        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 74 and 76
        [MB Docket Nos. 19-165, 17-105; FCC 19-68]
        Electronic Delivery of Notices to Broadcast Television Stations; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to require that cable operators use email to deliver certain written notices to broadcast television stations. The proposal would require cable operators to email the notices to a designated inbox in the station's online public inspection file (OPIF). The FCC seeks comment on whether satellite TV providers should similarly be required to use email to deliver certain written notices to broadcast TV stations. In addition, the FCC also seeks comment on whether and how the proposal to require electronic delivery of notices can be applied to certain low power TV and noncommercial translator stations that are not required to maintain an OPIF.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before September 4, 2019, and reply comments are due on or before September 19, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 19-165 and 17-105, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • 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 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For additional information on this proceeding, contact Christopher Clark of the Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau at Christopher.Clark@fcc.gov, or (202) 418-2609.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 19-68, adopted and released on July 10, 2019. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-updates-cable-satellite-tv-provider-notifications-0. 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. 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 to take additional steps to modernize the notification requirements in part 76 of our rules governing cable television and other multichannel video programming services. Currently, the written notification requirements for cable operators are set forth in section 76.64(k) and subpart T of the Commission's rules, and the written notification requirements for direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers are contained in sections 76.54(e) and 76.66 of the Commission's rules. These rules direct cable operators and DBS providers, respectively, to give written notice to a local broadcast television station prior to deleting or repositioning the station, changing the location of the principal headend or local receive facility, or commencing service in a market, among other things. In addition to the required notices to broadcast television stations, the rules in subpart T also require that cable operators deliver written notices to their subscribers in certain circumstances.

        2. In December 2017, in response to proposals in the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative proceeding calling for the modernization of these various notice requirements, the Commission released the Subscriber and Carriage Election Notices NPRM, MB Docket Nos. 17-317 and 17-105, FCC 17-168, which proposed to allow electronic delivery of subpart T and privacy notices to subscribers if sent to a verified email address and subject to certain safeguards. In addition, the Subscriber and Carriage Election Notices NPRM sought comment on how to update the requirement in sections 76.64(h) and 76.66(d) of the Commission's rules that local broadcast stations electing carriage on a cable system send such written election notices by certified mail. The Commission subsequently adopted the proposals pertaining to electronic delivery of notices to subscribers and stated that the issue of carriage election notices made by broadcast television stations would be addressed in a future order. In September 2018, the American Cable Association (ACA), National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and NCTA—The internet and Television Association (NCTA) met with Commission staff to discuss a proposal that contemplated requiring carriage election notices to be delivered via email. NAB and NCTA subsequently proposed that the Commission add a new field to both the online public inspection file (OPIF) and the Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALs) in order for commercial broadcast television stations and cable operators to provide carriage election contact information, including an email address and phone number.
        3. In a separate filing submitted in the carriage election notices modernization proceeding on October 16, 2018, ACA proposed that the Commission take “comparable steps” with respect to the notices required by section 76.64(k) and subpart T if the Commission allows carriage election notices to be delivered by means other than certified mail. Specifically, ACA contended that cable operators be permitted to provide the following types of notices to broadcast stations electronically:
        • Intent to commence service (47 CFR 76.64(k)): Requires that a cable system commencing new operation notify all local commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations of its intent to commence service. The cable operator must send such notification, by certified mail, at least 60 days prior to commencing cable service.
        • Activation of a cable system (47 CFR 76.1617): Requires that within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must notify all qualified noncommercial educational (NCE) stations of the location of its designated principal headend by certified mail; notify all local commercial and NCE stations that may not be entitled to carriage because they either fail to meet the standards for delivery of a good quality signal to the cable system's principal headend or may cause increased copyright liability to the cable system; and send by certified mail a copy of a list of all broadcast television stations carried by the cable system and their channel positions to all local commercial and noncommercial television stations, including those not designated as must-carry stations and those not carried on the system.
        • Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals (47 CFR 76.1601): Requires that a cable operator provide written notice to any broadcast television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station.
        • Principal headend (47 CFR 76.1607): Requires that a cable operator provide written notice by certified mail to all stations carried on its system pursuant to the must-carry rules at least 60 days prior to any change in the designation of the location of the principal headend.
        • System technical integration requiring uniform election of must-carry or retransmission consent status (47 CFR 76.1608): Requires a cable system that changes its technical configuration in such a way as to integrate two formerly separate cable systems to give 90 days' notice of its intention to do so to any television broadcast stations that have elected must carry with respect to one system and retransmission consent status with respect to the other.
        • Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity (47 CFR 76.1609): Requires that within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system must file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication protection or syndicated exclusivity protection against it.

        4. As discussed further below, we propose to revise our rules to require that cable operators deliver electronically to broadcast television stations the written notices required by section 76.64(k) and subpart T of our rules via email to an email address designated by the station in its OPIF. We believe that modernizing our rules to require electronic delivery of certain written notices in this manner is consistent with how companies do business in the marketplace and will result in quicker, more effective communication of necessary information.
        5. Specifically, we propose that written notices from cable operators would be required to be delivered electronically to television stations in all the circumstances cited by ACA above: Informing local broadcast stations that a new cable system intends to commence service (section 76.64(k)); sending required information to local broadcast stations when a new cable system is activated (section 76.1617); notifying a television station about the deletion or repositioning of its signal (section 76.1601); informing stations of a change in the designation of the principal headend of a cable operator (section 76.1607); informing stations that a cable operator intends to integrate two cable systems, requiring a uniform carriage election (section 76.1608); and notifying stations that a cable system serves 1,000 or more subscribers and is no longer exempt from the Commission's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules (section 76.1609). Consistent with the Commission's decision in a companion order adopted today to require electronic delivery of carriage election notices, we tentatively conclude that our rules should also require that the notices described above to television stations be delivered to the email address designated by the television station in the OPIF.
        6. We tentatively conclude that requiring cable operators to deliver such notices to broadcast television stations via email would serve the public interest. As discussed above, the Commission has already decided in a companion order adopted today to require that carriage election notices from television stations be delivered to MVPDs electronically via email. Similarly, the Commission allows cable operators to use email to deliver subpart T and privacy notices to subscribers if the cable operator complies with certain consumer safeguards, including the use of a verified email address for each subscriber. The Commission found that the benefits of permitting email delivery of subscriber notices include increased efficiency and the positive environmental aspects of saving substantial amounts of paper annually, among other things. We tentatively conclude that similar policy considerations also favor the use of electronic delivery for notices from cable operators to broadcast television stations, such as decreasing the amount of paper used, reducing burdens on cable operators, and enabling television broadcasters and cable operators to more easily track the information they need to fulfill their obligations under the Commission's rules. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that the public interest would be served by our proposal to require electronic delivery of notices mandated by section 76.64(k) and the rules in subpart T listed above. Alternatively, is there any reason why a cable operator should retain the option to deliver such notices to broadcast television stations in a non-electronic format, such as via certified mail?
        7. We tentatively conclude that the Commission has authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), to require the section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices from cable operators to broadcast stations to be delivered electronically via email. Pursuant to sections 4 and 303 of the Act, the Commission may exercise broad authority to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to execute its functions and carry out the provisions of the Act. In addition, section 614 of the Act provides the Commission with broad authority to issue regulations, including the notification requirements in section 76.64(k) and subpart T of our rules, implementing the must-carry requirements prescribed by the Act. While sections 614(b)(9) and 615(g)(3) of the Act require that “written notice” be provided before repositioning or deleting a local television station on the cable system, we tentatively conclude that electronic delivery of the notices via email satisfies this “written notice” requirement. As the Commission has found previously, emails, by their very nature, convey information in writing. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

        8. To ensure that television stations continue to receive notices from cable operators as required by section 76.64(k) and subpart T, we tentatively conclude that after July 31, 2020, a cable operator should be required to distribute such notices to television stations electronically via email to an email address designated by the station. In the Carriage Election Notice Modernization Order and FNPRM, MB Docket Nos. 17-317 and 17-105, FCC 19-69, the Commission adopted new rules requiring that all broadcast stations subject to the rules must maintain in the OPIF an up-to-date email address and phone number for carriage-related questions by July 31, 2020. Similarly, with respect to the written notices that cable operators are required to provide to television stations pursuant to section 76.64(k) and subpart T, we propose to require that after July 31, 2020, all such notices must be delivered electronically to the carriage election email address designated by the station in the OPIF. We tentatively conclude that requiring the use of a designated email address that the station posts to the OPIF will help ensure that cable operators are easily able to identify the correct email address for delivering notices electronically to commercial and noncommercial full-power and Class A television stations and that such contact information is current. Stations are expected to update the OPIF in a timely fashion and to maintain an orderly OPIF. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

        9. In some circumstances, a cable operator may be required to provide section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices to low power television (LPTV) stations that are not Class A stations or to certain NCE translator stations, neither of which are subject to the OPIF rules. Because these stations would need to use alternative means to publicize a designated email address for receiving notices electronically, we seek comment below on how our proposal to require electronic delivery of notices can be best applied to LPTV stations that are not Class A stations and to qualified NCE translator stations, to the extent they are entitled to receive the notices prescribed by section 76.64(k) and subpart T of our rules. The extent to which an LPTV station is entitled to receive notices pursuant to section 76.64(k) and subpart T of our rules depends on whether the station is a “qualified” LPTV station as defined in section 614 of the Act and section 76.55(d) of our rules. A qualified LPTV station can be either a Class A television station or a non-Class A LPTV station under section 614 of the Act. To be “qualified,” an LPTV station must satisfy certain criteria. Unlike qualified LPTV stations, non-qualified LPTV stations do not have the option to elect must-carry status; however, like other broadcast stations, non-qualified LPTV stations are eligible to negotiate carriage pursuant to retransmission consent agreements. The Commission has previously concluded that qualified LPTV stations are entitled to receive notice from a cable operator at least 30 days before the operator deletes or repositions the station, in accordance with section 76.1601 of our rules. To the extent that non-qualified LPTV stations are carried on a cable system pursuant to retransmission consent, however, such stations are also entitled to receive notices of deletion or repositioning pursuant to section 76.1601. Similarly, qualified LPTV stations that elect must-carry are entitled to receive the notices required by sections 76.64(k), 76.1607, and 76.1617(b). In contrast, LPTV stations are not entitled to receive non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity notices under section 76.1609, because our rules do not entitle these stations to exercise network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity protection. Similarly, LPTV stations are not entitled to receive notices under sections 76.1608 and 76.1617(c), because these rules require notice only to “television broadcast stations” or “television stations,” which, as defined in section 76.5(b) of our rules, excludes LPTV stations. Finally, with respect to section 76.1617(a), which requires notices only to “qualified NCE stations,” LPTV stations are entitled to such notices only to the extent they meet the definition of qualified NCE television station set forth in section 76.55(a) of our rules.

        10. Because Class A stations, like full-power television stations, are subject to the OPIF rules, including the requirement to provide carriage election contact information in the OPIF, our proposal would require the use of the designated carriage election email address for electronic delivery of section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices to Class A stations. We seek comment on whether and how our proposal to require electronic delivery of section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices can be applied with respect to LPTV stations that are not Class A stations and to translator stations that meet the definition of a “qualified NCE television station” under section 615(l)(1) of the Act (qualified NCE translator stations). Unlike full-power and Class A television stations, non-Class A LPTV stations and qualified NCE translator stations are not subject to our OPIF rules. Accordingly, LPTV stations without Class A status and qualified NCE translator stations may need to use an alternative means to publicize a designated email address for receiving section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices if the notices are to be delivered to them electronically after July 31, 2020.1
           One potential approach, as discussed in the Carriage Election Notice Modernization Order and FNPRM, is to require that LPTV stations and qualified NCE translator stations post any required public-facing information on the first page of a company website. We seek comment on this approach and whether we should adopt a rule requiring that on or before July 31, 2020, LPTV stations and qualified NCE translator stations that are entitled to receive section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices must designate an email address for receiving such notices electronically. This proposed timeframe is consistent with the timeframe in which commercial and noncommercial full-power television stations must add their carriage election contact information to the OPIF. Is it reasonable to expect that all LPTV stations and qualified NCE translator stations will have an existing public-facing company website, i.e., one that is easily accessible for free by the general public, on which they could publicize a designated email address for receiving the notices required by section 76.64(k) and subpart T? Would this approach ensure that cable operators are able to easily identify the designated email address for delivering the required notices to such stations? Are there other alternatives that would provide similar access to this information at minimal cost and with minimal burden? For instance, to the extent that qualified NCE translator stations are co-owned with the primary station, should we simply require that section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices to these stations be delivered electronically to the carriage-election email address designated by the primary station in its OPIF, rather than requiring that such translator stations post a designated email address on the company website? We seek comment on these issues.

            1 For purposes of this paragraph, our focus is on those LPTV stations without Class A status.

        11. We seek comment on the specific benefits that would accrue from our proposals and whether they would pose any burdens on cable operators and broadcast television stations. Would our proposed approach reduce the time and money spent on delivering and/or receiving the required written notices while ensuring that stations continue to receive them in a timely manner? Are there any circumstances in which a television station, or subset of television stations such as LPTV stations or qualified NCE translator stations, should be allowed to opt out of electronic delivery and continue receiving the notices via certified mail or in a non-electronic format? Are there other alternative means of delivering these notices that would better serve the needs of broadcasters and cable operators but still be less burdensome? How would such approaches work in practice? We seek comment on these issues.

        12. New section 76.1600 of the Commission's rules was adopted by the Commission in the Subscriber Notices Order and FNPRM, MB Docket Nos. 17-317 and 17-105, FCC 18-166, and the rule allows MVPDs to deliver subscriber privacy notifications and other written information electronically to subscribers and customers via email so long as the MVPD complies with certain consumer safeguards. We propose to add to section 76.1600 a new subsection requiring that the written information provided by cable operators to broadcast television stations under section 76.64(k) and subpart T must be delivered to the station electronically via email to the email address designated by the station in the OPIF. As discussed above, we seek comment on whether non-Class A LPTV stations and qualified NCE translator stations should be required to post an email address on the first page of their websites. To avoid potential discrepancies with our proposed revision to section 76.1600, we also propose minor amendments to sections 76.64(k), 76.1607, 76.1609, and 76.1617 of our rules. Currently, sections 76.64(k), 76.1607, and 76.1617 each require that certain written information be provided to broadcast stations “by certified mail.” Similarly, section 76.1609 currently requires that certain notices be mailed to television stations or delivered to stations by hand.2

           We propose to add language to sections 76.64(k), 76.1607, 76.1609, and 76.1617 to reflect our proposal that cable operators be required to deliver the notices electronically to broadcast television stations via email in accordance with our proposed revision to section 76.1600. Finally, we also propose to make a minor correction to our rules in part 74 by moving our existing channel sharing rule for LPTV and TV translator stations from subpart H (Low Power Auxiliary Stations) to subpart G (Low Power TV, TV Translator, and TV Booster Stations). Our channel sharing rule for LPTV and TV translator stations is set forth in section 74.799. Because the rules in subpart G apply to LPTV stations, TV translator stations, and TV booster stations, subpart G is a more appropriate location for section 74.799 than subpart H, which contains rules for low power auxiliary stations that transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and synchronization of TV camera signals. We seek comment on the proposed rule amendments discussed above and any other rule changes that are necessary to implement the proposals discussed herein.

            2 In addition to serving copies of the notice on the relevant television stations, the cable operator must also file the original copy of the notice with the Commission within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers. We are not proposing to change this aspect of the rule, which, unlike the requirements discussed above, does not require notices from cable operators to broadcast stations.

        13. Sections 76.54(e) and 76.66 of our rules contain notification requirements for DBS providers that are similar to the notification requirements for cable operators discussed above. These written notices from DBS providers must be delivered to television stations in the following circumstances: Notifying all televisions stations in a market prior to retransmitting a significantly viewed station into that market (section 76.54(e)); notifying local television stations of the provider's intent to launch new local-into-local service in the local market (section 76.66(d)(2)(i) through (ii)); notifying local television stations of the provider's intent to launch HD carry-one, carry-all in the local market (section 76.66(d)(2)(vi)); informing each local television station of the provider's intent to fulfil or deny the station's carriage request and the reasons for declining (section 76.66(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(3)(iv)); identifying each affiliate of the same television network that the DBS provider reserves the right to retransmit into a station's local market during the next carriage election cycle (section 76.66(d)(5)(i)); informing local television stations of the location of the DBS provider's local receive facility or its intent to relocate such facility (section 76.66(f)(3) through (4)); notifying local television stations when deleting a station that substantially duplicates another or adding a station that no longer duplicates another (section 76.66(h)(5)). We seek comment on whether the Commission should also require that DBS providers deliver such notices to broadcast television stations electronically after July 31, 2020, if the Commission adopts such a requirement for cable operators. The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 added section 338(h)(2) of the Act and directed the Commission to revise its rules requiring that DBS providers notify local television stations prior to launching local-into-local service in a market. Section 338(h)(2)(C) of the Act states that “[s]uch regulations shall require that each satellite carrier shall transmit the notices required by such regulation via certified mail to the address for such television station licensee listed in the consolidated database system maintained by the Commission.” We seek comment on whether the statute creates an ongoing obligation for the Commission to maintain this certified mail notice requirement by regulation, or whether, once having revised our rules to satisfy section 338(h)(2)(A), we have the ability to change our notification rules pursuant to the standard notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Does section 338(h)(2) of the Act currently limit the Commission's authority to require electronic delivery of the notices that DBS providers must send to local television stations prior to launching local-into-local service in the local market? Are all the DBS notice rules subject to the restriction in section 338(h)(2), or are there some that fall outside that provision? What are the specific benefits and burdens of electronic delivery of the notices required by sections 76.54(e) and 76.66 for both broadcasters and DBS providers? If the Commission decides to require that certain such notices be delivered via email, how should the Commission revise sections 76.54(e) and 76.66 to implement such a requirement? We seek comment on these issues.
        14. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and 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 summary, the NPRM proposes to revise the Commission's rules to require that cable operators distribute certain notices required by section 76.64(k) and subpart T of the Commission's rules to broadcast television stations electronically via email to the email address designated by the station as carriage election contact information in the online public file (OPIF). The NPRM seeks comment on whether and how the proposal to require electronic delivery of the section 76.64(k) and subpart T notices can be applied with respect to LPTV stations without Class A status and to translator stations that meet the definition of a “qualified NCE television station” under section 615(l)(1) of the Communications Act. In addition, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether to similarly require electronic delivery of certain notices that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers are required to send to broadcast television stations under sections 76.54(e) and 76.66 of the Commission's rules. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 338, 340, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 338, 340, 534, and 535. The types of small entities that may be affected by the proposals contained in the NPRM fall within the following categories: Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard); Cable System Operators (Telecommunications Act Standard); Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service; and Television Broadcasting. The NPRM proposes to revise existing reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements by modernizing certain notification requirements for cable operators and DBS providers to require the use of email rather than paper delivery. There is no overlap with other regulations or laws. The NPRM seeks comment on other alternative means of delivering the notices that would better serve the needs of broadcasters and MVPDs, including small entities, but still be less burdensome than sending the notices by paper delivery.
        15. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document may result in new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
        16. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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.
        17. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 338, 340, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 338, 340, 534, and 535.

          List of Subjects
          47 CFR Part 74
          Communications equipment, Education, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Television.
          47 CFR Part 76
          Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 74 and 76 as follows:

          PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

        1. The authority for part 74 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.

        2. Add § 74.779 to read as follows:

          § 74.779
           Electronic Delivery of Notices to LPTV stations.
          Beginning July 31, 2020, each licensee of a low power television station or translator station that is entitled to receive notices pursuant to section 76.64(k), 76.1601, 76.1607, or 76.1617 of this title shall post publicly on the main page of station's website an email address for electronic receipt of such notices by the station. This section does not apply to Class A television stations.

        3. Transfer § 74.799 from subpart H to subpart G.

          PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

        4. The authority 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.

        5. Amend § 76.54 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          § 76.54
           Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for special showings.

          (e) * * * Such written notice must be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with section 76.66(d)(2)(ii) of this subpart D.

        6. Amend § 76.64 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (k) to read as follows:

          § 76.64
           Retransmission consent.

          (k) * * * The cable operator must send such notification by electronic delivery, in accordance with § 76.1600, at least 60 days prior to commencing cable service. * * *

        7. Amend § 76.66 by:
        a. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv) introductory text;
        b. Adding a second sentence to paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (v), (vi), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(5)(i), (f)(3);
        c. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (f)(4); and
        d. Adding a second sentence to paragraph (h)(5).
        The additions and revision read as follows:

          § 76.66
           Satellite broadcast signal carriage.

          (d) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iv) Within 30 days of receiving a television station's carriage request, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section:

          (2) * * *
          (ii) * * * The written notices required by paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(5)(i), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (h)(5) of this section shall be delivered electronically via email to the email address for carriage-related questions that the station lists in its public file in accordance with §§ 73.3626 and 73.3527 of part 73 of this title.

          (v) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
          (vi) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.

          (3) * * *
          (iv) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
          (5) * * *
          (i) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.

          (f) * * *
          (3) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
          (4) * * * The written notices required by this paragraph shall be delivered to stations electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.

          (h) * * *

          (5) * * * The required notice to the affected television station shall be delivered to the station electronically in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.

        8. Amend § 76.1600 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          § 76.1600
           Electronic delivery of notices.

          (e) Written information provided by cable operators to broadcast stations pursuant to §§ 76.64(k), 76.1601, 76.1607, 76.1608, 76.1609, and 76.1617 of this Part 76 must be delivered electronically to a station via email to the email address for carriage-related questions that the television broadcast station lists in its public file in accordance with §§ 73.3626 and 73.3527 of Part 73 of this title, or in the case of low power television stations or translator stations, to the email address that the station posts on its website in accordance with § 74.779 of Part 74 of this title.

        9. Revise § 76.1607 to read as follows:

          § 76.1607
           Principal headend.
          A cable operator shall provide written notice by electronic delivery, in accordance with § 76.1600, to all stations carried on its system pursuant to the must-carry rules at least 60 days prior to any change in the designation of its principal headend.

        10. Revise § 76.1609 to read as follows:

          § 76.1609
           Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity.
          Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system shall file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and provide a copy of that notice, by electronic delivery in accordance with § 76.1600, to every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication protection or syndicated exclusivity protection against the operator.

        11. Amend § 76.1617 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

          § 76.1617
           Initial must-carry notice.
          (a) Within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must notify all qualified NCE stations of its designated principal headend by electronic delivery in accordance with § 76.1600.

          (c) Within 60 days of activation of a cable system, a cable operator must send, by electronic delivery in accordance with § 76.1600, a copy of a list of all broadcast television stations carried by its system and their channel positions to all local commercial and noncommercial television stations, including those not designated as must-carry stations and those not carried on the system.

      [FR Doc. 2019-16338 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 051004B]
        Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments; preliminary notice of public scoping meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) announce their intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze proposals that provide dedicated access privileges for participants in the non-tribal Pacific Coast groundfish trawl fishery.

          DATES:
          Public scoping meetings will be announced in the Federal Register at a later date.  Written comments will be accepted at the Pacific Council office through August 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, on issues and alternatives, identified by [I.D. number] by any of the following methods:

        •E-mail: TrawlAccessEIS.nwr@noaa.gov.  Include [I.D. number] and enter “Scoping Comments” in the subject line of the message.
        • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
        •Fax:  503-820-2299.
        •Mail:  Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR, 97220.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Steve Freese, (Northwest Region, NMFS) phone:   206-526-6113, fax:  206-526-6426 and email: steve.freese@noaa.gov; or Jim Seger, Pacific Fishery Management Council, phone:  503-820-2280, fax:  503-820-2299 and email: jim.seger@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is available on the Government Printing Office's website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html.
        Description of the Proposal
        The proposed alternatives to the status quo, which will be the subject of the EIS and considered by the Pacific Council for recommendation to NMFS, are programs that provide dedicated access privileges for participants in the non-tribal Pacific Coast groundfish trawl fishery.  The main dedicated access privilege alternative the Pacific Council is considering is an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery off Washington, Oregon and California.  A trawl IFQ program would change management of harvest in the trawl fishery from a trip limit system with cumulative trip limits for every 2-month period to a quota system where each quota share could be harvested at any time during an open season.  A trawl IFQ program would increase fishermen's flexibility in making decisions on when and how much quota to fish.  Status quo (no action) will also be considered along with dedicated access privilege and other reasonable alternatives that may be proposed to address issues identified in the problem statement.
        At the request of the Pacific Council, NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a Trawl Individual Quota Program and to Establish a Control Date (69 FR 1563, January 9, 2004).  This control date for the trawl IQ program is intended to discourage increased fishing effort in the limited entry trawl fishery based on economic speculation while the Pacific Council develops and considers a trawl IQ program.  Although the control date notice discussed the development of the trawl IQ program, NMFS and the Pacific Council also plan to consider other dedicated access alternatives.
        General Background
        The Council implemented a Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in 1982.  Groundfish stocks are harvested in numerous commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in state and Federal waters off the West Coast.  The non-tribal commercial seafood fleet taking groundfish is generally regulated as three  sectors:  Limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and directed open access.  Groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish commercial fisheries, most notably fisheries for pink shrimp, spot and ridgeback prawns, Pacific halibut, California halibut, and sea cucumbers (incidental open access fisheries).

        Despite the recently completed buyback program, management of the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery is still marked by serious biological, social, and economic concerns; and discord between fishermen and managers and between different sectors of the fishery, similar to those cited in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's April 2004 preliminary report.  The trawl fishery is viewed as economically unsustainable given the current status of the stocks and the various measures to protect these stocks.  One major source of discord and concern stems from the management of bycatch, particularly of overfished species as described in the draft programmatic bycatch DEIS.  The notice of availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2004 (69 FR 9314).  The DEIS is available from the Pacific Council office (see ADDRESSES).  After reviewing the draft programmatic bycatch DEIS the Pacific Council adopted a preferred alternative for addressing bycatch that included IFQ programs.  The alternatives to status quo to be evaluated in the dedicated access EIS are amendments to the FMP and associated regulations to address these concerns through the use of dedicated access privileges.  The concerns are described in more detail in the following problem statement:

        As a result of bycatch problems, considerable harvest opportunity is being forgone in an economically stressed fishery.  The trawl groundfish fishery is a multispecies fishery in which fishers exert varying and limited control of the mix of species in their catch.  The optimum yields (OYs) for many overfished species have been set at low levels that place a major constraint on the industry's ability to fully harvest the available OYs of the more abundant target species that occur with the overfished species, wasting economic opportunity.  Average discard rates for the fleet are applied to projected bycatch of overfished species.  These discard rates determine the degree to which managers must constrain the harvest of targeted species that co-occur with overfished species.  These discard rates are developed over a long period of time and do not rapidly respond to changes in fishing behavior by individual vessels or for the fleet as a whole.  Under this system, there is little direct incentive for individual vessels to do everything possible to avoid take of species for which there are conservation concerns, such as overfished species.  In an economically stressed environment, uncertainties about average bycatch rates become highly controversial.  As a consequence, members of fishing fleets tend to place pressure on managers to be less conservative in their estimates of bycatch.  Thus, in the current system there are uncertainties about the appropriate bycatch estimation factors, few incentives for the individual to reduce bycatch rates, and an associated loss of economic opportunity related to the harvest of target species.
        The current management regime is not responsive to the wide variety of fishing business strategies and operational concerns.  For example, historically the Pacific Council has tried to maintain a year-round groundfish fishery.  Such a pattern works well for some business strategies in the industry, but there has been substantial comment from fishers who would prefer being able to pursue a more seasonal groundfish fishing strategy.  The current management system does not have the flexibility to accommodate these disparate interests.  Nor does it have the sophistication, information, and ability to make timely responses necessary to react to changes in market, weather, and harvest conditions that occur during the fishing year.  The ability to react to changing conditions is key to conducting an efficient fishery in a manner that is safe for the participants.
        Fishery stock depletion and economic deterioration of the fishery are concerns for fishing communities.  Communities have a vital interest in the short- and long-term economic viability of the industry, the income and employment opportunities it provides, and the safety of participants in the fishery.
        In summary, management of the fishery is challenged with the competing goals of:  controlling bycatch, taking advantage of the available allowable harvests of more abundant stocks (including conducting safe and efficient harvest activities in a manner that optimizes net benefits over the short- and long-term), increasing management efficiency, and responding to community interest.
        In consideration of this statement of the problem, the following goals have also been identified for improving conditions in the groundfish trawl fishery.
        • Provide for a well-managed system for protection and conservation of groundfish resources.
        • Provide for a viable and efficient groundfish industry.
        • Increase net benefits from the fishery.
        • Provide for capacity rationalization through market forces.
        • Provide for a fair and equitable distribution of fishery benefits.
        • Provide for a safe fishery.
        Preliminary Identification of Alternatives
        NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.  The Pacific Council and NMFS are seeking information from the public on the range of alternatives and on the environmental, social, and economic issues to be considered.
        Based on the above problem statement, goals and objectives, and consistent with the Pacific Council's preferred alternative in the programmatic bycatch EIS, the Pacific Council has identified IFQs for the trawl fishery as one of the main types of alternatives to status quo that it will consider.  The Pacific Council has begun developing specific provisions for IFQ alternatives.  Under IFQs, total harvest mortality is controlled by allocating an amount to individual fishers and holding those individuals responsible for ensuring that their harvest or harvest mortality does not exceed the amount they are allocated.
        The EIS will identify and evaluate other reasonable and technically feasible alternatives that might be used to simultaneously address capacity rationalization and the other problems and goals specified here.  The Pacific Council is interested in public comment on alternatives to dedicated access privilege programs that address the problems surrounding and goals for this issue.  The Pacific Council is also interested in receiving comments on different types of dedicated access privilege programs that should be considered and specific provisions that should be included in the alternatives.
        According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's April 2004 preliminary report (pp. 232-236), there are several different types of dedicated access privileges:
        IFQs allow each eligible fisherman to catch a specified portion of the total allowable catch.  When the assigned portions can be sold or transferred to other fishermen, they are called individual transferable quotas.
        Community quotas grant a specified portion of the allowable catch to a community.  The community then decides how to allocate the catch.
        Cooperatives split the available quota among the various fishing and processing entities within a fishery via contractual agreements.
        Geographically based programs give an individual or group dedicated access to the fish within a specific area of the ocean.
        There are also systems that allocate the right to buy fish.  Such systems are often referred to as individual processing quotas (IPQs).  The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) does not allow NMFS to implement IPQs.  Congress has also prohibited the Department of Commerce and the Councils, via the Department's 2004 appropriations bill, from establishing or even considering IPQs (except in crab fisheries off Alaska).  Therefore, they will not be considered in this EIS.
        Not included in the proposed scope for this action are the two other nontribal commercial seafood harvester sectors:  the limited entry fixed gear fleet and the open access fleets.  The limited entry fixed gear fleet already operates under an IFQ program for sablefish, a species that dominates the groundfish economic activity for most vessels in this fleet.  Including consideration of the fixed gear fleet in the development of a trawl IFQ program could increase the complexity of developing the program.  The directed open access fleet has yet to be well identified.  Identification of this fleet will likely be a major and controversial task in its own right, even without concurrent inclusion of the fleet under an umbrella IFQ program covering all sectors of the West Coast commercial seafood harvesting industry.  However, this notice does not preclude further consideration of IFQ for other sectors of the fleet (open access and fixed gear).

        At the end of the scoping process and initial Pacific Council deliberations, the Pacific Council may recommend specific alternatives and options for analysis.  Depending on the alternatives selected, Congressional action may be required to provide statutory authority to implement a specific alternative preferred by the Council.  Lack of statutory authority to implement any particular alternative does not prevent consideration of that alternative or option in the EIS (40 CFR 1502.14(2)).
        Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
        A principal objective of this scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the dedicated access privilege EIS.  Pacific Council and NMFS staff conducted an initial screening to identify potentially significant impacts resulting from implementing one of the proposed alternatives to status quo, as well as the continuation of status quo, no action.  These impacts relate to the likelihood that there will be a substantial shift in fishing strategies, the configuration of the groundfish fleet, and fishery management and enforcement activities as a result of the implementation of a program meeting the specified goals.  Impacts on the following components of the biological and physical environment may be evaluated (1) Essential fish habitat and ecosystems; (2) protected species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and their critical habitat; and (3) the fishery management unit, including target and non-target fish stocks.  Socioeconomic impacts are also considered in terms of the effect changes will have on the following groups:  (1) Those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources (for commercial, subsistence or recreational purposes); (2) those who process and market fish and fish products; (3) those who are involved in allied support industries; (4) those who rely on living marine resources in the management area; (5) those who consume fish products; (6) those who benefit from non-consumptive use (e.g. wildlife viewing); (7) those who do not use the resource but derive benefit from it by virtue of its existence, the option to use it, or the bequest of the resource to future generations; (8) those involved in managing and monitoring fisheries; and (9) fishing communities.  Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on these groups will be presented in a manner that allows the identification of any disproportionate impacts on low income and minority segments of the identified groups and impacts on small entities.
        Related NEPA Analyses
        Certain complementary and closely related actions are likely to be required to implement a dedicated access privilege program.  As described herein, implementation of an IFQ program or an alternative dedicated access privilege program for the trawl fishery will be a two-step process.  The first step is to design the basic program and its major elements (e.g. allocation of shares among participants, monitoring and reporting requirements, needed species to be allocated, etc.).  With this notice, the Council and NMFS are seeking comments on this first step.  The second step is to determine the amounts of each species that are to be allocated to the trawl and other sectors.  Such allocations would be evaluated in a separate but related process supported by a separate but connected NEPA analysis.
        Implementation of an IFQ alternative would require an allocation of available harvest between the commercial trawl fisheries and other fishing sectors (inter-sector allocation).  This allocation would be needed to annually set the amount of fish that would be partitioned between participants in the trawl IFQ fishery.  An inter-sector allocation may be based on an allocation formula or on a determination of the needs of a fishery for each management cycle.  The only species now allocated between trawl and other sectors is sablefish.  For a trawl IFQ program to succeed, the Council may need to quantify allocations for other species between the trawl sector and other fishing sectors.  Allocation questions raise issues beyond developing a dedicated access privilege program.  Thus, a second but related NEPA analysis will be undertaken, particularly as intersector allocations may be useful for managing the fishery even if an IFQ program is not adopted.  This second NEPA analysis will be about the potential costs and benefits to all fisheries from developing specific commercial and recreational allocations and, within the commercial allocations, developing specific sub-allocations to the open access, trawl, and fixed gear fisheries.

        The Council's Allocation Committee will be meeting to discuss the need for intersector allocations and criteria for making such allocation decisions.  These meetings will be open to the public and announced in a separate Federal Register document.  At approximately the time the Council approves a set of alternatives to be analyzed in the dedicated access privileges EIS, it will likely initiate formal scoping for a NEPA document to cover the intersector allocation issue.  In the meantime, comments on the intersector allocation issue should be addressed to the Council office pfmc.comments@noaa.gov (enter “Intersector Groundfish Allocation” in the subject line).  Potential outcomes of the allocation decision and impacts of that decision on the IFQ program would be considered in the cumulative effects section of the EIS on dedicated access privileges for the trawl fishery.
        Scoping and Public Involvement
        Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the notable issues related to proposed alternatives (including status quo).  A principal objective of the scoping and public input processes is to identify a reasonable set of alternatives that, with adequate analysis, sharply define critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative.  The public scoping process provides the public with the opportunity to comment on the range of alternatives and specific options within the alternatives.  The scope of the alternatives to be analyzed should be broad enough for the Pacific Council and NMFS to make informed decisions on whether an alterative should be developed and, if so, how it should be designed, and to assess other changes to the FMP and regulations necessary for the implementation of the alternative, including necessary intersector allocations.

        Some preliminary public scoping of IFQ alternatives has been conducted through the Council process.  Such preliminary scoping is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (46 FR 18026, 51 FR 15618).  The results of this preliminary scoping are being used to develop a scoping document that will help focus public comment.  Public scoping conducted thus far includes Council meetings held September 2003 (68 FR 51007) and November 2003 (68 FR 59589), and Ad Hoc Trawl Individual Quota Committee meetings held in October 2003 (68 FR 59358) and March 2004 (69 FR 10001).  To provide additional preliminary information for the public scoping document, a group of enforcement experts will meet in Long Beach, CA, May 25 and 26, 2004, and a group of analysts will meet in Seattle, WA, June 8 and 9, 2004.  Times and locations for these meetings will be announced in the Federal Register and posted on the Council website (www.pcouncil.org).  The public scoping document will be completed and released at least 30 days prior to the end of the scoping period.  Copies will be available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES) or from the Council website (www.pcouncil.org).

        Written comments will be accepted at the Council office through July 31, 2004 (see ADDRESSES).
        Public scoping meetings will be announced in the Federal Register at a later date and posted on the Council website.  There will be a public scoping session held June 13, 2004, in Foster City CA, in conjunction with the June 2004 Council meeting.  The exact time and location for the meeting will be provided in the Federal Register notice announcing the June 2004 Council meeting.

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

          Dated:  May 18, 2004.
          Galen R. Tromble,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-11663 Filed 5-21-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S