        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 76
        [MB Docket No. 20-31; FCC 20-10; FRS 16469]
        Implementation of Provisions of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 Governing Negotiation of Retransmission Consent Between Qualified Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Buying Groups and Large Station Groups

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes revisions to its rules governing good faith negotiation of retransmission consent, to implement provisions of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 governing negotiations between qualified multichannel video programming distributor buying groups and large broadcast station groups.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before March 5, 2020; reply comments are due on or before March 16, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 20-31, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, Media Bureau at Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov, or (202) 418-2936.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 20-10, adopted and released on January 31, 2020. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-10A1.docx. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Synopsis
        1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose revisions to section 76.65 of our rules, which governs good faith negotiation of retransmission consent, to implement provisions in section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (TVPA).1

           Section 1003 principally directs the Commission to adopt rules that provide for negotiation of retransmission consent between “qualified multichannel video programming distributor [MVPD] buying group[s]” and “large [broadcast] station group[s]” as those terms are defined in the TVPA. As discussed below, we propose to adopt rules defining: (i) The term “large station group” as used in section 1003 of the TVPA to mean, in relevant part, an entity whose individual television station members collectively have a national audience reach of more than 20 percent; and (ii) the term “qualified MVPD buying group” as used in section 1003 to mean, in relevant part, an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households receiving service from any MVPD in a given local market. In addition, we propose to codify in section 76.65 the provisions governing negotiation of retransmission consent between qualified MVPD buying groups and large station groups, as well as the definitions of “local market” and “multichannel video programming distributor” set forth in section 1003(b)(3). Finally, we propose to make minor conforming changes to section 76.65. We seek comment on these proposals.2

            1 The Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534, 3198 (2019) (amendments to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 325). Through this NPRM, we satisfy Congress's directive in section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA, to commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise the Commission's rules to specify that “certain small MVPDs can meet the obligation to negotiate [retransmission consent] in good faith . . . by negotiating with a large station group through a qualified MVPD buying group.” Section 325(b)(3)(C), as amended, requires that the Commission specify such rules “not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the TVPA,” or March 19, 2020.

            2 This NPRM proposes rule revisions that implement only section 1003 of the TVPA; TVPA provisions not covered herein will be implemented in separate proceedings. In view of the 90-day deadline established in section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act, as amended by section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA, we find that establishing the abbreviated pleading cycle set forth above is necessary to meet our statutory responsibility and serves the public interest.

        I. Background

        2. The TVPA, enacted on December 20, 2019, is the latest in a series of statutes that have amended the Communications Act to establish parameters for the carriage of television broadcast stations by MVPDs. As relevant to this NPRM, section 1003 of the TVPA revised section 325(b) of the Act principally by allowing smaller MVPDs to negotiate collectively as a buying group for retransmission consent with large broadcast station groups. In particular, section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA amends section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act by adding new subsection 325(b)(3)(C)(vi), which, read as part of section 325(b)(3)(C) as a whole, requires the Commission to commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise its retransmission consent rules to specify that:

          (I) A [MVPD] may satisfy its obligation to negotiate [retransmission consent] in good faith under [section 325(b)(3)(C)(iii)] . . . with a large [broadcast] station group by designating a qualified MVPD buying group to negotiate on its behalf, so long as the qualified MVPD buying group itself negotiates in good faith in accordance with such clause;
          (II) It is a violation of the obligation to negotiate in good faith under [section 325(b)(3)(C)(iii)] for the qualified MVPD buying group to disclose the prices, terms, or conditions of an ongoing negotiation or the final terms of a negotiation to a member of [such] . . . group that is not intending, or is unlikely, to enter into the final terms negotiated by the . . . group; and
          (III) A large [broadcast] station group has an obligation to negotiate [retransmission consent] in good faith under [section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii)] with respect to a negotiation . . . with a qualified MVPD buying group.

        3. Moreover, section 1003(b) of the TVPA amended section 325(b)(7) of the Act principally by adding new subsections 325(b)(7)(C) and (D), which define the terms “qualified MVPD buying group” and “large station group,” respectively, for the purpose of applying the new good faith negotiation provisions of section 325(b)(3)(C)(vi). In particular, section 325(b)(7)(C) of the Act, as added by the TVPA, defines “qualified MVPD buying group,” in relevant part, as an entity that:

          (i) Negotiates [retransmission consent] on behalf of two or more multichannel video programming distributors—
          (I) None of which is a [MVPD] that serves more than 500,000 subscribers nationally; and
          (II) That do not collectively serve more than 25 percent of all households served by a [MVPD] in any single local market in which the applicable large station group operates.

        4. In addition, section 325(b)(7)(D) of the Act, as added by the TVPA, defines “large station group” as a group of television broadcast stations that:

          (i) Are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted by the regulations of the Commission;
          (ii) Generally negotiate agreements for retransmission consent . . . as a single entity; and
          (iii) Include only television broadcast stations that have a national audience reach of more than 20 percent.

        5. There are ambiguities in the statutory definitions of “large station group” and “qualified MVPD buying group.” With respect to “large station group,” this term could mean a group of television broadcast stations whose members collectively have over 20 percent national audience reach, or it could mean that each station in the group individually has such coverage. Similarly, the term “qualified MVPD buying group” could mean an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households receiving service from any MVPD in any single local market in which the large station group operates. Or it could be referring to an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households receiving service from a single MVPD in any single local market in which the large station group operates. We initiate this proceeding to clarify these terms in order to permit applicable parties to utilize the new TVPA protections promptly, as reflected in the expedited deadline specified in the new statute.
        II. Discussion
        6. We propose to implement section 1003 of the TVPA by revising section 76.65 of our rules: (i) To define the term “large station group” as, among other things, an entity whose individual television station members collectively have a national audience reach of more than 20 percent; and (ii) to define the term “qualified MVPD buying group” as, among other things, an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that do not collectively serve more than 25 percent of all households served by MVPDs in any single local market in which the applicable large station group or television broadcast station operates.
        7. We tentatively conclude that this interpretation of the term “large station group” finds support in the text and structure of the TVPA, and would best effectuate Congressional intent.3
           First, we note that the text of the first two clauses in the definition of “large station group” require, respectively, that stations comprising a “large station group” be under “common de jure control” and negotiate agreements as a “single entity.” We tentatively find that these two requirements properly characterize only stations that collectively comprise a group, rather than individual stations, and that the third clause of the definition thus should be interpreted as imposing a requirement that must be true of the stations collectively. Second, we note that the TVPA contemplates that “qualified MVPD buying groups” and “large station groups” would be counterparties in a retransmission consent negotiation. Because the former term imposes a market share cap of 25 percent on the MVPDs “collectively,” we tentatively conclude that the 20 percent market share threshold for “large station groups” similarly should be construed to apply to the stations collectively.4
           Third, given that a key purpose of the new good faith negotiation provisions is to level the playing field by “allow[ing] smaller MVPDs to collectively negotiate as a buying group [with large station groups] for retransmission consent,” we tentatively find that Congress could not have intended to create a collective negotiation mechanism to address the growing bargaining power of large station groups but then defined those groups in a way that would render the mechanism unavailable as a practical matter. Significantly, a contrary interpretation, whereby each station in the group individually must have at least a 20 percent national audience reach, would be illogical given that there are currently no stations that meet this threshold.5

            3 Our proposed interpretation also is harmonious with the Commission's ownership restrictions.

            4 We note that the term “collective” is absent from the statutory definition of “large station group,” whereas it is included in the definition of “qualified MVPD buying group.” We seek comment on whether this has any relevance to the interpretation of this term.

            5 Indeed, no individual broadcast station even meets the 20 percent national audience threshold. We note that the largest Designated Market Area (DMA) is New York, which covers roughly six percent of U.S. television households.

        8. We also propose to construe the phrase “all households served by a [MVPD]” in the statutory definition of “qualified MVPD buying group” to mean all households that receive service from any MVPD, rather than all households served by a specific MVPD in a given local market. Because the percentage of households that subscribe to a particular MVPD (or class of MVPDs) relative to the total number of households that subscribe to any MVPD in a given market is a competition metric that the Commission historically has utilized, we tentatively conclude that this is the most reasonable reading of the relevant phrase. We also believe that adopting the alternative interpretation would create practical problems given that the statute provides no guidance as to which MVPD in a given market should serve as the benchmark for the relevant threshold. We seek comment on these proposals and tentative conclusions.

        9. We also propose to implement section 1003 by: (i) Codifying in section 76.65 of our rules the provisions governing negotiation of retransmission consent between qualified MVPD buying groups and large station groups required by section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA 6
           and the definitions of “local market” and “multichannel video programming distributor” set forth in section 1003(b)(3); and (ii) deleting the phrase “as defined in 17 U.S.C. 122(j)” in section 76.65(viii) and (ix). We seek comment on these proposed rule revisions and on whether other revisions are needed to implement section 1003 of the TVPA.

            6 Our proposed rule makes minor, non-substantive changes to this statutory provision, such as revising the statutory phrase “may satisfy its obligation to negotiate in good faith under clause (iii) with respect to a negotiation for retransmission consent under this section with a large station group” to read “may satisfy its obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent with a large station group.”

        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        10. This document does not contain proposed new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Ex Parte Rules

        11. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        Filing Requirements

        12. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 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). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

        • 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.

          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).

        13. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
        14. 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).
        Additional Information

        15. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, at Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov or (202) 418-2936.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

        16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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 NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

        17. In this NPRM, pursuant to section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act, as amended by section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, we commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise our retransmission consent rules to specify, among other things, that certain small multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) may satisfy their obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith by negotiating with a large broadcast station group through a qualified MVPD buying group. In particular, we propose to revise section 76.65 of our rules to define: (i) The term “large station group” as used in section 1003 of the TVPA to mean, in relevant part, an entity whose individual television station members collectively have a national audience reach of more than 20 percent; and (ii) the term “qualified MVPD buying group” as used in section 1003 to mean, in relevant part, an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households receiving service from any MVPD in a given local market. In addition, we propose to codify in section 76.65 the provisions governing negotiation of retransmission consent between qualified MVPD buying groups and large station groups, as well as the definitions of “local market” and “multichannel video programming distributor” set forth in section 1003(b)(3). We also propose to make minor conforming changes to section 76.65.7
           The NPRM seeks comment on these proposals and on whether other rule revisions are needed to implement section 1003 of the TVPA.

            7 For example, consistent with the statute, the proposed rules delete the phrase “as defined in 17 U.S.C. 122(j)” in section 76.65(viii) and (ix). Section 1003(c)(2) of the TVPA directs the Commission to strike this phrase from section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act.

        B. Legal Basis
        18. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 325, and section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019.
        C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        19. 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. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 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.8
           Below is a list of such small entities.

            8 15 U.S.C. 632.

        • Cable Companies and Systems
        • Cable System Operators
        • Open Video Services
        • Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems
        • Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service
        • Television Broadcasting

        D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        20. The NPRM does not propose to adopt any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The NPRM proposes to revise the Commission's rules to permit certain small MVPDs to meet their statutory obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith by designating a qualified MVPD buying group to negotiate on their behalf with a large broadcast station group. In particular, the NPRM proposes to revise such rules by, among other things, clarifying the meaning of the statutory terms “large station group” and “qualified MVPD buying group” so as to facilitate smaller MVPDs' use of the new collective bargaining provisions consistent with Congressional intent. The proposed rule revisions would impose no new regulatory compliance burdens on small television broadcast stations.
        E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
        21. 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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.”
        22. Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks to implement section 1003 of the TVPA in a way that reduces burdens on smaller MVPDs that negotiate retransmission consent against large broadcast station groups with greater bargaining leverage by allowing them to negotiate collectively as a buying group for retransmission consent with such groups. As noted, the proposals in the NPRM, if adopted, likely would not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities, and would have a positive economic impact on smaller MVPDs that choose to avail themselves of the TVPA's new collective bargaining provisions to negotiate against large broadcast station groups that have significant market power. We invite comment on the economic impact of our proposals on small entities, and on how the Commission could minimize any potential burdens on such entities.
        F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        23. None.
        24. We adopt this NPRM pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 325, and section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
          Cable television, Communications.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

          Proposed Rules
          For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as set forth below:

          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. Amend § 76.65 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (ix) and (b)(2), and adding paragraphs (b)(3), and (b)(4) to read as follows:

          § 76.65
           Good faith and exclusive retransmission consent complaints.

          (b) * * * (1) * * *
          (viii) Coordination of negotiations or negotiation on a joint basis by two or more television broadcast stations in the same local market to grant retransmission consent to a multichannel video programming distributor, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.

          (ix) The imposition by a television broadcast station of limitations on the ability of a multichannel video programming distributor to carry into the local market of such station a television signal that has been deemed significantly viewed, within the meaning of § 76.54 of this part, or any successor regulation, or any other television broadcast signal such distributor is authorized to carry under 47 U.S.C. 338, 339, 340 or 534, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted by the Commission.
          (2) Negotiation of retransmission consent between qualified multichannel video programming distributor buying groups and large station groups. (i) A multichannel video programming distributor may satisfy its obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent with a large station group by designating a qualified MVPD buying group to negotiate on its behalf, so long as the qualified MVPD buying group itself negotiates in good faith in accordance with this section.
          (ii) It is a violation of the obligation to negotiate in good faith for a qualified MVPD buying group to disclose the prices, terms, or conditions of an ongoing negotiation or the final terms of a negotiation to a member of the qualified MVPD buying group that is not intending, or is unlikely, to enter into the final terms negotiated by the qualified MVPD buying group.
          (iii) A large station group has an obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent with a qualified MVPD buying group.
          (A) “Qualified MVPD buying group” means an entity that, with respect to a negotiation with a large station group for retransmission consent—
          (1) Negotiates on behalf of two or more multichannel video programming distributors—
          (i) None of which is a multichannel video programming distributor that serves more than 500,000 subscribers nationally; and
          (ii) That do not collectively serve more than 25 percent of all households served by multichannel video programming distributors in any single local market in which the applicable large station group operates; and
          (2) Negotiates agreements for such retransmission consent—
          (i) That contain standardized contract provisions, including billing structures and technical quality standards, for each multichannel video programming distributor on behalf of which the entity negotiates; and
          (ii) Under which the entity assumes liability to remit to the applicable large station group all fees received from the multichannel video programming distributors on behalf of which the entity negotiates.
          (B) “Large station group” means a group of television broadcast stations that—
          (1) Are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted by the regulations of the Commission;
          (2) Generally negotiate agreements for retransmission consent under this section as a single entity; and
          (3) Include only television broadcast stations that collectively have a national audience reach of more than 20 percent;
          (3) Definitions. For purposes of this section and § 76.64, the following definitions apply:
          (i) “Local market” has the meaning given such term in 17 U.S.C. 122(j); and
          (ii) “Multichannel video programming distributor” has the meaning given such term in 47 U.S.C. 522.
          (4) Totality of the circumstances. In addition to the standards set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a Negotiating Entity may demonstrate, based on the totality of the circumstances of a particular retransmission consent negotiation, that a television broadcast station or multichannel video programming distributor breached its duty to negotiate in good faith as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2020-02923 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
        [R04-OAR-2005-TN-0007-200527(b); FRL-7973-4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Montgomery County, Tennessee Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          On August 10, 2005, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division, submitted a final request: To redesignate the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and to approve a Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 12-year maintenance plan for Montgomery County, Tennessee. The interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of two counties (i.e., Christian County, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Tennessee). EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Montgomery County, Tennessee. This approval is based on EPA's determination that the State of Tennessee has demonstrated that Montgomery County, Tennessee has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Christian County, Kentucky portion of this area for EPA parallel processing. In this action, EPA is also providing information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2016 that are contained in the 12-year 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Montgomery County, Tennessee. EPA is approving such MVEBs.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 24, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be mailed to Anne Marie Hoffman of the Regulatory Development Section or Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Please follow the detailed instructions described in the direct final rule, ADDRESSES section which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Anne Marie Hoffman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9074 and via electronic mail at hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov. Amanetta Wood may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9025 and via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information on the approval of Tennessee's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Montgomery County portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, please see the direct final rule which is published in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: September 13, 2005.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 05-18952 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0360]
        Hours of Service of Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles; Proposed Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Transportation of Agricultural Commodities; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT

          ACTION:
          Proposed regulatory guidance; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA extends the public comment period for the Agency's December 20, 2017, notice announcing the proposed regulatory guidance concerning the transportation of agricultural commodities. On December 22, 2017, the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) requested a 30-day extension of the comment period. Additional requests for extension of the comment period have been received. The Agency extends the January 19, 2018, deadline for the submission of public comments to February 20, 2018.

          DATES:
          FMCSA extends the comment period for the notice of proposed regulatory guidance published on December 20, 2017 at 82 FR 60360. You must submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may insert comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2017-0360 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, phone (614) 942-6477, email MCPSD@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        A. Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number listed above, indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0360, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this guidance based on your comments.
        B. Viewing Comments and Documents
        To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0360, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        C. Privacy Act

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

        II. Background
        On December 20, 2017 (82 FR 60360), FMCSA published a notice of proposed regulatory guidance concerning the transportation of agricultural commodities. That proposed guidance provides clarity to the agricultural exception in 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1) and specifically addresses two scenarios: (1) Driving an unladen commercial motor vehicle to either pick up an agricultural community or on a return trip following the delivery of an agricultural commodity; and (2) application of the agricultural commodity exemption to trips involving transportation of the commodity more than 150 air-miles from its source. In addition, the Agency requested comment on scenarios where a trip involves the loading of agricultural commodities at multiple sources and the meaning of the term “source” in connection with the loading of certain commodities. Finally, the Agency requested comment on what segments of the industry that would take advantage of the proposed change, how would the flexibility provided impact the need for electronic logging devices, and what is the population of carriers and drivers transporting various categories of agricultural commodities.
        In the December 20, 2017, notice the Agency proposed new regulatory guidance question and answer numbers 34 and 35 to 49 CFR 395.1. A copy of the proposed regulatory guidance is available for review in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
        Requests for Extension of the Comment Period
        On December 22, 2017, the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), asked that the Agency provide a 30-day extension of the comment period. ATA expressed concern that end-of-year tasks and holiday periods might make it difficult for many interested parties to prepare comments by the original January 19 deadline. A copy of the ATA request is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. Similar requests were subsequently submitted by other organizations.
        FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of ATA and others. After reviewing the requests, FMCSA hereby grants a 30-day extension of the comment period to February 20, 2018, to provide all interested parties additional time to respond to the notice of proposed regulatory guidance.

          Issued on: January 12, 2018.
          Larry W. Minor,
          Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2018-00847 Filed 1-18-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 091503E]
        RIN 0648-AO63
        Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic; Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan for the dolphin and wahoo fishery of the Atlantic (FMP); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) has submitted the subject FMP for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS.  If approved, the FMP would establish the management unit and stock status criteria for dolphin and wahoo, permitting and reporting requirements, restrictions on the harvest and sale of dolphin and wahoo, designations of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), and a framework procedure that would allow implementing certain regulations through an abbreviated rulemaking process.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 25, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP must be mailed to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments may also be sent via fax to 727-522-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          Requests for copies of the FMP, which includes an Environmental Impact Statement, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement, should be sent to the South Atlantic Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; Phone:   843-571-4366; fax:   843-769-4520; e-mail: safmc@safmc.net.
          Requests for copies of a Supplemental Economic Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, prepared by NMFS, should be sent to the Fisheries Economics Office, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Steve Branstetter, 727-570-5305.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish a document in the Federal Register stating that the plan or amendment is available for public review and comment.
        In developing this FMP, the SAFMC adopted a precautionary and risk-adverse approach to management.  The SAFMC is concerned about rising catches in both the recreational and commercial fisheries, and with this FMP, intends to stabilize the fisheries at their current levels.

        The FMP would establish the management unit for dolphin and wahoo as that portion of the stocks found in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Maine through the east coast of Florida.  Several scientific studies have concurred that there is a single stock of dolphin ranging throughout the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region; a similar single stock hypothesis is also assumed for the widely dispersed, but poorly described, wahoo stock.  Nevertheless, the National Standard Guidelines, at 50 CFR 600.320, suggest that more restrictive alternative management units may be justified if complementary management is planned for other geographic areas or if the unmanaged portions of the stocks are immaterial to proper management within the area under consideration for the alternate management unit, especially if designated alternate management units are specifically relevant to the FMP's objectives.
        Addressing social and economic issues only occurring in the Atlantic region are the SAFMC's primary objectives in the FMP.  The SAFMC is not attempting to rectify a biological problem with the stocks which would require management throughout its range; neither stock is overfished nor approaching an overfished condition because of overfishing.  The SAFMC seeks to:   (1) Minimize the potential for localized reductions in fish abundance, which can have economic and social impacts; (2) minimize market disruptions from large landings by all sectors; (3) minimize conflicts and competition between recreational and commercial user groups; and (4) optimize social and economic benefits by recognizing and maintaining the historical importance of the recreational fishery.  Thus, the alternative management unit is appropriate.
        The FMP would establish stock status criteria, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield, and overfishing definitions.  Overfishing would be defined as the rate of harvest that compromises the stock's ability to produce MSY on a continuing basis.  The status of the stocks would be monitored by designating both a maximum fishing mortality threshold to determine whether overfishing was occurring and a minimum stock size threshold to determine whether the stocks were overfished.
        To maintain a healthy stock and to accomplish the social and economic goals and objectives, the FMP would establish numerous harvesting restrictions and requirements.  Dealers, vessels, and operators would be required to obtain Federal permits to participate in the fishery and to report their catches and landings.  The sale of dolphin and wahoo would be prohibited except by those vessels that possess appropriate state and Federal commercial permits.  Harvests would be restricted in both the recreational and commercial sector.  The FMP would establish daily recreational bag limits, 10 for dolphin and 2 for wahoo, and a daily 60-fish boat limit for dolphin (excluding headboats).  A commercial trip limit of 3,000 pounds (1,361 kg) north of 31° N. latitude and 1,000 pounds (454 kg) south of 31° N. latitude would be established for dolphin, with a regionwide 500 pound (227 kg) trip limit for wahoo, with no transfer at sea allowed for either dolphin or wahoo.  A minimum size limit for dolphin of 20 inches (50.8 cm) fork length would be established off Florida and Georgia, with no minimum size limit north of Georgia.  No size limit is proposed for wahoo.  The use of surface and pelagic longlines to fish for dolphin or wahoo would be prohibited within any highly migratory species time or area closure within the FMP's area of jurisdiction.  A fishing year of January 1 through December 31 would be established, and allowable gears in the fishery would include hook-and-line, bandit, handlines, longlines, and spearfishing (including powerheads).
        To maintain the status quo of effort in the fishery, the FMP would establish a non-binding cap in the allocation between recreational and commercial sectors.  The commercial sector would be limited to 1.5 million pounds (680,400 kg) or 13 percent of the total landings, whichever is greater.  The recreational sector would be limited to 87 percent of the total landings.  This allocation is based on the average contribution of each sector during the 1994 through 1997 time period.  Should the contributions of each sector begin to shift, the SAFMC would review the existing data and evaluate the need for additional regulations to maintain the established allocations.  A framework procedure would be established to allow the implementation of certain future regulations through an abbreviated rulemaking process.

        To ensure that adequate habitat is available for maintaining healthy stocks of dolphin and wahoo, the SAFMC would designate several areas as EFH, including the Gulf Stream where it occurs in the EEZ, the Charleston Gyre, and pelagic Sargassum habitat.  Within these designated areas of EFH, HAPCs would be designated at specific geographic regions located between North Carolina and Florida.

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in the FMP has been received from the SAFMC.  In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.  If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Comments received by November 25, 2003 whether specifically directed to the FMP or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the FMP.  Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision.  All comments received by NMFS on the FMP or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:   September 22, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-24391 Filed 9-25-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Part 1180
        [Docket No. EP 282 (Sub-No. 21)]
        Petition for Rulemaking—Railroad Consolidation Procedures—Exemption for Emergency Temporary Trackage Rights

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Board institutes a rulemaking proceeding to consider a proposal by the Association of American Railroads to establish a new emergency temporary trackage rights class exemption.

          DATES:
          Published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2021. The Board will provide an opportunity for additional public participation in a subsequent decision.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and replies may be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website at www.stb.gov and will be posted to the Board's website.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 245-0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 9, 2020, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) filed a petition requesting that the Board initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a new emergency temporary trackage rights class exemption that could be invoked in specific situations and would allow emergency temporary trackage rights to take effect immediately, without need to waive the 30-day notice requirement under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1). AAR argues that the current two-step approach for obtaining temporary trackage rights that take effect on less than 30 days' notice is inefficient, and AAR asserts that its proposed class exemption would benefit shippers, railroads, and the Board by providing a streamlined and simple approach for obtaining temporary trackage rights in emergency situations, ensuring the continued flow of commerce without any decrease in regulatory oversight. (Pet. 1-4.) On November 4, 2020, Samuel J. Nasca, for and on behalf of SMART-Transportation Division-New York State Legislative Board (SMART/TD-NY), filed a reply in opposition to AAR's petition.
        The Board concludes that it is appropriate to institute a rulemaking proceeding to consider AAR's proposal. The Board will provide an opportunity for additional public participation in a subsequent decision.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR 1180
          Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          It is ordered:

        1. AAR's request to initiate a rulemaking proceeding is granted, as discussed above.
        2. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.
        3. This decision is effective on its service date.

          Decided: February 1, 2021.

          By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
          Kenyatta Clay,
          Clearance Clerk.

      [FR Doc. 2021-02452 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P