First Report and Order, 

the Commission said that: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
6100 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

In the context of mandatory carriage of 

digital broadcast signals, a cable operator 

may not provide a digital broadcast signal in 

a lesser format or lower resolution than that 

afforded to any digital programmer (e.g., nonbroadcast cable programming, other 

broadcast digital program, etc.) carried on the 

cable system. 

We seek comment on the applicability 

of the material degradation rules 

adopted by this Order. 

C. Availability of Signals 

4. Notice: As discussed above in 

paragraph 38, we will require that cable 

operators notify their subscribers if they 

decide to become an all-digital system. 

We believe that the existing notice 

provisions are sufficient to enforce this 

requirement. We request comment on 

these rules, and on whether we need 

more specific rules to govern notice to 

subscribers. 

D. Small Business 

5. As we noted in the Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 

FNPRM), we particularly welcome 

comments offering alternative rules that 

would ‘‘minimize the economic impact 

for small cable operators while still 

complying with the statutory 

requirements.’’ Several commenters 

argue that the rules we adopt in the 

Third FNPRM would impose high costs, 

particularly on small cable companies. 

ACA states that carriage of a single HD 

broadcast station could cost as much as 

$34,000 under our rules. We observe 

that these estimates appear to involve 

duplication of equipment, and that 75% 

of the listed costs are for equipment 

dealing with format conversion, 

something not resolved by this Order 

because it was first raised in comments 

and which is the subject of this Third 

FNPRM, supra. ACA’s estimates are in 

contrast to the comments of NAB, who 

describe the costs of downconversion as 

‘‘modest.’’ We welcome comment on 

these cost estimates. We also urge 

commenters to offer alternatives and 

explain how they would comply with 

the statute as well as minimize the 

impact on small operators. 

6. The American Cable Association 

(ACA) offers three proposals, and argues 

that failing to adopt them, at least as to 

small cable operators, would cause 

‘‘many’’ financial failures among 

independent cable companies. 

7. They propose: (1) No change to the 

material degradation rules; (2) allowing 

operators to meet the viewability 

requirement by converting broadcast 

signals into a format that they can 

cablecast to all their subscribers; and (3) 

requiring must-carry broadcasters to pay 

the cost of any downconversion. The 

decisions made in the Third Report and 

Order largely track the first two of these 

proposals. Specifically, we retained the 

material degradation requirements 

described in the First Report and Order 

and expressly provided that cable 

systems may convert digital signals to 

analog format to be viewable for their 

subscribers. We also found that 

operators of systems with an activated 

channel capacity of 552 MHz or less 

could seek a waiver from the 

Commission if they do not have the 

capacity to carry the additional digital 

versions of must-carry stations. 

We seek comment on whether it 

would be appropriate to adopt the other 

rules proposed by ACA, for small cable 

operators only. Would such rules for 

small operators comply with the statute? 

8. Block Communications offers a 

viewability proposal essentially 

identical to ACA’s. They suggest a rule 

that operators be allowed to 

downconvert must carry digital signals 

into a format they can deliver to all 

subscribers; in their case, this would be 

analog, although in an all-digital system 

this would presumably be SD. Block 

proposes that ‘‘[i]f the station wanted 

more, it could elect retransmission 

consent and negotiate for it.’’ These 

proposals appear to seek 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

long-standing requirement of HD 

carriage. Although petitions for 

reconsideration of that requirement 

remain pending, we seek comment on 

this approach generally. ACA argues 

that if an operator provided carriage on 

identical terms to broadcasters and 

cable programmers it would not be in 

violation of Section 614(b)(4)(A). Given 

our interpretation of the statute set out 

in the Third Report and Order above, do 

we have any flexibility to alter the 

requirements for small cable operators? 

9. Finally, ACA’s last proposal is for 

must-carry broadcasters to bear the cost 

of downconversion. As NAB and MSTV 

have noted, this is a modest cost. Are 

the savings this would provide 

significant for small cable operators? 

Would the imposition of these costs on 

small broadcasters counteract the 

benefit to small business generally? 

10. We also seek comment on the 

system characteristics that would be 

appropriate for relief; such as, number 

of subscribers, system capacity or 

something else. As discussed in the 

Second FNPRM, and in the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) at Appendix B, there are at 

least four different approaches to 

measuring the size of a cable operator, 

and resolving this question is essential 

if the Commission is to consider 

applying different rules for such 

operators. 

11. Finally, we seek further proposals 

for means to minimize the impact on 

small cable operators, whether they be 

alternative rules, ameliorated 

timetables, or any other approaches that 

would conform to the requirements of 

the statute. 

12. The Commission will complete an 

Order concerning these small cable 

systems within six months. 

E. Other Issues 

13. We welcome comment on any 

other matters relating to material 

degradation and viewability, and 

particularly the proper and sufficient 

application of the rules in this Order. 

F. Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

14. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (‘‘RFA’’), the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) relating to this Third Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the 

Order. 

2. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

15. This Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking has been 

analyzed with respect to the PRA and 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified ‘‘information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002. 

3. Ex Parte Rules 

16. Permit-But-Disclose. This 

proceeding will be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding subject to the 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements 

under Section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s Rules. 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 

oral ex parte presentations are reminded 

that a memorandum summarizing a 

presentation must contain a summary of 

the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Additional rules pertaining to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6101 

oral and written presentations are set 

forth in Section 1.1206(b). 

4. Filing Requirements 

17. Comments and Replies. Pursuant 

to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, interested parties 

may file comments on or before March 

3, 2008, and reply comments on or 

before March 17, 2008 using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the website for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

18. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat. 

19. Accessibility Information. To 

request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). This document can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

G. Additional Information 

20. For more information on this 

Third Report and Order and Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making, please contact Lyle Elder, 

Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov, or Eloise Gore, 

Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

II. Ordering Clauses 

21. It is ordered that, pursuant to the 

authority contained in Sections 4, 303, 

614, and 615 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 

303, 534, and 535, this Third Report and 

Order and Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making is adopted and 

the Commission’s rules are hereby 

amended as set forth in Appendix C of 

the Order. 

22. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Third Report and Order and Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making, including the Initial and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

23. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Third Report and Order and Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

in a report to be sent to Congress and 

the General Accounting Office pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–1914 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 071211828–7557–01] 

RIN 0648–AU22 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fisheries; Management Measures in 

the Main Hawaiian Islands 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement management measures for 

the vessel-based bottomfish fishery in 

the Main Hawaiian Islands, including 

requirements for non-commercial 

(recreational and subsistence) permits 

and data reporting, a closed season, 

annual total allowable catch limits, and 

non-commercial bag limits. The 

proposed action is intended to end the 

overfishing of bottomfish in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed 

rule, identified by 0648–AU22, may be 

sent to either of the following addresses: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov; or 

• Mail: William L. Robinson, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific 

Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani 

Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814–

4700. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS