Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation, 59635-59664 [2015-24999]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment and therefore requires neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement. Office. The Department therefore certifies that this final rule does not represent a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. This final rule is a purely administrative regulatory action having no effect upon the public or the environment and it has been determined that the rule will not have a significant effect on the economy or small entities. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This final rule is a purely administrative regulatory action having no effects upon the public or the economy. This is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs of prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to complete with foreignbased enterprises. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Unfunded Mandate Reform Act The BLM has determined that this final rule is not significant under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 because the rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Further, this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not require action by any non-Federal government entity. Therefore, the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is not required. Executive Order 12630, Government Action and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) As required by Executive Order 12630, the Department of the Interior has determined that this rule would not cause a taking of private property. No private property rights would be affected by a rule that merely reports an address change for the Eastern States VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM finds that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national governments and the States, or the distribution of power and the responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule does not preempt State law. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform This final rule is a purely administrative regulatory action having no effects upon the public. It will not unduly burden the judicial system, and meets the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with the Executive Order 13175, the BLM finds that this rule does not include policies that have tribal implications. This final rule is purely an administrative action having no effects upon the public or the environment, imposing no costs, and merely updates the Eastern States Office address included in the Code of Federal Regulations. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that this final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the energy supply, distribution or use, including a shortfall in supply or price increase. This final rule is a purely administrative action and has no implications under Executive Order 13211. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59635 List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1820 Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Public lands. Dated: September 19, 2015. Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 1820 as follows: PART 1820—APPLICATION PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 1820 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1733, and 1740. Subpart 1821—General Information 2. Amend § 1821.10 in paragraph (a) by revising the entry for the Eastern States Office to read as follows: ■ § 1821.10 Where are BLM offices located? (a) * * * State Offices and Areas of Jurisdiction * * * * * Eastern States Office, 20 M Street SE., Suite 950, Washington, DC 20003— Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and all States east of the Mississippi River. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–25027 Filed 10–1–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 15–71; FCC 15–111] Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission adopts satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act of 2014. The STELAR gives the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station’s local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. In this document, the Commission revises the current cable market modification rule SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service. The document also makes conforming and other minor changes to the cable market modification rules. DATES: Effective November 2, 2015, except §§ 76.59(a) and (b) which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing when OMB approval for this information collection has been received and these rules will take effect. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@ fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Report and Order, FCC 15–111, adopted and released on September 2, 2015. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC’s Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY– A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). I. Introduction 1. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to enable commercial television stations, satellite carriers and cable operators to better serve the interests of their local communities. These rules implement an important provision in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 (‘‘STELAR’’) to promote carriage of instate and other relevant local television programming. Specifically, in the STELAR, Congress recognized that satellite subscribers in some communities across the country are not able to access broadcast stations in their own states via the local television packages offered by satellite carriers. This problem results from the way TV stations are defined as ‘‘local’’ for purposes of satellite carriage. In some cases, subscribers may be included in a local television programming market that is served exclusively, or almost exclusively, by television stations in a neighboring state. As a result, these subscribers are not receiving news, politics, sports, emergency information and other television programming relevant to their home state. The STELAR seeks to address this problem by changing the laws to provide for ‘‘market modifications’’ that add flexibility to the current definition of a local television programming market. Market modifications allow the Commission, upon request, to modify the local market assignment of a station to include such neighboring communities that are located in the same state as the station. As required by the STELAR, the Commission determines whether to grant a market modification based on consideration of five statutory factors that allow petitioners to demonstrate that they provide local service to the community. Significantly, in the STELAR, Congress included a factor requiring consideration of access to television stations that are located in the same state as the community considered for modification. Congress also added this factor to the existing market modification statutory factors applicable to cable operators. Our rules implement the STELAR to achieve the goal of better service for consumers. Finally, Congress recognized that satellite carriage of additional stations might be technically or economically infeasible in some circumstances. Accordingly, our rules implement this exception to the carriage requirements that would otherwise apply for modified markets. We recognize that the ability of the market modification rules to successfully address the problem of consumer access to in-state stations will depend in large part on broadcasters’ willingness to grant retransmission consent to be carried in the new community and satellite carriers’ technical ability to provide the in-state stations in the new community. Therefore, we strongly urge broadcasters and satellite carriers to work together to provide relief to PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 consumers and achieve the goals of the STELAR (to promote access to in-state programming) in cases where carriage is technically feasible. 2. In this Report and Order, we adopt satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the STELAR.1 The STELAR amended the Communications Act (‘‘Act’’) and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station’s local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.2 The Commission previously had such authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.3 With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.4 3. Section 102 of the STELAR, and the Commission’s actions in this Report and 1 The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Pub. L. 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060–62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). This proceeding implements STELAR section 102 (titled ‘‘Modification of television markets to further consumer access to relevant television programming’’), 128 Stat. at 2060–62, and the related statutory copyright license provisions in STELAR sec. 204 (titled ‘‘Market determinations’’), 128 Stat. at 2067 (codified at 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E)). 2 STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060–62, 2067. STELAR section 102(a) amends section 338 of the Act by adding a new paragraph (l), titled ‘‘Market Determinations.’’ 47 U.S.C. 338(l). STELAR section 102(b) also makes conforming amendments to the cable market modification provision at 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). STELAR sec. 204 amends the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of ‘‘local’’ stations in 17 U.S.C. 122 to cover market modifications in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E). We note that, like the existing cable provision, the STELAR provision pertains only to ‘‘commercial’’ stations, thus excluding noncommercial stations from seeking market modification. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). 3 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). This section was added to the Act by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), as part of the cable must-carry/retransmission consent regime for carriage of local television stations. See also 47 CFR 76.59. 4 See title of STELAR section 102, ‘‘Modification of Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television Programming.’’ See also 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (directing the Commission to consider whether a market modification would ‘‘promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence’’). There was no final Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELAR bill (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.) as it was enacted. Because section 102 of the STELAR was added from the Senate predecessor bill (S. 2799, the Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA)), we therefore look to the Senate Report No. 113–322 (dated December 12, 2014) accompanying this predecessor bill for the relevant legislative history for this provision. See Report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113–322 (2014) (‘‘Senate Commerce Committee Report’’). E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Order, seek to establish a market modification process for the satellite carriage context and, to the extent possible, address satellite subscribers’ inability to receive in-state programming in certain areas, sometimes called ‘‘orphan counties.’’ 5 In this Report and Order, consistent with Congress’ intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, we implement section 102 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.6 In addition to authorizing satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision 7 and also directs the Commission to consider whether to make other changes to the cable market modification rules.8 Accordingly, as part of our implementation of the 5 The Commission has sometimes referred to the situation in which a county in one state is assigned to a neighboring state’s local television market and, therefore, satellite subscribers residing in such county cannot receive some or any broadcast stations that originate in-state as the ‘‘orphan county’’ problem. See, e.g., Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), MB Docket No. 10–148, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10–193, para. 48, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010 (STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order). The inability of satellite subscribers located in ‘‘orphan counties’’ to access in-state programming has been the subject of some congressional interest. See, e.g., Orphan County Telecommunications Rights Act, H.R. 4635, 113th Cong. (2014); Colorado News, Emergency, Weather, and Sports Act, S. 2375, 113th Cong. (2014); Four Corners Television Access Act, H.R. 4469, 112th Cong. (2012); Letting Our Communities Access Local Television Act, S. 3894, 111th Cong. (2010); Local Television Freedom Act, H.R. 3216, 111th Cong. (2009). 6 See 47 CFR 76.59. As discussed herein, we revise section 76.59 of our rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers. See Final Rules. We note Congress’ intent that the process established by the Commission under the section 102 of the STELAR be ‘‘modeled’’ on the current cable market modification process. See Senate Commerce Committee Report at 10. However, the STELAR recognizes the inherent difference between cable and satellite television service with provisions specific to satellite. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A), (5). 7 See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). 8 STELAR section 102(d) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the ‘‘procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section, and update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 STELAR, we make conforming and other minor changes to the cable market modification rules. 4. The following are among the key conclusions adopted in this Report and Order: • We amend the cable market modification rule, section 76.59 of our rules, to apply also to satellite market modifications, and amend the rule to reflect the STELAR provisions that uniquely apply to satellite carriers, such as an exception if the resulting carriage is ‘‘not technically and economically feasible.’’ • We conclude that the involved commercial broadcast station, satellite carrier, and county government have standing to file a satellite market modification petition. Petitions must be filed in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of our rules. • We conclude that the new in-state factor,9 when applicable, favors any market modification that would promote consumers’ access to an instate station. When applicable, this instate factor serves as an enhancement, the particular weight of which depends on the strength of showing by the petitioner. • We conclude that the evidentiary requirements for cable market modifications will apply to satellite market modifications. In addition, to satisfy the new in-state factor when applicable, we require a petitioner to make a statement in its petition that the station is licensed to a community within the same state as the new community. • We conclude that market modifications will be considered separately in the cable and satellite contexts and that, in the satellite context, market modifications will apply only to the specific stations, satellite carriers, and communities addressed in a particular market modification petition. • We conclude that prior cable market modification determinations will not automatically apply in the satellite context, nor will such prior decisions be afforded a presumption; however, we note that we are required to consider historic carriage under the first statutory factor. • We conclude that a television broadcast station that becomes eligible for mandatory satellite carriage by operation of a market modification may elect retransmission consent or 9 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (‘‘whether modifying the market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence’’). PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59637 mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier within 30 days after the market determination. We conclude that a satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days after receiving the station’s request for carriage. • We conclude that it is per se not technically and economically feasible for a satellite carrier to provide a station to a new community that is outside of the relevant spot beam on which that station is currently carried. • We conclude that, if a satellite carrier can provide the station at issue in a market modification request to only part of a new community, then it must do so. • We conclude that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate that the resulting carriage from a market modification is technically and economically infeasible. • We will allow satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility by providing a detailed certification under penalty of perjury. • We conclude that a satellite carrier must raise any technical or economic impediments either in the market modification proceeding or prior to such proceeding in response to a prospective petitioner’s inquiry about feasibility of carriage resulting from a contemplated market modification. • We establish a process that will allow a prospective petitioner to obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about whether or not (and to what extent) it is technically and economically feasible for the carrier to provide the station to a new community. We will not grant a market modification petition if such grant could not create a new carriage obligation for the carrier at that time due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility. • We recognize that there may be other bases than spot beam coverage for a carrier to assert that carriage would be technically or economically infeasible and will review these assertions on a case-by-case basis. • We define a ‘‘satellite community’’ as a county for purposes of a satellite market modification. We retain our existing definition of a ‘‘cable community’’ for purposes of a cable market modification. II. Background 5. The STELAR, enacted December 4, 2014, is the latest in a series of statutes that have amended the Communications Act and Copyright Act to set the parameters for the satellite carriage of television broadcast stations. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) first established a ‘‘distant’’ statutory copyright license to enable satellite E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES carriers to offer subscribers who could not receive the over-the-air signal of a broadcast station access to broadcast programming via satellite.10 The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) established a ‘‘local’’ statutory copyright license and expanded satellite carriers’ ability to offer broadcast television signals directly to subscribers by permitting carriers to offer ‘‘local’’ broadcast signals.11 The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) reauthorized the distant signal statutory copyright license until December 31, 2009 and expanded that license to allow satellite carriers to carry ‘‘significantly viewed’’ stations.12 The 2010 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) extended the distant signal statutory copyright license through December 31, 2014,13 moved the 10 Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 100–667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988); 17 U.S.C. 119 (distant statutory copyright license). In addition to allowing satellite carriers to retransmit television signals of distant network stations to ‘‘unserved’’ subscriber households, the SHVA also permitted satellite carriers to retransmit distant superstations (non-network stations) to any subscriber household. See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(2) (defining ‘‘network station’’), (d)(9) (defining ‘‘nonnetwork station,’’ previously ‘‘superstation’’) and (d)(10) (defining ‘‘unserved household’’). The 1994 Satellite Home Viewer Act reauthorized the distant statutory copyright license for five years and made other changes to the distant statutory copyright license but did not amend the Communications Act or otherwise alter satellite carriage rights. Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, Public Law 103–369, 108 Stat. 3477 (1994). Each successive statute in the SHVA progeny has reauthorized the distant statutory copyright license. 11 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 17 U.S.C. 122 (local statutory copyright license). The local statutory copyright license makes no distinction between network and nonnetwork signals or served or unserved households. See id. Local stations may elect mandatory carriage or carriage pursuant to retransmission consent. 47 U.S.C. 325, 338. See 47 CFR 76.66(c). Unlike the distant license, the local statutory copyright license does not expire. 12 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004). Significantly viewed stations are television broadcast stations that the Commission has determined have sufficient overthe-air (i.e., non-cable and non-satellite) viewing to be treated as local stations with respect to a particular satellite community in another market, thus, allowing them to be carried by the satellite carrier in that community in the other market. For copyright purposes, significantly viewed status entitles satellite carriers to carry the out-of-market but significantly viewed station with the reduced copyright payment obligations applicable to local (in-market) stations. See 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2). Satellite carriers are not required to carry out-ofmarket significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required. See 47 U.S.C. 340(d). 13 The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), Public Law 111– 175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010). Congress passed four short-term extensions of the distant signal VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 significantly viewed station copyright provisions to the local statutory copyright license (which does not expire), and revised the ‘‘significantly viewed’’ provisions to facilitate satellite carrier use of that option.14 With the STELAR, Congress extended the distant signal statutory copyright license for another five years, through December 31, 2019, and, among other things, authorized market modification in the satellite carriage context and revised the market modification provisions for cable to promote parity for satellite and cable subscribers and competition between satellite and cable operators.15 6. Section 338 of the Communications Act authorizes satellite carriage of local broadcast stations into their local markets, which is called ‘‘local-intolocal’’ service.16 Specifically, a satellite carrier provides ‘‘local-into-local’’ service when it retransmits a local television signal back into the local market of that television station for reception by subscribers.17 Generally, a television station’s ‘‘local market’’ is defined by the Designated Market Area (DMA) in which it is located, as determined by the Nielsen Company statutory copyright license (on December 19, 2009, March 2, March 26 and April 15, 2010) before passing the STELA to reauthorize the distant signal statutory copyright license for a full five years, until December 31, 2014. STELA sec. 107(a). See Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, sec. 1003(b), Public Law 111–118, 123 Stat 3409, 3469 (2009) (extending distant license until February 28, 2010); Temporary Extension Act of 2010, sec. 10, Public Law 111–144, 124 Stat 42, 47 (2010) (extending license until March 28, 2010); Satellite Television Extension Act of 2010, Public Law 111–151, 124 Stat 1027 (2010) (extending license until April 30, 2010); Continuing Extension Act of 2010, sec. 9, Public Law 111–157, 124 Stat 1116 (2010) (extending license until May 31, 2010). 14 As noted, the STELA reauthorized the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of significantly viewed signals and moved that license from the distant signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3) to the local signal statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2). STELA sec. 103. By doing so, Congress defined significantly viewed signals as another type of local signal, rather than as an exception to distant signal status. The move to the local license also meant that the significantly viewed signal license would not expire. STELA sec. 107(a). In the STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the Commission revised its satellite television significantly viewed rules to facilitate satellite carriage of significantly viewed stations and thereby provide satellite subscribers with greater choice of programming and to improve parity and competition between satellite and cable carriage of broadcast stations. STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, para. 55. 15 In section 102 of the STELAR, Congress intended to ‘‘create a television market modification process for satellite carriers similar to the one already used for cable operators.’’ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 6. The STELAR also makes a variety of reforms to the video programming distribution laws and regulations that are not relevant to our implementation here of this section. 16 See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1). 17 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6). PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (Nielsen).18 DMAs describe each television market in terms of a group of counties and are defined by Nielsen based on measured viewing patterns.19 The United States is divided into 210 DMAs.20 Unlike cable operators, satellite carriers are not required to carry local broadcast television stations. However, if a satellite carrier chooses to carry a local station in a particular DMA in reliance on the statutory copyright license, it generally must carry any qualified local station in the same DMA that makes a timely election for retransmission consent or mandatory carriage.21 This is commonly referred to as the ‘‘carry one, carry all’’ requirement. If a broadcaster elects retransmission consent, the satellite carrier and broadcaster negotiate the terms of a retransmission consent agreement. With respect to those stations electing mandatory carriage, satellite carriers are generally not required to carry a station if the station’s programming ‘‘substantially duplicates’’ 22 that of another station 18 See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2); 47 CFR 76.66(e) (defining a television broadcast station’s local market for purposes of satellite carriage as the DMA in which the station is located). We note that a commercial television broadcast station’s local market for purposes of cable carriage is also generally defined as the DMA in which the station is located. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C); 47 CFR 76.55(e)(2). 19 The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and via MVPD distribution. Generally, each U.S. county is assigned exclusively to the market whose stations receive the preponderance of the audience in that county. However, in a few cases where a county is large and viewing patterns differ significantly between parts of the county, a portion of the county is assigned to one television market and another portion of the county is assigned to another market. Several counties in Alaska are not assigned to any DMA. Retransmission Consent and Exclusivity Rules: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 208 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, 2005 WL 2206070, at para. 53, n.177 (Sept. 8, 2005) (SHVERA Report); see also Nielsen Media Research, Glossary of Media Terms, at https://www.nielsenmedia.com/glossary/. 20 DMAs frequently cross state lines and thus may include counties from multiple states. 21 See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). DISH Network currently provides local service to all 210 DMAs, and DIRECTV currently provides local service to 198 DMAs, according to the most recent Local Network Channel Broadcast Reports filed by these satellite carriers. 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. These annual reports were initially required for five years by section 305 of the STELA and were continued to be required for another five years by section 108 of the STELAR. 22 ‘‘A commercial television station substantially duplicates the programming of another commercial television station if it simultaneously broadcasts the identical programming of another station for more than 50 percent of the broadcast week.’’ 47 CFR 76.66(h)(6). ‘‘A noncommercial television station substantially duplicates the programming of another noncommercial station if it simultaneously broadcasts the same programming as another E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES carried by the satellite carrier in the DMA,23 and satellite carriers are not required to carry more than one affiliate station of a particular network in a DMA (even if the affiliates do not substantially duplicate their programming), unless the stations are licensed to communities in different states.24 Satellite carriers are also not required to carry an otherwise qualified station if the station fails to provide a good quality signal to the satellite carrier’s local receive facility.25 7. STELAR section 102, which adds section 338(l) of the Act, creates a satellite market modification regime very similar to that in place for cable, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service.26 Market modification, which has been available in the cable carriage context since 1992,27 will allow the Commission to modify the local television market of a commercial television broadcast station to enable those broadcasters and satellite carriers to better serve the interests of local communities.28 Market modification noncommercial station for more than 50 percent of prime time, as defined by [47 CFR] 76.5(n), and more than 50 percent outside of prime time over a three month period, provided, however, that after three noncommercial television stations are carried, the test of duplication shall be whether more than 50 percent of prime time programming and more than 50 percent outside of prime time programming is duplicative on a non-simultaneous basis.’’ 47 CFR 76.66(h)(7). 23 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h)(1). ‘‘A satellite carrier may select which duplicating signal in a market it shall carry.’’ 47 CFR 76.66(h)(2). 24 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h)(1). ‘‘A satellite carrier may select which network affiliate in a market it shall carry.’’ 47 CFR 76.66(h)(3). However, a satellite carrier must carry network affiliated television stations licensed to different states, but located in the same market, even if the stations meet the definition of substantial duplication under the Commission’s rules. See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Retransmission Consent Issues, CS Docket Nos. 00–96 and 99–363, Report and Order, FCC 00–417, para. 80, 66 FR 7410, Jan. 23, 2001 (DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order). If two stations located in different states (but within the same local market) duplicate each other, but are not network affiliates, the satellite carrier only has to carry one. Id. 25 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1). A television station asserting its right to carriage is required to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the designated localreceive-facility of the satellite carrier or to another facility that is acceptable to at least one-half the stations asserting the right to carriage in the local market. Id. 26 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C). 27 See 47 CFR 76.59. 28 See In-State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 10–238, Report, DA 11–1454, paras. 55– 59 (MB rel. Aug. 29, 2011) (In-State Programming Report) (stating that ‘‘market modifications could potentially address special situations in underserved areas and facilitate greater access to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 provides a means to avoid rigid adherence to DMA designations and to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.29 To better reflect market realities and effectuate these purposes, section 338(l), like the corresponding cable provision in section 614(h)(1)(C), permits the Commission to add communities to, or delete communities from, a station’s local television market following a written request.30 Furthermore, as in the cable carriage context, the Commission may determine that particular communities are part of more than one television market.31 As in the cable carriage context, when the Commission modifies a station’s market to add a community for purposes of carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license and may assert mandatory carriage (or pursue retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the local market.32 Conversely, if the Commission modifies a station’s market to delete a community, the station is considered ‘‘distant’’ and loses its right to assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission consent) on the applicable satellite carrier in the local market.33 We note that, in the cable carriage context, market modifications pertain to individual stations in specific cable communities and apply only to the particular cable system named in the petition.34 local information’’). See also Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04–233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07–218, paras. 49–50, 73 FR 8255, Feb. 13, 2008 (Broadcast Localism Report). 29 Broadcast Localism Report, para. 50. The Commission has observed that, in some cases, general reliance on DMAs to define a station’s market may not provide viewers with the most local programming. Id. at paras. 49–50. Certain DMAs cross state borders and, in such cases, current Commission rules sometimes require carriage of the broadcast signal of an out-of-state station rather than that of an in-state station. Id. The Commission has observed that such cases may weaken localism, since viewers are often more likely to receive information of local interest and relevance— particularly local weather and other emergency information and local news and electoral and public affairs—from a station located in the state in which they live. Id. 30 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1), 534(h)(1)(C). 31 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(A). 32 Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local statutory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 to the effect that when the Commission modifies a station’s market for purposes of satellite carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E) (as amended by STELAR sec. 204); 47 U.S.C. 338. See also 17 U.S.C.U.S.C. 111(f)(4) (defining ‘‘local service area of a primary transmitter’’ for cable carriage copyright purposes); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). 33 See id. 34 See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59639 8. Section 338(l) states that, in ruling on requests for market modifications for purposes of satellite carriage, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area—(a) have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and (b) have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community; (2) Whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (3) Whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence; (4) Whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (5) Evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community.35 These statutory factors largely mirror those originally set forth for cable in section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the extent the factors differ from the previous factors applicable to cable, the STELAR section 102 makes conforming changes to the cable factors.36 These include adding a fifth factor (inserted as factor number three) to section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to ‘‘promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.’’ 37 Thus, STELAR creates parallel factors for satellite and cable.38 Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, MM Docket No. 92–259, Report and Order, FCC 93–144, para. 47, 58 FR 17350, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) (stating that ‘‘the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station’s market to reflect its individual situation’’); 47 CFR 76.59. 35 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v) (discussed in section III.B. below). 36 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by STELAR sec. 102(b). 37 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (‘‘whether modifying the market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence’’). 38 Shortly after our final rules are published in the Federal Register, we will implement section 102(c) E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM Continued 02OCR1 59640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9. The STELAR, however, provides a unique exception applicable only in the satellite context, providing that a market modification: shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.39 Also unique to satellite, the STELAR provides that a market modification will not have ‘‘any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339 [of the Act].’’ 40 Like the cable provision, section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 days to act on a request for market modification and does not allow a carrier to delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.41 10. On March 26, 2015, we began this proceeding by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).42 We received 12 comments and five reply comments in response. With this Report and Order, we satisfy the STELAR’s mandate that the Commission adopt final rules in this proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.43 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES III. Discussion 11. Consistent with the STELAR’s goal of regulatory parity, we largely model the satellite market modification process on the existing process for cable and adopt our proposal to amend of the STELAR by creating a consumer guide that will explain the market modification rules and procedures as revised and adopted in this proceeding, and by posting the guide on the Commission’s Web site. Section 102(c) requires the Commission to ‘‘make information available to consumers on its Web site that explains the market modification process.’’ STELAR 102(c); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. Such information must include: ‘‘(1) who may petition to include additional communities within, or exclude communities from, a—(A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, United States Code); or (B) television market (as determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the Commission takes into account when responding to a petition described in paragraph (1).’’ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V). 39 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A) (discussed in section III.D. below). 40 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5) (discussed in section III.E. below). Section 339 of the Act provides for the satellite carriage of distant stations under certain conditions. See 47 U.S.C. 339. 41 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4). 42 Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Market Modification; Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014; MB Docket No. 15–71, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15–34, 80 FR 19594, Apr. 13, 2015 (NPRM). 43 STELAR sec. 102(d)(1). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 section 76.59 of our rules—the current cable market modification rule—to apply in both the cable and satellite contexts.44 We also adopt our proposal to amend section 76.59 to reflect the STELAR provisions that apply uniquely to satellite carriers, such as affording carriers with an exception if the resulting carriage is ‘‘not technically and economically feasible .’’ Finally, we define a ‘‘satellite community’’ for purposes of market modification and retain our existing definition of a ‘‘cable community.’’ A. Standing and Procedures To Request Market Modification 12. We conclude that the involved broadcaster, satellite carrier and county government may file a satellite market modification petition.45 We choose a slightly modified alternative to the procedure proposed in the NPRM,46 and deviate from the cable rule which allows only the involved broadcaster and cable operator to file cable petitions, in order to more fully effectuate the core purpose of this provision of the STELAR to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant programming. 13. Section 338(l)(1) of the Act permits the Commission to modify a local television market ‘‘following a written request,’’ but does not specify the appropriate party to make such requests.47 The corresponding cable statutory provision in section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Act contains nearly identical language in this regard.48 In interpreting the cable provision, the Commission concluded that the involved broadcaster and cable operator are the only appropriate parties to file market modification requests.49 Section 44 See 47 CFR 76.59. 47 CFR 76.59(a). 46 NPRM, para. 8. 47 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). 48 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (‘‘Following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station, include additional communities within its local market or exclude communities from such station’s local market to better effectuate the purposes of this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i) (‘‘For purposes of this section, a broadcasting station’s market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using, where available, commercial publications which delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station’s television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. . . .’’). 49 See Must Carry Order, para. 46; John Wiegand v. Post Newsweek Pacifica Cable, Inc., CSR 4179– M, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01–239 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) (Wiegand v. Post Newsweek) (limiting standing in the must carry and market modification contexts to the affected broadcaster or 45 See PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 102(d) of the STELAR, however, directs the Commission to ensure in both the cable and satellite contexts that ‘‘procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request . . . fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.’’ 50 In the NPRM, consistent with the cable rule, we proposed to allow only the involved commercial broadcast station or the satellite carrier to file a satellite market modification request because only these entities have carriage rights or obligations at stake.51 The NPRM sought comment on any alternative approaches and observed that some local governments had previously sought the ability to petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.52 The NPRM tentatively concluded to limit the participation of local governments and individuals to filing comments in support of, or in opposition to, particular market modification requests and sought comment on this tentative conclusion.53 Broadcasters and the satellite carriers supported the NPRM’s proposal, asserting that only the involved station or satellite carrier ‘‘have rights or obligations that are directly affected by a market modification’’ and therefore only such entities should have standing to file requests to modify these rights or obligations.54 Some commenters, however, advocate that county governments should be allowed to cable operator). The Commission reasoned that ‘‘the fact that Congress made must carry an elective choice for broadcasters diminishes the argument that third parties have standing to demand carriage of a broadcast station on a cable system. A subscriber’s ability to receive the benefits provided from must carry is predicated upon a station’s election to exercise its rights under the statute. No statute or Commission rule requires a broadcaster to allow its signal to be carried on a local cable system because another party wishes to view it. Instead, broadcasters are given a choice whether to demand carriage under must carry, to negotiate carriage under the retransmission consent provisions, or not to be carried on a particular cable system at all.’’ See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, para. 10. 50 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the ‘‘procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.’’ See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. 51 NPRM, para. 8. 52 NPRM, para. 9. See In-State Programming Report, para. 58. 53 Id. The NPRM also asked ‘‘how else satellite subscribers or their representatives can meaningfully advocate for the receipt of in-state programming via satellite.’’ Id. 54 DIRECTV Comments at 7, n.20; DISH Comments at 3; NAB Comments at 3–4. See NPRM, para. 8. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.55 14. Upon further consideration pursuant to section 102(d) of the STELAR, we conclude that we will better effectuate the purposes of the STELAR (to promote consumer access to in-state programming) by also permitting a county governmental entity (such as a county board, council, commission or other equivalent subdivision) to file a satellite market modification petition, as advocated by some commenters.56 Allowing a county government to petition for market modification for its community is appropriate given our decision to define a satellite community on a county basis.57 We also are mindful of the record in the In-State Programming Report proceeding, which reflects numerous examples of counties in which consumers have little or no access to in-state broadcast stations.58 55 See Letter from Michael F. Bennet, U.S. Senator, Colo.; Cory Gardner, U.S. Senator, Colo.; and Scott Tipton, U.S. Representative, Colo. to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, dated April 14, 2015 at (‘‘Sen. Bennet et al. Letter’’). See also Letter from Mike D. Rogers, U.S. Representative, Ala.; Robert Aderholt, U.S. Representative, Ala. to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC dated May 12, 2015 at 1 (‘‘Rep. Rogers et al. Letter’’) (seeking role in market modification process for Counties, Parishes or the equivalent political subdivisions). Although no local government comments were filed in this docket, commenters in the docket relating to the STELA In-State Programming Report advocated to allow consumer concerns to be addressed more directly by permitting local governments to petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens. See In-State Programming Report, para. 58. 56 See id. 57 See infra section III.F. (Definition of Community). We note that a county (or its political equivalent) was the only jurisdictional definition for which commenters in this proceeding sought the ability to file market modification petitions. 58 See In-State Programming Report, at App. F (Case Studies) (discussing 35 counties in 13 DMAs with little or no access to in-state broadcast stations via satellite service). The In-State Programming Report, also described the impact on consumers in these orphan counties. See id. at para. 18 (‘‘Because the DMA may include one or more counties located in a different state from that of the DMA’s principal city or cities where most of the local television stations originate, some consumers through their MVPD, may receive only out-of-state stations and thereby lack access to in-state programming, including political and election coverage, public affairs programming, and weather and other emergency information. Consumers from disparate areas throughout the nation comment that they are deprived of vital information that is overwhelmingly available to other households across the country. Consumers in affected areas typically do not have access to programming content from in-state local television stations that cover the issues emanating from their state capitals and, as a result, believe they are less well served by the broadcast programming they are able to receive. Without such state-focused information and programming content, consumers express frustration at their inability to make informed election and other civic decisions. Additionally, some consumers indicate that they would prefer television advertising that supports their state VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 We acknowledge that station carriage relies in part on business decisions involving broadcasters and satellite carriers and that without the willing participation of the affected broadcaster, modifying the market of a particular television station, in itself, would not result in consumer access to that station.59 However, by allowing a county government to file a satellite market modification on behalf of its residents, we seek to empower orphan counties to eliminate certain legal barriers which may have deprived local residents of the cultural, sports, political and local news relevant to the state in which they reside.60 We recognize that economies rather than the out-of-state advertisements that air on the in-market stations they receive. Commenters opine that their inability to access in-state advertising has a continuing negative impact on their communities through the loss of revenue.’’). We also note that consumers have raised similar concerns in the record for the Commission’s pending Report to Congress on DMAs required by section 109 of the STELAR. See, e.g., Leroy Axtell Comments (seeking in-state stations for Fairfield County, CT); Spencer Karter Comments (seeking in-state stations for Greenville County, SC); Richard Bolt Comments in MB Docket No. 15–43 (filed May 15, 2015) (seeking in-state stations for Garrett County, MD); Kyle Ramie Comments in MB Docket No. 15–43 (filed May 6, 2015), Timothy Brastow Comments in MB Docket No. 15–43 (filed Mar. 24, 2015) and Jerome Gibbs Comments in MB Docket No. 15–43 (filed Jun. 2, 2015) (each seeking in-state stations for Bristol County, MA). 59 NPRM, para. 9. See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, para. 11(‘‘[t]he granting of a request to expand the market of a television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek must carry status on cable systems added to its market. A broadcaster is not required to seek carriage of its signal on all of the cable systems in its market.’’). Likewise, in the satellite context, the granting of a request to expand the market of a television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek mandatory carriage with respect to the new community, but does not require the broadcaster grant retransmission consent for it to be carried in the new community. Thus, our decision here about standing to file a satellite market modification should not be construed as affording a county government a right to demand carriage of a particular station via satellite in its county. Notwithstanding the grant of a petition to modify a market, a local broadcast station that elects retransmission consent with respect to the new community may not be carried without its express written consent. See 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1) (‘‘No cable system or other multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except (A) with the express authority of the originating station’’); 47 CFR 76.66. 60 See Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1 (seeking to ‘‘facilitate the ability of a community to voice its own opinion about the local television content that it would prefer to access’’). We also note that local government and consumer comments in a market modification proceeding can help demonstrate a station’s nexus to the community at issue. See Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1; Rep. Rogers et al. Letter at 1 (seeking to ‘‘allow Counties, Parishes or the equivalent political subdivisions to make public comments about the television content their community prefers.’’). For example, the Commission can consider consumer comments pursuant to the second statutory factor relating to a station’s local service to a community. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(ii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(II); Tennessee PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59641 our rules require petitioners to provide specific evidence to demonstrate the five statutory factors and that much of this information may not be easily obtained by county governments.61 To avoid dismissal based on a failure to meet our specific evidentiary requirements, we strongly encourage county government petitioners to enlist the aid and cooperation of the station they wish to bring to their county. Moreover, to the extent the involved station opposes carriage in the county, a county government may not want to go through the time and expense of filing a petition to expand such station’s market to include its county. 15. We acknowledge that we are implementing a procedural aspect of section 338(l)(1) in a manner that differs from our implementation of section 614(h)(1)(C)(i), despite the nearly identical language of the two provisions.62 We find that a different procedure is appropriate to implement STELAR’s directive in section 102(d) for purposes of filing a market modification petition in the satellite context. Significantly, the record and case studies in the 2011 In-State Programming Report show that the problem of subscriber access to in-state stations disproportionately affects satellite subscribers.63 Notably, the Commission frequently receives satellite consumer calls about this problem and other complaints about not receiving the consumers’ desired local station via satellite, while cable consumers rarely complain about this issue.64 This may be a product of the localized nature of cable systems as opposed to the national Broadcasting Partners, CSR 7596–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08–542, paras. 22–37 (MB rel. Mar. 10, 2008) (considering statements made by local officials). 61 See infra at para. 20 (Evidentiary Requirements). For example, a petitioner must provide contour maps and published audience data for the involved broadcast station. 62 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i). 63 See In-State Programming Report, at App. F (Case Studies) (discussing 35 counties in 13 DMAs with little or no access to in-state broadcast stations via satellite service). The BIA/Kelsey study submitted by NAB in the In-State Programming Report docket also illustrates this point, estimating that 0.1 percent of cable subscribers do not receive at least one in-state television station, while 2.2 percent of DISH subscribers do not receive at least one in-state television station and 6.1 percent of DIRECTV subscribers do not receive at least one instate TV station. In-State Programming Report, para. 44. 64 According to staff review, at least 165 consumers have called the Commission’s call center in 2015 to complain that their satellite carrier does not carry a particular station. See also, e.g., Leroy Axtell Comments at 1 (Fairfield County, Connecticut resident explaining that ‘‘Comcast and Frontier cable carry New York and Hartford/New Haven television channels,’’ while ‘‘Directv and Dish can presently carry only New York channels.’’) E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES nature of satellite service.65 The remote geographic location of orphan counties also contributes to the disproportionate impact on satellite subscribers. In the In-State Programming Report record, DIRECTV observed that ‘‘[b]ecause many orphan counties tend to be isolated, their residents tend to rely more on satellite than on cable for access to television programming.’’ 66 We also observe that the cable market modification process has worked well for more than 20 years and there is nothing in the record to suggest that changing the cable petition process to include local governments is necessary to effectuate the goals of the STELAR (to promote access to in-state programming) at this time. 16. We adopt our proposal to require petitioners (i.e., broadcast stations, satellite carriers and county governments) to file market modification requests for satellite carriage purposes in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.67 Commenters on this issue generally support our proposal.68 Consistent with section 76.7, a petitioner must serve a copy of its market modification request on any MVPD operator, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested party who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted, and we amend section 76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to reference ‘‘any MVPD operator.’’ 69 The NPRM sought comment on whether franchising authorities or certain local government entities (such as cities, counties, or towns) that may represent subscribers and local viewers in affected communities should be considered ‘‘interested parties’’ and served with market modification petitions.70 65 See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05–49, Report and Order, FCC 05–187, para. 44, 70 FR 76504, December 27, 2005 (2005) (SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order). 66 DIRECTV Comments in MB Docket No. 10–238 (filed Jan. 24, 2011) at 3–4, n.8. 67 NPRM, para. 10. See 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally required for the filing of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, 1.1117, 76.7. We remind filers that Special Relief petitions must be submitted electronically using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of Mandatory Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing System, Public Notice, DA 11–2095 (MB rel. Dec. 30, 2011). Petitions must be initially filed in MB Docket No. 12–1. Id. 68 NAB Comments at 3. 69 See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3). 70 See NPRM, para. 10. No parties filed comments advocating that cable franchise authorities be served with satellite market modification requests. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 Consistent with our decision above to permit a county government to file a petition, we find that the relevant county government is an ‘‘interested party’’ that must also be served with a satellite market modification petition.71 B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary Requirements 17. As discussed above, the purpose of market modification is to permit adjustments to a particular station’s local television market (which is initially defined by the DMA in which it is located) to better serve the value of localism by ensuring that satellite subscribers receive the broadcast stations most relevant to them.72 To this end, the STELAR requires the Commission to consider five statutory factors when evaluating market modification requests.73 As noted, the STELAR added a fifth factor (inserted as the new third statutory factor) for both cable and satellite to ‘‘promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.’’ 74 In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that this new third statutory factor is intended to favor a market modification to add a new community 75 if doing so would increase consumer access to instate programming.76 In the record, NAB and DISH appear to support this general conclusion; however, DISH states that we should consider under this factor whether the new community lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state We decline to require such notifications, given that cable franchising authorities have no role in satellite regulation. See DIRECTV Comments at 7, n.20; UCC Comments at 8. 71 If after due diligence, a petitioner is unable to identify the appropriate county government on which to serve its petition, the petitioner should request Commission staff assistance in this regard. 72 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the Commission to ‘‘afford particular attention to the value of localism’’ by taking into account the five statutory factors). 73 See supra para. 8. The Commission must also consider other relevant information to develop a result that is designed to ‘‘better effectuate the purposes’’ of the law. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1); Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, CS Docket No. 95–178, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 99–116, para. 53, 64 FR 33788, Jun. 24, 1999 (Cable Market Modification Second Report and Order). 74 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). We will refer to this new third statutory factor as the ‘‘in-state factor.’’ 75 For purposes of our discussion, by ‘‘new community’’ we refer to a new community to be added to a station’s local television market by grant of the prospective market modification. 76 NPRM, para. 11. The NPRM also asked if we should ‘‘require the petitioner to show that the station at issue is licensed to a community within the state in which the modification is requested and that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state stations?’’ NPRM, para. 13. PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 stations, while NAB states that the statutory language imposes no such requirement.77 In addition, NCTA expresses concerns about how we may evaluate market modification petitions under this new in-state factor, particularly in situations that would grant cable carriage rights to previously uncarried in-state stations.78 18. We conclude that the in-state factor favors any market modification that would promote consumers’ access to an in-state station.79 The language of this new statutory factor speaks clearly in this regard.80 Therefore, a petitioner will be afforded credit for satisfying this factor simply by showing that the involved station is licensed to a community within the same state as the new community.81 We disagree with those commenters that sought a requirement for more substantial showings, such as the lack of in-state stations in the new community, in order to get credit for satisfying this factor.82 We find that such additional showings are not necessary to satisfy this factor. We read the statutory language—in requiring the Commission to consider whether the prospective modification would ‘‘promote’’ consumers’ access to television broadcast station ‘‘signals’’ that originate in their state of residence—as applying to any situation that would increase access to in-state stations, regardless of whether there are other in-state stations present in the new community.83 However, we find that such additional showings can increase the weight afforded to this factor. For example, this factor may be found to weigh more heavily in favor of modification if the petitioner shows the involved station provides programming specifically related to subscribers’ state of residence, and may be given even more weight if such subscribers in the new community had little (or no) access 77 See DISH Comments at 3–4; NAB Comments at 5. 78 See NCTA Reply at 2–4. 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii) (‘‘whether modifying the market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence’’). 80 See id. See also NAB Comments at 5. 81 See infra at para. 20 (Evidentiary Requirements). 82 See DISH Comments at 4 (stating ‘‘a petitioner should have to ‘show . . . that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state stations’’’); NCTA Comments at 3 (stating ‘‘the Commission should assess whether cable customers already receive television stations that provide instate coverage’’). 83 See NAB Comments at 5 (‘‘The statute does not suggest that the Commission should take into account only those in-state market modification requests that would help to remedy a complete absence—or some minimum number—of in-state broadcast stations.’’). 79 See E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES to such in-state programming.84 We find that this interpretation of the factor will better effectuate its purpose, observing that the legislative history expresses Congress’ concern that ‘‘many consumers, particularly those who reside in DMAs that cross State lines or cover vast geographic distances,’’ may ‘‘lack access to local television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives’’ and indicates Congress’ intent that the Commission ‘‘consider the plight of these consumers when judging the merits of a [market modification] petition . . ., even if granting such modification would pose an economic challenge to various local television broadcast stations.’’ 85 We clarify, however, that this new factor is not universally more important than any of the other factors and its relative importance will vary depending on the circumstances in a given case.86 In sum, in market modification petitions involving the addition of an in-state broadcaster, the in-state factor does not serve as a trump card negating the other four statutory factors. Instead, where 84 See NAB at 5 (‘‘Consideration of the ‘in-state signal’ statutory factor also could involve an evaluation of programming or advertising on that station.’’) We note that our analysis of the in-state nature of the programming would be similar to our analysis of the local nature of the programming under the second statutory factor and would consider whether the television station provides programming specifically related to the subscribers’ state of residence. For example, under factor two, we consider whether the station has aired programming, such as news, politics, sports, weather and other emergency information, specifically targeted to the community at issue (e.g., town council meeting, news or weather event that occurred in the community, local emergencies, etc.). Under factor three, we would consider whether the station has aired programming, such as news, politics, sports, emergency information, specifically related to the state in which the community is located (e.g., coverage of state politics and legislative matters, state sports team coverage, state emergency information, etc.). 85 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 86 See Cable Market Modification Second Report and Order, para. 59 (stating that ‘‘it is inappropriate to state that one factor is universally more important than any other, as each is valuable in assessing whether a particular community should be included or excluded from a station’s local market, and the relative importance of particular factors will vary depending on the circumstances in a given case’’). See also, e.g., NCTA Reply at 2 (stating that ‘‘[w]hile promoting access to in-state programming is one factor in the market modification process, Congress preserved the other four factors as well. In evaluating any market modification petitions going forward, therefore, the Commission must consider all of the factors.’’); UCC Comments at 6 (stating that ‘‘the laudable goal of providing satellite subscribers with access to the signals of some television stations licensed to communities within the same state should not trump the value of local coverage provided by stations that happen to be licensed to communities in a different state so as to deprive satellite customers of access to the signals of those stations that are more truly ‘local’ than the more distant same-state stations.’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 applicable, we believe the in-state factor serves as an enhancement, the particular weight of which depends on the strength of showing by the petitioner. Ultimately, each petition for market modification will turn on the unique facts of the case.87 19. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the new in-state factor is not intended to bar a market modification simply because it would not result in increased consumer access to an in-state station’s programming.88 In such cases, we find that this new in-state factor would be inapplicable and the modification request would be evaluated based on the other statutory factors.89 Commenters on this issue support these tentative conclusions.90 We agree with commenters that the statute intended to promote access to instate programming, but did not intend to disfavor other market modification requests.91 87 For example, we agree with NCTA that we should consider the potential disruption to customers if grant of the modification request would displace service from a long-established network station. See NCTA Comments at 3–4 (stating ‘‘the Commission should consider the potential disruption to cable customers that could be caused by wholesale changes to markets. Market changes that would require operators to delete one group of broadcast stations in favor of another could upset long-established cable customer viewing patterns.’’). The Bureau has previously considered, in the cable context, whether grant of the market modification would ‘‘upset the economic marketplace expectations underlying the networkaffiliate relationship.’’ See, e.g., Broad Street Television, L.P., CSR–3868–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 95–1106, para. 12 (CSB rel. May 25, 1995); Guy Gannett Communications, Inc., CSR–5289–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 98–2464, para. 21 (CSB rel. Dec. 4, 1998), aff’d, Order on Reconsideration, DA 00–1325 (CSB rel. Jun. 19, 2000); Pacific & Southern Co., Inc., CSR– 5326–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99– 628, para. 25 (CSB rel. Apr. 2, 1999); Harron Communications Corp., CSR–5325–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99–627, para. 26 (CSB rel. Apr. 2, 1999); Free State Communications, LLC, CSR–8121–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 09–1206, para. 22 (MB rel. May 28, 2009). We note that, for must carry purposes, although cable operators are not required to carry duplicating stations or more than one local station affiliated with a particular network, if a cable system declines to carry duplicating stations, it must carry the station closest to the principal headend of the cable system, even if that station is from another state. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5). By contrast, in the satellite carriage context, a satellite carrier must carry two stations affiliated with the same network if they are from different states, see 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h)(1), and otherwise may select which duplicating station or network affiliate in a market it will carry. See 47 CFR 76.66(h)(2) through (3). Thus, the potential for market disruption is lower in the satellite context. 88 NPRM, para. 11. 89 Id. 90 See UCC Comments at 6–7; WVIR–TV Comments at 4; Tracy Comments at 1. 91 See UCC Comments at 6–7 (‘‘STELAR did not intend to forestall market modification requests that would not have the effect of supplying in-state programming to residents of ‘orphan counties.’ ’’); PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59643 20. Evidentiary Requirements. We adopt our proposal to apply the evidentiary requirements for cable market modifications to satellite market modifications.92 Commenters on this issue support this proposal.93 We find it appropriate, and that it promotes parity, to apply the same evidentiary requirements in both contexts, particularly given the same language is used in both the cable and satellite statutory factors and the record provides no basis for adopting a different interpretation in the satellite versus cable context.94 In addition, to implement our decision (above) that the in-state factor favors any market modification that would promote consumers’ access to an in-state station, we require the petitioner to make a statement in its petition whether or not the station is licensed to a community within the same state as the new community.95 We find this sufficient evidence to show that a station’s petition satisfies this factor. Accordingly, market modification requests for both satellite carriers and cable system operators must include the following evidence: 96 (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market; (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for full-power digital stations) or protected contour maps (for Class A and low power television stations) WVIR–TV Comments at 4 (asking Commission ‘‘not to confine any new rules to situations where a subscriber’s community or county is assigned to an out-of-state DMA by Nielsen’’); Tracy Comments at 1. 92 NPRM, para. 12. 93 See NAB Comments at 4–5; DISH Comments at 3–4. 94 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V). 95 See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(7). As noted above (see supra para. 18), to better effectuate the purpose of the law, we will consider (but not require) additional evidence showing the relevance of the in-state programming (including advertising) to the new community, as well as the absence of other instate stations in the new community, to evaluate the strength afforded to this factor. 96 See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(1) through (7). To make section 76.59(b)(6) consistent with the language of the STELAR, we are also updating the rule to reflect the change from ‘‘evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households . . .’’ to ‘‘evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors’’ in the fifth statutory factor (emphasis added). See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V). E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES delineating the station’s technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas. (3) Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local market. (4) Television station programming information derived from station logs or the local edition of the television guide. (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings. (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday– Saturday, 7 a.m.–1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records. (7) If applicable, a statement that the station is licensed to a community within the same state as the relevant community. As discussed above, DISH and NCTA sought additional evidentiary requirements for a petitioner to satisfy the in-state factor.97 Because we decide that the in-state factor generally favors any market modification that would promote consumers’ access to an instate station, we reject the suggestions by DISH and NCTA to require more evidence in this regard. As explained above, however, a petitioner may offer evidence concerning whether the television station provides programming specifically related to the subscribers’ state of residence, as well as the lack of other in-state stations providing service to subscribers in the new community, to demonstrate that the in-state factor should be afforded even greater weight.98 21. In addition, we adopt our proposal to revise section 76.59(b)(2) of the rules to add a reference to the digital noise97 See DISH Comments at 4 (suggesting that petitioners be required to ‘‘submit evidence to demonstrate that a substantial portion of the population in the geographic area covered by the request supports the change’’); NCTA Reply at 3 (suggesting that petitioning broadcasters ‘‘should demonstrate a historical pattern of providing significant in-state programming that is not otherwise available on the local DMA broadcast stations (or on any other station already carried on the system)’’). WVIR–TV opposed the DISH proposal, stating ‘‘DISH’s suggestion that a broadcaster seeking to be added to a market provide evidence of popular demand by viewers goes far beyond what is required in the cable context and should not be adopted.’’ WVIR–TV Reply at 5. 98 See supra para. 18. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 limited service contour (NLSC), which is the relevant service contour for a fullpower station’s digital signal.99 NAB, the only commenter on this issue, supports our proposal.100 Section 76.59(b)(2) requires petitioners seeking a market modification to provide Grade B contour maps delineating the station’s technical service area;101 however the Grade B contour defines an analog television station’s service area.102 Since the completion of the full power digital television transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog stations and, therefore, the Commission uses the NLSC set forth in 47 CFR 73.622(e),103 in place of the analog Grade B contour set forth in 47 CFR 73.683(a), to describe a full power station’s technical service area.104 Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has required full power stations to provide NLSC maps, in place of Grade B contour maps, for purposes of cable market modifications.105 Therefore, we adopt our tentative conclusion that 99 NPRM, para. 14; 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). Comments at 4. 101 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2). 102 See 47 CFR 73.683(a). 103 As set forth in section 73.622(e), a full-power station’s DTV service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited service level. See 47 CFR 73.622(e). 104 See STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, para. 51 (stating that the digital NLSC is ‘‘the appropriate service contour relevant for a station’s digital signal’’); 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 09–182, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10–92, para. 103, 75 FR 33227, June 11, 2010 (stating that the Commission developed the digital NLSC to approximate the same probability of service as the Grade B contour and has stated that the two are roughly equivalent); Report To Congress: The Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Reauthorization Act of 2004; Study of Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures; ET Docket No. 05–182, FCC 05–199, para. 111 (rel. Dec. 9, 2005). Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has used the digital NLSC in place of the analog Grade B contour in the cable context. See, e.g., KXAN, Inc., CSR–7825–N, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10–589, para. 8 n.32 (MB rel. Apr. 1, 2010) (using the NLSC in place of the Grade B contour for purposes of the cable network non-duplication and syndicated program exclusivity rules). Congress has also acted on the presumption that the two standards are roughly equivalent, by adopting parallel definitions for households that are ‘‘unserved’’ by analog (measured by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) broadcasters in the STELA legislation enacted after the DTV transition. See 17 U.S.C.U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A)(i). 105 See, e.g., Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, CSR–7596–A, Order on Reconsideration, DA 10– 824, para. 6, n.14 (MB rel. May 12, 2010) (stating, in a market modification order, that the Commission has treated a digital station’s NLSC as the functional equivalent of an analog station’s Grade B contour); Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC, CSR– 6278–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 04– 1414, para. 7, n.27 (MB rel. May 20, 2004). 100 NAB PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 section 76.59(b)(2) should be updated for purposes of market modifications in both the cable and satellite contexts. We also delete the reference in the rule to the Grade B contour because that reference has no relevance in the absence of full-power analog stations. We observe that, in the rare situation in which a Class A or LPTV station might seek a market modification, the relevant service contour for such stations would be its ‘‘protected contour.’’ 106 Accordingly, we revise our rule to reflect this contour. 22. Consistent with the cable carriage rule, we adopt our proposals that satellite market modification requests that do not include the required evidence be dismissed without prejudice and that they may be supplemented and re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.107 In addition, consistent with the cable carriage rule, we adopt our proposal that, during the pendency of a market modification petition before the Commission, satellite carriers will be required to maintain the status quo with regard to signal carriage and must not delete from carriage the signal of an affected commercial television station.108 NAB, the only commenter on these issues, supports our proposals.109 We adopt our proposals, which create regulatory parity with cable. C. Market Determinations 23. We adopt our tentative conclusion that market modifications in the satellite 106 The relevant technical service area for Class A and LPTV stations is defined by their protected contour, as defined in sections 73.6010 (Class A), 74.707 (analog LPTV) and 74.792 (digital LPTV) of the rules; 47 CFR 73.6010, 74.707, 74.792. Although LPTV stations are not entitled to mandatory satellite carriage, see 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(3), LPTV stations may be entitled to mandatory cable carriage, but only in limited circumstances. Both the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules mandate that only a minimum number of qualified low power stations must be carried by cable systems, see 47 U.S.C. 534(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.56(b)(3), and, in order to qualify, such stations must meet several criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(2)(A) through (F); 47 CFR 76.55(d)(1) through (6). Class A stations have the same limited must carry rights as LPTV stations; in other words, they are ‘‘low power stations’’ for mandatory carriage purposes. See Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00– 10, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01–123, paras. 40–42, 66 FR 21681, May 1, 2001. Finally, we note that the Media Bureau recently suspended the September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline for LPTV stations. (The Bureau’s action did not affect the September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline for Class A stations.) See Suspension of September 1, 2015 Digital Transition Date for Low Power Television and TV Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 03–185, Public Notice, DA 15–486, 80 FR 27862, May 15, 2015. 107 NPRM, para. 15. See 47 CFR 76.59(c). 108 NPRM, para. 15. See 47 CFR 76.59(d). See also 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(iii); Must Carry Order, para. 46. 109 NAB Comments at 4. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations carriage context will apply only to the specific stations and communities addressed in a particular market modification petition.110 NAB, the only commenter on this issue, supports our conclusion.111 Our conclusion is consistent with the cable carriage rules 112 and is based on the statute’s language granting authority to modify markets ‘‘with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station.’’ 113 It is also reasonable because market modification determinations are highly fact-specific and turn on whether a particular commercial television broadcast station serves the needs of a specific community. 24. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that we will consider market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite contexts.114 NAB and DISH, the only commenters on this issue, support our conclusion.115 We find this preferable given the differences in service area and community sizes between cable systems and satellite carriers.116 In contrast to the cable context, we must also consider the technical and economic capability of the satellite carriers at issue to effectuate a satellite market modification.117 25. Finally, we adopt our tentative conclusion that market modification requests will apply only to the satellite carrier or carriers named in the request.118 NAB and DISH support our conclusion,119 although DIRECTV believes this is unnecessary if we allow 110 NPRM, para. 16. Comments at 5. 112 See Must Carry Order, para. 47 n.139 (stating that ‘‘the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station’s market to reflect its individual situation’’); 47 CFR 76.59. We note that this is also consistent with the Commission’s previous determination that stations may make a different retransmission consent/mandatory carriage election in the satellite context from that made in the cable context. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, para. 23. 113 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1). 114 NPRM, para. 16. This is consistent with our conclusion below that prior cable market modification determinations will not automatically apply in the satellite context; see infra para. 26. 115 DISH at Comments 4; NAB Comments at 5–6. 116 See DISH Comments at 4. See also infra section III.F. (deciding that a ‘‘satellite community’’ for market modification purposes can be defined by a county). 117 See DISH Comments at 4–5. 118 NPRM, para. 16. This is also consistent with the satellite carriage election process. See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, CS Docket No. 00–96, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01–249, para. 62, 66 FR 49124, Sept. 26., 2001 (DBS Must Carry Reconsideration Order) (‘‘where there is more than one satellite carrier in a local market area, a television station can elect retransmission consent for one satellite carrier and elect must carry for another satellite carrier’’). 119 DISH at Comments 5; NAB Comments at 5. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 111 NAB VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 each satellite carrier to carry a station based on its respective spot beam coverage.120 We disagree with DIRECTV that this is unnecessary. Instead, we find that a modification may not always appropriately apply to both carriers. For example, the carriers’ spot beams may be different, even though they are serving the same market, and thus one may have an infeasibility defense while the other may not. 26. Prior Determinations. We adopt our tentative conclusion that prior cable market modification determinations will not automatically apply in the satellite context.121 We also decline to establish a presumption that prior cable determinations should apply to satellite markets.122 DISH, NAB, and DIRECTV support these conclusions,123 while Gray proposes that we establish a presumption that prior cable market modification determinations should apply to satellite markets.124 We find the same reasoning that requires us to consider market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite contexts also makes it inadvisable to apply prior cable market determinations to satellite markets. As discussed above, market modifications are specific to the stations, operators/carriers, and communities addressed in a particular market modification petition, as of the time of the petition. Given the differences in service areas and community sizes between cable systems and satellite carriers, and changes that may have occurred since the time of the cable petition, we conclude that it would not be reasonable to automatically apply prior cable market determinations to satellite carriers or establish a rebuttable presumption. We note that Gray’s proposal would have us establish a presumption for an entire county based on a finding with respect to a single cable community or several cable communities within a county.125 120 DIRECTV Comments at 9. 121 NPRM, para. 17. 122 NPRM, para. 17. 123 See DISH Comments at 4–5; NAB at 5–6; DIRECTV Reply at 9–10. See also DIRECTV ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2; DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. 124 Gray Comments at 4–5 (‘‘When a satellite market modification is requested for a county or counties where a previous cable market modification has been granted, the FCC should require only that a petitioner file a simple request that the station’s satellite market be modified to include the counties that include the communities associated with the earlier modification. Any party opposing the modification would have the burden of demonstrating that, notwithstanding the outcome of the earlier proceeding, the statutory factors do not support a market modification in the satellite context.’’). 125 Gray Comments at 4–6 (‘‘If a previous market modification proceeding has resulted in the PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59645 Moreover, we note that satellite carriers did not have the opportunity to participate in these prior market modification proceedings.126 We also agree with DIRECTV that establishing a presumption would be inconsistent with our statutory obligation to evaluate modifications based on the statutory factors.127 However, as noted in the NPRM, historic carriage is one of the five factors the Commission must consider in evaluating market modification requests and would carry weight in a market modification determination in the satellite context.128 We agree with NAB that consideration of this factor will give sufficient weight to prior decisions without the need to establish a presumption.129 27. Carriage after a market modification. We adopt our tentative conclusion that television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to section 76.66 of the rules) by virtue of a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to section 76.59 of the rules) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier.130 This is consistent with the cable rule.131 NAB and Gray support this conclusion,132 while DISH expresses concern that, as a result of a market modification (and an existing retransmission consent agreement with the involved station), it could have to carry and pay retransmission consent fees to two stations from different states but that are affiliated with the same network.133 DISH proposes that a station’s election with respect to the communities added by a market modification should be limited to mustcarry for the remainder of the carriage election cycle.134 NAB responds that assignment of additional communities to a television station’s cable carriage market, the FCC should presume that the county or counties in which those communities are located should be added to the station’s DBS market.’’). 126 DIRECTV correctly observes that there is no official list of previously-granted modifications. DIRECTV ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. 127 DIRECTV Reply at 9. 128 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i)(I) (whether the station, or other stations located in the same area— ‘‘have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community’’). 129 NAB Comments at 6. 130 NPRM, para. 18. See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(6). 131 See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5). 132 NAB Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 8; NAB Reply at 3. 133 See DISH Comments at 9–10. 134 See DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. We note that DISH initially agreed that a station should elect either retransmission consent or must- E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM Continued 02OCR1 59646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES ‘‘[s]atellite carriers cannot lawfully obtain a ‘free pass’ to carry retransmission consent stations without negotiating the prices, terms and conditions of such consent in any geographic area.135 Alternatively, DISH asks the Commission to ‘‘clarify that notwithstanding any retransmission consent agreements that would automatically entitle the station to carriage in additional geographic areas due to a market modification, the station must negotiate a new retransmission consent agreement for the new areas.’’136 NAB responds that ‘‘DISH and other satellite carriers must abide by provisions of the Communications Act and FCC rules governing retransmission consent and must-carry within a station’s market, including areas affected by a market modification.’’ 137 28. We reject DISH’s proposal to mandate a must-carry election for the remainder of the current election cycle because it directly contravenes section 325 of the Act and would be inconsistent with our satellite carriage rules.138 As with any other election for satellite carriage, we find that when a station’s market is modified for purposes of satellite carriage, then the station is entitled to elect either retransmission consent pursuant to section 325 or mandatory carriage pursuant to section 338 with respect to the new community or communities added to its market by the modification.139 This is also consistent with the cable market modification process 140 and, moreover, is required by application of sections 325 and 338 of the Act.141 Section 338(a)(1) requires that a satellite carrier must carry upon carry with the applicable satellite carriers for the new geographic area within 30 days of the market modification order. DISH Comments at 5. 135 NAB Reply at 2. 136 DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. DISH’s proposal recognizes that its concern is a short-term problem that would last for the length of any existing retransmission consent agreement. Id. In DISH’s scenario, after expiration of the existing agreements with the two same-network affiliates, we expect the marketplace would resolve this concern. 137 NAB Reply at 1, 3–5. See also 47 U.S.C. 325, 338 and 47 CFR 76.64 through 76.66. 138 See 47 U.S.C. 325(b) and 47 CFR 76.66. 139 See 47 CFR 76.66(c) (‘‘In television markets where a satellite carrier is providing local-into-local service, a commercial television broadcast station may elect either retransmission consent, pursuant to section 325 of title 47 United States Code, or mandatory carriage, pursuant to section 338, title 47 United States Code.’’). We thus agree with NAB that ‘‘a station electing retransmission consent with regard to a community or communities that become part of its defined market following a modification request is the same as any other station making a retransmission consent election.’’ NAB Reply at 3. 140 See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5). 141 See 47 U.S.C. 325, 338. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 request all local television stations seeking carriage in any market in which the carrier provides local-into-local service, subject to section 325(b) of the Act.142 Section 325(b)(1) prohibits an MVPD from retransmitting the signal of a broadcast station except ‘‘with the express authority of the originating station.’’ 143 The statute provides for no exception in the market modification context to the retransmission consent requirement. Thus, we reject DISH’s argument that the silence of section 102 of the STELAR with respect to retransmission consent means that Congress could not have intended retransmission consent to apply to the carriage of stations in communities added by market modification.144 To the contrary, considering the provisions together in context, we believe the better reading of the statute is that the retransmission consent requirement applies in this context given the absence of an express indication otherwise in either section 102 of STELAR or the retransmission consent provisions.145 We note that, while the network programming may be the same, the two stations would likely be providing very different local programming (e.g., different news, sports, advertising and political programming), each of which may be of interest to the new community, because the stations are licensed to different communities and particularly if the stations are located in different states. Finally, with respect to DISH’s proposal that we prevent application of an existing retransmission consent agreement containing a provision requiring carriage pursuant to its terms in the event the Commission modifies a given 142 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1). U.S.C. 325(b)(1). 144 See DISH Comments at 9–10. DISH also appears to argue that, because STELAR provides that a market modification could operate both to add communities to, and delete communities from, a station’s local market, the Commission could delete the community at issue from the existing network affiliate’s local market at the same time that it adds the new community to the local market of the same-network station seeking the market modification. Id. at 10. Under current rules, however, to delete the community at issue from the existing network station’s local market, DISH would have to file a separate petition to modify that station’s local market, based on the statutory factors. There is nothing in the record that persuades us to alter the existing process. 145 See STELAR section 102. See also 47 U.S.C. 325(b), 338(c)(1). We also disagree with Gray’s argument that the ‘‘substantial duplication’’ exceptions to the satellite mandatory carriage rules should not apply to stations in communities that have been added to their markets via the market modification process. Gray Comments at 8. Section 338(c)(1) speaks clearly on this point in permitting but not requiring a satellite carrier to carry more than one network affiliate licensed to the same state. 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1). 143 47 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 market, DISH provides no reasoning that persuades us to abrogate a bargained-for and agreed-to contractual provision between a broadcaster and a satellite carrier that expressly contemplates the addition of communities through the market modification process.146 We note, however, that the very purpose of this provision of the STELAR is to provide consumers with access to news, politics, sports, emergency and other programming specifically related to their home state.147 Accordingly, we expect broadcasters and satellite carriers alike will make the needs and expectations of orphan county consumers the priority in negotiating retransmission consent following a successful modification petition.148 We will monitor this situation closely and will take further action if such monitoring indicates that the purpose of this provision is not being effectuated. 29. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that a satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station.149 In the record, NAB and Gray support the 90-day deadline,150 while DISH asks for 120 days.151 The 90-day deadline is consistent with our cable rules,152 as well as with existing carriage procedures involving the addition of a new station to a carrier’s lineup 153 and we see no reason to deviate from the 90day deadlines in these similar contexts.154 Thus, we conclude that 90 146 See DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2 (stating that ‘‘[m]any retransmission consent contracts require DBS providers to carry a station’s signal throughout its local market, even if that local market’s boundary is changed by FCC action— meaning the DBS provider could be obligated to pay retransmission consent fees to two networkaffiliated stations in a given area pursuant to a market modification, even if these stations duplicate one another.’’). See also NAB Reply at 3 (opposing DISH’s various proposals to avoid paying retransmission consent fees). 147 See Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 148 See supra note 59 (describing the impact on consumers of residing in orphan counties) and note 65 (noting Commission receipt of at least 165 consumer complaints in 2015 that their satellite carrier does not carry a particular station). 149 NPRM, para. 18. 150 NAB Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 8; NAB Reply at 3. 151 DISH Comments at 5–6. We note that 120 days is inconsistent with DISH’s proposal that requests for carriage use the procedures governing carriage of new stations. DISH Comments at 5. 152 See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5). 153 See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3). We note that DISH’s proposal for 120 days to commence carriage is inconsistent with DISH’s proposal that requests for carriage use the procedures governing carriage of new stations. See DISH Comments at 5. 154 DISH speculates that ‘‘there may be timeconsuming technical or billing changes, among other things, necessary for the satellite carrier to undertake’’ in order to effectuate carriage of a market modification. DISH Comments at 5–6. We E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES days is an appropriate amount of, time for satellite carriers to commence carriage. We note that, as is the case in the cable context, the filing of a petition for reconsideration or application for review does not automatically stay the effect of a Bureau order to add a station to a new community; however, based on the directive in section 338(l)(3)(B)—the satellite counterpart to cable’s section 614(h)(1)(C)(iii)—a petition for reconsideration or application for review would automatically stay a Bureau order to delete a station in a community.155 Finally, we adopt our tentative conclusion that the carriage election must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 76.66(d)(1).156 see no evidence in the record to suggest that commencement of carriage after a market modification is more difficult or complicated in the satellite context or more difficult or complicated than adding a new station to a carrier’s lineup. 155 See NAB Comments at 6–7 (seeking clarification that ‘‘the filing of a petition for reconsideration or application for review does not relieve a cable or satellite provider of its obligation to commence carriage pursuant to a broadcaster’s must carry election or begin retransmission consent negotiations consistent with good faith requirements’’). In the Cable Market Modification Second Report and Order, paras. 63–64, the Commission found that section 614(h)(1)(C)(iii)— the cable counterpart to section 338(l)(3)(B)— ‘‘prohibits cable operators from deleting from carriage commercial broadcast stations during the pendency of a market modification request but does not address maintaining the status quo with respect to additions. Given the absence of a parallel statutory directive with respect to channel additions, we see no reason to depart from the general presumption that a decision is valid and binding until it is stayed or overruled. To the extent the process aids broadcast stations in both retaining and obtaining cable carriage rights, that appears to be the result intended by the statutory framework adopted.’’ See Cablevision Systems Corporation, CSR–3873–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96–1231, para. 11 (CSB, rel. Aug. 2, 1996) (explaining that ‘‘if we were to accept the general arguments for granting the stay raised by Time Warner and Cablevision, every initial market modification decision adverse to any cable operator would be postponed while either the Bureau or Commission acts on the petition for reconsideration or application for review. Such a result would unduly delay qualified television stations from realizing their statutory cable carriage rights.’’). See also Dynamic Cablevision of Florida Ltd., et al., CSR–4722–A, CSR–4707–A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97–191, para. 20 (rel. Jul. 1, 1997) (‘‘hold[ing] that a commercial television station may not be deleted from a cable system until the Commission has completed all administrative proceedings pertaining to a particular market redefinition . . . . There can be no question that Commission reconsideration or review of a Bureau market redefinition ruling is a ‘proceeding’ pursuant to the market re-definition section.’’). 156 NPRM, para. 18. Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier’s principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). The rule requires that a television station’s written notification shall include the following information: (1) Station’s call sign; (2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station’s address for VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility Exception for Satellite Carriers 30. We adopt our proposal to codify the language of section 338(l)(3), which provides that ‘‘[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.’’ 157 In enacting this provision, Congress recognized that the unique nature of satellite television service may make a particular market modification difficult for a satellite carrier to effectuate and, thus, exempted the carrier from the resulting carriage obligation.158 According to the record, spot beam coverage and capacity constraints (discussed below) are the primary technical and economic impediments to carriage facing both satellite carriers. Based on the constraints described in the record, we conclude that it is per se not technically and economically feasible for a satellite carrier to provide a station to a new community 159 that is, or to the extent to which it is,160 outside the relevant spot beam 161 on which that station is purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) Station’s community of license; (5) Station’s DMA assignment; and (6) Station’s election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). The rule also requires that, within 30 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station, a satellite carrier must notify the station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the station. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv). DISH proposes that requests for carriage follow the procedures outlined in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3), which governs written requests for carriage by new stations. DISH Comments at 5. However the carriage election procedures outlined in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3) expressly refer to the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1). See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii) through (iii) and (d)(3)(ii). The only difference is timing and even DISH agrees with the filing of an election within 30 days of the market modification order which is consistent with the 30 days in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1). 157 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). See 47 CFR 76.59(e). 158 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11 (recognizing ‘‘that there are technical and operational differences that may make a particular television market modification difficult for a satellite carrier to effectuate.’’). 159 For purposes of our discussion, by ‘‘new community’’ we refer to a new community to be added to a station’s local television market by grant of the prospective market modification. As discussed below in section III.F., a ‘‘community’’ for purposes of a satellite market modification is defined as a county. 160 This per se exemption is limited to areas outside the carrier’s spot beam. Thus, a satellite carrier will be required to carry the station to those areas inside the relevant spot beam even if part of the new community (i.e., county) is outside the relevant spot beam, in the absence of additional evidence of infeasibility. See infra paras. 34–35 (Partial Spot Beam Coverage). 161 Satellite carriers use spot beams to offer local broadcast stations. DIRECTV Comments at 2. PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59647 currently carried.162 We adopt our tentative conclusion that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate that the resulting carriage from a market modification ‘‘is not technically and economically feasible . . . by means of [a carrier’s] satellites in operation.’’ 163 In this regard, we will allow satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility by providing a detailed and specialized certification, under penalty of perjury (as described herein).164 In addition, with respect to other possible bases for a carrier to assert that carriage would be technically or economically infeasible, such as costs associated with changes to customer satellite dishes to accommodate reception from different orbital locations, we will review these assertions on a case-by-case basis. To avoid unnecessary burdens on broadcasters, satellite carriers, county governments and the Commission, we establish a process for prospective petitioners to obtain information from a satellite carrier regarding feasibility of carriage by the carrier prior to the filing of a market modification petition. We require satellite carriers to respond to broadcaster and county government requests for information about the feasibility of prospective market modifications with certifications and afford prospective petitioners with a process for Commission review of such certifications before filing a market modification petition. The Commission DIRECTV explains that ‘‘[s]pot-beam technology divides up a portion of the bandwidth available to a satellite into beams that cover limited geographic areas. Doing so allows particular sets of frequencies to be reused many times. This spectral efficiency unlocked the potential for satellite carriers to offer local broadcast signals in the late 1990s, and it enables satellite carriers to offer local service today.’’ Id. 162 See DIRECTV Comments at 9 (asking the Commission to find that ‘‘it is per se technically and economically infeasible for a satellite carrier to provide a station to subscribers who live in an area outside of the spot beam on which that station is currently carried.’’). For purposes of our discussion, we will refer to the spot beam on which the station is currently carried as the ‘‘relevant spot beam.’’ 163 NPRM, para. 19. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). The legislative history also indicates ‘‘that claims of the existence of such difficulties should be well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration process.’’ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. 164 We will refer to this as the ‘‘detailed certification.’’ See infra at section III.D.2. We base our proposal on DIRECTV’s suggested certification, which we find would meet the carrier’s burden to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility. See DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 3–4. To ensure the ongoing accuracy and veracity of the spot beam coverage infeasibility certification process, we may, in particular cases, require a satellite carrier to provide us with supporting documentation for the certification. 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations will not proceed to evaluate the five factors for a market modification with respect to a particular satellite carrier where it is shown that the resulting carriage obligation would not be technically and economically feasible at the time of the market determination. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 1. Technical or Economic Impediments to Carriage 31. The NPRM sought comment on the types of technical or economic impediments contemplated by section 338(l)(3) that would make satellite carriage infeasible in a new community.165 The NPRM also sought comment on any objective criteria by which the Commission could determine technical or economic infeasibility, such as spot beam coverage constraints.166 In response, we received very few comments on potential impediments except infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage and due to costs of making changes to customer satellite dishes. DIRECTV described spot beam coverage and capacity constraints as being the key technical and economic impediments to carriage.167 DIRECTV asserted, and DISH agreed, that carriage should be considered per se infeasible if the new community is outside the coverage of the spot beam that carries the station.168 The carriers explain that if the spot beam on which a station is being carried does not cover the new community, a satellite carrier ‘‘has no good [carriage] options available to it.’’ 169 Even if the spot beam on which a station is being carried covers the new community, DISH adds that carriage of the station may be infeasible if the station is carried on a different satellite at a different orbital position than the satellite providing the existing local 165 In particular, the NPRM sought comment on whether spot beam contour diagrams should be required to demonstrate spot beam coverage limitations. NPRM, para. 20 (‘‘Should we require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community? ’’). 166 NPRM, para. 20 (asking ‘‘Are there any objective criteria by which the Commission could determine technical or economic infeasibility? For example, the Commission has recognized that spot beam coverage limitations, in the provision of localinto-local service context, may be a legitimate technical impediment. Under what circumstances would the limitations or coverage of a spot beam be a sufficient basis for a satellite carrier to prove that carriage of a station in the community at issue is not technically and economically feasible?’’). 167 See DIRECTV Comments at 3–4, 8–9. In its comments, DISH generally observed that a satellite carrier may be unable as a technical or financial matter to comply with a market modification. DISH Comments at 7. 168 See DIRECTV Reply at 7; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. 169 DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 broadcast stations to the market.170 DISH explains that ‘‘it is possible’’ that this situation could require DISH to make equipment changes at ‘‘all or most households’’ in the new community.171 The broadcast comments do not substantively refute spot beam coverage and capacity constraints as legitimate technical or economic impediments, except to say that such constraints must be appropriately demonstrated, consistent with the statute and legislative history.172 32. We are persuaded by the satellite carriers that if the relevant spot beam does not cover the new community, then it is not technically and economically feasible for the carrier to provide the station to such new community.173 In such a scenario, the only available options would be to place the station on the satellite carrier’s CONUS beam 174 to reach subscribers in the new community, redirect each and every spot beam on the satellite in order to enable the relevant spot beam to cover the new community,175 or place the station on a second, neighboring spot beam that does cover the new community, if such a beam exists and has capacity. DIRECTV argues that it would be an ‘‘inefficient use of resources to devote a CONUS beam, which can be seen throughout the United States, to provide coverage to a single or handful of communities.’’ 176 Next, DIRECTV argues that, if the new community is covered by a different, neighboring spot beam than the one on which the station is carried, it would almost always lack space on such neighboring spot beam.177 Moreover, DIRECTV explains that, even if there were space, it ‘‘would have to reserve capacity on the entire ‘neighboring’ spot beam—capacity that could otherwise be used for a new station or a multicast signal carried throughout the neighboring market.’’ 178 Thus, it would be inefficient for the carrier to use that space on the neighboring spot beam for a station that could only be received by subscribers in a small part of the local market served by such spot beam.179 170 See DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3; DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1. 171 DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3; DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1 (explaining that ‘‘DISH offers local broadcast stations on spot beams on several satellites at a variety of different orbital locations. Therefore, it is possible that households in a given local market might be unable to receive a new broadcast station that was assigned by Nielsen to a different market unless the households, among other things, have a second satellite dish installed, have an existing satellite dish replaced, or have an existing satellite dish repositioned. Where this is the case, it is possible that all or most households in the geographic area impacted by a market modification would require a DISH technician to visit their home to make these equipment changes, which would be technically and economically infeasible.’’). (DIRECTV does not indicate that it would have this same problem.) 172 See Gray Comments at 6–7 (‘‘Gray understands and appreciates the technical burdens that satellite operators face in adding signals to their satellite systems, but . . . Satellite operators therefore should be permitted to claim this exemption only in limited circumstances’’); NAB Comments at 9 (‘‘NAB urges the Commission to require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community’’); NAB Reply at 2–3 (saying that claims of infeasibility must be ‘‘well substantiated and carefully examined’’); WVIR–TV Reply at 2, para. 2 (asserting that the purpose of STELAR would be defeated if satellite operators do not ‘‘bear the burden of proving the validity of an assertion of infeasibility’’); WVIR–TV ex parte (dated Jul. 2, 2015) at 2 (same). 173 See DIRECTV Reply at 7; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. 174 DIRECTV carries all of its national programming on satellite beams that cover the entire contiguous United States (‘‘CONUS’’). DIRECTV Comments at 2. ‘‘DIRECTV carries New York and Los Angeles stations on CONUS beams, but only because those stations are offered throughout the country as distant signals pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 119 and 47 U.S.C. 339.’’ DIRECTV Comments at 2, n.3. 175 See DIRECTV Comments at 6–7, n.16. 176 DIRECTV Reply at 7; DIRECTV Comments at 8. The Commission has previously recognized that ‘‘to carry a local channel on a transponder designated for CONUS would be particularly inefficient as that channel could only be permissibly viewed in a single DMA.’’ Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules; Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues, CS Docket No. 00– 96, Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08–86, para. 11, 73 FR 24502, May 5, 2008 (Satellite DTV Carriage Order). We note, however, that if the station seeking the market modification was already being carried on a CONUS satellite (e.g., the New York or Los Angeles stations), then carriage of such station would not be per se infeasible in a new community. 177 DIRECTV explains that it ‘‘has designed its spot beams to carry only the primary signals of stations within the local markets they cover. The vast majority of its spot beams are now currently full. In most cases, DIRECTV could not add a station to a ‘neighboring’ spot beam without removing one of the stations already on that beam.’’ DIRECTV Comments at 8, n.24. 178 DIRECTV Comments at 9 (explaining that ‘‘[r]eserving spot-beam capacity for a station that could only be received in at most a handful of communities would represent a significant waste of spectral resources.’’); DIRECTV Reply at 8 (explaining that devoting capacity to the station on a neighboring spot beam ‘‘could preclude DIRECTV from carrying a new station that later commences service’’ and also ‘‘would certainly preclude DIRECTV from using the capacity in question to benefit viewers throughout the [local television market at issue],’’ such as by adding a multicast feed from a local station.). 179 We thus disagree with NAB that a satellite carrier should be required to show that the station could not be added to a spot beam different than the one on which the station is currently carried that does cover the new community. NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 3 (arguing that ‘‘the DBS carrier should be required to certify that the spot beam that does serve the affected communities does not have the capacity to carry the station unless PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Finally, DIRECTV argues that redirecting the entire array of spot beams on the satellite, would cause unacceptable consequences to existing local service.180 We agree with these points and conclude that each of these options are per se technically and economically infeasible.181 Accordingly, we conclude that ‘‘it is per se technically and economically infeasible for a satellite carrier to provide a station to subscribers who live in an area outside of the spot beam on which that station is currently carried.’’ 182 This conclusion is consistent with the Commission’s past recognition and acceptance of the service constraints associated with the use of spot beams.183 This means that, if a carrier shows that the relevant spot beam does not provide coverage to the new community, then that is a per se demonstration of infeasibility. Thus, for example, a carrier would not need to show that there is no space on a neighboring spot beam or that it cannot reconfigure a spot beam to effectuate carriage. 33. We recognize that there may be other technical or economic another channel is deleted (or other technical or economic reason)’’). We find that the financial and opportunity costs associated with requiring a carrier to use scarce capacity on a second spot beam for a station that could only be received by subscribers in a small part of the local market served by such spot beam makes carriage on such spot beam per se infeasible. See DIRECTV Reply at 9. 180 See DIRECTV Comments at 6–7, n.16 (explaining that it generally cannot ‘‘move’’ spot beams on a satellite—except for SPACEWAY satellites which are being replaced—and that it could ‘‘slightly adjust the entire array of spot beams on the satellite simultaneously,’’ but this would affect the local service provided by all of the spot beams on the satellite, thus ‘‘disrupt[ing] [local] service across dozens of markets and negat[ing] DIRECTV’s efforts to optimize population coverage.’’); DIRECTV Reply at 7 (‘‘moving the entire array of spot beams means subscribers in portions of the [local television market at issue] and many other markets would lose all the local stations they now receive.’’). 181 See DIRECTV Reply at 7–9; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. 182 DIRECTV Comments at 9; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. 183 In the DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, the Commission allowed satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to provide local-intolocal service, even if the spot beam did not cover the entire market. DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, para. 42. The Commission ‘‘observe[d] that section 338 does not require a satellite carrier to serve each and every county in a television market. Rather, it requires that in the areas it does provide local-into-local service, it must carry all local television stations subject to carriage under the statute.’’ Id. The Commission ‘‘recognize[d] that there are some markets, such as the Denver DMA encompassing counties in four states, that are geographically expansive’’ and that ‘‘[a] spot beam may not be able to cover the entire DMA in these instances, and to make the satellite carrier reconfigure its spot beam may deprive it of capacity to serve additional markets with local-into-local coverage.’’ Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 impediments to carriage that could qualify for the infeasibility exception. For example, DISH explains that it provides local broadcast stations from spot beams on several satellites at a variety of different orbital locations and that each subscriber’s satellite dish must be pointed and configured to receive signals from a particular orbital location.184 Therefore, even if the station is on a spot beam that covers the new community, carriage of the station in the new community could still be infeasible if the station is carried on a different satellite at a different orbital location than the satellite providing local service to that community, because such carriage would require DISH to install a second satellite dish, replace an existing satellite dish, or reposition an existing satellite dish, at ‘‘all or most households’’ in the new community.185 We do not have sufficient information in the record to determine that the costs of customer equipment changes to accommodate reception from different orbital positions should be treated as per se infeasible. We will therefore consider assertions of this and other types of infeasibility on a case-by-case basis. 34. Partial Spot Beam Coverage. The NPRM sought comment on how to handle a situation in which only part of a community could be served with the relevant spot beam.186 The satellite carriers oppose having to serve part of a community if the entire community is not covered by the spot beam, 187 but DIRECTV says it determines spot-beam coverage based on zip codes and asserts that it would be able to serve a 184 DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3. 185 See DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3 (arguing such situation ‘‘would impose very significant costs’’ and should constitute economic infeasibility). In this presumably rare situation, the station at issue is on a spot beam that covers the new community, but this spot beam is different than the spot beam providing local service to the new community. (In other words, there are two spot beams that cover, to some extent, the new community at issue.) In addition, the two spot beams are on different satellites located at different orbital positions and, therefore, subscribers in the new community will need two satellite dishes pointed in different directions to get both the original local stations from one spot beam and the new local station from the second spot beam. 186 NPRM, para. 20 (‘‘To the extent that a satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to some, but not all, subscribers in the community, should we allow or require the carrier to deliver the station to subscribers in the community who are capable of receiving the signal?’’). 187 See DISH Comments at 8–9 (arguing that ‘‘any finding of technical or economic infeasibility should excuse a satellite carrier entirely from accommodating a market modification request, even if the satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to some, but not all, relevant subscribers’’); DIRECTV Reply at 11, n.36 (agreeing with DISH). PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59649 community defined as a county based on those zip codes within the county.188 NAB argues, however, that if carriage is viable within portions of a community that is the subject of a market modification request, then satellite carriers should be required to carry the station in those areas.189 We conclude that, if a satellite carrier can provide the station to only part of a new community, then it must do so. 35. As discussed above, the statute requires a satellite carrier to carry a station pursuant to a market modification, unless it is not technically and economically feasible for the carrier to do so. Given the relatively large size of many counties, we conclude that it would be a disservice to consumers, and would not fully effectuate the mandate of the satellite market modification provisions of the STELAR, to presume that partial carriage to a county-defined community is per se infeasible. We are not persuaded by DISH that requiring such partial coverage of a county would necessarily ‘‘be burdensome and cause customer confusion for a satellite carrier to target the carriage of a station down to such a granular level, for example by providing a different local broadcast station to a subset of subscribers.’’ 190 DISH provides no evidence of the burdens associated with partial carriage. Any ‘‘confusion’’ is outweighed by the benefits of providing the added station to the customers who can receive it, consistent with Congressional intent in expanding market modification to satellite carriage. On a case-by-case basis, we will consider whether the area of a new community in which service is feasible is so de minimis that addition of that community to the station’s market is effectively infeasible. We also disagree with DIRECTV to the extent that it claims that ‘‘there is no underlying requirement to provide service in any particular area to begin with,’’ and therefore ‘‘the Commission need not ‘excuse’ any particular [market modification].’’ 191 Pursuant to the ‘‘carry one, carry all’’ statutory requirement, a satellite carrier must carry, on request, all local television broadcast stations’ signals in local markets in which the satellite carrier carries at least one local television broadcast signal pursuant to the statutory copyright license.192 188 See DIRECTV Reply at 11–12. NAB Comments at 9. 190 DISH Comments at 8–9. 191 DIRECTV Reply at 11, n.36. 192 See 47 U.S.C. 338. This requirement is subject to exceptions for duplicating stations and lack of good quality signal, as specified by statute and 189 See E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM Continued 02OCR1 59650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Furthermore, the statutory language of the infeasibility exception in section 338(l)(3) contemplates that a carriage obligation would result from a market modification.193 If carriage were merely discretionary for the carrier, then there would be no need for the infeasibility exception to relieve the carrier of a carriage obligation. Therefore, if the carrier is providing local television broadcast stations to the new community pursuant to the local statutory copyright license, then it must also provide a station that becomes eligible for carriage as a local station in the new community by operation of the market modification.194 2. Demonstrating Infeasibility asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 36. Based on the record, we expect the vast majority of satellite carrier claims of infeasibility will be related to insufficient spot beam coverage. Because of the technical complexities involved in demonstrating spot beam coverage infeasibility, including the use of proprietary confidential information, we establish a streamlined process for carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility through the use of detailed certifications under penalty of perjury, based on a proposal by DIRECTV. Because of the limited record with respect to other possible claims of infeasibility, and our expectation that such other claims will be relatively rare, we do not at this time establish a detailed certification process for demonstrating other types of infeasibility. Instead, carriers will be required to demonstrate other types of infeasibility through the submission of evidence specifically demonstrating the technical or economic reason that carriage is infeasible. Although prospective petitioners will have two options for seeking a Commission regulation. See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1), (c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1), (h)(1) through (2). 193 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (‘‘[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations . . .’’ if carriage ‘‘is not technically and economically feasible. . .’’). 194 See 47 U.S.C. 338(a). We note that, by operation of the market modification, the station will be afforded ‘‘carry one, carry all’’ carriage rights in the area of the new community in which a carrier provides the other local broadcast stations to the extent the spot beam on which it is carried covers such area of the new community. See id. If the spot beam on which the new local station is carried is different than the one providing localinto-local service to the new community, and therefore the spot beam coverage for the two beams will be different, there may be an area in the new community that had not been receiving local-intolocal service, but could receive the new local station. In this situation, the new station by operation of the market modification would be eligible for carriage as a local station in such area of the new community, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 338(a) (‘‘carry one, carry all’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 determination about the carrier’s claim of infeasibility (i.e., filing a market modification petition or filing a separate petition beforehand solely with respect to the infeasibility issue), the requirements for demonstrating infeasibility are the same for both options. 37. The NPRM tentatively concluded that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility and invited comment on the type of evidence needed to prove such infeasibility claims.195 Most commenters, including the broadcasters and DISH, agree that the statute places the burden on satellite carriers to demonstrate infeasibility; 196 however, satellite carriers contend that a certification should be sufficient to meet its burden,197 while broadcasters say an ‘‘unverifiable’’ certification would be inadequate to meet their burden under the statute and that a carrier should be required to provide documentation that demonstrates infeasibility.198 38. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the statute places the burden on satellite carriers to demonstrate infeasibility if they assert that carriage of a station in a new community would be technically or economically infeasible. Our conclusion is consistent with the legislative history that claims of infeasibility be ‘‘well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission].’’ 199 Moreover, we agree with commenters that, as a practical paras. 19–20. Comments at 7; Gray Comments at 6–7; NAB Comments at 7; WVIR–TV Reply at 1. 197 DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1 (stating that its proposed detailed certification would ‘‘easily satisfy any requirement that satellite carriers ‘substantiate’ and the Commission ‘examine’ the technical and economic infeasibility of spot-beam carriage in these areas, even though no such requirement appears in the statute itself.’’); DISH Comments at 7 (‘‘the Commission should limit the required showing to a certification from the satellite carrier that it has analyzed the proposed market modification and has determined that it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage. A certification should be sufficient, because the types of evidence that the Commission might request could be technically or competitively sensitive, such as spot beam contour maps, cost of equipment upgrades, and subscriber numbers in a given geographic area.’’). 198 See NAB Reply at 2 (quoting legislative history that ‘‘Congress intended satellite carrier claims of technical and economic infeasibility ‘should be well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration process.’ ’’); WVIR–TV Reply at 2 (arguing that the purpose of STELAR is frustrated if satellite carriers are not required to actually prove infeasibility). See also NAB Reply at 3 (‘‘an approach that involves only an unverifiable certification would be inadequate’’); Gray Comments at 6 (arguing that satellite carrier claims of infeasibility must be ‘‘conclusively demonstrated’’). 199 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11. matter, only the satellite carriers have the specific information necessary to determine if the carriage contemplated in a market modification would not be technically and economically feasible by operation of their satellites.200 39. We adopt a certification process for carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility that should avoid imposing undue expense on, or compromising the confidential business information of, the satellite carriers while also providing the Commission with an appropriate basis for making market modification determinations. We conclude that a detailed certification submitted under penalty of perjury would satisfy the carrier’s burden under the statute to substantiate their claims of insufficient spot beam coverage and allow us to carefully examine such claims of infeasibility.201 Broadcasters argue that ‘‘the mere ‘certification’ proposed by satellite carriers would not comport with the legislative intent of the technical and economic infeasibility provision’’ and that ‘‘an approach that involves only an unverifiable certification would be inadequate.’’ 202 Instead, broadcasters argue that satellite carriers should be required to make detailed technical showings related to spot-beam coverage.203 NAB argues that if the Commission chooses to use a certification approach, then we should at least require certain supporting documentation be provided with the certification or in the event of a Commission audit of a certification.204 195 NPRM, 196 DISH PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 200 See DISH Comments at 7; WVIR–TV Reply at 1. 201 DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1. Reply at 2. See also WVIR–TV Reply at 2 (opposing DISH’s proposal to ‘‘self-certify’’ without providing supporting documentation). WVIR–TV explains that ‘‘[s]ince information about feasibility is entirely within the possession of the DBS operator, the DBS operator should bear the burden of proving the validity of an assertion of infeasibility. Otherwise, broadcasters will be completely at the mercy of DBS operators who oppose market modifications, largely defeating the purpose of the STELAR statute, if not rendering it a nullity.’’ Id. NAB also argues that a certification approach ‘‘would also be inconsistent with the Commission’s longstanding approach to market modification requests in the cable context, which involve a substantial evidentiary showing.’’ NAB Reply at 2–3. The issue of infeasibility, however, is separate from our analysis of the merits of modifying a market under the statutory factors. 203 See NAB Comments at 9 (asking the Commission ‘‘to require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community’’ and ‘‘to document that reconfiguring a spot beam, or adding a station to another spot beam that does cover an affected community would be technically or economically infeasible’’); Gray Comments at 6 (arguing that satellite carriers should ‘‘be required to conclusively demonstrate technical infeasibility’’). 204 See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 1– 2. 202 NAB E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations We agree that a simple certification would not be appropriate, but we also agree with DIRECTV that it would be anomalous to require compendious and detailed evidentiary showings for spot beam coverage of modified local markets when such showings are not (and have never been) required for the provision of local service to unmodified local markets.205 Therefore, we adopt a certification process that requires satellite carriers to evaluate the feasibility of providing the station to the new community in the same manner that it currently uses to determine where in the relevant DMA it can provide the current local broadcast stations.206 These ‘‘detailed certifications’’ about spot beam coverage infeasibility must contain sufficient detail to ensure that the analysis performed by the carrier was appropriate and valid, and they will be subject to penalties for perjury to ensure its reliability. The Commission’s review of the detailed certification will generally be limited to determining whether it satisfies the procedural and content requirements described herein.207 Although we will not require carriers to provide supporting documentation as part of their certification, as an additional check the Commission may decide to look behind any certification and require supporting documentation when we deem it appropriate, such as when there is evidence that the certification may be inaccurate.208 40. Supporting Documentation. In the event that we require supporting documentation, we will require a satellite carrier to provide its ‘‘satellite link budget’’ calculations that were created for the new community. DIRECTV explains that a ‘‘satellite link budget is a calculation that accounts for certain factors that affect a radio signal as it travels from an uplink earth station to a space station and back down through the atmosphere to the customer’s earth station receiver’’ and that this technical document ‘‘generally takes the form of a table, with entries that include (among other things) transmit power from the uplink earth station and from the satellite, antenna gains, system noise, intersystem interference, and atmospheric attenuation including the effects of ‘rain fade.’ ’’ 209 DIRECTV states that the net result of this satellite link budget calculation ‘‘is an estimation of end-toend satellite link performance.’’ 210 DIRECTV pointed out that the supporting materials suggested by NAB are in fact inputs for ‘‘link budgets.’’ 211 We agree with DIRECTV and NAB that it would be appropriate to require a carrier to submit satellite link budget information if the Commission were to determine in a given case that supporting documentation should be provided to support a detailed certification.212 Thus, we require satellite carriers to retain such supporting documentation in the event that the Commission determines further review by the Commission is necessary. Satellite carriers must retain such supporting documentation throughout the pendency of Commission or judicial proceedings involving the certification and any related market modification petition.213 We find this retention 209 DIRECTV asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 205 DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1. In other words, because a carrier does not normally have to demonstrate insufficient spot beam coverage with respect to the provision of local service to a local television market (i.e., a carrier provides local service in the areas of the market covered by the relevant spot beam), it would be inconsistent to require a carrier to make a detailed demonstration of insufficient spot beam coverage with respect to the provision of local service to a new community added to such market. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, para. 42 (allowing satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to provide local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not cover the entire market). 206 We note that this certification process will be explained in the consumer guide that we create to comply with the STELAR section 102(c). 207 See infra at para. 41 (Content of Spot Beam Coverage Infeasibility Detailed Certification). 208 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403. If we find that a satellite carrier is claiming infeasibility with respect to a significant number of requests, we may decide to start routinely requiring that carrier to provide supporting documentation with its certification. See infra at para. 40 (Supporting Documentation). See also NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (urging the Commission to require carriers to file certain materials supporting certifications). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 ex parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 1. 210 Id. 211 Id. NAB stated that detailed certifications provided by the carrier to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility should be supported by the following documentation: ‘‘(1) the latitude and longitude of the calculation point used for each zip code in analyzing (a) the measured performance of the spot beam covering station’s local market; (b) the estimated atmospheric effects for reception of the signal; and (c) the estimated levels of interference]; (2) predicted clear-sky signal level based on actual spot beam performance; (3) rain fade statistics and predicted reductions in signal level; (4) predicted levels of inter-system interference; and (5) determination of service or ‘‘no service’’ at the calculation point (in map form with county boundaries shown).’’ See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2. 212 See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2; DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 1 (‘‘if a satellite carrier were to certify that it could not serve some or all of a proposed modified area, and Commission staff were to find a genuine dispute of fact related to such certification, the Commission could require the satellite carrier to submit a representative link budget for the area in question for staff review on a confidential basis.’’). 213 See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (seeking carrier retention of supporting material ‘‘for a period of either: (i) Two years; or (ii) PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59651 period will provide parties with a reasonable amount of time to challenge certifications. If satellite carriers have concerns about providing proprietary and confidential information underlying their analysis, they may request confidentiality.214 41. Content of Spot Beam Coverage Infeasibility Detailed Certification. Based on DIRECTV’s proposed detailed certification,215 a satellite carrier’s certification of infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage must contain the following elements in order to be used and relied upon as evidence to demonstrate carrier claims of technical and economic infeasibility. First, the detailed certification must explain why carriage is not technically and economically feasible, including a detailed explanation of the ‘‘process by which a satellite carrier has determined whether or not the spot beam in question covers the geographic area at issue.’’ 216 Second, to ensure equal treatment to all stations, the detailed certification must state that the satellite carrier ‘‘has conducted this analysis in substantially the same manner and using substantially the same parameters used to determine the geographic area in which it currently offers stations carried on the spot beam.’’ 217 Finally, the satellite carrier must support its detailed certification with an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, as contemplated under section 1.16 of the Commission’s rules and 28 U.S.C. 1746,218 signed and dated by an authorized officer of the satellite carrier with personal knowledge of the representations provided in the certification, verifying the truth and accuracy of the information therein.219 42. We will consider on a case-by-case basis other claims of technical or economic infeasibility, such as DISH’s throughout the pendency of Commission or judicial proceedings involving the certification and any related market modification petition, whichever is longer’’); DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 2. (‘‘Satellite carriers could be required to preserve records sufficient to generate such a representative link budget, presumably during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.’’). 214 See 47 CFR 0.457, 0.459, 76.9. 215 See DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 3–4. We find that DIRECTV’s proposed detailed certification would meet a satellite carrier’s burden to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility. 216 DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 23, 2015) at 1. 217 DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 4. 218 47 CFR 1.16 (Declarations under penalty of perjury in lieu of affidavits). See 28 U.S.C. 1746. 219 We further note that willful false statements in a certification are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, may result in loss of a satellite carrier’s licenses and authorizations (47 U.S.C. 312), and may subject the satellite carrier to forfeiture (47 U.S.C. 503). See also 47 CFR 1.17. See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2–3. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES claim of infeasibility due to the costs associated with changing customer satellite dishes to accommodate reception from different orbital locations. In addition, there may be circumstances of technical and economic infeasibility not yet contemplated. As discussed above, a satellite carrier bears the burden of demonstrating that the carriage contemplated in a market modification would not be technically and economically feasible by operation of its satellites. To demonstrate such infeasibility, a carrier must provide detailed technical or economic information to substantiate its claim of infeasibility. 3. Infeasibility Determinations 43. We will resolve disputes about carrier claims of infeasibility either in the context of a market modification proceeding or, at a prospective petitioner’s option, in a separate proceeding before a market modification petition is filed. Thus, a prospective petitioner has two options. First, a prospective petitioner may file its market modification petition. In such cases, a satellite carrier would raise any claim of infeasibility in response to the petition and we would make a determination about the validity of such claim (and would not further process a petition for which the resulting carriage is infeasible). We recognize that prospective petitioners may want to know about carrier’s claims of infeasibility, and may want a Commission determination about the validity of such claim, before filing a market modification petition. Therefore, a prospective petitioner’s second option is to initiate the pre-filing coordination process (described below). Through this process, a prospective petitioner would request information from a carrier about infeasibility and a carrier would raise any claim of infeasibility in response to this request in the form of a certification. A carrier claiming spot beam coverage infeasibility must provide the detailed certification (described above). For all other claims of infeasibility, the certification provided for here is for the purpose of a carrier to notify the prospective petitioner about the carrier’s claim of infeasibility prior to a petition being filed. The prospective petitioner can then decide whether it would like to file a special relief petition to obtain a Commission determination about the validity of the carrier’s claim of infeasibility.220 220 As discussed above, in cases other than spot beam coverage infeasibility, a carrier will be VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 44. The NPRM tentatively concluded that a satellite carrier must raise any technical or economic impediments in the market modification proceeding.221 The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission, in the case of satellite market modifications, should require or encourage stations seeking market modifications to contact a satellite carrier before filing a market modification request in order to get an initial determination of whether the carrier considers the request technically and economically feasible.222 The NPRM observed that such an initial inquiry might save some broadcasters the time and expense of compiling the standardized evidence for a modification that is not technically and economically feasible by alerting them to the technical or economic issue, which they could then take into account in deciding whether to file the request.223 45. Most commenters support addressing satellite carrier claims of infeasibility before a broadcaster files a prospective market modification petition; 224 however, NAB argues that a satellite carrier’s claim of infeasibility should not preclude the filing of a market modification petition.225 Commenters seem to agree that satellite carriers generally must raise claims of technical and economic infeasibility during, if not before, the market modification proceeding.226 required to provide evidence to support its claim of infeasibility. In the case of a claim of spot beam coverage infeasibility, the Commission’s review of the certification will generally be limited to determining whether it meets with the requirements for a ‘‘detailed certification.’’ See supra section III.D.2. 221 NPRM, para. 19. The NPRM further considered whether the satellite carrier should be deemed to have waived technical or economic infeasibility arguments if not raised in response to the market modification request (and, thus, be prohibited from raising such a claim after a market determination, such as in response to a station’s request for carriage). Id. 222 NPRM, para. 21. 223 NPRM, para. 21. 224 DIRECTV Comments at 11; Gray Comments at 6; WVIR–TV Reply at 2 n.1. 225 NAB Comments at 9–10. 226 See NAB Comments at 7 (stating that ‘‘the statute requires satellite carriers to raise any technical or economic impediments in the context of the market modification proceeding’’); Gray Comments at 6 (stating ‘‘the rules should require satellite providers to assert technical infeasibility before broadcasters go through the trouble and expense of preparing a market modification petition’’); DIRECTV Comments at 11 (stating that it would be willing to provide a certification to broadcasters about ‘‘whether DIRECTV’s spot beam covers the communities they would like to add to their local markets’’ before a broadcaster seeks a prospective market modification because ‘‘[s]uch information . . . would prove of most value to stations before they undergo the time and effort of filing a market modification petition.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Broadcasters, however, argue that a satellite carrier should be deemed to have waived technical and economic infeasibility claims if not raised in or before a market modification proceeding,227 while DIRECTV argues that satellite carriers should not be precluded from raising future claims of infeasibility, such as technical infeasibility due to reduced spot beam coverage.228 46. We conclude that it is most efficient and practical for stakeholders to consider and resolve satellite carrier claims of technical or economic infeasibility before petitioners go through the time and expense of seeking a prospective market modification and before the Commission uses administrative resources to evaluate the merits of a prospective market modification petition under the five statutory factors. Therefore, we slightly modify our tentative conclusion and proposal.229 We conclude that a satellite carrier must raise any technical or economic impediments either in the market modification proceeding or prior to the market modification proceeding in response to a broadcaster or county government inquiry about feasibility of carriage resulting from a prospective market modification.230 47. Pre-Filing Coordination Process. We establish a process that will allow a prospective petitioner (broadcaster or county government), at its option, to obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about whether or not (and to what extent) carriage resulting from a contemplated market modification is technically and economically feasible for such carrier before the prospective petitioner undertakes the time and expense of preparing and filing a market modification petition.231 To initiate this 227 NAB Comments at 7 (stating that ‘‘that a satellite carrier be deemed to have waived technical and economic infeasibility arguments if they are not raised during a market modification proceeding’’); Gray at 6 (asserting that ‘‘[f]ailure to assert ‘technical infeasibility’ at this stage of the process would foreclose the satellite provider from later claiming technical infeasibility.’’). 228 DIRECTV Comments at 10 n.28 (‘‘The possibility of technical problems reducing spotbeam coverage serves as yet another reason why satellite carriers should not lose ‘rights’ to assert feasibility issues if they do not raise them during a market modification proceeding’’). 229 NPRM, para. 19. 230 In the event that a previously feasible market modification were to later become infeasible (e.g., due to reduction of spot beam coverage), the satellite carrier must file a petition for market modification to delete the previously added new community from the station’s local market and provide evidence of infeasibility (e.g., spot beam infeasibility certification). See DIRECTV Comments at 10 n.28. 231 See Gray Comments at 7 (stating ‘‘there should be a procedure for resolving disputes over technical E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations process, a prospective petitioner may make a request in writing to a satellite carrier for the carrier to provide the certification about the feasibility or infeasibility of carriage. A satellite carrier must respond to this request within a reasonable amount of time by providing a feasibility certification to the prospective petitioner. A satellite carrier must also file a copy of the correspondence 232 and feasibility certification it provides to the prospective petitioner in this docket electronically via ECFS 233 so that the Media Bureau can track these certifications and monitor carrier response time. If the carrier is claiming spot beam coverage infeasibility, then the certification provided by the carrier must be the same type of detailed certification that would be required in response to a market modification petition (discussed above).234 For any other claim of infeasibility, the carrier’s feasibility certification must explain in detail the basis of such infeasibility 235 and must be prepared to provide documentation in support of its claim, in the event the prospective petitioner decides to seek a Commission determination about the validity of the carrier’s claim. If carriage is feasible, a statement to that effect must be provided in the certification. To obtain a Commission determination about the validity of the carrier’s claim of infeasibility, a prospective petitioner must either file a (separate) petition for special relief 236 or its market modification petition.237 48. For purposes of determining a reasonable amount of time for a carrier to respond to a request for a feasibility certification, we find a carrier should generally respond within 45 days of receipt of a prospective petitioner’s written request; 238 however, we find that it would be reasonable for the carrier to respond in 90 days if the carrier has to process several requests at the same time.239 If the response is after 45 days, the carrier must provide an explanation for the longer time period in its certification (e.g., having to respond to multiple simultaneous requests).240 With this process, we are trying to balance the need to provide broadcasters’ with as fast a response as possible, while recognizing that satellite carriers may have difficulty responding to numerous requests at once. 49. The NPRM proposed that a meritorious market modification request would be granted even if such grant would not create a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility.241 The NPRM explained that this would ensure that, if there is a change in circumstances such that it later becomes technically and economically feasible for the satellite 236 See 47 CFR 76.7. Bureau may on its own motion review the adequacy of a certification filed in the docket, but generally a prospective petitioner must request such review by filing a petition for special relief; 47 CFR 76.7. See Gray Comments at 7 (stating ‘‘[i]f a broadcaster wishes to challenge the satellite operator’s showing, it should be permitted to do so either before filing a market modification petition or concurrent with a petition as part of the market modification proceeding.’’); NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (stating that ‘‘the satellite carrier’s determination should be reviewable by the FCC and result in a final FCC action that could be the subject of a petition for reconsideration, applications for review (and ultimately, court review’’). 238 See Gray Comments at 6 (stating that satellite carriers should be required to respond to requests about spot-beam coverage within a ‘‘specified period’’ such as 30 or 45 days). 239 DIRECTV explains that ‘‘while DIRECTV will endeavor to respond to any and all requests as soon as it can, it should not be required to do so in fewer than 90 days, particularly if required to respond to multiple simultaneous requests.’’ DIRECTV Reply at 10. 240 If the Media Bureau finds that a carrier is routinely taking up to 90 days to respond or is not providing a reasonable explanation for when it takes 90 days to respond, the Bureau may order such carrier to respond to future requests in a shorter time period or may take other enforcement action. 241 NPRM, para. 19. The NPRM noted that this is consistent with the cable carriage context, in which the Commission might grant a market modification, even if such grant would not result in a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to the station being a duplicating signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 237 The infeasibility before broadcasters invest in making the necessary market modification showing’’); DIRECTV Comments at 11 (‘‘the most efficient process regarding feasibility would be for a station that is considering filing a market modification petition to first ask the two satellite carriers if they can provide the station in the communities proposed’’). Although we encourage prospective petitioners to utilize the optional procedure for obtaining information and, if necessary, Commission determinations regarding carrier claims of infeasibility, we decline to require this preliminary procedure in order to provide petitioners with flexibility to decide which procedure is best suited for their situation. 232 Correspondence would include, for example, a brief cover letter and the prospective petitioner’s initiating request for the feasibility certification provided. 233 A satellite carrier must file the correspondence and feasibility certification electronically into this docket through the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’) using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ . The filing must be clearly designated as a ‘‘STELAR feasibility certification’’ and must clearly reference this proceeding and docket number (MB Docket No. 15–71). 234 See supra at paras. 39–41. NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (with respect to a ‘‘prefiling process,’’ stating that ‘‘the satellite carrier should be required to undertake the same steps and make the same certification that would be involved in connection with an actual petition’’). 235 The carrier must state in its certification that the new community is covered by the relevant spot beam, but carriage is nevertheless infeasible and explain why. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59653 carrier to carry the station, then the station could assert its carriage rights pursuant to the earlier market modification.242 The NPRM also sought comment on whether to impose a reporting requirement on satellite carriers to notify the affected broadcaster if circumstances change at a later time making it technically and economically feasible for the carrier to carry the station.243 NAB supports the proposal to grant a meritorious market modification request, even if the grant would not create a new carriage obligation at that time because of a finding of technical or economic infeasibility.244 Commenters split regarding whether to require satellite carriers to provide notice if and when carriage later becomes feasible. Broadcasters support such a requirement,245 while satellite carriers oppose it.246 50. We conclude that we will not grant a market modification petition that could not create a new carriage obligation at that time due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility. We find that our conclusion is more consistent with the statute’s requirement that a market modification ‘‘shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier’’ if it is infeasible ‘‘at the time of the determination.’’ 247 We also note that 242 NPRM, para. 19. This concept is similar to the duplicating signals situation, in which a satellite carrier must add a television station to its channel line-up if such station no longer duplicates the programming of another local television station. See 47 CFR 76.66(h)(4). Alternatively, the NPRM sought comment on whether we should deny a market modification request that would not create a new carriage obligation at the time of the determination. NPRM, para. 19. 243 NPRM, para. 20. The NPRM asked ‘‘Would such changes in circumstances be sufficiently public so as to not necessitate the burden of such a reporting requirement? If not notified by the carrier, how else could a broadcaster find out about such a change in the feasibility of carriage?’’ Id. 244 NAB Comments at 7–8. 245 See Gray Comments at 7 (‘‘Satellite operators likewise should be required to notify broadcasters and the FCC within sixty days of any change that results in previously infeasible carriage becoming feasible.’’); NAB Comments at 8; WVIR–TV Reply at 3. Gray suggests that this requirement include notice to the broadcaster and the Commission within sixty days of feasibility, as well as periodic reports affirming continued infeasibility. Gray Comments at 7. 246 See DISH Comments at 8 (arguing that ‘‘a [reporting] requirement would be unduly burdensome for the satellite carrier because it would require a carrier to constantly track and reevaluate an unknown number of market modification requests.’’); DIRECTV Comments at 10 (‘‘the Commission should not require ongoing monitoring or reporting of spot beam issues. . . . [A]bsent technical problems reducing spot-beam coverage, spot beams remain static for the life of the satellite.’’). 247 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). See also Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11 (indicating an E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM Continued 02OCR1 59654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations claims of infeasibility related to a carrier’s satellites are not likely to change for the life of a satellite, which can be as long as 15 years.248 Because we will not grant a market modification for which carriage would be infeasible, we find it unnecessary to require satellite carriers to provide notice if and when carriage later becomes feasible. Instead, a petitioner may re-initiate the process if at a later time a satellite carrier has deployed new satellites that could change this feasibility determination. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive Distant Signals via Satellite 51. We adopt our proposal to codify the language of section 338(l)(5), which provides that ‘‘[n]o modification of a commercial television broadcast station’s local market pursuant to this subsection shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.’’ 249 We also adopt our interpretation of this provision as an exception to the restrictions on a satellite subscriber’s eligibility to receive ‘‘distant’’ (out-of-market) signals.250 Commenters on this issue supported our proposal.251 52. The Communications Act and copyright laws set out two key restrictions on a satellite subscriber’s eligibility to receive ‘‘distant’’ (out-ofmarket) signals.252 First, subscribers are generally eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier only if the subscriber is ‘‘unserved’’ over the air by a local station of the same network.253 expectation that ‘‘a petitioner may refile its petition if at a later time a satellite carrier has deployed new satellites that could change this feasibility determination’’). 248 See DIRECTV Comments at 10 (‘‘absent technical problems reducing spot-beam coverage, spot beams remain static for the life of the satellite’’); DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 2 (‘‘While the figure varies for individual satellites, 15 years represents a good ‘rule of thumb’ for the life of a direct-to-home geostationary satellite.’’). See also Amendment of Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, IB Docket No. 00–248, First Report and Order, FCC 02–45, para. 143, 67 FR 12485, Mar. 19, 2002. 249 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5); NPRM, para. 22. See 47 CFR 76.59(f). 250 NPRM, para. 22. 251 See DIRECTV Comments at 8 n.21; DISH Comments at 6. 252 See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a station is considered ‘‘distant’’ with respect to a subscriber if such station originates from outside of the subscriber’s local television market (or DMA). See id. 253 The Copyright Act defines an ‘‘unserved household,’’ with respect to a particular television network, as ‘‘a household that cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air signal VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 Second, even if ‘‘unserved,’’ a subscriber is not eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier if the carrier is making ‘‘available’’ to such subscriber a local station of the same network.254 We conclude that section 338(l)(5) is largely intended as an exception to these two subscriber eligibility requirements. In other words, we find that the addition of a new local station to a local television market by operation of a market modification (which might otherwise restrict a subscriber’s eligibility to receive a distant station) would not disqualify an otherwise eligible satellite subscriber from receiving a distant station of the same network. For example, a subscriber may be receiving a distant station because the subscriber resides in a ‘‘short market,’’ 255 has obtained a waiver from the relevant network station,256 or is otherwise eligible to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339. That subscriber will continue to be eligible to receive the distant station after a market modification that adds a new local station of the same network. 53. The NPRM sought comment on whether section 338(l)(5) also means that the deletion of a local station from a local television market by operation of a market modification would not make otherwise ineligible subscribers now eligible to receive a distant station of the same network.257 We agree with DIRECTV that this provision ‘‘was meant to ensure that households would containing the primary stream, or, on or after the qualifying date, the multicast stream, originating in that household’s local market and affiliated with that network—(i) if the signal originates as an analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the Federal Communications Commission in section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or (ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal, intensity defined in the values for the digital television noise-limited service contour, as defined in regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (section 73.622(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations), as such regulations may be amended from time to time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved household can also be one that is subject to one of four statutory waivers or exemptions. See 47 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(B) through (E). 254 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3). This second restriction on eligibility is commonly referred to as the ‘‘no distant where local’’ rule. A satellite carrier makes ‘‘available’’ a local signal to a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier offers that local signal to other subscribers who reside in the same zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F). 255 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). By a ‘‘short market,’’ we refer to a market in which one of the four major television networks is not offered on the primary stream of a local broadcast station, thus permitting satellite carriers to deliver a distant station affiliated with that missing network to subscribers in that market. 256 See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E). 257 NPRM, para. 22. PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 not lose eligibility for distant signals for which they were eligible prior to modification’’ and should not ‘‘be interpreted as denying distant signals to subscribers who newly become eligible for them because they have lost their local signals through market modification.’’ 258 Thus, the deletion of a local network station from a community by operation of a market modification may allow a satellite carrier to import a distant station of the same network into such community, provided subscribers in such community would now satisfy the requirements for receipt of distant stations (pursuant to section 339). F. Definition of Community 54. For purposes of a satellite market modification, we define a ‘‘satellite community’’ as a county, which is supported by all commenters on this issue.259 Consistent with the cable context, in a market modification request, the petitioner will define the satellite community (or communities) to be added or deleted from a particular station’s local television market. We also retain our existing definition of a ‘‘cable community’’ for purposes of a cable market modification, having received no comment on this issue. 55. In the NPRM, as directed by the STELAR,260 we sought comment on how to define a ‘‘community’’ for purposes of market modification in both the cable and satellite contexts.261 The concept of a ‘‘community’’ is important in the market modification context because the term describes the geographic area that will be added to or deleted from a station’s local television market (based on the statutory factors), which in turn determines the stations that must be carried by a cable operator or a satellite carrier to subscribers in 258 DIRECTV Comments at 7–8, n.21. 47 CFR 76.5(gg)(2). See DISH Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 3; UCC Comments at 8; Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1. See also DIRECTV Reply at 11–12 (stating a county-based definition was acceptable, if certain conditions were met). 260 Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR requires the Commission to ‘‘update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market’’ in both the satellite and cable contexts. See STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. The legislative history indicates Congress’ intent for the Commission ‘‘to consider alternative definitions for community that could make the market modification process more effective and useful.’’ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12. 261 See NPRM, para. 23. In considering how to define a ‘‘satellite community’’ for purposes of a satellite market modification, the NPRM sought comment on whether to use a cable communitybased definition (as was done in the significantly viewed context; see 47 CFR 76.5(gg)), a zip codebased definition, and/or a county-based definition. See NPRM, para. 25. 259 See E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES that community.262 Because of the localized nature of cable systems, cable communities are usually easily defined by the geographic boundaries of a given cable system, which are often, but not always, coincident with a municipal boundary and may vary as determined on a case-by-case basis.263 In the cable carriage context, the Commission considers market modification requests on a community-by-community basis 264 and defines a community unit in terms of a ‘‘distinct community or municipal entity’’ where a cable system operates or will operate.265 A ‘‘satellite community,’’ however, is not as easily defined as a cable community. Unlike cable service, which reaches subscribers in a defined local area via local franchises, satellite carriers offer service on a national basis, with no connection to a particular local community or municipality. Moreover, satellite service is sometimes offered in areas of the country that do not have cable service, and thus cannot be defined by cable communities. 56. Satellite Community. We define a ‘‘satellite community’’ on a county basis. All commenters on this issue support this definition.266 DISH and Gray assert that the use of a county definition will better address the orphan county problem.267 In addition, UCC 262 See NPRM, para. 24. See also 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). 263 See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations with Respect to the Definition of a Cable Television System and the Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No. 20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77–205, para. 20 n.5, 42 FR 19329, Apr. 13, 1977 (1977 Cable Order) (citing Amendment of Parts 21, 74, and 91 to Adopt Rules and Regulations Relating to the Distribution of Television Broadcast Signals By Community Antenna Television Systems, and Related Matters, Docket Nos. 14895, 15233, 15971, Second Report and Order, FCC 66–220, para. 149, 31 FR 4540, Mar. 17, 1966 (‘‘community’’ as used in the rules must be determined case-by-case depending on the circumstances involved). 264 See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that the cable carriage rules apply ‘‘on a community-by-community basis’’). See also 47 CFR 76.5(dd), 76.59. 265 See 47 CFR 76.5(dd). A cable system community is assigned a community unit identifier number (‘‘CUID’’) when registered with the Commission, pursuant to section 76.1801 of the rules. 47 CFR 76.1801. 266 See DISH Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 3; UCC Comments at 8; Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1. See also DIRECTV Reply at 11–12 (stating a county-based definition was acceptable, if certain conditions were met). 267 See DISH Comments at 6 (‘‘a county-based definition will most effectively promote consumer access to in-state programming’’); Gray Comments at 3 (‘‘county-by-county approach would best carry out Congress’ intent to give the FCC the tools necessary to solve the ‘orphan county’ problem in appropriate cases’’). Gray also states that ‘‘a countyby-county approach better suits the way that satellite providers actually provide service.’’ Gray Comments at 3–4. DISH also observes that ‘‘[t]his VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 observes that ‘‘[c]ounty-wide data is more easily available than communityspecific data.’’ 268 We agree. DIRECTV, who initially supported only zip codes, stated in its reply that it could support a county-based definition, as long as satellite carriers are not required to provide service to the parts of a modified market outside the market’s spot beam.269 We agree with commenters that a county definition is better suited for the national nature of satellite service and will most effectively promote access to in-state programming for subscribers in orphan counties. In addition, we agree that county-wide data will work effectively and is easily available. We also take note of the support for a county definition from both broadcasters and satellite carriers. Thus, we are persuaded that allowing satellite market modifications on a county basis would best effectuate the satellite market modification provision. 57. We find this approach preferable to defining a ‘‘satellite community’’ on a cable community 270 or zip code basis. In the NPRM, we considered a cable community and/or a zip code as two possible definitions of a satellite community for purposes of market modification.271 No commenters supported the cable community-based definition. We observed the Commission’s use of a cable community-based definition in the significantly viewed context.272 As noted above, satellite carriers, unlike cable systems, have no connection to a particular local community or municipality. Given this fact, and based on the absence of any support for this definition, we reject a cable communitybased definition for the satellite market modification context. DIRECTV approach mirrors the existing statutory special exceptions in section 122 designed to address orphan counties, such as the provision allowing a satellite carrier to provide in-state local broadcast stations to two counties in Vermont that are assigned to out-of-state DMAs.’’ DISH Comments at 6 (citing 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(4)(B)). 268 UCC Comments at 8. 269 DIRECTV Reply at 11–12. DIRECTV initially conditioned its support for a county-based definition on our requiring broadcasters to provide the zip codes corresponding with the county in the market modification petition. Id. DIRECTV later clarified that ‘‘it should be a relatively easy task for either satellite carriers or broadcasters to associate zip codes with particular market modification requests.’’ DIRECTV ex parte (dated July 9, 2015) at 2. 270 The NPRM considered the ‘‘satellite community’’ definition in the significantly viewed context, which is based on the definition of a ‘‘cable community.’’ NPRM, para. 25. See 47 CFR 76.5(gg) (defining a ‘‘satellite community’’ for the significantly viewed context). 271 See NPRM, para. 25. 272 See 47 CFR 76.5(gg). PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59655 supports the use of zip codes, explaining it determines spot-beam coverage based on zip codes, but (as noted above) expressed qualified support for a county-based definition.273 DISH opposes the use of zip codes, explaining that its systems recognize DMA boundaries based on counties, and that it would be burdensome to do zipcode-based modifications.274 Given DIRECTV’s qualified support for a county-based definition and DISH’s difficulties associated with the use of zip codes, we reject a zip-code-based definition for the satellite market modification context. 58. Definition of ‘‘Cable Community’’ for Cable Market Modifications. We adopt our tentative conclusion to retain the existing definition of a ‘‘cable community.’’ 275 No comments were filed on this issue. Section 76.5(dd) of the rules defines a ‘‘community unit’’ as ‘‘[a] cable television system, or portion of a cable television system, that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas).’’ 276 We conclude that this definition has worked well in cable market modifications for more than 20 years and should not be changed. We find that retaining the cable definition best effectuates the cable market modification provision. Although (as discussed herein) we allow a satellite community to be defined on a county basis, we see no reason to change the definition to allow cable modifications on a county basis. Despite our objective of treating satellite market modifications and cable market modifications similarly where feasible, we find that practical differences justify different treatment on this issue. IV. Procedural Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 59. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),277 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this 273 DIRECTV Comments at 12; DIRECTV Reply at 11. 274 DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 3. NPRM, para. 23. 276 47 CFR 76.5(dd). 277 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 275 See E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations proceeding.278 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.279 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 60. This Report and Order adopts rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (‘‘STELA Reauthorization Act’’ or ‘‘STELAR’’).280 The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station’s local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.281 The Commission previously had the authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.282 With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming. Significantly, the STELAR added a new factor for the Commission to consider when evaluating a market modification petition—‘‘whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.’’ 283 Section 102 of the STELAR, and the Commission’s actions in this Report and Order, seek to establish a market modification process for the satellite carriage context and, to the extent possible, address satellite subscribers’ inability to receive in-state programming in certain areas. In this Report and Order, consistent with Congress’ intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, the Commission adopts rules to implement section 102 278 See Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Market Modification; Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014; MB Docket No. 15–71, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15–34, 80 FR 19594, Apr. 13, 2015 (NPRM). 279 See 5 U.S.C. 604. 280 The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060–62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). See Report and Order, para. 1. 281 STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060–62, 2067. 282 See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 76.59. 283 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.284 For example, the STELAR recognizes that satellite carriage of additional stations pursuant to a market modification might be technically and economically infeasible in some circumstances.285 In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs the Commission to consider whether it should make changes to the current cable market modification rules,286 and it also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision.287 Accordingly, as part of the implementation of the STELAR, the Commission makes conforming and other minor changes to the cable market modification rules. 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 61. No public comments were filed in response to the IRFA. 62. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.288 The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding. 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will Apply 63. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules will apply.289 The RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 290 In addition, the term 284 See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission revises section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers. 285 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (stating that ‘‘[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.’’). 286 STELAR sec. 102(d). 287 See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)). 288 See 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). 289 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4). 290 5 U.S.C. 601(6). PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ under the Small Business Act.291 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.292 The rule changes adopted herein will directly affect small television broadcast stations, small MVPD systems, which include cable system operators and satellite carriers and small county governmental jurisdictions. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible. 64. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as ‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.’’ 293 Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.294 We estimate that, of this total, a substantial majority may qualify as ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 295 Thus, 291 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 292 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission’s statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 293 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 294 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, Table 427 (2007). 295 The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89,476 local governments in 2007. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Table 428. The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of fewer than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5). However, since the Census Bureau, in compiling the cited data, does not state that it applies that criterion, it cannot be determined with precision how many such local governmental organizations are small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable that a substantial number of these governmental organizations have a population of fewer than 50,000. To look at Table 428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many sub-entities that may well be small are included in the 89,476 local governmental organizations, e.g., county, municipal, township and town, school district and special district entities. Measured by a criterion of a population of fewer than 50,000, many of the cited sub-entities in this category seem more likely E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 65. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) defines ‘‘Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ as follows: ‘‘This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.’’ 296 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category of ‘‘Wired Telecommunications Carriers.’’ Under this category, a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.297 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.298 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.299 Therefore, under than larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. Accordingly, of the 89,746 small governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority are small. 296 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. Examples of this category are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (‘‘CCTV’’) services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (‘‘DTH’’) services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (‘‘MMDS’’). 297 13 CFRCFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 298 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 299 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. 66. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above.300 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.301 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.302 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.303 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. 67. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission’s rate regulation rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.304 According to the Television and Cable Factbook, there are 856 cable operators.305 Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard.306 In 300 See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ naics/naicsrch. 301 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 302 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 303 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 304 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92–266, MM Docket No. 93–215, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, FCC 95–196, 60 FR 35854, July 12, 1995. 305 See Warren Communications News, ‘‘Television and Cable Factbook 2015’’, Cable Volume 2, at D–1073—D–1120. We note that, according to NCTA, there are 660 cable systems. See NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable Operators and Systems, https://www.ncta.com/ Statistics.aspx (visited Aug. 6, 2015). Depending upon the number of homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable operators use one or more cable systems to provide video service. See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12–203, Fifteenth Report, FCC 13–99, para. 24 (rel. July 22, 2013) (15th Annual Competition Report). 306 SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, https://www.snl.com/interactivex/ PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59657 addition, under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.307 Current Commission records show 4,562 cable systems nationwide.308 Of this total, 4,000 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 562 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small. 68. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ 309 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.310 Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). We note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14 MVPD operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Competition Report, paras. 27– 28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The Commission applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11–93, Report and Order, FCC 11– 182, para. 37, 77 FR 40276, July 9, 2012 (CALM Act Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011). 307 47 CFR 76.901(c). 308 The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database on August 6, 2015. A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend. We note that, according to NCTA, there are 5,208 cable systems. See NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable Operators and Systems, https://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx (visited Aug. 6, 2015). 309 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1–3. 310 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01–158 (CSB, rel. Jan. 24, 2001) (establishing the threshold for determining whether a cable operator meets the definition of small cable operator at 677,000 subscribers and stating that this threshold will remain in effect for purposes of section 76.901(f) until the Commission issues a superseding public notice). We note that current industry data indicates that there are approximately 54 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today and that this updated number may be considered in developing size standards in a context different than section 76.901(f). NCTA, Industry Data, Cable’s Customer Base (June 2014), https://www.ncta.com/ industry-data (visited June 25, 2014). E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES standard.311 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.312 Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under this definition. 69. Satellite Carriers. The term ‘‘satellite carrier’’ means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service licensed under Part 25 of the Commission’s rules to operate in the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) frequencies.313 As a general practice (not mandated by any regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities package their own programming and may or may not be Commission licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station license.314 The Commission has concluded that the definition of ‘‘satellite carrier’’ includes all three of these types of entities.315 311 See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, https://www.snl.com/interactivex/ TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). 312 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to [47 CFR] 76.901(f) of the Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f). 313 The Communications Act defines the term ‘‘satellite carrier’’ by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C.119(d)(6). Part 100 of the Commission’s rules was eliminated in 2002 and now both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under Part 25 of the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 02–110, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148. 314 See, e.g., Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request For Special Temporary Authority for the DIRECTV 5 Satellite; Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request for Blanket Authorization for 1,000,000 Receive Only Earth Stations to Provide Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the U.S. using the Canadian Authorized DIRECTV 5 Satellite at the 72.5° W.L. Broadcast Satellite Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04– 2526 (Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004). 315 SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, FCC 05–187, paras. 59–60. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 70. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’ antenna at the subscriber’s location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA’s broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,316 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.317 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.318 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.319 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled ‘‘Cable and Other Program Distribution.’’ The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.320 Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.321 Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial 316 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (‘‘By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.’’). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ naics/naicsrch. 317 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 318 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 319 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 320 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002). 321 See 15th Annual Competition Report, at para. 27. As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 million subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 million subscribers. Id. at paras. 27, 110–11. PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 wherewithal to become a DBS service provider. 71. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA’s broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,322 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.323 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.324 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.325 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. 72. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the Cband frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired 322 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (‘‘By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.’’). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ naics/naicsrch. 323 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 324 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 325 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Telecommunications Carriers.326 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.327 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.328 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.329 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. 73. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers.330 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,331 OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.332 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.333 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.334 Of this total, 3,144 firms 326 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (‘‘By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.’’). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ naics/naicsrch. 327 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 328 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 329 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 330 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 06–189, Thirteenth Annual Report, FCC 07–206, para. 135, 74 FR 11102, March 16, 2009 (2009) (‘‘Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report’’). 331 See 47 U.S.C. 573. 332 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https:// www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 333 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 334 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.335 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.336 Broadband service providers (‘‘BSPs’’) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.337 The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. 74. Wireless cable systems— Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 338 and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 339 to transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.340 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 335 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 336 A list of OVS certifications may be found at https://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html. 337 See Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report, para. 135. BSPs are newer businesses that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network. 338 BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS). See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94–131, PP Docket No. 93–253, Report and Order, FCC 95–230, para. 7, 60 FR 36524, Jul. 17, 1995. 339 EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). See id. 340 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59659 considered small entities.341 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.342 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.343 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.344 Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses. 75. In addition, the SBA’s placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,345 341 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. 342 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, AU Docket No. 09–56, Public Notice, DA 09–1376 (WTB rel. Jun. 26, 2009). 343 Id. 344 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, DA 09–2378 (WTB rel. Nov. 6, 2009). 345 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https:// www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations which was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.346 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.347 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.348 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission’s internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses.349 The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.350 76. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included in the SBA’s economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.351 Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.352 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.353 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 346 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. 348 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 349 https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/ results.jsp. 350 The term ‘‘small entity’’ within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 601(4) through (6). 351 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https:// www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 352 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 353 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 347 U.S. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 firms had 1,000 or more employees.354 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. 77. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A ‘‘small business’’ under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not dominant in its field of operation.’’ 355 The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in scope.356 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 78. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. These entities are included in the SBA’s economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.357 Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.358 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.359 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 354 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 355 15 U.S.C. 632. 356 Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of ‘‘small-business concern,’’ which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ‘‘small business.’’ See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ‘‘small business concern’’ to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 CFR 121.102(b). 357 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers’’ at https:// www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 358 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110. 359 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, ‘‘Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,’’ NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at https:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml. PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 1,000 or more employees.360 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. 79. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category ‘‘comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.’’ 361 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.362 The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 808 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 709 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 had annual receipts of more than $25,000,000.363 Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard. 80. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390 stations.364 Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395.365 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.366 Therefore, we estimate that 360 Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees. 361 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ‘‘515120 Television Broadcasting,’’ at https:// www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, ‘‘These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.’’ 362 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120. 363 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series—Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 (515120), https://factfinder2.census.gov/ faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_ 51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 364 See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) (Broadcast Station Totals) at https:// hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC331381A1.pdf. 365 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 366 See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities. 81. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 367 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent. 82. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.368 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed Class A television stations to be 431.369 The Commission has also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.370 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 83. The Report and Order revises section 76.59 of the rules to apply also to the satellite television context. The new satellite rules permit commercial television broadcast stations, satellite carriers and county governments to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial television broadcast station’s local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.371 367 ‘‘[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.’’ 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). 368 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120. 369 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 370 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra. 371 See Report and Order para. 9. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 59661 Under section 76.59 of the rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable carriage rights. Consistent with the current cable requirements, the adopted rules require petitioners to file market modification requests and/or responsive pleadings in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.372 Consistent with the current cable requirements, the adopted rules require petitioners to provide specific forms of evidence to support market modification petitions, should they ch0ose to file such petitions.373 A television broadcast station that becomes eligible for mandatory satellite carriage by operation of a market modification may elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier within 30 days of the market determination.374 A satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the station’s request for carriage.375 84. The Report and Order establishes a process that will allow a prospective petitioner (i.e., broadcaster or county government) to obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about whether or not (and to what extent) carriage resulting from a contemplated market modification is technically and economically feasible for such carrier before the prospective petitioner undertakes the time and expense of preparing and filing a market modification petition.376 To initiate this process, a prospective petitioner may make a request in writing to a satellite carrier for the carrier to provide the certification about the feasibility or infeasibility of carriage. A satellite carrier must respond to this request within a reasonable amount of time by providing a feasibility certification to the prospective petitioner.377 A satellite carrier must also file a copy of the correspondence and feasibility certification it provides to the prospective petitioner in this docket electronically via ECFS so that the Media Bureau can track these certifications and monitor carrier response time. If the carrier is claiming spot beam coverage infeasibility, then the certification provided by the carrier must be the same detailed certification that would be required in response to a market modification petition.378 For any other claim of infeasibility, the carrier’s feasibility certification must explain in detail the basis of such infeasibility and must be prepared to provide documentation in support of its claim, in the event the prospective petitioner decides to challenge the carrier’s claim.379 If carriage is feasible, a statement to that effect must be provided in the certification.380 If a broadcaster or county government has concerns about the adequacy of the carrier’s certification, or has some reason to question the validity of the carrier’s certification, the broadcaster or county government may raise such concerns in a (separate) petition for special relief or its market modification petition.381 85. The adopted rules require a satellite carrier to provide a detailed and specialized certification to demonstrate its claim that satellite carriage resulting from a market modification would be technically or economically infeasible due to insufficient spot beam coverage.382 Satellite carriers will be required to provide supporting 372 See Report and Order paras. 12–13. Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to oppose market modification requests would need to file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 CFR 76.7. 373 See Report and Order para. 17 (discussing evidentiary requirements for filing market modification petitions). These requirements are codified in 47 CFR 76.59. 374 See Report and Order at para. 24. Carriage elections must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 76.66(d)(1). See Report and Order at para. 26. Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier’s principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). The rule requires that a television station’s written notification shall include the following information: (1) Station’s call sign; (2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station’s address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) Station’s community of license; (5) Station’s DMA assignment; and (6) Station’s election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). 375 See Report and Order at para. 25. 376 See Report and Order para. 45. 377 Id. With respect to what would be a reasonable amount of time for a carrier to respond to a request for a feasibility certification, we expect carriers will generally be able to respond within 45 days of receipt of a prospective petitioner’s written request; however, we find that it would be reasonable for the satellite carrier to respond in 90 days if the carrier has to process several requests at the same time. If the response is after 45 days, the carrier must provide an explanation for the longer time period in its certification (e.g., having to respond to multiple simultaneous requests). If the Media Bureau finds that a carrier is routinely taking up to 90 days to respond or is not providing a reasonable explanation for when it takes 90 days to respond, the Bureau may order such carrier to respond to future requests in a shorter time period or may take other enforcement action. With this process, we are trying to balance the need to provide broadcasters’ with as fast a response as possible, while recognizing that satellite carriers may have problems responding to numerous requests at once. 378 See Report and Order paras. 37–39. 379 See Report and Order para. 45. 380 See Report and Order para. 45. 381 See Report and Order para. 45. 382 See Report and Order paras. 35–36. PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES documentation upon request by the Commission and must therefore retain such supporting documentation substantiating potential review by the Commission.383 As noted in section C of this FRFA, neither one of the satellite carriers, DISH nor DIRECTV, qualify as a small entity and small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with satellite services. 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 86. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.384 87. Consistent with the statute’s goal of promoting regulatory parity between cable and satellite service, the Report and Order applies the existing cable market modification rules to the satellite context, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service. Therefore, the adopted rules for the first time allow a commercial television broadcast station to request a modification of its local television market for purposes of satellite carriage. Small TV stations that choose to file satellite market modification petitions must comply with the associated filing and evidentiary requirements (explained in section D of the FRFA); however, the filing of such petitions is voluntary. In addition, small TV stations may want to respond to a petition to modify its market (or the market of a competitor station) filed by a satellite carrier or a competitor station; however, there are no standardized evidentiary requirements associated with such responsive pleadings. Through a market modification process, a small TV station may gain or lose carriage rights with respect to a particular community, based on the five statutory factors, to better reflect localism.385 383 See Report and Order para. 35. U.S.C. 604(a)(6). 385 See Report and Order para. 6. Section 338(l) of the Act provides that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or other stations located in the 384 5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 88. In the IRFA, we invited small TV stations to comment on whether they are more or less likely, on the whole, to benefit from market modifications.386 In addition, we invited comment on whether there are any alternatives we should consider to the Commission’s proposed implementation of section 102 of the STELAR that would minimize any adverse impact on small TV stations, but which are consistent with the statute and its goals, such as promoting localism and regulatory parity.387 We received no comments in direct response to these inquiries. In comments to the NPRM, Gray Television, Inc. (‘‘Gray’’) proposed that the Commission should establish a presumption in favor of applying prior cable market modification determinations to satellite markets to lower the burden on television broadcast stations, including small stations.388 In the Report and Order, the Commission rejected Gray’s proposal, finding it was inconsistent with the statute’s requirement to apply the statutory factors to each market modification petition.389 The Commission did observe, however, that consideration of historic carriage is one of the five statutory factors that the Commission is required to consider in evaluating market modification requests and explained that consideration under such factor would ‘‘give sufficient weight to prior decisions without the need to establish a presumption.’’ 390 89. Unique to satellite market modifications, the STELAR provides same area—(a) have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and (b) have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community; (2) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (3) whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers’ access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence; (4) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (5) evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community. 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). See also discussion at Report and Order at section III.B. 386 NPRM, para. 25. 387 Id. 388 Comments of Gray Television, Inc., MB Docket No. 15–71, at 4–5 (filed May 13, 2015) (Gray Comments). 389 See Report and Order para. 23 (explaining the reasons for not establishing a presumption that prior cable market determinations should apply to satellite markets). 390 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 that a satellite carrier is not required to carry a station pursuant to a market modification if it is not technically and economically feasible for the carrier to do so.391 The Report and Order allows satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility by providing a detailed and specialized certification under penalty of perjury.392 To avoid unnecessary burdens on broadcasters, satellite carriers, and the Commission, the Report and Order established a process for the parties to exchange information regarding feasibility of carriage prior to the filing of a prospective market modification petition.393 The adopted rules allow TV broadcast stations to request a certification regarding claims of technical or economic infeasibility from a satellite carrier before filing a prospective market modification petition, and the station may seek review of such certification by filing a petition for special relief before filing a prospective petition for market modification.394 This process will particularly benefit small stations, allowing them to avoid the time and expense of filing a market modification petition that could not result in carriage of the station. In comments to the NPRM, the Virginia Broadcasting Corp. (‘‘WVIR–TV’’) expressed concern that a certification approach would not provide broadcasters with sufficient information to challenge the validity of the satellite carrier’s claim of infeasibility.395 The Report and Order addressed this concern by requiring a detailed and specialized certification that is subject to penalties for perjury and which would contain sufficient detail to ensure that the analysis performed by the satellite carrier was appropriate and valid.396 391 See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (providing that ‘‘[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.’’). See also discussion in Report and Order at section III.D. 392 See Report and Order para. 36. 393 See section D of this FRFA. 394 See Report and Order paras. 39–40. 395 Reply Comments of Virginia Broadcasting Corp., MB Docket No. 15–71, at 1 (filed May 28, 2015) (WVIR–TV Reply) (urging the Commission ‘‘to reject suggestions by DBS operators that would impose heavy burdens on broadcasters seeking market modifications—burdens that would be particularly onerous for small market television stations—by withholding information that is uniquely in their possession regarding technical and economic infeasibility or by requiring broadcasters to provide support for market modification requests that goes well beyond what is required in the cable television context.’’). 396 See Report and Order paras. 35–36. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 90. The adopted rules, for the first time, allow satellite carriers to request market modifications. The adopted rules also allow satellite carriers to assert claims of infeasibility by certification, which will minimize the burden on them, although the Commission may require satellite carriers to provide documentation upon request.397 As previously discussed, only two entities—DIRECTV and DISH Network—provide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. As noted in section C of this FRFA, neither one of these two entities qualify as a small entity and small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with satellite services. 6. Report to Congress 91. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.398 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.399 B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 92. This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).400 The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA),401 we previously sought 397 See Report and Order para. 35. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 399 See 5 U.S.C. 604(b). 400 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.). See OMB Control Number 3060–0546. The Commission received preapproval for this modified collection on June 17, 2015; however, we are making additional modifications to this collection in this Report and Order. 401 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Publaw Law 107–198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573. C. Congressional Review Act 93. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.402 * V. Ordering Clauses 94. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 325, 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 325, 338 and 534, this Report and Order is hereby adopted, effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. 95. It is further ordered that the Commission’s rules are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix B of the Report and Order and will become effective November 2, 2015, except for 47 CFR 76.59(a) and (b), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date. 96. It is further ordered that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 Broadcast television, Cable television, Satellite television. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows: asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 398 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 59663 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, 402 See PO 00000 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Frm 00115 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 2. Section 76.5 is amended by revising paragraph (gg) to read as follows: ■ § 76.5 Definitions. * * * * (gg) Satellite community. (1) For purposes of the significantly viewed rules (see § 76.54), a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas). The boundaries of any such unincorporated community may be defined by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas. Satellite communities apply only in areas in which there is no pre-existing cable community, as defined in paragraph (dd) of this section. (2) For purposes of the market modification rules (see § 76.59), a county. * * * * * ■ 3. Section 76.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 76.7 General special relief, waiver, enforcement, complaint, show cause, forfeiture, and declaratory ruling procedures. (a) * * * (3) Certificate of service. Petitions and Complaints shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system operator, multichannel video programming distributor, franchising authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested person who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 76.59 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), and (b)(5) and (6), adding paragraph (b)(7), revising paragraph (d), and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: § 76.59 Modification of television markets. (a) The Commission, following a written request from a broadcast station, cable system, satellite carrier or county government (only with respect to satellite modifications), may deem that the television market, as defined either by § 76.55(e) or § 76.66(e), of a particular commercial television broadcast station should include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station’s television market. In this respect, communities may be considered part of more than one television market. (b) * * * (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market. (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for full-power digital stations) or protected contour maps (for Class A and low power television stations) delineating the station’s technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas. Note to paragraph (b)(2): Service area maps using Longley-Rice (version 1.2.2) propagation curves may also be included to support a technical service exhibit. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings. (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday– Saturday, 7 a.m.–1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records. (7) If applicable, a statement that the station is licensed to a community within the same state as the relevant community. * * * * * (d) A cable operator or satellite carrier shall not delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this section. (e) A market determination under this section shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination. (f) No modification of a commercial television broadcast station’s local market pursuant to this section shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals from a satellite carrier pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 339. ■ 5. Section 76.66 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(6) and revising paragraph VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Oct 01, 2015 Jkt 238001 (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage. * * * * * (d) * * * (6) Carriage after a market modification. Television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to § 76.66) due to a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to § 76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) Market definitions. (1) A local market, in the case of both commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations, is the designated market area in which a station is located, unless such market is amended pursuant to § 76.59, and * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–24999 Filed 10–1–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 395 Hours of Service for Drivers: Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Editing of Automatic On-Board Recording Device (AOBRD) Information Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of regulatory guidance. AGENCY: FMCSA issues regulatory guidance concerning the editing of records created by automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs). The guidance makes clear that, within certain limits, a driver must be allowed to review his or her AOBRD records, annotate and correct inaccurate records, enter any missing information, and certify the accuracy of the information. The AOBRD must retain the original entries, and reflect the date, time, and name of the person making edits to the information. Drivers’ supervisors may request that a driver make edits to correct errors, but the driver must SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 accept or reject such requests. Driving time may not be edited except in the case of unidentified or team drivers, and when driving time was assigned to the wrong driver or no driver. All prior Agency interpretations and regulatory guidance on this subject, including memoranda and letters, may no longer be relied upon to the extent they are inconsistent with this guidance. DATES: This regulatory guidance is effective October 2, 2015. 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 (202) 366–4325, email MCPSD@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Basis The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (1984 Act), as amended (codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to regulate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and equipment, and the drivers and motor carriers that operate them. Section 211 of the 1984 Act also gives the Secretary broad power to ‘‘prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements’’ and to ‘‘perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)). The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to CMV programs and safety regulation. Background Motor carriers began to use automated hours-of-service (HOS) recording devices in the mid-1980s to replace paper records. The Federal Highway Administration, the agency then responsible for the motor carrier safety regulations, published a final rule in 1988 that defined Automatic On Board Recording Devices (AOBRDs) and set forth performance standards for their use (53 FR 38670, September 30, 1988, codified at 49 CFR 395.15). Question 2 of the regulatory guidance for § 395.15 prohibits CMV drivers from ‘‘amending’’ AOBRD records of duty status (RODS) during a trip; the guidance was published on April 4, 1997 (65 FR 16370, at 16426). The reason for the prohibition—‘‘If drivers, who use automatic on-board recording devices, were allowed to amend their record of duty status while in transit, E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59635-59664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24999]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 15-71; FCC 15-111]


Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts satellite television 
market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite 
Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act of 
2014. The STELAR gives the Commission authority to modify a commercial 
television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of 
satellite carriage rights. In this document, the Commission revises the 
current cable market modification rule

[[Page 59636]]

to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to address 
the unique nature of satellite television service. The document also 
makes conforming and other minor changes to the cable market 
modification rules.

DATES: Effective November 2, 2015, except Sec. Sec.  76.59(a) and (b) 
which contain information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by OMB. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing when OMB approval for this information collection 
has been received and these rules will take effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, 
of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. For additional 
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information 
collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to 
PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 15-111, adopted and released on September 2, 2015. The 
full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC's Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS) Web site at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, 
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available 
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The complete text 
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are 
available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to enable 
commercial television stations, satellite carriers and cable operators 
to better serve the interests of their local communities. These rules 
implement an important provision in the Satellite Television Extension 
and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 (``STELAR'') to promote 
carriage of in-state and other relevant local television programming. 
Specifically, in the STELAR, Congress recognized that satellite 
subscribers in some communities across the country are not able to 
access broadcast stations in their own states via the local television 
packages offered by satellite carriers. This problem results from the 
way TV stations are defined as ``local'' for purposes of satellite 
carriage. In some cases, subscribers may be included in a local 
television programming market that is served exclusively, or almost 
exclusively, by television stations in a neighboring state. As a 
result, these subscribers are not receiving news, politics, sports, 
emergency information and other television programming relevant to 
their home state. The STELAR seeks to address this problem by changing 
the laws to provide for ``market modifications'' that add flexibility 
to the current definition of a local television programming market. 
Market modifications allow the Commission, upon request, to modify the 
local market assignment of a station to include such neighboring 
communities that are located in the same state as the station. As 
required by the STELAR, the Commission determines whether to grant a 
market modification based on consideration of five statutory factors 
that allow petitioners to demonstrate that they provide local service 
to the community. Significantly, in the STELAR, Congress included a 
factor requiring consideration of access to television stations that 
are located in the same state as the community considered for 
modification. Congress also added this factor to the existing market 
modification statutory factors applicable to cable operators. Our rules 
implement the STELAR to achieve the goal of better service for 
consumers. Finally, Congress recognized that satellite carriage of 
additional stations might be technically or economically infeasible in 
some circumstances. Accordingly, our rules implement this exception to 
the carriage requirements that would otherwise apply for modified 
markets. We recognize that the ability of the market modification rules 
to successfully address the problem of consumer access to in-state 
stations will depend in large part on broadcasters' willingness to 
grant retransmission consent to be carried in the new community and 
satellite carriers' technical ability to provide the in-state stations 
in the new community. Therefore, we strongly urge broadcasters and 
satellite carriers to work together to provide relief to consumers and 
achieve the goals of the STELAR (to promote access to in-state 
programming) in cases where carriage is technically feasible.
    2. In this Report and Order, we adopt satellite television market 
modification rules to implement section 102 of the STELAR.\1\ The 
STELAR amended the Communications Act (``Act'') and the Copyright Act 
to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television 
broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite 
carriage rights.\2\ The Commission previously had such authority to 
modify markets only in the cable carriage context.\3\ With section 102 
of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in 
order to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant 
television programming.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, 
Pub. L. 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 
5728, 113th Cong.). This proceeding implements STELAR section 102 
(titled ``Modification of television markets to further consumer 
access to relevant television programming''), 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 
and the related statutory copyright license provisions in STELAR 
sec. 204 (titled ``Market determinations''), 128 Stat. at 2067 
(codified at 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E)).
    \2\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067. STELAR 
section 102(a) amends section 338 of the Act by adding a new 
paragraph (l), titled ``Market Determinations.'' 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 
STELAR section 102(b) also makes conforming amendments to the cable 
market modification provision at 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). STELAR sec. 
204 amends the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of 
``local'' stations in 17 U.S.C. 122 to cover market modifications in 
accordance with 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E). We note 
that, like the existing cable provision, the STELAR provision 
pertains only to ``commercial'' stations, thus excluding 
noncommercial stations from seeking market modification. See 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
    \3\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). This section was added to the 
Act by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 
of 1992, Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), as part of the 
cable must-carry/retransmission consent regime for carriage of local 
television stations. See also 47 CFR 76.59.
    \4\ See title of STELAR section 102, ``Modification of 
Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television 
Programming.'' See also 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (directing 
the Commission to consider whether a market modification would 
``promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals 
that originate in their State of residence''). There was no final 
Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELAR bill (H. 
R. 5728, 113th Cong.) as it was enacted. Because section 102 of the 
STELAR was added from the Senate predecessor bill (S. 2799, the 
Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA)), we 
therefore look to the Senate Report No. 113-322 (dated December 12, 
2014) accompanying this predecessor bill for the relevant 
legislative history for this provision. See Report from the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 
2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (``Senate Commerce 
Committee Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 102 of the STELAR, and the Commission's actions in this 
Report and

[[Page 59637]]

Order, seek to establish a market modification process for the 
satellite carriage context and, to the extent possible, address 
satellite subscribers' inability to receive in-state programming in 
certain areas, sometimes called ``orphan counties.'' \5\ In this Report 
and Order, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model 
the satellite market modification process on the current cable market 
modification process, we implement section 102 of the STELAR by 
revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to 
apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules 
to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\6\ In 
addition to authorizing satellite market modifications, section 102 of 
the STELAR makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market 
modification statutory provision \7\ and also directs the Commission to 
consider whether to make other changes to the cable market modification 
rules.\8\ Accordingly, as part of our implementation of the STELAR, we 
make conforming and other minor changes to the cable market 
modification rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has sometimes referred to the situation in 
which a county in one state is assigned to a neighboring state's 
local television market and, therefore, satellite subscribers 
residing in such county cannot receive some or any broadcast 
stations that originate in-state as the ``orphan county'' problem. 
See, e.g., Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television 
Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), MB Docket No. 10-148, 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-193, para. 48, 
75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010 (STELA Significantly Viewed Report and 
Order). The inability of satellite subscribers located in ``orphan 
counties'' to access in-state programming has been the subject of 
some congressional interest. See, e.g., Orphan County 
Telecommunications Rights Act, H.R. 4635, 113th Cong. (2014); 
Colorado News, Emergency, Weather, and Sports Act, S. 2375, 113th 
Cong. (2014); Four Corners Television Access Act, H.R. 4469, 112th 
Cong. (2012); Letting Our Communities Access Local Television Act, 
S. 3894, 111th Cong. (2010); Local Television Freedom Act, H.R. 
3216, 111th Cong. (2009).
    \6\ See 47 CFR 76.59. As discussed herein, we revise section 
76.59 of our rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite 
carriers. See Final Rules. We note Congress' intent that the process 
established by the Commission under the section 102 of the STELAR be 
``modeled'' on the current cable market modification process. See 
Senate Commerce Committee Report at 10. However, the STELAR 
recognizes the inherent difference between cable and satellite 
television service with provisions specific to satellite. See 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A), (5).
    \7\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).
    \8\ STELAR section 102(d) directs the Commission to consider as 
part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and 
consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 
534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made 
by this section, and update what it considers to be a community for 
purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The following are among the key conclusions adopted in this 
Report and Order:
     We amend the cable market modification rule, section 76.59 
of our rules, to apply also to satellite market modifications, and 
amend the rule to reflect the STELAR provisions that uniquely apply to 
satellite carriers, such as an exception if the resulting carriage is 
``not technically and economically feasible.''
     We conclude that the involved commercial broadcast 
station, satellite carrier, and county government have standing to file 
a satellite market modification petition. Petitions must be filed in 
accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in 
section 76.7 of our rules.
     We conclude that the new in-state factor,\9\ when 
applicable, favors any market modification that would promote 
consumers' access to an in-state station. When applicable, this in-
state factor serves as an enhancement, the particular weight of which 
depends on the strength of showing by the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) 
(``whether modifying the market of the television station would 
promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals 
that originate in their State of residence'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We conclude that the evidentiary requirements for cable 
market modifications will apply to satellite market modifications. In 
addition, to satisfy the new in-state factor when applicable, we 
require a petitioner to make a statement in its petition that the 
station is licensed to a community within the same state as the new 
community.
     We conclude that market modifications will be considered 
separately in the cable and satellite contexts and that, in the 
satellite context, market modifications will apply only to the specific 
stations, satellite carriers, and communities addressed in a particular 
market modification petition.
     We conclude that prior cable market modification 
determinations will not automatically apply in the satellite context, 
nor will such prior decisions be afforded a presumption; however, we 
note that we are required to consider historic carriage under the first 
statutory factor.
     We conclude that a television broadcast station that 
becomes eligible for mandatory satellite carriage by operation of a 
market modification may elect retransmission consent or mandatory 
carriage with respect to a satellite carrier within 30 days after the 
market determination. We conclude that a satellite carrier must 
commence carriage within 90 days after receiving the station's request 
for carriage.
     We conclude that it is per se not technically and 
economically feasible for a satellite carrier to provide a station to a 
new community that is outside of the relevant spot beam on which that 
station is currently carried.
     We conclude that, if a satellite carrier can provide the 
station at issue in a market modification request to only part of a new 
community, then it must do so.
     We conclude that the satellite carrier has the burden to 
demonstrate that the resulting carriage from a market modification is 
technically and economically infeasible.
     We will allow satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam 
coverage infeasibility by providing a detailed certification under 
penalty of perjury.
     We conclude that a satellite carrier must raise any 
technical or economic impediments either in the market modification 
proceeding or prior to such proceeding in response to a prospective 
petitioner's inquiry about feasibility of carriage resulting from a 
contemplated market modification.
     We establish a process that will allow a prospective 
petitioner to obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about 
whether or not (and to what extent) it is technically and economically 
feasible for the carrier to provide the station to a new community. We 
will not grant a market modification petition if such grant could not 
create a new carriage obligation for the carrier at that time due to a 
finding of technical or economic infeasibility.
     We recognize that there may be other bases than spot beam 
coverage for a carrier to assert that carriage would be technically or 
economically infeasible and will review these assertions on a case-by-
case basis.
     We define a ``satellite community'' as a county for 
purposes of a satellite market modification. We retain our existing 
definition of a ``cable community'' for purposes of a cable market 
modification.

II. Background

    5. The STELAR, enacted December 4, 2014, is the latest in a series 
of statutes that have amended the Communications Act and Copyright Act 
to set the parameters for the satellite carriage of television 
broadcast stations. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) first 
established a ``distant'' statutory copyright license to enable 
satellite

[[Page 59638]]

carriers to offer subscribers who could not receive the over-the-air 
signal of a broadcast station access to broadcast programming via 
satellite.\10\ The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) 
established a ``local'' statutory copyright license and expanded 
satellite carriers' ability to offer broadcast television signals 
directly to subscribers by permitting carriers to offer ``local'' 
broadcast signals.\11\ The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) reauthorized the distant signal statutory 
copyright license until December 31, 2009 and expanded that license to 
allow satellite carriers to carry ``significantly viewed'' 
stations.\12\ The 2010 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act 
(STELA) extended the distant signal statutory copyright license through 
December 31, 2014,\13\ moved the significantly viewed station copyright 
provisions to the local statutory copyright license (which does not 
expire), and revised the ``significantly viewed'' provisions to 
facilitate satellite carrier use of that option.\14\ With the STELAR, 
Congress extended the distant signal statutory copyright license for 
another five years, through December 31, 2019, and, among other things, 
authorized market modification in the satellite carriage context and 
revised the market modification provisions for cable to promote parity 
for satellite and cable subscribers and competition between satellite 
and cable operators.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 100-
667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988); 17 U.S.C. 119 (distant 
statutory copyright license). In addition to allowing satellite 
carriers to retransmit television signals of distant network 
stations to ``unserved'' subscriber households, the SHVA also 
permitted satellite carriers to retransmit distant superstations 
(non-network stations) to any subscriber household. See 17 U.S.C. 
119(d)(2) (defining ``network station''), (d)(9) (defining ``non-
network station,'' previously ``superstation'') and (d)(10) 
(defining ``unserved household''). The 1994 Satellite Home Viewer 
Act reauthorized the distant statutory copyright license for five 
years and made other changes to the distant statutory copyright 
license but did not amend the Communications Act or otherwise alter 
satellite carriage rights. Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-369, 108 Stat. 3477 (1994). Each successive statute in the 
SHVA progeny has reauthorized the distant statutory copyright 
license.
    \11\ Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), 
Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 17 U.S.C. 122 (local 
statutory copyright license). The local statutory copyright license 
makes no distinction between network and non-network signals or 
served or unserved households. See id. Local stations may elect 
mandatory carriage or carriage pursuant to retransmission consent. 
47 U.S.C. 325, 338. See 47 CFR 76.66(c). Unlike the distant license, 
the local statutory copyright license does not expire.
    \12\ Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 
2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004). 
Significantly viewed stations are television broadcast stations that 
the Commission has determined have sufficient over-the-air (i.e., 
non-cable and non-satellite) viewing to be treated as local stations 
with respect to a particular satellite community in another market, 
thus, allowing them to be carried by the satellite carrier in that 
community in the other market. For copyright purposes, significantly 
viewed status entitles satellite carriers to carry the out-of-market 
but significantly viewed station with the reduced copyright payment 
obligations applicable to local (in-market) stations. See 17 U.S.C. 
122(a)(2). Satellite carriers are not required to carry out-of-
market significantly viewed stations. If they do carry such 
significantly viewed stations, retransmission consent is required. 
See 47 U.S.C. 340(d).
    \13\ The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 
(STELA), Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010). Congress 
passed four short-term extensions of the distant signal statutory 
copyright license (on December 19, 2009, March 2, March 26 and April 
15, 2010) before passing the STELA to reauthorize the distant signal 
statutory copyright license for a full five years, until December 
31, 2014. STELA sec. 107(a). See Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2010, sec. 1003(b), Public Law 111-118, 123 Stat 
3409, 3469 (2009) (extending distant license until February 28, 
2010); Temporary Extension Act of 2010, sec. 10, Public Law 111-144, 
124 Stat 42, 47 (2010) (extending license until March 28, 2010); 
Satellite Television Extension Act of 2010, Public Law 111-151, 124 
Stat 1027 (2010) (extending license until April 30, 2010); 
Continuing Extension Act of 2010, sec. 9, Public Law 111-157, 124 
Stat 1116 (2010) (extending license until May 31, 2010).
    \14\ As noted, the STELA reauthorized the statutory copyright 
license for satellite carriage of significantly viewed signals and 
moved that license from the distant signal statutory copyright 
license provisions in 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3) to the local signal 
statutory copyright license provisions in 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(2). STELA 
sec. 103. By doing so, Congress defined significantly viewed signals 
as another type of local signal, rather than as an exception to 
distant signal status. The move to the local license also meant that 
the significantly viewed signal license would not expire. STELA sec. 
107(a). In the STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, the 
Commission revised its satellite television significantly viewed 
rules to facilitate satellite carriage of significantly viewed 
stations and thereby provide satellite subscribers with greater 
choice of programming and to improve parity and competition between 
satellite and cable carriage of broadcast stations. STELA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order, para. 55.
    \15\ In section 102 of the STELAR, Congress intended to ``create 
a television market modification process for satellite carriers 
similar to the one already used for cable operators.'' Senate 
Commerce Committee Report at 6. The STELAR also makes a variety of 
reforms to the video programming distribution laws and regulations 
that are not relevant to our implementation here of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 338 of the Communications Act authorizes satellite 
carriage of local broadcast stations into their local markets, which is 
called ``local-into-local'' service.\16\ Specifically, a satellite 
carrier provides ``local-into-local'' service when it retransmits a 
local television signal back into the local market of that television 
station for reception by subscribers.\17\ Generally, a television 
station's ``local market'' is defined by the Designated Market Area 
(DMA) in which it is located, as determined by the Nielsen Company 
(Nielsen).\18\ DMAs describe each television market in terms of a group 
of counties and are defined by Nielsen based on measured viewing 
patterns.\19\ The United States is divided into 210 DMAs.\20\ Unlike 
cable operators, satellite carriers are not required to carry local 
broadcast television stations. However, if a satellite carrier chooses 
to carry a local station in a particular DMA in reliance on the 
statutory copyright license, it generally must carry any qualified 
local station in the same DMA that makes a timely election for 
retransmission consent or mandatory carriage.\21\ This is commonly 
referred to as the ``carry one, carry all'' requirement. If a 
broadcaster elects retransmission consent, the satellite carrier and 
broadcaster negotiate the terms of a retransmission consent agreement. 
With respect to those stations electing mandatory carriage, satellite 
carriers are generally not required to carry a station if the station's 
programming ``substantially duplicates'' \22\ that of another station

[[Page 59639]]

carried by the satellite carrier in the DMA,\23\ and satellite carriers 
are not required to carry more than one affiliate station of a 
particular network in a DMA (even if the affiliates do not 
substantially duplicate their programming), unless the stations are 
licensed to communities in different states.\24\ Satellite carriers are 
also not required to carry an otherwise qualified station if the 
station fails to provide a good quality signal to the satellite 
carrier's local receive facility.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1).
    \17\ 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6).
    \18\ See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2); 47 CFR 76.66(e) (defining a 
television broadcast station's local market for purposes of 
satellite carriage as the DMA in which the station is located). We 
note that a commercial television broadcast station's local market 
for purposes of cable carriage is also generally defined as the DMA 
in which the station is located. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C); 47 CFR 
76.55(e)(2).
    \19\ The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by 
assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) 
to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and 
via MVPD distribution. Generally, each U.S. county is assigned 
exclusively to the market whose stations receive the preponderance 
of the audience in that county. However, in a few cases where a 
county is large and viewing patterns differ significantly between 
parts of the county, a portion of the county is assigned to one 
television market and another portion of the county is assigned to 
another market. Several counties in Alaska are not assigned to any 
DMA. Retransmission Consent and Exclusivity Rules: Report to 
Congress Pursuant to Section 208 of the Satellite Home Viewer 
Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, 2005 WL 2206070, at para. 
53, n.177 (Sept. 8, 2005) (SHVERA Report); see also Nielsen Media 
Research, Glossary of Media Terms, at https://www.nielsenmedia.com/glossary/.
    \20\ DMAs frequently cross state lines and thus may include 
counties from multiple states.
    \21\ See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1). 
DISH Network currently provides local service to all 210 DMAs, and 
DIRECTV currently provides local service to 198 DMAs, according to 
the most recent Local Network Channel Broadcast Reports filed by 
these satellite carriers. 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. These annual reports 
were initially required for five years by section 305 of the STELA 
and were continued to be required for another five years by section 
108 of the STELAR.
    \22\ ``A commercial television station substantially duplicates 
the programming of another commercial television station if it 
simultaneously broadcasts the identical programming of another 
station for more than 50 percent of the broadcast week.'' 47 CFR 
76.66(h)(6). ``A noncommercial television station substantially 
duplicates the programming of another noncommercial station if it 
simultaneously broadcasts the same programming as another 
noncommercial station for more than 50 percent of prime time, as 
defined by [47 CFR] 76.5(n), and more than 50 percent outside of 
prime time over a three month period, provided, however, that after 
three noncommercial television stations are carried, the test of 
duplication shall be whether more than 50 percent of prime time 
programming and more than 50 percent outside of prime time 
programming is duplicative on a non-simultaneous basis.'' 47 CFR 
76.66(h)(7).
    \23\ 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h)(1). ``A satellite 
carrier may select which duplicating signal in a market it shall 
carry.'' 47 CFR 76.66(h)(2).
    \24\ 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h)(1). ``A satellite 
carrier may select which network affiliate in a market it shall 
carry.'' 47 CFR 76.66(h)(3). However, a satellite carrier must carry 
network affiliated television stations licensed to different states, 
but located in the same market, even if the stations meet the 
definition of substantial duplication under the Commission's rules. 
See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 
1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Retransmission Consent 
Issues, CS Docket Nos. 00-96 and 99-363, Report and Order, FCC 00-
417, para. 80, 66 FR 7410, Jan. 23, 2001 (DBS Broadcast Carriage 
Report and Order). If two stations located in different states (but 
within the same local market) duplicate each other, but are not 
network affiliates, the satellite carrier only has to carry one. Id.
    \25\ 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1). A television 
station asserting its right to carriage is required to bear the 
costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the 
designated local-receive-facility of the satellite carrier or to 
another facility that is acceptable to at least one-half the 
stations asserting the right to carriage in the local market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. STELAR section 102, which adds section 338(l) of the Act, 
creates a satellite market modification regime very similar to that in 
place for cable, while adding provisions to address the unique nature 
of satellite television service.\26\ Market modification, which has 
been available in the cable carriage context since 1992,\27\ will allow 
the Commission to modify the local television market of a commercial 
television broadcast station to enable those broadcasters and satellite 
carriers to better serve the interests of local communities.\28\ Market 
modification provides a means to avoid rigid adherence to DMA 
designations and to promote consumer access to in-state and other 
relevant television programming.\29\ To better reflect market realities 
and effectuate these purposes, section 338(l), like the corresponding 
cable provision in section 614(h)(1)(C), permits the Commission to add 
communities to, or delete communities from, a station's local 
television market following a written request.\30\ Furthermore, as in 
the cable carriage context, the Commission may determine that 
particular communities are part of more than one television market.\31\ 
As in the cable carriage context, when the Commission modifies a 
station's market to add a community for purposes of carriage rights, 
the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory 
copyright license and may assert mandatory carriage (or pursue 
retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the 
local market.\32\ Conversely, if the Commission modifies a station's 
market to delete a community, the station is considered ``distant'' and 
loses its right to assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission 
consent) on the applicable satellite carrier in the local market.\33\ 
We note that, in the cable carriage context, market modifications 
pertain to individual stations in specific cable communities and apply 
only to the particular cable system named in the petition.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C).
    \27\ See 47 CFR 76.59.
    \28\ See In-State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress 
Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension and 
Localism Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 10-238, Report, DA 11-1454, 
paras. 55-59 (MB rel. Aug. 29, 2011) (In-State Programming Report) 
(stating that ``market modifications could potentially address 
special situations in underserved areas and facilitate greater 
access to local information''). See also Broadcast Localism, MB 
Docket No. 04-233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218, paras. 49-50, 73 FR 8255, Feb. 13, 
2008 (Broadcast Localism Report).
    \29\ Broadcast Localism Report, para. 50. The Commission has 
observed that, in some cases, general reliance on DMAs to define a 
station's market may not provide viewers with the most local 
programming. Id. at paras. 49-50. Certain DMAs cross state borders 
and, in such cases, current Commission rules sometimes require 
carriage of the broadcast signal of an out-of-state station rather 
than that of an in-state station. Id. The Commission has observed 
that such cases may weaken localism, since viewers are often more 
likely to receive information of local interest and relevance--
particularly local weather and other emergency information and local 
news and electoral and public affairs--from a station located in the 
state in which they live. Id.
    \30\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1), 534(h)(1)(C).
    \31\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(A).
    \32\ Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local statutory 
copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 to the effect that when the 
Commission modifies a station's market for purposes of satellite 
carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by 
the local statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E) 
(as amended by STELAR sec. 204); 47 U.S.C. 338. See also 17 
U.S.C.U.S.C. 111(f)(4) (defining ``local service area of a primary 
transmitter'' for cable carriage copyright purposes); 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C).
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer 
Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage 
Issues, MM Docket No. 92-259, Report and Order, FCC 93-144, para. 
47, 58 FR 17350, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) (stating that 
``the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's 
market to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Section 338(l) states that, in ruling on requests for market 
modifications for purposes of satellite carriage, the Commission must 
afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into 
account the following five factors:
    (1) Whether the station, or other stations located in the same 
area--(a) have been historically carried on the cable system or systems 
within such community; and (b) have been historically carried on the 
satellite carrier or carriers serving such community;
    (2) Whether the television station provides coverage or other local 
service to such community;
    (3) Whether modifying the local market of the television station 
would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals 
that originate in their State of residence;
    (4) Whether any other television station that is eligible to be 
carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the 
requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of 
concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting 
and other events of interest to the community; and
    (5) Evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and 
do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video 
programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel 
video programming distributors in such community.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v) (discussed in section 
III.B. below).

These statutory factors largely mirror those originally set forth for 
cable in section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the extent the factors 
differ from the previous factors applicable to cable, the STELAR 
section 102 makes conforming changes to the cable factors.\36\ These 
include adding a fifth factor (inserted as factor number three) to 
section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to ``promote consumers' access to television 
broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' 
\37\ Thus, STELAR creates parallel factors for satellite and cable.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by STELAR sec. 
102(b).
    \37\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (``whether modifying 
the market of the television station would promote consumers' access 
to television broadcast station signals that originate in their 
State of residence'').
    \38\ Shortly after our final rules are published in the Federal 
Register, we will implement section 102(c) of the STELAR by creating 
a consumer guide that will explain the market modification rules and 
procedures as revised and adopted in this proceeding, and by posting 
the guide on the Commission's Web site. Section 102(c) requires the 
Commission to ``make information available to consumers on its Web 
site that explains the market modification process.'' STELAR 102(c); 
47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. Such information must include: ``(1) who may 
petition to include additional communities within, or exclude 
communities from, a--(A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) 
of title 17, United States Code); or (B) television market (as 
determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the 
Commission takes into account when responding to a petition 
described in paragraph (1).'' See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through 
(v); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59640]]

    9. The STELAR, however, provides a unique exception applicable only 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the satellite context, providing that a market modification:

shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite 
carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such 
carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in 
operation at the time of the determination.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A) (discussed in section III.D. below).

    Also unique to satellite, the STELAR provides that a market 
modification will not have ``any effect on the eligibility of 
households in the community affected by such modification to receive 
distant signals pursuant to section 339 [of the Act].'' \40\ Like the 
cable provision, section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 days to act on 
a request for market modification and does not allow a carrier to 
delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station 
during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5) (discussed in section III.E. below). 
Section 339 of the Act provides for the satellite carriage of 
distant stations under certain conditions. See 47 U.S.C. 339.
    \41\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. On March 26, 2015, we began this proceeding by issuing a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).\42\ We received 12 comments and five 
reply comments in response. With this Report and Order, we satisfy the 
STELAR's mandate that the Commission adopt final rules in this 
proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Amendment to the Commission's Rules Concerning Market 
Modification; Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014; MB Docket No. 15-71, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 15-34, 80 FR 19594, Apr. 13, 2015 (NPRM).
    \43\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    11. Consistent with the STELAR's goal of regulatory parity, we 
largely model the satellite market modification process on the existing 
process for cable and adopt our proposal to amend section 76.59 of our 
rules--the current cable market modification rule--to apply in both the 
cable and satellite contexts.\44\ We also adopt our proposal to amend 
section 76.59 to reflect the STELAR provisions that apply uniquely to 
satellite carriers, such as affording carriers with an exception if the 
resulting carriage is ``not technically and economically feasible .'' 
Finally, we define a ``satellite community'' for purposes of market 
modification and retain our existing definition of a ``cable 
community.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 47 CFR 76.59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Standing and Procedures To Request Market Modification

    12. We conclude that the involved broadcaster, satellite carrier 
and county government may file a satellite market modification 
petition.\45\ We choose a slightly modified alternative to the 
procedure proposed in the NPRM,\46\ and deviate from the cable rule 
which allows only the involved broadcaster and cable operator to file 
cable petitions, in order to more fully effectuate the core purpose of 
this provision of the STELAR to promote consumer access to in-state and 
other relevant programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 47 CFR 76.59(a).
    \46\ NPRM, para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Section 338(l)(1) of the Act permits the Commission to modify a 
local television market ``following a written request,'' but does not 
specify the appropriate party to make such requests.\47\ The 
corresponding cable statutory provision in section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of 
the Act contains nearly identical language in this regard.\48\ In 
interpreting the cable provision, the Commission concluded that the 
involved broadcaster and cable operator are the only appropriate 
parties to file market modification requests.\49\ Section 102(d) of the 
STELAR, however, directs the Commission to ensure in both the cable and 
satellite contexts that ``procedures for the filing and consideration 
of a written request . . . fully effectuate the purposes of the 
amendments made by this section.'' \50\ In the NPRM, consistent with 
the cable rule, we proposed to allow only the involved commercial 
broadcast station or the satellite carrier to file a satellite market 
modification request because only these entities have carriage rights 
or obligations at stake.\51\ The NPRM sought comment on any alternative 
approaches and observed that some local governments had previously 
sought the ability to petition for market modifications on behalf of 
their citizens.\52\ The NPRM tentatively concluded to limit the 
participation of local governments and individuals to filing comments 
in support of, or in opposition to, particular market modification 
requests and sought comment on this tentative conclusion.\53\ 
Broadcasters and the satellite carriers supported the NPRM's proposal, 
asserting that only the involved station or satellite carrier ``have 
rights or obligations that are directly affected by a market 
modification'' and therefore only such entities should have standing to 
file requests to modify these rights or obligations.\54\ Some 
commenters, however, advocate that county governments should be allowed 
to

[[Page 59641]]

petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
    \48\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (``Following a written request, the 
Commission may, with respect to a particular commercial television 
broadcast station, include additional communities within its local 
market or exclude communities from such station's local market to 
better effectuate the purposes of this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(i) (``For purposes of this section, a broadcasting 
station's market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation 
or order using, where available, commercial publications which 
delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, 
following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a 
particular television broadcast station, include additional 
communities within its television market or exclude communities from 
such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes 
of this section. . . .'').
    \49\ See Must Carry Order, para. 46; John Wiegand v. Post 
Newsweek Pacifica Cable, Inc., CSR 4179-M, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, FCC 01-239 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) (Wiegand v. Post Newsweek) 
(limiting standing in the must carry and market modification 
contexts to the affected broadcaster or cable operator). The 
Commission reasoned that ``the fact that Congress made must carry an 
elective choice for broadcasters diminishes the argument that third 
parties have standing to demand carriage of a broadcast station on a 
cable system. A subscriber's ability to receive the benefits 
provided from must carry is predicated upon a station's election to 
exercise its rights under the statute. No statute or Commission rule 
requires a broadcaster to allow its signal to be carried on a local 
cable system because another party wishes to view it. Instead, 
broadcasters are given a choice whether to demand carriage under 
must carry, to negotiate carriage under the retransmission consent 
provisions, or not to be carried on a particular cable system at 
all.'' See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, para. 10.
    \50\ STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission to consider as 
part of this rulemaking whether the ``procedures for the filing and 
consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 
614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 
534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made 
by this section.'' See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.
    \51\ NPRM, para. 8.
    \52\ NPRM, para. 9. See In-State Programming Report, para. 58.
    \53\ Id. The NPRM also asked ``how else satellite subscribers or 
their representatives can meaningfully advocate for the receipt of 
in-state programming via satellite.'' Id.
    \54\ DIRECTV Comments at 7, n.20; DISH Comments at 3; NAB 
Comments at 3-4. See NPRM, para. 8.
    \55\ See Letter from Michael F. Bennet, U.S. Senator, Colo.; 
Cory Gardner, U.S. Senator, Colo.; and Scott Tipton, U.S. 
Representative, Colo. to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, dated April 14, 
2015 at (``Sen. Bennet et al. Letter''). See also Letter from Mike 
D. Rogers, U.S. Representative, Ala.; Robert Aderholt, U.S. 
Representative, Ala. to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC dated May 12, 
2015 at 1 (``Rep. Rogers et al. Letter'') (seeking role in market 
modification process for Counties, Parishes or the equivalent 
political subdivisions). Although no local government comments were 
filed in this docket, commenters in the docket relating to the STELA 
In-State Programming Report advocated to allow consumer concerns to 
be addressed more directly by permitting local governments to 
petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens. See 
In-State Programming Report, para. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Upon further consideration pursuant to section 102(d) of the 
STELAR, we conclude that we will better effectuate the purposes of the 
STELAR (to promote consumer access to in-state programming) by also 
permitting a county governmental entity (such as a county board, 
council, commission or other equivalent subdivision) to file a 
satellite market modification petition, as advocated by some 
commenters.\56\ Allowing a county government to petition for market 
modification for its community is appropriate given our decision to 
define a satellite community on a county basis.\57\ We also are mindful 
of the record in the In-State Programming Report proceeding, which 
reflects numerous examples of counties in which consumers have little 
or no access to in-state broadcast stations.\58\ We acknowledge that 
station carriage relies in part on business decisions involving 
broadcasters and satellite carriers and that without the willing 
participation of the affected broadcaster, modifying the market of a 
particular television station, in itself, would not result in consumer 
access to that station.\59\ However, by allowing a county government to 
file a satellite market modification on behalf of its residents, we 
seek to empower orphan counties to eliminate certain legal barriers 
which may have deprived local residents of the cultural, sports, 
political and local news relevant to the state in which they 
reside.\60\ We recognize that our rules require petitioners to provide 
specific evidence to demonstrate the five statutory factors and that 
much of this information may not be easily obtained by county 
governments.\61\ To avoid dismissal based on a failure to meet our 
specific evidentiary requirements, we strongly encourage county 
government petitioners to enlist the aid and cooperation of the station 
they wish to bring to their county. Moreover, to the extent the 
involved station opposes carriage in the county, a county government 
may not want to go through the time and expense of filing a petition to 
expand such station's market to include its county.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See id.
    \57\ See infra section III.F. (Definition of Community). We note 
that a county (or its political equivalent) was the only 
jurisdictional definition for which commenters in this proceeding 
sought the ability to file market modification petitions.
    \58\ See In-State Programming Report, at App. F (Case Studies) 
(discussing 35 counties in 13 DMAs with little or no access to in-
state broadcast stations via satellite service). The In-State 
Programming Report, also described the impact on consumers in these 
orphan counties. See id. at para. 18 (``Because the DMA may include 
one or more counties located in a different state from that of the 
DMA's principal city or cities where most of the local television 
stations originate, some consumers through their MVPD, may receive 
only out-of-state stations and thereby lack access to in-state 
programming, including political and election coverage, public 
affairs programming, and weather and other emergency information. 
Consumers from disparate areas throughout the nation comment that 
they are deprived of vital information that is overwhelmingly 
available to other households across the country. Consumers in 
affected areas typically do not have access to programming content 
from in-state local television stations that cover the issues 
emanating from their state capitals and, as a result, believe they 
are less well served by the broadcast programming they are able to 
receive. Without such state-focused information and programming 
content, consumers express frustration at their inability to make 
informed election and other civic decisions. Additionally, some 
consumers indicate that they would prefer television advertising 
that supports their state economies rather than the out-of-state 
advertisements that air on the in-market stations they receive. 
Commenters opine that their inability to access in-state advertising 
has a continuing negative impact on their communities through the 
loss of revenue.''). We also note that consumers have raised similar 
concerns in the record for the Commission's pending Report to 
Congress on DMAs required by section 109 of the STELAR. See, e.g., 
Leroy Axtell Comments (seeking in-state stations for Fairfield 
County, CT); Spencer Karter Comments (seeking in-state stations for 
Greenville County, SC); Richard Bolt Comments in MB Docket No. 15-43 
(filed May 15, 2015) (seeking in-state stations for Garrett County, 
MD); Kyle Ramie Comments in MB Docket No. 15-43 (filed May 6, 2015), 
Timothy Brastow Comments in MB Docket No. 15-43 (filed Mar. 24, 
2015) and Jerome Gibbs Comments in MB Docket No. 15-43 (filed Jun. 
2, 2015) (each seeking in-state stations for Bristol County, MA).
    \59\ NPRM, para. 9. See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, para. 
11(``[t]he granting of a request to expand the market of a 
television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek 
must carry status on cable systems added to its market. A 
broadcaster is not required to seek carriage of its signal on all of 
the cable systems in its market.''). Likewise, in the satellite 
context, the granting of a request to expand the market of a 
television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek 
mandatory carriage with respect to the new community, but does not 
require the broadcaster grant retransmission consent for it to be 
carried in the new community. Thus, our decision here about standing 
to file a satellite market modification should not be construed as 
affording a county government a right to demand carriage of a 
particular station via satellite in its county. Notwithstanding the 
grant of a petition to modify a market, a local broadcast station 
that elects retransmission consent with respect to the new community 
may not be carried without its express written consent. See 47 
U.S.C. 325(b)(1) (``No cable system or other multichannel video 
programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a 
broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except (A) with the 
express authority of the originating station''); 47 CFR 76.66.
    \60\ See Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1 (seeking to ``facilitate 
the ability of a community to voice its own opinion about the local 
television content that it would prefer to access''). We also note 
that local government and consumer comments in a market modification 
proceeding can help demonstrate a station's nexus to the community 
at issue. See Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1; Rep. Rogers et al. 
Letter at 1 (seeking to ``allow Counties, Parishes or the equivalent 
political subdivisions to make public comments about the television 
content their community prefers.''). For example, the Commission can 
consider consumer comments pursuant to the second statutory factor 
relating to a station's local service to a community. See 47 U.S.C. 
338(l)(2)(B)(ii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(II); Tennessee Broadcasting 
Partners, CSR 7596-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08-542, 
paras. 22-37 (MB rel. Mar. 10, 2008) (considering statements made by 
local officials).
    \61\ See infra at para. 20 (Evidentiary Requirements). For 
example, a petitioner must provide contour maps and published 
audience data for the involved broadcast station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We acknowledge that we are implementing a procedural aspect of 
section 338(l)(1) in a manner that differs from our implementation of 
section 614(h)(1)(C)(i), despite the nearly identical language of the 
two provisions.\62\ We find that a different procedure is appropriate 
to implement STELAR's directive in section 102(d) for purposes of 
filing a market modification petition in the satellite context. 
Significantly, the record and case studies in the 2011 In-State 
Programming Report show that the problem of subscriber access to in-
state stations disproportionately affects satellite subscribers.\63\ 
Notably, the Commission frequently receives satellite consumer calls 
about this problem and other complaints about not receiving the 
consumers' desired local station via satellite, while cable consumers 
rarely complain about this issue.\64\ This may be a product of the 
localized nature of cable systems as opposed to the national

[[Page 59642]]

nature of satellite service.\65\ The remote geographic location of 
orphan counties also contributes to the disproportionate impact on 
satellite subscribers. In the In-State Programming Report record, 
DIRECTV observed that ``[b]ecause many orphan counties tend to be 
isolated, their residents tend to rely more on satellite than on cable 
for access to television programming.'' \66\ We also observe that the 
cable market modification process has worked well for more than 20 
years and there is nothing in the record to suggest that changing the 
cable petition process to include local governments is necessary to 
effectuate the goals of the STELAR (to promote access to in-state 
programming) at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i).
    \63\ See In-State Programming Report, at App. F (Case Studies) 
(discussing 35 counties in 13 DMAs with little or no access to in-
state broadcast stations via satellite service). The BIA/Kelsey 
study submitted by NAB in the In-State Programming Report docket 
also illustrates this point, estimating that 0.1 percent of cable 
subscribers do not receive at least one in-state television station, 
while 2.2 percent of DISH subscribers do not receive at least one 
in-state television station and 6.1 percent of DIRECTV subscribers 
do not receive at least one in-state TV station. In-State 
Programming Report, para. 44.
    \64\ According to staff review, at least 165 consumers have 
called the Commission's call center in 2015 to complain that their 
satellite carrier does not carry a particular station. See also, 
e.g., Leroy Axtell Comments at 1 (Fairfield County, Connecticut 
resident explaining that ``Comcast and Frontier cable carry New York 
and Hartford/New Haven television channels,'' while ``Directv and 
Dish can presently carry only New York channels.'')
    \65\ See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension 
and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of 
the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, Report and Order, FCC 
05-187, para. 44, 70 FR 76504, December 27, 2005 (2005) (SHVERA 
Significantly Viewed Report and Order).
    \66\ DIRECTV Comments in MB Docket No. 10-238 (filed Jan. 24, 
2011) at 3-4, n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We adopt our proposal to require petitioners (i.e., broadcast 
stations, satellite carriers and county governments) to file market 
modification requests for satellite carriage purposes in accordance 
with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 
of the rules.\67\ Commenters on this issue generally support our 
proposal.\68\ Consistent with section 76.7, a petitioner must serve a 
copy of its market modification request on any MVPD operator, station 
licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested party who is 
likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted, and 
we amend section 76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to reference ``any MVPD 
operator.'' \69\ The NPRM sought comment on whether franchising 
authorities or certain local government entities (such as cities, 
counties, or towns) that may represent subscribers and local viewers in 
affected communities should be considered ``interested parties'' and 
served with market modification petitions.\70\ Consistent with our 
decision above to permit a county government to file a petition, we 
find that the relevant county government is an ``interested party'' 
that must also be served with a satellite market modification 
petition.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ NPRM, para. 10. See 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally 
required for the filing of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, 
1.1117, 76.7. We remind filers that Special Relief petitions must be 
submitted electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of 
Mandatory Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and 
Cable Show Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing System, 
Public Notice, DA 11-2095 (MB rel. Dec. 30, 2011). Petitions must be 
initially filed in MB Docket No. 12-1. Id.
    \68\ NAB Comments at 3.
    \69\ See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3).
    \70\ See NPRM, para. 10. No parties filed comments advocating 
that cable franchise authorities be served with satellite market 
modification requests. We decline to require such notifications, 
given that cable franchising authorities have no role in satellite 
regulation. See DIRECTV Comments at 7, n.20; UCC Comments at 8.
    \71\ If after due diligence, a petitioner is unable to identify 
the appropriate county government on which to serve its petition, 
the petitioner should request Commission staff assistance in this 
regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary Requirements

    17. As discussed above, the purpose of market modification is to 
permit adjustments to a particular station's local television market 
(which is initially defined by the DMA in which it is located) to 
better serve the value of localism by ensuring that satellite 
subscribers receive the broadcast stations most relevant to them.\72\ 
To this end, the STELAR requires the Commission to consider five 
statutory factors when evaluating market modification requests.\73\ As 
noted, the STELAR added a fifth factor (inserted as the new third 
statutory factor) for both cable and satellite to ``promote consumers' 
access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their 
State of residence.'' \74\ In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that 
this new third statutory factor is intended to favor a market 
modification to add a new community \75\ if doing so would increase 
consumer access to in-state programming.\76\ In the record, NAB and 
DISH appear to support this general conclusion; however, DISH states 
that we should consider under this factor whether the new community 
lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state stations, while NAB 
states that the statutory language imposes no such requirement.\77\ In 
addition, NCTA expresses concerns about how we may evaluate market 
modification petitions under this new in-state factor, particularly in 
situations that would grant cable carriage rights to previously 
uncarried in-state stations.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the 
Commission to ``afford particular attention to the value of 
localism'' by taking into account the five statutory factors).
    \73\ See supra para. 8. The Commission must also consider other 
relevant information to develop a result that is designed to 
``better effectuate the purposes'' of the law. See 47 U.S.C. 
338(l)(1); Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable 
Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, CS Docket No. 95-178, 
Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 99-116, 
para. 53, 64 FR 33788, Jun. 24, 1999 (Cable Market Modification 
Second Report and Order).
    \74\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). We will 
refer to this new third statutory factor as the ``in-state factor.''
    \75\ For purposes of our discussion, by ``new community'' we 
refer to a new community to be added to a station's local television 
market by grant of the prospective market modification.
    \76\ NPRM, para. 11. The NPRM also asked if we should ``require 
the petitioner to show that the station at issue is licensed to a 
community within the state in which the modification is requested 
and that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-
state stations?'' NPRM, para. 13.
    \77\ See DISH Comments at 3-4; NAB Comments at 5.
    \78\ See NCTA Reply at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. We conclude that the in-state factor favors any market 
modification that would promote consumers' access to an in-state 
station.\79\ The language of this new statutory factor speaks clearly 
in this regard.\80\ Therefore, a petitioner will be afforded credit for 
satisfying this factor simply by showing that the involved station is 
licensed to a community within the same state as the new community.\81\ 
We disagree with those commenters that sought a requirement for more 
substantial showings, such as the lack of in-state stations in the new 
community, in order to get credit for satisfying this factor.\82\ We 
find that such additional showings are not necessary to satisfy this 
factor. We read the statutory language--in requiring the Commission to 
consider whether the prospective modification would ``promote'' 
consumers' access to television broadcast station ``signals'' that 
originate in their state of residence--as applying to any situation 
that would increase access to in-state stations, regardless of whether 
there are other in-state stations present in the new community.\83\ 
However, we find that such additional showings can increase the weight 
afforded to this factor. For example, this factor may be found to weigh 
more heavily in favor of modification if the petitioner shows the 
involved station provides programming specifically related to 
subscribers' state of residence, and may be given even more weight if 
such subscribers in the new community had little (or no) access

[[Page 59643]]

to such in-state programming.\84\ We find that this interpretation of 
the factor will better effectuate its purpose, observing that the 
legislative history expresses Congress' concern that ``many consumers, 
particularly those who reside in DMAs that cross State lines or cover 
vast geographic distances,'' may ``lack access to local television 
programming that is relevant to their everyday lives'' and indicates 
Congress' intent that the Commission ``consider the plight of these 
consumers when judging the merits of a [market modification] petition . 
. ., even if granting such modification would pose an economic 
challenge to various local television broadcast stations.'' \85\ We 
clarify, however, that this new factor is not universally more 
important than any of the other factors and its relative importance 
will vary depending on the circumstances in a given case.\86\ In sum, 
in market modification petitions involving the addition of an in-state 
broadcaster, the in-state factor does not serve as a trump card 
negating the other four statutory factors. Instead, where applicable, 
we believe the in-state factor serves as an enhancement, the particular 
weight of which depends on the strength of showing by the petitioner. 
Ultimately, each petition for market modification will turn on the 
unique facts of the case.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii) (``whether modifying the 
market of the television station would promote consumers' access to 
television broadcast station signals that originate in their State 
of residence'').
    \80\ See id. See also NAB Comments at 5.
    \81\ See infra at para. 20 (Evidentiary Requirements).
    \82\ See DISH Comments at 4 (stating ``a petitioner should have 
to `show . . . that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate 
number of) in-state stations'''); NCTA Comments at 3 (stating ``the 
Commission should assess whether cable customers already receive 
television stations that provide in-state coverage'').
    \83\ See NAB Comments at 5 (``The statute does not suggest that 
the Commission should take into account only those in-state market 
modification requests that would help to remedy a complete absence--
or some minimum number--of in-state broadcast stations.'').
    \84\ See NAB at 5 (``Consideration of the `in-state signal' 
statutory factor also could involve an evaluation of programming or 
advertising on that station.'') We note that our analysis of the in-
state nature of the programming would be similar to our analysis of 
the local nature of the programming under the second statutory 
factor and would consider whether the television station provides 
programming specifically related to the subscribers' state of 
residence. For example, under factor two, we consider whether the 
station has aired programming, such as news, politics, sports, 
weather and other emergency information, specifically targeted to 
the community at issue (e.g., town council meeting, news or weather 
event that occurred in the community, local emergencies, etc.). 
Under factor three, we would consider whether the station has aired 
programming, such as news, politics, sports, emergency information, 
specifically related to the state in which the community is located 
(e.g., coverage of state politics and legislative matters, state 
sports team coverage, state emergency information, etc.).
    \85\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \86\ See Cable Market Modification Second Report and Order, 
para. 59 (stating that ``it is inappropriate to state that one 
factor is universally more important than any other, as each is 
valuable in assessing whether a particular community should be 
included or excluded from a station's local market, and the relative 
importance of particular factors will vary depending on the 
circumstances in a given case''). See also, e.g., NCTA Reply at 2 
(stating that ``[w]hile promoting access to in-state programming is 
one factor in the market modification process, Congress preserved 
the other four factors as well. In evaluating any market 
modification petitions going forward, therefore, the Commission must 
consider all of the factors.''); UCC Comments at 6 (stating that 
``the laudable goal of providing satellite subscribers with access 
to the signals of some television stations licensed to communities 
within the same state should not trump the value of local coverage 
provided by stations that happen to be licensed to communities in a 
different state so as to deprive satellite customers of access to 
the signals of those stations that are more truly `local' than the 
more distant same-state stations.'').
    \87\ For example, we agree with NCTA that we should consider the 
potential disruption to customers if grant of the modification 
request would displace service from a long-established network 
station. See NCTA Comments at 3-4 (stating ``the Commission should 
consider the potential disruption to cable customers that could be 
caused by wholesale changes to markets. Market changes that would 
require operators to delete one group of broadcast stations in favor 
of another could upset long-established cable customer viewing 
patterns.''). The Bureau has previously considered, in the cable 
context, whether grant of the market modification would ``upset the 
economic marketplace expectations underlying the network-affiliate 
relationship.'' See, e.g., Broad Street Television, L.P., CSR-3868-
A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 95-1106, para. 12 (CSB rel. May 
25, 1995); Guy Gannett Communications, Inc., CSR-5289-A, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, DA 98-2464, para. 21 (CSB rel. Dec. 4, 1998), 
aff'd, Order on Reconsideration, DA 00-1325 (CSB rel. Jun. 19, 
2000); Pacific & Southern Co., Inc., CSR-5326-A, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, DA 99-628, para. 25 (CSB rel. Apr. 2, 1999); Harron 
Communications Corp., CSR-5325-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 
99-627, para. 26 (CSB rel. Apr. 2, 1999); Free State Communications, 
LLC, CSR-8121-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 09-1206, para. 22 
(MB rel. May 28, 2009). We note that, for must carry purposes, 
although cable operators are not required to carry duplicating 
stations or more than one local station affiliated with a particular 
network, if a cable system declines to carry duplicating stations, 
it must carry the station closest to the principal headend of the 
cable system, even if that station is from another state. See 47 CFR 
76.56(b)(5). By contrast, in the satellite carriage context, a 
satellite carrier must carry two stations affiliated with the same 
network if they are from different states, see 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 
47 CFR 76.66(h)(1), and otherwise may select which duplicating 
station or network affiliate in a market it will carry. See 47 CFR 
76.66(h)(2) through (3). Thus, the potential for market disruption 
is lower in the satellite context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the new in-state factor 
is not intended to bar a market modification simply because it would 
not result in increased consumer access to an in-state station's 
programming.\88\ In such cases, we find that this new in-state factor 
would be inapplicable and the modification request would be evaluated 
based on the other statutory factors.\89\ Commenters on this issue 
support these tentative conclusions.\90\ We agree with commenters that 
the statute intended to promote access to in-state programming, but did 
not intend to disfavor other market modification requests.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ NPRM, para. 11.
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ See UCC Comments at 6-7; WVIR-TV Comments at 4; Tracy 
Comments at 1.
    \91\ See UCC Comments at 6-7 (``STELAR did not intend to 
forestall market modification requests that would not have the 
effect of supplying in-state programming to residents of `orphan 
counties.' ''); WVIR-TV Comments at 4 (asking Commission ``not to 
confine any new rules to situations where a subscriber's community 
or county is assigned to an out-of-state DMA by Nielsen''); Tracy 
Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Evidentiary Requirements. We adopt our proposal to apply the 
evidentiary requirements for cable market modifications to satellite 
market modifications.\92\ Commenters on this issue support this 
proposal.\93\ We find it appropriate, and that it promotes parity, to 
apply the same evidentiary requirements in both contexts, particularly 
given the same language is used in both the cable and satellite 
statutory factors and the record provides no basis for adopting a 
different interpretation in the satellite versus cable context.\94\ In 
addition, to implement our decision (above) that the in-state factor 
favors any market modification that would promote consumers' access to 
an in-state station, we require the petitioner to make a statement in 
its petition whether or not the station is licensed to a community 
within the same state as the new community.\95\ We find this sufficient 
evidence to show that a station's petition satisfies this factor. 
Accordingly, market modification requests for both satellite carriers 
and cable system operators must include the following evidence: \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ NPRM, para. 12.
    \93\ See NAB Comments at 4-5; DISH Comments at 3-4.
    \94\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) 
through (V).
    \95\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(7). As noted above (see supra para. 
18), to better effectuate the purpose of the law, we will consider 
(but not require) additional evidence showing the relevance of the 
in-state programming (including advertising) to the new community, 
as well as the absence of other in-state stations in the new 
community, to evaluate the strength afforded to this factor.
    \96\ See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(1) through (7). To make section 
76.59(b)(6) consistent with the language of the STELAR, we are also 
updating the rule to reflect the change from ``evidence of viewing 
patterns in cable and noncable households . . .'' to ``evidence of 
viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe 
to the services offered by multichannel video programming 
distributors'' in the fifth statutory factor (emphasis added). See 
47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and 
geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or 
satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features 
that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and 
the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any 
other evidence contributing to the scope of the market;
    (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for full-power digital 
stations) or protected contour maps (for Class A and low power 
television stations)

[[Page 59644]]

delineating the station's technical service area and showing the 
location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local 
receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas.
    (3) Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local 
market.
    (4) Television station programming information derived from station 
logs or the local edition of the television guide.
    (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or 
other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide 
listings.
    (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its 
average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over 
Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD 
households or other specific audience indicia, such as station 
advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.
    (7) If applicable, a statement that the station is licensed to a 
community within the same state as the relevant community.

As discussed above, DISH and NCTA sought additional evidentiary 
requirements for a petitioner to satisfy the in-state factor.\97\ 
Because we decide that the in-state factor generally favors any market 
modification that would promote consumers' access to an in-state 
station, we reject the suggestions by DISH and NCTA to require more 
evidence in this regard. As explained above, however, a petitioner may 
offer evidence concerning whether the television station provides 
programming specifically related to the subscribers' state of 
residence, as well as the lack of other in-state stations providing 
service to subscribers in the new community, to demonstrate that the 
in-state factor should be afforded even greater weight.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See DISH Comments at 4 (suggesting that petitioners be 
required to ``submit evidence to demonstrate that a substantial 
portion of the population in the geographic area covered by the 
request supports the change''); NCTA Reply at 3 (suggesting that 
petitioning broadcasters ``should demonstrate a historical pattern 
of providing significant in-state programming that is not otherwise 
available on the local DMA broadcast stations (or on any other 
station already carried on the system)''). WVIR-TV opposed the DISH 
proposal, stating ``DISH's suggestion that a broadcaster seeking to 
be added to a market provide evidence of popular demand by viewers 
goes far beyond what is required in the cable context and should not 
be adopted.'' WVIR-TV Reply at 5.
    \98\ See supra para. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In addition, we adopt our proposal to revise section 
76.59(b)(2) of the rules to add a reference to the digital noise-
limited service contour (NLSC), which is the relevant service contour 
for a full-power station's digital signal.\99\ NAB, the only commenter 
on this issue, supports our proposal.\100\ Section 76.59(b)(2) requires 
petitioners seeking a market modification to provide Grade B contour 
maps delineating the station's technical service area;\101\ however the 
Grade B contour defines an analog television station's service 
area.\102\ Since the completion of the full power digital television 
transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog 
stations and, therefore, the Commission uses the NLSC set forth in 47 
CFR 73.622(e),\103\ in place of the analog Grade B contour set forth in 
47 CFR 73.683(a), to describe a full power station's technical service 
area.\104\ Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has required full 
power stations to provide NLSC maps, in place of Grade B contour maps, 
for purposes of cable market modifications.\105\ Therefore, we adopt 
our tentative conclusion that section 76.59(b)(2) should be updated for 
purposes of market modifications in both the cable and satellite 
contexts. We also delete the reference in the rule to the Grade B 
contour because that reference has no relevance in the absence of full-
power analog stations. We observe that, in the rare situation in which 
a Class A or LPTV station might seek a market modification, the 
relevant service contour for such stations would be its ``protected 
contour.'' \106\ Accordingly, we revise our rule to reflect this 
contour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ NPRM, para. 14; 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).
    \100\ NAB Comments at 4.
    \101\ 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).
    \102\ See 47 CFR 73.683(a).
    \103\ As set forth in section 73.622(e), a full-power station's 
DTV service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited 
contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-
limited service level. See 47 CFR 73.622(e).
    \104\ See STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, para. 51 
(stating that the digital NLSC is ``the appropriate service contour 
relevant for a station's digital signal''); 2010 Quadrennial 
Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership 
Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, MB Docket No. 09-182, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-92, para. 
103, 75 FR 33227, June 11, 2010 (stating that the Commission 
developed the digital NLSC to approximate the same probability of 
service as the Grade B contour and has stated that the two are 
roughly equivalent); Report To Congress: The Satellite Home Viewer 
Extension And Reauthorization Act of 2004; Study of Digital 
Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures; ET 
Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199, para. 111 (rel. Dec. 9, 2005). Since 
the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has used the digital NLSC in 
place of the analog Grade B contour in the cable context. See, e.g., 
KXAN, Inc., CSR-7825-N, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-589, 
para. 8 n.32 (MB rel. Apr. 1, 2010) (using the NLSC in place of the 
Grade B contour for purposes of the cable network non-duplication 
and syndicated program exclusivity rules). Congress has also acted 
on the presumption that the two standards are roughly equivalent, by 
adopting parallel definitions for households that are ``unserved'' 
by analog (measured by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) 
broadcasters in the STELA legislation enacted after the DTV 
transition. See 17 U.S.C.U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A)(i).
    \105\ See, e.g., Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, CSR-7596-A, 
Order on Reconsideration, DA 10-824, para. 6, n.14 (MB rel. May 12, 
2010) (stating, in a market modification order, that the Commission 
has treated a digital station's NLSC as the functional equivalent of 
an analog station's Grade B contour); Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC, 
CSR-6278-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 04-1414, para. 7, n.27 
(MB rel. May 20, 2004).
    \106\ The relevant technical service area for Class A and LPTV 
stations is defined by their protected contour, as defined in 
sections 73.6010 (Class A), 74.707 (analog LPTV) and 74.792 (digital 
LPTV) of the rules; 47 CFR 73.6010, 74.707, 74.792. Although LPTV 
stations are not entitled to mandatory satellite carriage, see 47 
U.S.C. 338(a)(3), LPTV stations may be entitled to mandatory cable 
carriage, but only in limited circumstances. Both the Communications 
Act and the Commission's rules mandate that only a minimum number of 
qualified low power stations must be carried by cable systems, see 
47 U.S.C. 534(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.56(b)(3), and, in order to qualify, 
such stations must meet several criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(2)(A) 
through (F); 47 CFR 76.55(d)(1) through (6). Class A stations have 
the same limited must carry rights as LPTV stations; in other words, 
they are ``low power stations'' for mandatory carriage purposes. See 
Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-123, paras. 
40-42, 66 FR 21681, May 1, 2001. Finally, we note that the Media 
Bureau recently suspended the September 1, 2015 digital transition 
deadline for LPTV stations. (The Bureau's action did not affect the 
September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline for Class A stations.) 
See Suspension of September 1, 2015 Digital Transition Date for Low 
Power Television and TV Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, 
Public Notice, DA 15-486, 80 FR 27862, May 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Consistent with the cable carriage rule, we adopt our proposals 
that satellite market modification requests that do not include the 
required evidence be dismissed without prejudice and that they may be 
supplemented and re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing 
fee.\107\ In addition, consistent with the cable carriage rule, we 
adopt our proposal that, during the pendency of a market modification 
petition before the Commission, satellite carriers will be required to 
maintain the status quo with regard to signal carriage and must not 
delete from carriage the signal of an affected commercial television 
station.\108\ NAB, the only commenter on these issues, supports our 
proposals.\109\ We adopt our proposals, which create regulatory parity 
with cable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ NPRM, para. 15. See 47 CFR 76.59(c).
    \108\ NPRM, para. 15. See 47 CFR 76.59(d). See also 47 U.S.C. 
338(l)(3)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(iii); Must Carry Order, para. 46.
    \109\ NAB Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Market Determinations

    23. We adopt our tentative conclusion that market modifications in 
the satellite

[[Page 59645]]

carriage context will apply only to the specific stations and 
communities addressed in a particular market modification 
petition.\110\ NAB, the only commenter on this issue, supports our 
conclusion.\111\ Our conclusion is consistent with the cable carriage 
rules \112\ and is based on the statute's language granting authority 
to modify markets ``with respect to a particular commercial television 
broadcast station.'' \113\ It is also reasonable because market 
modification determinations are highly fact-specific and turn on 
whether a particular commercial television broadcast station serves the 
needs of a specific community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ NPRM, para. 16.
    \111\ NAB Comments at 5.
    \112\ See Must Carry Order, para. 47 n.139 (stating that ``the 
statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's market 
to reflect its individual situation''); 47 CFR 76.59. We note that 
this is also consistent with the Commission's previous determination 
that stations may make a different retransmission consent/mandatory 
carriage election in the satellite context from that made in the 
cable context. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, para. 
23.
    \113\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that we will consider 
market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite 
contexts.\114\ NAB and DISH, the only commenters on this issue, support 
our conclusion.\115\ We find this preferable given the differences in 
service area and community sizes between cable systems and satellite 
carriers.\116\ In contrast to the cable context, we must also consider 
the technical and economic capability of the satellite carriers at 
issue to effectuate a satellite market modification.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ NPRM, para. 16. This is consistent with our conclusion 
below that prior cable market modification determinations will not 
automatically apply in the satellite context; see infra para. 26.
    \115\ DISH at Comments 4; NAB Comments at 5-6.
    \116\ See DISH Comments at 4. See also infra section III.F. 
(deciding that a ``satellite community'' for market modification 
purposes can be defined by a county).
    \117\ See DISH Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Finally, we adopt our tentative conclusion that market 
modification requests will apply only to the satellite carrier or 
carriers named in the request.\118\ NAB and DISH support our 
conclusion,\119\ although DIRECTV believes this is unnecessary if we 
allow each satellite carrier to carry a station based on its respective 
spot beam coverage.\120\ We disagree with DIRECTV that this is 
unnecessary. Instead, we find that a modification may not always 
appropriately apply to both carriers. For example, the carriers' spot 
beams may be different, even though they are serving the same market, 
and thus one may have an infeasibility defense while the other may not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ NPRM, para. 16. This is also consistent with the satellite 
carriage election process. See Implementation of the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, CS 
Docket No. 00-96, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-249, para. 62, 66 
FR 49124, Sept. 26., 2001 (DBS Must Carry Reconsideration Order) 
(``where there is more than one satellite carrier in a local market 
area, a television station can elect retransmission consent for one 
satellite carrier and elect must carry for another satellite 
carrier'').
    \119\ DISH at Comments 5; NAB Comments at 5.
    \120\ DIRECTV Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Prior Determinations. We adopt our tentative conclusion that 
prior cable market modification determinations will not automatically 
apply in the satellite context.\121\ We also decline to establish a 
presumption that prior cable determinations should apply to satellite 
markets.\122\ DISH, NAB, and DIRECTV support these conclusions,\123\ 
while Gray proposes that we establish a presumption that prior cable 
market modification determinations should apply to satellite 
markets.\124\ We find the same reasoning that requires us to consider 
market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite 
contexts also makes it inadvisable to apply prior cable market 
determinations to satellite markets. As discussed above, market 
modifications are specific to the stations, operators/carriers, and 
communities addressed in a particular market modification petition, as 
of the time of the petition. Given the differences in service areas and 
community sizes between cable systems and satellite carriers, and 
changes that may have occurred since the time of the cable petition, we 
conclude that it would not be reasonable to automatically apply prior 
cable market determinations to satellite carriers or establish a 
rebuttable presumption. We note that Gray's proposal would have us 
establish a presumption for an entire county based on a finding with 
respect to a single cable community or several cable communities within 
a county.\125\ Moreover, we note that satellite carriers did not have 
the opportunity to participate in these prior market modification 
proceedings.\126\ We also agree with DIRECTV that establishing a 
presumption would be inconsistent with our statutory obligation to 
evaluate modifications based on the statutory factors.\127\ However, as 
noted in the NPRM, historic carriage is one of the five factors the 
Commission must consider in evaluating market modification requests and 
would carry weight in a market modification determination in the 
satellite context.\128\ We agree with NAB that consideration of this 
factor will give sufficient weight to prior decisions without the need 
to establish a presumption.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ NPRM, para. 17.
    \122\ NPRM, para. 17.
    \123\ See DISH Comments at 4-5; NAB at 5-6; DIRECTV Reply at 9-
10. See also DIRECTV ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2; DISH ex 
parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2.
    \124\ Gray Comments at 4-5 (``When a satellite market 
modification is requested for a county or counties where a previous 
cable market modification has been granted, the FCC should require 
only that a petitioner file a simple request that the station's 
satellite market be modified to include the counties that include 
the communities associated with the earlier modification. Any party 
opposing the modification would have the burden of demonstrating 
that, notwithstanding the outcome of the earlier proceeding, the 
statutory factors do not support a market modification in the 
satellite context.'').
    \125\ Gray Comments at 4-6 (``If a previous market modification 
proceeding has resulted in the assignment of additional communities 
to a television station's cable carriage market, the FCC should 
presume that the county or counties in which those communities are 
located should be added to the station's DBS market.'').
    \126\ DIRECTV correctly observes that there is no official list 
of previously-granted modifications. DIRECTV ex parte (dated June 
11, 2015) at 2.
    \127\ DIRECTV Reply at 9.
    \128\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i)(I) (whether the station, or 
other stations located in the same area--``have been historically 
carried on the cable system or systems within such community'').
    \129\ NAB Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Carriage after a market modification. We adopt our tentative 
conclusion that television broadcast stations that become eligible for 
mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to 
section 76.66 of the rules) by virtue of a change in the market 
definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to section 
76.59 of the rules) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the 
new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with 
respect to such carrier.\130\ This is consistent with the cable 
rule.\131\ NAB and Gray support this conclusion,\132\ while DISH 
expresses concern that, as a result of a market modification (and an 
existing retransmission consent agreement with the involved station), 
it could have to carry and pay retransmission consent fees to two 
stations from different states but that are affiliated with the same 
network.\133\ DISH proposes that a station's election with respect to 
the communities added by a market modification should be limited to 
must-carry for the remainder of the carriage election cycle.\134\ NAB 
responds that

[[Page 59646]]

``[s]atellite carriers cannot lawfully obtain a `free pass' to carry 
retransmission consent stations without negotiating the prices, terms 
and conditions of such consent in any geographic area.\135\ 
Alternatively, DISH asks the Commission to ``clarify that 
notwithstanding any retransmission consent agreements that would 
automatically entitle the station to carriage in additional geographic 
areas due to a market modification, the station must negotiate a new 
retransmission consent agreement for the new areas.''\136\ NAB responds 
that ``DISH and other satellite carriers must abide by provisions of 
the Communications Act and FCC rules governing retransmission consent 
and must-carry within a station's market, including areas affected by a 
market modification.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ NPRM, para. 18. See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(6).
    \131\ See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5).
    \132\ NAB Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 8; NAB Reply at 3.
    \133\ See DISH Comments at 9-10.
    \134\ See DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. We note that 
DISH initially agreed that a station should elect either 
retransmission consent or must-carry with the applicable satellite 
carriers for the new geographic area within 30 days of the market 
modification order. DISH Comments at 5.
    \135\ NAB Reply at 2.
    \136\ DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2. DISH's proposal 
recognizes that its concern is a short-term problem that would last 
for the length of any existing retransmission consent agreement. Id. 
In DISH's scenario, after expiration of the existing agreements with 
the two same-network affiliates, we expect the marketplace would 
resolve this concern.
    \137\ NAB Reply at 1, 3-5. See also 47 U.S.C. 325, 338 and 47 
CFR 76.64 through 76.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. We reject DISH's proposal to mandate a must-carry election for 
the remainder of the current election cycle because it directly 
contravenes section 325 of the Act and would be inconsistent with our 
satellite carriage rules.\138\ As with any other election for satellite 
carriage, we find that when a station's market is modified for purposes 
of satellite carriage, then the station is entitled to elect either 
retransmission consent pursuant to section 325 or mandatory carriage 
pursuant to section 338 with respect to the new community or 
communities added to its market by the modification.\139\ This is also 
consistent with the cable market modification process \140\ and, 
moreover, is required by application of sections 325 and 338 of the 
Act.\141\ Section 338(a)(1) requires that a satellite carrier must 
carry upon request all local television stations seeking carriage in 
any market in which the carrier provides local-into-local service, 
subject to section 325(b) of the Act.\142\ Section 325(b)(1) prohibits 
an MVPD from retransmitting the signal of a broadcast station except 
``with the express authority of the originating station.'' \143\ The 
statute provides for no exception in the market modification context to 
the retransmission consent requirement. Thus, we reject DISH's argument 
that the silence of section 102 of the STELAR with respect to 
retransmission consent means that Congress could not have intended 
retransmission consent to apply to the carriage of stations in 
communities added by market modification.\144\ To the contrary, 
considering the provisions together in context, we believe the better 
reading of the statute is that the retransmission consent requirement 
applies in this context given the absence of an express indication 
otherwise in either section 102 of STELAR or the retransmission consent 
provisions.\145\ We note that, while the network programming may be the 
same, the two stations would likely be providing very different local 
programming (e.g., different news, sports, advertising and political 
programming), each of which may be of interest to the new community, 
because the stations are licensed to different communities and 
particularly if the stations are located in different states. Finally, 
with respect to DISH's proposal that we prevent application of an 
existing retransmission consent agreement containing a provision 
requiring carriage pursuant to its terms in the event the Commission 
modifies a given market, DISH provides no reasoning that persuades us 
to abrogate a bargained-for and agreed-to contractual provision between 
a broadcaster and a satellite carrier that expressly contemplates the 
addition of communities through the market modification process.\146\ 
We note, however, that the very purpose of this provision of the STELAR 
is to provide consumers with access to news, politics, sports, 
emergency and other programming specifically related to their home 
state.\147\ Accordingly, we expect broadcasters and satellite carriers 
alike will make the needs and expectations of orphan county consumers 
the priority in negotiating retransmission consent following a 
successful modification petition.\148\ We will monitor this situation 
closely and will take further action if such monitoring indicates that 
the purpose of this provision is not being effectuated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See 47 U.S.C. 325(b) and 47 CFR 76.66.
    \139\ See 47 CFR 76.66(c) (``In television markets where a 
satellite carrier is providing local-into-local service, a 
commercial television broadcast station may elect either 
retransmission consent, pursuant to section 325 of title 47 United 
States Code, or mandatory carriage, pursuant to section 338, title 
47 United States Code.''). We thus agree with NAB that ``a station 
electing retransmission consent with regard to a community or 
communities that become part of its defined market following a 
modification request is the same as any other station making a 
retransmission consent election.'' NAB Reply at 3.
    \140\ See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5).
    \141\ See 47 U.S.C. 325, 338.
    \142\ 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1).
    \143\ 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1).
    \144\ See DISH Comments at 9-10. DISH also appears to argue 
that, because STELAR provides that a market modification could 
operate both to add communities to, and delete communities from, a 
station's local market, the Commission could delete the community at 
issue from the existing network affiliate's local market at the same 
time that it adds the new community to the local market of the same-
network station seeking the market modification. Id. at 10. Under 
current rules, however, to delete the community at issue from the 
existing network station's local market, DISH would have to file a 
separate petition to modify that station's local market, based on 
the statutory factors. There is nothing in the record that persuades 
us to alter the existing process.
    \145\ See STELAR section 102. See also 47 U.S.C. 325(b), 
338(c)(1). We also disagree with Gray's argument that the 
``substantial duplication'' exceptions to the satellite mandatory 
carriage rules should not apply to stations in communities that have 
been added to their markets via the market modification process. 
Gray Comments at 8. Section 338(c)(1) speaks clearly on this point 
in permitting but not requiring a satellite carrier to carry more 
than one network affiliate licensed to the same state. 47 U.S.C. 
338(c)(1).
    \146\ See DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 2 (stating that 
``[m]any retransmission consent contracts require DBS providers to 
carry a station's signal throughout its local market, even if that 
local market's boundary is changed by FCC action--meaning the DBS 
provider could be obligated to pay retransmission consent fees to 
two network-affiliated stations in a given area pursuant to a market 
modification, even if these stations duplicate one another.''). See 
also NAB Reply at 3 (opposing DISH's various proposals to avoid 
paying retransmission consent fees).
    \147\ See Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \148\ See supra note 59 (describing the impact on consumers of 
residing in orphan counties) and note 65 (noting Commission receipt 
of at least 165 consumer complaints in 2015 that their satellite 
carrier does not carry a particular station).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that a satellite carrier 
must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the request for 
carriage from the television broadcast station.\149\ In the record, NAB 
and Gray support the 90-day deadline,\150\ while DISH asks for 120 
days.\151\ The 90-day deadline is consistent with our cable rules,\152\ 
as well as with existing carriage procedures involving the addition of 
a new station to a carrier's lineup \153\ and we see no reason to 
deviate from the 90-day deadlines in these similar contexts.\154\ Thus, 
we conclude that 90

[[Page 59647]]

days is an appropriate amount of, time for satellite carriers to 
commence carriage. We note that, as is the case in the cable context, 
the filing of a petition for reconsideration or application for review 
does not automatically stay the effect of a Bureau order to add a 
station to a new community; however, based on the directive in section 
338(l)(3)(B)--the satellite counterpart to cable's section 
614(h)(1)(C)(iii)--a petition for reconsideration or application for 
review would automatically stay a Bureau order to delete a station in a 
community.\155\ Finally, we adopt our tentative conclusion that the 
carriage election must be made in accordance with the procedures set 
forth in section 76.66(d)(1).\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ NPRM, para. 18.
    \150\ NAB Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 8; NAB Reply at 3.
    \151\ DISH Comments at 5-6. We note that 120 days is 
inconsistent with DISH's proposal that requests for carriage use the 
procedures governing carriage of new stations. DISH Comments at 5.
    \152\ See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5).
    \153\ See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3). We note that DISH's proposal for 
120 days to commence carriage is inconsistent with DISH's proposal 
that requests for carriage use the procedures governing carriage of 
new stations. See DISH Comments at 5.
    \154\ DISH speculates that ``there may be time-consuming 
technical or billing changes, among other things, necessary for the 
satellite carrier to undertake'' in order to effectuate carriage of 
a market modification. DISH Comments at 5-6. We see no evidence in 
the record to suggest that commencement of carriage after a market 
modification is more difficult or complicated in the satellite 
context or more difficult or complicated than adding a new station 
to a carrier's lineup.
    \155\ See NAB Comments at 6-7 (seeking clarification that ``the 
filing of a petition for reconsideration or application for review 
does not relieve a cable or satellite provider of its obligation to 
commence carriage pursuant to a broadcaster's must carry election or 
begin retransmission consent negotiations consistent with good faith 
requirements''). In the Cable Market Modification Second Report and 
Order, paras. 63-64, the Commission found that section 
614(h)(1)(C)(iii)--the cable counterpart to section 338(l)(3)(B)--
``prohibits cable operators from deleting from carriage commercial 
broadcast stations during the pendency of a market modification 
request but does not address maintaining the status quo with respect 
to additions. Given the absence of a parallel statutory directive 
with respect to channel additions, we see no reason to depart from 
the general presumption that a decision is valid and binding until 
it is stayed or overruled. To the extent the process aids broadcast 
stations in both retaining and obtaining cable carriage rights, that 
appears to be the result intended by the statutory framework 
adopted.'' See Cablevision Systems Corporation, CSR-3873-A, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1231, para. 11 (CSB, rel. Aug. 
2, 1996) (explaining that ``if we were to accept the general 
arguments for granting the stay raised by Time Warner and 
Cablevision, every initial market modification decision adverse to 
any cable operator would be postponed while either the Bureau or 
Commission acts on the petition for reconsideration or application 
for review. Such a result would unduly delay qualified television 
stations from realizing their statutory cable carriage rights.''). 
See also Dynamic Cablevision of Florida Ltd., et al., CSR-4722-A, 
CSR-4707-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97-191, para. 20 (rel. 
Jul. 1, 1997) (``hold[ing] that a commercial television station may 
not be deleted from a cable system until the Commission has 
completed all administrative proceedings pertaining to a particular 
market redefinition . . . . There can be no question that Commission 
reconsideration or review of a Bureau market redefinition ruling is 
a `proceeding' pursuant to the market re-definition section.'').
    \156\ NPRM, para. 18. Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that an 
election request made by a television station must be in writing and 
sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by 
certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). 
The rule requires that a television station's written notification 
shall include the following information: (1) Station's call sign; 
(2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station's 
address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) 
Station's community of license; (5) Station's DMA assignment; and 
(6) Station's election of mandatory carriage or retransmission 
consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). The rule also requires that, 
within 30 days of receiving the request for carriage from the 
television broadcast station, a satellite carrier must notify the 
station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with 
the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the 
station. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv). DISH proposes that requests for 
carriage follow the procedures outlined in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(3), which 
governs written requests for carriage by new stations. DISH Comments 
at 5. However the carriage election procedures outlined in 47 CFR 
76.66(d)(3) expressly refer to the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 
76.66(d)(1). See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii) through (iii) and 
(d)(3)(ii). The only difference is timing and even DISH agrees with 
the filing of an election within 30 days of the market modification 
order which is consistent with the 30 days in 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility Exception for Satellite Carriers

    30. We adopt our proposal to codify the language of section 
338(l)(3), which provides that ``[a] market determination . . . shall 
not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if 
it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to 
accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the 
time of the determination.'' \157\ In enacting this provision, Congress 
recognized that the unique nature of satellite television service may 
make a particular market modification difficult for a satellite carrier 
to effectuate and, thus, exempted the carrier from the resulting 
carriage obligation.\158\ According to the record, spot beam coverage 
and capacity constraints (discussed below) are the primary technical 
and economic impediments to carriage facing both satellite carriers. 
Based on the constraints described in the record, we conclude that it 
is per se not technically and economically feasible for a satellite 
carrier to provide a station to a new community \159\ that is, or to 
the extent to which it is,\160\ outside the relevant spot beam \161\ on 
which that station is currently carried.\162\ We adopt our tentative 
conclusion that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate 
that the resulting carriage from a market modification ``is not 
technically and economically feasible . . . by means of [a carrier's] 
satellites in operation.'' \163\ In this regard, we will allow 
satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility by 
providing a detailed and specialized certification, under penalty of 
perjury (as described herein).\164\ In addition, with respect to other 
possible bases for a carrier to assert that carriage would be 
technically or economically infeasible, such as costs associated with 
changes to customer satellite dishes to accommodate reception from 
different orbital locations, we will review these assertions on a case-
by-case basis. To avoid unnecessary burdens on broadcasters, satellite 
carriers, county governments and the Commission, we establish a process 
for prospective petitioners to obtain information from a satellite 
carrier regarding feasibility of carriage by the carrier prior to the 
filing of a market modification petition. We require satellite carriers 
to respond to broadcaster and county government requests for 
information about the feasibility of prospective market modifications 
with certifications and afford prospective petitioners with a process 
for Commission review of such certifications before filing a market 
modification petition. The Commission

[[Page 59648]]

will not proceed to evaluate the five factors for a market modification 
with respect to a particular satellite carrier where it is shown that 
the resulting carriage obligation would not be technically and 
economically feasible at the time of the market determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). See 47 CFR 76.59(e).
    \158\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11 (recognizing ``that 
there are technical and operational differences that may make a 
particular television market modification difficult for a satellite 
carrier to effectuate.'').
    \159\ For purposes of our discussion, by ``new community'' we 
refer to a new community to be added to a station's local television 
market by grant of the prospective market modification. As discussed 
below in section III.F., a ``community'' for purposes of a satellite 
market modification is defined as a county.
    \160\ This per se exemption is limited to areas outside the 
carrier's spot beam. Thus, a satellite carrier will be required to 
carry the station to those areas inside the relevant spot beam even 
if part of the new community (i.e., county) is outside the relevant 
spot beam, in the absence of additional evidence of infeasibility. 
See infra paras. 34-35 (Partial Spot Beam Coverage).
    \161\ Satellite carriers use spot beams to offer local broadcast 
stations. DIRECTV Comments at 2. DIRECTV explains that ``[s]pot-beam 
technology divides up a portion of the bandwidth available to a 
satellite into beams that cover limited geographic areas. Doing so 
allows particular sets of frequencies to be reused many times. This 
spectral efficiency unlocked the potential for satellite carriers to 
offer local broadcast signals in the late 1990s, and it enables 
satellite carriers to offer local service today.'' Id.
    \162\ See DIRECTV Comments at 9 (asking the Commission to find 
that ``it is per se technically and economically infeasible for a 
satellite carrier to provide a station to subscribers who live in an 
area outside of the spot beam on which that station is currently 
carried.''). For purposes of our discussion, we will refer to the 
spot beam on which the station is currently carried as the 
``relevant spot beam.''
    \163\ NPRM, para. 19. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). The legislative 
history also indicates ``that claims of the existence of such 
difficulties should be well substantiated and carefully examined by 
the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration process.'' 
Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \164\ We will refer to this as the ``detailed certification.'' 
See infra at section III.D.2. We base our proposal on DIRECTV's 
suggested certification, which we find would meet the carrier's 
burden to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility. See DIRECTV 
ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 3-4. To ensure the ongoing accuracy 
and veracity of the spot beam coverage infeasibility certification 
process, we may, in particular cases, require a satellite carrier to 
provide us with supporting documentation for the certification. 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Technical or Economic Impediments to Carriage
    31. The NPRM sought comment on the types of technical or economic 
impediments contemplated by section 338(l)(3) that would make satellite 
carriage infeasible in a new community.\165\ The NPRM also sought 
comment on any objective criteria by which the Commission could 
determine technical or economic infeasibility, such as spot beam 
coverage constraints.\166\ In response, we received very few comments 
on potential impediments except infeasibility due to insufficient spot 
beam coverage and due to costs of making changes to customer satellite 
dishes. DIRECTV described spot beam coverage and capacity constraints 
as being the key technical and economic impediments to carriage.\167\ 
DIRECTV asserted, and DISH agreed, that carriage should be considered 
per se infeasible if the new community is outside the coverage of the 
spot beam that carries the station.\168\ The carriers explain that if 
the spot beam on which a station is being carried does not cover the 
new community, a satellite carrier ``has no good [carriage] options 
available to it.'' \169\ Even if the spot beam on which a station is 
being carried covers the new community, DISH adds that carriage of the 
station may be infeasible if the station is carried on a different 
satellite at a different orbital position than the satellite providing 
the existing local broadcast stations to the market.\170\ DISH explains 
that ``it is possible'' that this situation could require DISH to make 
equipment changes at ``all or most households'' in the new 
community.\171\ The broadcast comments do not substantively refute spot 
beam coverage and capacity constraints as legitimate technical or 
economic impediments, except to say that such constraints must be 
appropriately demonstrated, consistent with the statute and legislative 
history.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ In particular, the NPRM sought comment on whether spot 
beam contour diagrams should be required to demonstrate spot beam 
coverage limitations. NPRM, para. 20 (``Should we require satellite 
carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam 
coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a 
particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community? 
'').
    \166\ NPRM, para. 20 (asking ``Are there any objective criteria 
by which the Commission could determine technical or economic 
infeasibility? For example, the Commission has recognized that spot 
beam coverage limitations, in the provision of local-into-local 
service context, may be a legitimate technical impediment. Under 
what circumstances would the limitations or coverage of a spot beam 
be a sufficient basis for a satellite carrier to prove that carriage 
of a station in the community at issue is not technically and 
economically feasible?'').
    \167\ See DIRECTV Comments at 3-4, 8-9. In its comments, DISH 
generally observed that a satellite carrier may be unable as a 
technical or financial matter to comply with a market modification. 
DISH Comments at 7.
    \168\ See DIRECTV Reply at 7; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 
2015) at 3.
    \169\ DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3.
    \170\ See DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3; DISH ex 
parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1.
    \171\ DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3; DISH ex parte 
(dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1 (explaining that ``DISH offers local 
broadcast stations on spot beams on several satellites at a variety 
of different orbital locations. Therefore, it is possible that 
households in a given local market might be unable to receive a new 
broadcast station that was assigned by Nielsen to a different market 
unless the households, among other things, have a second satellite 
dish installed, have an existing satellite dish replaced, or have an 
existing satellite dish repositioned. Where this is the case, it is 
possible that all or most households in the geographic area impacted 
by a market modification would require a DISH technician to visit 
their home to make these equipment changes, which would be 
technically and economically infeasible.''). (DIRECTV does not 
indicate that it would have this same problem.)
    \172\ See Gray Comments at 6-7 (``Gray understands and 
appreciates the technical burdens that satellite operators face in 
adding signals to their satellite systems, but . . . Satellite 
operators therefore should be permitted to claim this exemption only 
in limited circumstances''); NAB Comments at 9 (``NAB urges the 
Commission to require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due 
to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour 
diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover 
a particular community''); NAB Reply at 2-3 (saying that claims of 
infeasibility must be ``well substantiated and carefully 
examined''); WVIR-TV Reply at 2, para. 2 (asserting that the purpose 
of STELAR would be defeated if satellite operators do not ``bear the 
burden of proving the validity of an assertion of infeasibility''); 
WVIR-TV ex parte (dated Jul. 2, 2015) at 2 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. We are persuaded by the satellite carriers that if the relevant 
spot beam does not cover the new community, then it is not technically 
and economically feasible for the carrier to provide the station to 
such new community.\173\ In such a scenario, the only available options 
would be to place the station on the satellite carrier's CONUS beam 
\174\ to reach subscribers in the new community, redirect each and 
every spot beam on the satellite in order to enable the relevant spot 
beam to cover the new community,\175\ or place the station on a second, 
neighboring spot beam that does cover the new community, if such a beam 
exists and has capacity. DIRECTV argues that it would be an 
``inefficient use of resources to devote a CONUS beam, which can be 
seen throughout the United States, to provide coverage to a single or 
handful of communities.'' \176\ Next, DIRECTV argues that, if the new 
community is covered by a different, neighboring spot beam than the one 
on which the station is carried, it would almost always lack space on 
such neighboring spot beam.\177\ Moreover, DIRECTV explains that, even 
if there were space, it ``would have to reserve capacity on the entire 
`neighboring' spot beam--capacity that could otherwise be used for a 
new station or a multicast signal carried throughout the neighboring 
market.'' \178\ Thus, it would be inefficient for the carrier to use 
that space on the neighboring spot beam for a station that could only 
be received by subscribers in a small part of the local market served 
by such spot beam.\179\

[[Page 59649]]

Finally, DIRECTV argues that redirecting the entire array of spot beams 
on the satellite, would cause unacceptable consequences to existing 
local service.\180\ We agree with these points and conclude that each 
of these options are per se technically and economically 
infeasible.\181\ Accordingly, we conclude that ``it is per se 
technically and economically infeasible for a satellite carrier to 
provide a station to subscribers who live in an area outside of the 
spot beam on which that station is currently carried.'' \182\ This 
conclusion is consistent with the Commission's past recognition and 
acceptance of the service constraints associated with the use of spot 
beams.\183\ This means that, if a carrier shows that the relevant spot 
beam does not provide coverage to the new community, then that is a per 
se demonstration of infeasibility. Thus, for example, a carrier would 
not need to show that there is no space on a neighboring spot beam or 
that it cannot reconfigure a spot beam to effectuate carriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See DIRECTV Reply at 7; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 
2015) at 3.
    \174\ DIRECTV carries all of its national programming on 
satellite beams that cover the entire contiguous United States 
(``CONUS''). DIRECTV Comments at 2. ``DIRECTV carries New York and 
Los Angeles stations on CONUS beams, but only because those stations 
are offered throughout the country as distant signals pursuant to 17 
U.S.C. 119 and 47 U.S.C. 339.'' DIRECTV Comments at 2, n.3.
    \175\ See DIRECTV Comments at 6-7, n.16.
    \176\ DIRECTV Reply at 7; DIRECTV Comments at 8. The Commission 
has previously recognized that ``to carry a local channel on a 
transponder designated for CONUS would be particularly inefficient 
as that channel could only be permissibly viewed in a single DMA.'' 
Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 
76 of the Commission's Rules; Implementation of the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal Carriage 
Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues, CS Docket No. 00-96, 
Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-86, para. 11, 73 FR 
24502, May 5, 2008 (Satellite DTV Carriage Order). We note, however, 
that if the station seeking the market modification was already 
being carried on a CONUS satellite (e.g., the New York or Los 
Angeles stations), then carriage of such station would not be per se 
infeasible in a new community.
    \177\ DIRECTV explains that it ``has designed its spot beams to 
carry only the primary signals of stations within the local markets 
they cover. The vast majority of its spot beams are now currently 
full. In most cases, DIRECTV could not add a station to a 
`neighboring' spot beam without removing one of the stations already 
on that beam.'' DIRECTV Comments at 8, n.24.
    \178\ DIRECTV Comments at 9 (explaining that ``[r]eserving spot-
beam capacity for a station that could only be received in at most a 
handful of communities would represent a significant waste of 
spectral resources.''); DIRECTV Reply at 8 (explaining that devoting 
capacity to the station on a neighboring spot beam ``could preclude 
DIRECTV from carrying a new station that later commences service'' 
and also ``would certainly preclude DIRECTV from using the capacity 
in question to benefit viewers throughout the [local television 
market at issue],'' such as by adding a multicast feed from a local 
station.).
    \179\ We thus disagree with NAB that a satellite carrier should 
be required to show that the station could not be added to a spot 
beam different than the one on which the station is currently 
carried that does cover the new community. NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 
15, 2015) at 3 (arguing that ``the DBS carrier should be required to 
certify that the spot beam that does serve the affected communities 
does not have the capacity to carry the station unless another 
channel is deleted (or other technical or economic reason)''). We 
find that the financial and opportunity costs associated with 
requiring a carrier to use scarce capacity on a second spot beam for 
a station that could only be received by subscribers in a small part 
of the local market served by such spot beam makes carriage on such 
spot beam per se infeasible. See DIRECTV Reply at 9.
    \180\ See DIRECTV Comments at 6-7, n.16 (explaining that it 
generally cannot ``move'' spot beams on a satellite--except for 
SPACEWAY satellites which are being replaced--and that it could 
``slightly adjust the entire array of spot beams on the satellite 
simultaneously,'' but this would affect the local service provided 
by all of the spot beams on the satellite, thus ``disrupt[ing] 
[local] service across dozens of markets and negat[ing] DIRECTV's 
efforts to optimize population coverage.''); DIRECTV Reply at 7 
(``moving the entire array of spot beams means subscribers in 
portions of the [local television market at issue] and many other 
markets would lose all the local stations they now receive.'').
    \181\ See DIRECTV Reply at 7-9; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 
2015) at 3.
    \182\ DIRECTV Comments at 9; DISH ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) 
at 3.
    \183\ In the DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, the 
Commission allowed satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to 
provide local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not 
cover the entire market. DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, 
para. 42. The Commission ``observe[d] that section 338 does not 
require a satellite carrier to serve each and every county in a 
television market. Rather, it requires that in the areas it does 
provide local-into-local service, it must carry all local television 
stations subject to carriage under the statute.'' Id. The Commission 
``recognize[d] that there are some markets, such as the Denver DMA 
encompassing counties in four states, that are geographically 
expansive'' and that ``[a] spot beam may not be able to cover the 
entire DMA in these instances, and to make the satellite carrier 
reconfigure its spot beam may deprive it of capacity to serve 
additional markets with local-into-local coverage.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. We recognize that there may be other technical or economic 
impediments to carriage that could qualify for the infeasibility 
exception. For example, DISH explains that it provides local broadcast 
stations from spot beams on several satellites at a variety of 
different orbital locations and that each subscriber's satellite dish 
must be pointed and configured to receive signals from a particular 
orbital location.\184\ Therefore, even if the station is on a spot beam 
that covers the new community, carriage of the station in the new 
community could still be infeasible if the station is carried on a 
different satellite at a different orbital location than the satellite 
providing local service to that community, because such carriage would 
require DISH to install a second satellite dish, replace an existing 
satellite dish, or reposition an existing satellite dish, at ``all or 
most households'' in the new community.\185\ We do not have sufficient 
information in the record to determine that the costs of customer 
equipment changes to accommodate reception from different orbital 
positions should be treated as per se infeasible. We will therefore 
consider assertions of this and other types of infeasibility on a case-
by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1; DISH ex parte 
(dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3.
    \185\ See DISH ex parte (dated Jul. 8, 2015) at 1; DISH ex parte 
(dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 3 (arguing such situation ``would impose 
very significant costs'' and should constitute economic 
infeasibility). In this presumably rare situation, the station at 
issue is on a spot beam that covers the new community, but this spot 
beam is different than the spot beam providing local service to the 
new community. (In other words, there are two spot beams that cover, 
to some extent, the new community at issue.) In addition, the two 
spot beams are on different satellites located at different orbital 
positions and, therefore, subscribers in the new community will need 
two satellite dishes pointed in different directions to get both the 
original local stations from one spot beam and the new local station 
from the second spot beam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Partial Spot Beam Coverage. The NPRM sought comment on how to 
handle a situation in which only part of a community could be served 
with the relevant spot beam.\186\ The satellite carriers oppose having 
to serve part of a community if the entire community is not covered by 
the spot beam, \187\ but DIRECTV says it determines spot-beam coverage 
based on zip codes and asserts that it would be able to serve a 
community defined as a county based on those zip codes within the 
county.\188\ NAB argues, however, that if carriage is viable within 
portions of a community that is the subject of a market modification 
request, then satellite carriers should be required to carry the 
station in those areas.\189\ We conclude that, if a satellite carrier 
can provide the station to only part of a new community, then it must 
do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ NPRM, para. 20 (``To the extent that a satellite carrier 
can provide the station at issue to some, but not all, subscribers 
in the community, should we allow or require the carrier to deliver 
the station to subscribers in the community who are capable of 
receiving the signal?'').
    \187\ See DISH Comments at 8-9 (arguing that ``any finding of 
technical or economic infeasibility should excuse a satellite 
carrier entirely from accommodating a market modification request, 
even if the satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to 
some, but not all, relevant subscribers''); DIRECTV Reply at 11, 
n.36 (agreeing with DISH).
    \188\ See DIRECTV Reply at 11-12.
    \189\ See NAB Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. As discussed above, the statute requires a satellite carrier to 
carry a station pursuant to a market modification, unless it is not 
technically and economically feasible for the carrier to do so. Given 
the relatively large size of many counties, we conclude that it would 
be a disservice to consumers, and would not fully effectuate the 
mandate of the satellite market modification provisions of the STELAR, 
to presume that partial carriage to a county-defined community is per 
se infeasible. We are not persuaded by DISH that requiring such partial 
coverage of a county would necessarily ``be burdensome and cause 
customer confusion for a satellite carrier to target the carriage of a 
station down to such a granular level, for example by providing a 
different local broadcast station to a subset of subscribers.'' \190\ 
DISH provides no evidence of the burdens associated with partial 
carriage. Any ``confusion'' is outweighed by the benefits of providing 
the added station to the customers who can receive it, consistent with 
Congressional intent in expanding market modification to satellite 
carriage. On a case-by-case basis, we will consider whether the area of 
a new community in which service is feasible is so de minimis that 
addition of that community to the station's market is effectively 
infeasible. We also disagree with DIRECTV to the extent that it claims 
that ``there is no underlying requirement to provide service in any 
particular area to begin with,'' and therefore ``the Commission need 
not `excuse' any particular [market modification].'' \191\ Pursuant to 
the ``carry one, carry all'' statutory requirement, a satellite carrier 
must carry, on request, all local television broadcast stations' 
signals in local markets in which the satellite carrier carries at 
least one local television broadcast signal pursuant to the statutory 
copyright license.\192\

[[Page 59650]]

Furthermore, the statutory language of the infeasibility exception in 
section 338(l)(3) contemplates that a carriage obligation would result 
from a market modification.\193\ If carriage were merely discretionary 
for the carrier, then there would be no need for the infeasibility 
exception to relieve the carrier of a carriage obligation. Therefore, 
if the carrier is providing local television broadcast stations to the 
new community pursuant to the local statutory copyright license, then 
it must also provide a station that becomes eligible for carriage as a 
local station in the new community by operation of the market 
modification.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ DISH Comments at 8-9.
    \191\ DIRECTV Reply at 11, n.36.
    \192\ See 47 U.S.C. 338. This requirement is subject to 
exceptions for duplicating stations and lack of good quality signal, 
as specified by statute and regulation. See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1), 
(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1), (h)(1) through (2).
    \193\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (``[a] market determination . . . 
shall not create additional carriage obligations . . .'' if carriage 
``is not technically and economically feasible. . .'').
    \194\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(a). We note that, by operation of the 
market modification, the station will be afforded ``carry one, carry 
all'' carriage rights in the area of the new community in which a 
carrier provides the other local broadcast stations to the extent 
the spot beam on which it is carried covers such area of the new 
community. See id. If the spot beam on which the new local station 
is carried is different than the one providing local-into-local 
service to the new community, and therefore the spot beam coverage 
for the two beams will be different, there may be an area in the new 
community that had not been receiving local-into-local service, but 
could receive the new local station. In this situation, the new 
station by operation of the market modification would be eligible 
for carriage as a local station in such area of the new community, 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 338(a) (``carry one, carry all'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstrating Infeasibility
    36. Based on the record, we expect the vast majority of satellite 
carrier claims of infeasibility will be related to insufficient spot 
beam coverage. Because of the technical complexities involved in 
demonstrating spot beam coverage infeasibility, including the use of 
proprietary confidential information, we establish a streamlined 
process for carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility 
through the use of detailed certifications under penalty of perjury, 
based on a proposal by DIRECTV. Because of the limited record with 
respect to other possible claims of infeasibility, and our expectation 
that such other claims will be relatively rare, we do not at this time 
establish a detailed certification process for demonstrating other 
types of infeasibility. Instead, carriers will be required to 
demonstrate other types of infeasibility through the submission of 
evidence specifically demonstrating the technical or economic reason 
that carriage is infeasible. Although prospective petitioners will have 
two options for seeking a Commission determination about the carrier's 
claim of infeasibility (i.e., filing a market modification petition or 
filing a separate petition beforehand solely with respect to the 
infeasibility issue), the requirements for demonstrating infeasibility 
are the same for both options.
    37. The NPRM tentatively concluded that the satellite carrier has 
the burden to demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility and 
invited comment on the type of evidence needed to prove such 
infeasibility claims.\195\ Most commenters, including the broadcasters 
and DISH, agree that the statute places the burden on satellite 
carriers to demonstrate infeasibility; \196\ however, satellite 
carriers contend that a certification should be sufficient to meet its 
burden,\197\ while broadcasters say an ``unverifiable'' certification 
would be inadequate to meet their burden under the statute and that a 
carrier should be required to provide documentation that demonstrates 
infeasibility.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ NPRM, paras. 19-20.
    \196\ DISH Comments at 7; Gray Comments at 6-7; NAB Comments at 
7; WVIR-TV Reply at 1.
    \197\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1 (stating that 
its proposed detailed certification would ``easily satisfy any 
requirement that satellite carriers `substantiate' and the 
Commission `examine' the technical and economic infeasibility of 
spot-beam carriage in these areas, even though no such requirement 
appears in the statute itself.''); DISH Comments at 7 (``the 
Commission should limit the required showing to a certification from 
the satellite carrier that it has analyzed the proposed market 
modification and has determined that it is not technically and 
economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage. 
A certification should be sufficient, because the types of evidence 
that the Commission might request could be technically or 
competitively sensitive, such as spot beam contour maps, cost of 
equipment upgrades, and subscriber numbers in a given geographic 
area.'').
    \198\ See NAB Reply at 2 (quoting legislative history that 
``Congress intended satellite carrier claims of technical and 
economic infeasibility `should be well substantiated and carefully 
examined by the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration 
process.' ''); WVIR-TV Reply at 2 (arguing that the purpose of 
STELAR is frustrated if satellite carriers are not required to 
actually prove infeasibility). See also NAB Reply at 3 (``an 
approach that involves only an unverifiable certification would be 
inadequate''); Gray Comments at 6 (arguing that satellite carrier 
claims of infeasibility must be ``conclusively demonstrated'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the statute places the 
burden on satellite carriers to demonstrate infeasibility if they 
assert that carriage of a station in a new community would be 
technically or economically infeasible. Our conclusion is consistent 
with the legislative history that claims of infeasibility be ``well 
substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission].'' \199\ 
Moreover, we agree with commenters that, as a practical matter, only 
the satellite carriers have the specific information necessary to 
determine if the carriage contemplated in a market modification would 
not be technically and economically feasible by operation of their 
satellites.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.
    \200\ See DISH Comments at 7; WVIR-TV Reply at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. We adopt a certification process for carriers to demonstrate 
spot beam coverage infeasibility that should avoid imposing undue 
expense on, or compromising the confidential business information of, 
the satellite carriers while also providing the Commission with an 
appropriate basis for making market modification determinations. We 
conclude that a detailed certification submitted under penalty of 
perjury would satisfy the carrier's burden under the statute to 
substantiate their claims of insufficient spot beam coverage and allow 
us to carefully examine such claims of infeasibility.\201\ Broadcasters 
argue that ``the mere `certification' proposed by satellite carriers 
would not comport with the legislative intent of the technical and 
economic infeasibility provision'' and that ``an approach that involves 
only an unverifiable certification would be inadequate.'' \202\ 
Instead, broadcasters argue that satellite carriers should be required 
to make detailed technical showings related to spot-beam coverage.\203\ 
NAB argues that if the Commission chooses to use a certification 
approach, then we should at least require certain supporting 
documentation be provided with the certification or in the event of a 
Commission audit of a certification.\204\

[[Page 59651]]

We agree that a simple certification would not be appropriate, but we 
also agree with DIRECTV that it would be anomalous to require 
compendious and detailed evidentiary showings for spot beam coverage of 
modified local markets when such showings are not (and have never been) 
required for the provision of local service to unmodified local 
markets.\205\ Therefore, we adopt a certification process that requires 
satellite carriers to evaluate the feasibility of providing the station 
to the new community in the same manner that it currently uses to 
determine where in the relevant DMA it can provide the current local 
broadcast stations.\206\ These ``detailed certifications'' about spot 
beam coverage infeasibility must contain sufficient detail to ensure 
that the analysis performed by the carrier was appropriate and valid, 
and they will be subject to penalties for perjury to ensure its 
reliability. The Commission's review of the detailed certification will 
generally be limited to determining whether it satisfies the procedural 
and content requirements described herein.\207\ Although we will not 
require carriers to provide supporting documentation as part of their 
certification, as an additional check the Commission may decide to look 
behind any certification and require supporting documentation when we 
deem it appropriate, such as when there is evidence that the 
certification may be inaccurate.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1.
    \202\ NAB Reply at 2. See also WVIR-TV Reply at 2 (opposing 
DISH's proposal to ``self-certify'' without providing supporting 
documentation). WVIR-TV explains that ``[s]ince information about 
feasibility is entirely within the possession of the DBS operator, 
the DBS operator should bear the burden of proving the validity of 
an assertion of infeasibility. Otherwise, broadcasters will be 
completely at the mercy of DBS operators who oppose market 
modifications, largely defeating the purpose of the STELAR statute, 
if not rendering it a nullity.'' Id. NAB also argues that a 
certification approach ``would also be inconsistent with the 
Commission's longstanding approach to market modification requests 
in the cable context, which involve a substantial evidentiary 
showing.'' NAB Reply at 2-3. The issue of infeasibility, however, is 
separate from our analysis of the merits of modifying a market under 
the statutory factors.
    \203\ See NAB Comments at 9 (asking the Commission ``to require 
satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot 
beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether 
a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community'' 
and ``to document that reconfiguring a spot beam, or adding a 
station to another spot beam that does cover an affected community 
would be technically or economically infeasible''); Gray Comments at 
6 (arguing that satellite carriers should ``be required to 
conclusively demonstrate technical infeasibility'').
    \204\ See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 1-2.
    \205\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 11, 2015) at 1. In other 
words, because a carrier does not normally have to demonstrate 
insufficient spot beam coverage with respect to the provision of 
local service to a local television market (i.e., a carrier provides 
local service in the areas of the market covered by the relevant 
spot beam), it would be inconsistent to require a carrier to make a 
detailed demonstration of insufficient spot beam coverage with 
respect to the provision of local service to a new community added 
to such market. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, para. 
42 (allowing satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to 
provide local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not 
cover the entire market).
    \206\ We note that this certification process will be explained 
in the consumer guide that we create to comply with the STELAR 
section 102(c).
    \207\ See infra at para. 41 (Content of Spot Beam Coverage 
Infeasibility Detailed Certification).
    \208\ 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403. If we find that a 
satellite carrier is claiming infeasibility with respect to a 
significant number of requests, we may decide to start routinely 
requiring that carrier to provide supporting documentation with its 
certification. See infra at para. 40 (Supporting Documentation). See 
also NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (urging the Commission 
to require carriers to file certain materials supporting 
certifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Supporting Documentation. In the event that we require 
supporting documentation, we will require a satellite carrier to 
provide its ``satellite link budget'' calculations that were created 
for the new community. DIRECTV explains that a ``satellite link budget 
is a calculation that accounts for certain factors that affect a radio 
signal as it travels from an uplink earth station to a space station 
and back down through the atmosphere to the customer's earth station 
receiver'' and that this technical document ``generally takes the form 
of a table, with entries that include (among other things) transmit 
power from the uplink earth station and from the satellite, antenna 
gains, system noise, intersystem interference, and atmospheric 
attenuation including the effects of `rain fade.' '' \209\ DIRECTV 
states that the net result of this satellite link budget calculation 
``is an estimation of end-to-end satellite link performance.'' \210\ 
DIRECTV pointed out that the supporting materials suggested by NAB are 
in fact inputs for ``link budgets.'' \211\ We agree with DIRECTV and 
NAB that it would be appropriate to require a carrier to submit 
satellite link budget information if the Commission were to determine 
in a given case that supporting documentation should be provided to 
support a detailed certification.\212\ Thus, we require satellite 
carriers to retain such supporting documentation in the event that the 
Commission determines further review by the Commission is necessary. 
Satellite carriers must retain such supporting documentation throughout 
the pendency of Commission or judicial proceedings involving the 
certification and any related market modification petition.\213\ We 
find this retention period will provide parties with a reasonable 
amount of time to challenge certifications. If satellite carriers have 
concerns about providing proprietary and confidential information 
underlying their analysis, they may request confidentiality.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 1.
    \210\ Id.
    \211\ Id. NAB stated that detailed certifications provided by 
the carrier to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility should 
be supported by the following documentation: ``(1) the latitude and 
longitude of the calculation point used for each zip code in 
analyzing (a) the measured performance of the spot beam covering 
station's local market; (b) the estimated atmospheric effects for 
reception of the signal; and (c) the estimated levels of 
interference]; (2) predicted clear-sky signal level based on actual 
spot beam performance; (3) rain fade statistics and predicted 
reductions in signal level; (4) predicted levels of inter-system 
interference; and (5) determination of service or ``no service'' at 
the calculation point (in map form with county boundaries shown).'' 
See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2.
    \212\ See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2; DIRECTV ex 
parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 1 (``if a satellite carrier were to 
certify that it could not serve some or all of a proposed modified 
area, and Commission staff were to find a genuine dispute of fact 
related to such certification, the Commission could require the 
satellite carrier to submit a representative link budget for the 
area in question for staff review on a confidential basis.'').
    \213\ See NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2 (seeking 
carrier retention of supporting material ``for a period of either: 
(i) Two years; or (ii) throughout the pendency of Commission or 
judicial proceedings involving the certification and any related 
market modification petition, whichever is longer''); DIRECTV ex 
parte (dated Jul. 23, 2015) at 2. (``Satellite carriers could be 
required to preserve records sufficient to generate such a 
representative link budget, presumably during the pendency of any 
market modification proceeding.'').
    \214\ See 47 CFR 0.457, 0.459, 76.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Content of Spot Beam Coverage Infeasibility Detailed 
Certification. Based on DIRECTV's proposed detailed certification,\215\ 
a satellite carrier's certification of infeasibility due to 
insufficient spot beam coverage must contain the following elements in 
order to be used and relied upon as evidence to demonstrate carrier 
claims of technical and economic infeasibility. First, the detailed 
certification must explain why carriage is not technically and 
economically feasible, including a detailed explanation of the 
``process by which a satellite carrier has determined whether or not 
the spot beam in question covers the geographic area at issue.'' \216\ 
Second, to ensure equal treatment to all stations, the detailed 
certification must state that the satellite carrier ``has conducted 
this analysis in substantially the same manner and using substantially 
the same parameters used to determine the geographic area in which it 
currently offers stations carried on the spot beam.'' \217\ Finally, 
the satellite carrier must support its detailed certification with an 
affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, as contemplated 
under section 1.16 of the Commission's rules and 28 U.S.C. 1746,\218\ 
signed and dated by an authorized officer of the satellite carrier with 
personal knowledge of the representations provided in the 
certification, verifying the truth and accuracy of the information 
therein.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 3-4. We find 
that DIRECTV's proposed detailed certification would meet a 
satellite carrier's burden to demonstrate spot beam coverage 
infeasibility.
    \216\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jun. 23, 2015) at 1.
    \217\ DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 4.
    \218\ 47 CFR 1.16 (Declarations under penalty of perjury in lieu 
of affidavits). See 28 U.S.C. 1746.
    \219\ We further note that willful false statements in a 
certification are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. 1001, may result in loss of a satellite carrier's licenses 
and authorizations (47 U.S.C. 312), and may subject the satellite 
carrier to forfeiture (47 U.S.C. 503). See also 47 CFR 1.17. See NAB 
ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 2015) at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. We will consider on a case-by-case basis other claims of 
technical or economic infeasibility, such as DISH's

[[Page 59652]]

claim of infeasibility due to the costs associated with changing 
customer satellite dishes to accommodate reception from different 
orbital locations. In addition, there may be circumstances of technical 
and economic infeasibility not yet contemplated. As discussed above, a 
satellite carrier bears the burden of demonstrating that the carriage 
contemplated in a market modification would not be technically and 
economically feasible by operation of its satellites. To demonstrate 
such infeasibility, a carrier must provide detailed technical or 
economic information to substantiate its claim of infeasibility.
3. Infeasibility Determinations
    43. We will resolve disputes about carrier claims of infeasibility 
either in the context of a market modification proceeding or, at a 
prospective petitioner's option, in a separate proceeding before a 
market modification petition is filed. Thus, a prospective petitioner 
has two options. First, a prospective petitioner may file its market 
modification petition. In such cases, a satellite carrier would raise 
any claim of infeasibility in response to the petition and we would 
make a determination about the validity of such claim (and would not 
further process a petition for which the resulting carriage is 
infeasible). We recognize that prospective petitioners may want to know 
about carrier's claims of infeasibility, and may want a Commission 
determination about the validity of such claim, before filing a market 
modification petition. Therefore, a prospective petitioner's second 
option is to initiate the pre-filing coordination process (described 
below). Through this process, a prospective petitioner would request 
information from a carrier about infeasibility and a carrier would 
raise any claim of infeasibility in response to this request in the 
form of a certification. A carrier claiming spot beam coverage 
infeasibility must provide the detailed certification (described 
above). For all other claims of infeasibility, the certification 
provided for here is for the purpose of a carrier to notify the 
prospective petitioner about the carrier's claim of infeasibility prior 
to a petition being filed. The prospective petitioner can then decide 
whether it would like to file a special relief petition to obtain a 
Commission determination about the validity of the carrier's claim of 
infeasibility.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ As discussed above, in cases other than spot beam coverage 
infeasibility, a carrier will be required to provide evidence to 
support its claim of infeasibility. In the case of a claim of spot 
beam coverage infeasibility, the Commission's review of the 
certification will generally be limited to determining whether it 
meets with the requirements for a ``detailed certification.'' See 
supra section III.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. The NPRM tentatively concluded that a satellite carrier must 
raise any technical or economic impediments in the market modification 
proceeding.\221\ The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission, in 
the case of satellite market modifications, should require or encourage 
stations seeking market modifications to contact a satellite carrier 
before filing a market modification request in order to get an initial 
determination of whether the carrier considers the request technically 
and economically feasible.\222\ The NPRM observed that such an initial 
inquiry might save some broadcasters the time and expense of compiling 
the standardized evidence for a modification that is not technically 
and economically feasible by alerting them to the technical or economic 
issue, which they could then take into account in deciding whether to 
file the request.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ NPRM, para. 19. The NPRM further considered whether the 
satellite carrier should be deemed to have waived technical or 
economic infeasibility arguments if not raised in response to the 
market modification request (and, thus, be prohibited from raising 
such a claim after a market determination, such as in response to a 
station's request for carriage). Id.
    \222\ NPRM, para. 21.
    \223\ NPRM, para. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Most commenters support addressing satellite carrier claims of 
infeasibility before a broadcaster files a prospective market 
modification petition; \224\ however, NAB argues that a satellite 
carrier's claim of infeasibility should not preclude the filing of a 
market modification petition.\225\ Commenters seem to agree that 
satellite carriers generally must raise claims of technical and 
economic infeasibility during, if not before, the market modification 
proceeding.\226\ Broadcasters, however, argue that a satellite carrier 
should be deemed to have waived technical and economic infeasibility 
claims if not raised in or before a market modification 
proceeding,\227\ while DIRECTV argues that satellite carriers should 
not be precluded from raising future claims of infeasibility, such as 
technical infeasibility due to reduced spot beam coverage.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ DIRECTV Comments at 11; Gray Comments at 6; WVIR-TV Reply 
at 2 n.1.
    \225\ NAB Comments at 9-10.
    \226\ See NAB Comments at 7 (stating that ``the statute requires 
satellite carriers to raise any technical or economic impediments in 
the context of the market modification proceeding''); Gray Comments 
at 6 (stating ``the rules should require satellite providers to 
assert technical infeasibility before broadcasters go through the 
trouble and expense of preparing a market modification petition''); 
DIRECTV Comments at 11 (stating that it would be willing to provide 
a certification to broadcasters about ``whether DIRECTV's spot beam 
covers the communities they would like to add to their local 
markets'' before a broadcaster seeks a prospective market 
modification because ``[s]uch information . . . would prove of most 
value to stations before they undergo the time and effort of filing 
a market modification petition.'').
    \227\ NAB Comments at 7 (stating that ``that a satellite carrier 
be deemed to have waived technical and economic infeasibility 
arguments if they are not raised during a market modification 
proceeding''); Gray at 6 (asserting that ``[f]ailure to assert 
`technical infeasibility' at this stage of the process would 
foreclose the satellite provider from later claiming technical 
infeasibility.'').
    \228\ DIRECTV Comments at 10 n.28 (``The possibility of 
technical problems reducing spot-beam coverage serves as yet another 
reason why satellite carriers should not lose `rights' to assert 
feasibility issues if they do not raise them during a market 
modification proceeding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. We conclude that it is most efficient and practical for 
stakeholders to consider and resolve satellite carrier claims of 
technical or economic infeasibility before petitioners go through the 
time and expense of seeking a prospective market modification and 
before the Commission uses administrative resources to evaluate the 
merits of a prospective market modification petition under the five 
statutory factors. Therefore, we slightly modify our tentative 
conclusion and proposal.\229\ We conclude that a satellite carrier must 
raise any technical or economic impediments either in the market 
modification proceeding or prior to the market modification proceeding 
in response to a broadcaster or county government inquiry about 
feasibility of carriage resulting from a prospective market 
modification.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ NPRM, para. 19.
    \230\ In the event that a previously feasible market 
modification were to later become infeasible (e.g., due to reduction 
of spot beam coverage), the satellite carrier must file a petition 
for market modification to delete the previously added new community 
from the station's local market and provide evidence of 
infeasibility (e.g., spot beam infeasibility certification). See 
DIRECTV Comments at 10 n.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Pre-Filing Coordination Process. We establish a process that 
will allow a prospective petitioner (broadcaster or county government), 
at its option, to obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about 
whether or not (and to what extent) carriage resulting from a 
contemplated market modification is technically and economically 
feasible for such carrier before the prospective petitioner undertakes 
the time and expense of preparing and filing a market modification 
petition.\231\ To initiate this

[[Page 59653]]

process, a prospective petitioner may make a request in writing to a 
satellite carrier for the carrier to provide the certification about 
the feasibility or infeasibility of carriage. A satellite carrier must 
respond to this request within a reasonable amount of time by providing 
a feasibility certification to the prospective petitioner. A satellite 
carrier must also file a copy of the correspondence \232\ and 
feasibility certification it provides to the prospective petitioner in 
this docket electronically via ECFS \233\ so that the Media Bureau can 
track these certifications and monitor carrier response time. If the 
carrier is claiming spot beam coverage infeasibility, then the 
certification provided by the carrier must be the same type of detailed 
certification that would be required in response to a market 
modification petition (discussed above).\234\ For any other claim of 
infeasibility, the carrier's feasibility certification must explain in 
detail the basis of such infeasibility \235\ and must be prepared to 
provide documentation in support of its claim, in the event the 
prospective petitioner decides to seek a Commission determination about 
the validity of the carrier's claim. If carriage is feasible, a 
statement to that effect must be provided in the certification. To 
obtain a Commission determination about the validity of the carrier's 
claim of infeasibility, a prospective petitioner must either file a 
(separate) petition for special relief \236\ or its market modification 
petition.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See Gray Comments at 7 (stating ``there should be a 
procedure for resolving disputes over technical infeasibility before 
broadcasters invest in making the necessary market modification 
showing''); DIRECTV Comments at 11 (``the most efficient process 
regarding feasibility would be for a station that is considering 
filing a market modification petition to first ask the two satellite 
carriers if they can provide the station in the communities 
proposed''). Although we encourage prospective petitioners to 
utilize the optional procedure for obtaining information and, if 
necessary, Commission determinations regarding carrier claims of 
infeasibility, we decline to require this preliminary procedure in 
order to provide petitioners with flexibility to decide which 
procedure is best suited for their situation.
    \232\ Correspondence would include, for example, a brief cover 
letter and the prospective petitioner's initiating request for the 
feasibility certification provided.
    \233\ A satellite carrier must file the correspondence and 
feasibility certification electronically into this docket through 
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (``ECFS'') using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 
The filing must be clearly designated as a ``STELAR feasibility 
certification'' and must clearly reference this proceeding and 
docket number (MB Docket No. 15-71).
    \234\ See supra at paras. 39-41. NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 
2015) at 2 (with respect to a ``pre-filing process,'' stating that 
``the satellite carrier should be required to undertake the same 
steps and make the same certification that would be involved in 
connection with an actual petition'').
    \235\ The carrier must state in its certification that the new 
community is covered by the relevant spot beam, but carriage is 
nevertheless infeasible and explain why.
    \236\ See 47 CFR 76.7.
    \237\ The Bureau may on its own motion review the adequacy of a 
certification filed in the docket, but generally a prospective 
petitioner must request such review by filing a petition for special 
relief; 47 CFR 76.7. See Gray Comments at 7 (stating ``[i]f a 
broadcaster wishes to challenge the satellite operator's showing, it 
should be permitted to do so either before filing a market 
modification petition or concurrent with a petition as part of the 
market modification proceeding.''); NAB ex parte (dated Jul. 15, 
2015) at 2 (stating that ``the satellite carrier's determination 
should be reviewable by the FCC and result in a final FCC action 
that could be the subject of a petition for reconsideration, 
applications for review (and ultimately, court review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. For purposes of determining a reasonable amount of time for a 
carrier to respond to a request for a feasibility certification, we 
find a carrier should generally respond within 45 days of receipt of a 
prospective petitioner's written request; \238\ however, we find that 
it would be reasonable for the carrier to respond in 90 days if the 
carrier has to process several requests at the same time.\239\ If the 
response is after 45 days, the carrier must provide an explanation for 
the longer time period in its certification (e.g., having to respond to 
multiple simultaneous requests).\240\ With this process, we are trying 
to balance the need to provide broadcasters' with as fast a response as 
possible, while recognizing that satellite carriers may have difficulty 
responding to numerous requests at once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See Gray Comments at 6 (stating that satellite carriers 
should be required to respond to requests about spot-beam coverage 
within a ``specified period'' such as 30 or 45 days).
    \239\ DIRECTV explains that ``while DIRECTV will endeavor to 
respond to any and all requests as soon as it can, it should not be 
required to do so in fewer than 90 days, particularly if required to 
respond to multiple simultaneous requests.'' DIRECTV Reply at 10.
    \240\ If the Media Bureau finds that a carrier is routinely 
taking up to 90 days to respond or is not providing a reasonable 
explanation for when it takes 90 days to respond, the Bureau may 
order such carrier to respond to future requests in a shorter time 
period or may take other enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. The NPRM proposed that a meritorious market modification 
request would be granted even if such grant would not create a new 
carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to a finding of 
technical or economic infeasibility.\241\ The NPRM explained that this 
would ensure that, if there is a change in circumstances such that it 
later becomes technically and economically feasible for the satellite 
carrier to carry the station, then the station could assert its 
carriage rights pursuant to the earlier market modification.\242\ The 
NPRM also sought comment on whether to impose a reporting requirement 
on satellite carriers to notify the affected broadcaster if 
circumstances change at a later time making it technically and 
economically feasible for the carrier to carry the station.\243\ NAB 
supports the proposal to grant a meritorious market modification 
request, even if the grant would not create a new carriage obligation 
at that time because of a finding of technical or economic 
infeasibility.\244\ Commenters split regarding whether to require 
satellite carriers to provide notice if and when carriage later becomes 
feasible. Broadcasters support such a requirement,\245\ while satellite 
carriers oppose it.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ NPRM, para. 19. The NPRM noted that this is consistent 
with the cable carriage context, in which the Commission might grant 
a market modification, even if such grant would not result in a new 
carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to the station 
being a duplicating signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5).
    \242\ NPRM, para. 19. This concept is similar to the duplicating 
signals situation, in which a satellite carrier must add a 
television station to its channel line-up if such station no longer 
duplicates the programming of another local television station. See 
47 CFR 76.66(h)(4). Alternatively, the NPRM sought comment on 
whether we should deny a market modification request that would not 
create a new carriage obligation at the time of the determination. 
NPRM, para. 19.
    \243\ NPRM, para. 20. The NPRM asked ``Would such changes in 
circumstances be sufficiently public so as to not necessitate the 
burden of such a reporting requirement? If not notified by the 
carrier, how else could a broadcaster find out about such a change 
in the feasibility of carriage?'' Id.
    \244\ NAB Comments at 7-8.
    \245\ See Gray Comments at 7 (``Satellite operators likewise 
should be required to notify broadcasters and the FCC within sixty 
days of any change that results in previously infeasible carriage 
becoming feasible.''); NAB Comments at 8; WVIR-TV Reply at 3. Gray 
suggests that this requirement include notice to the broadcaster and 
the Commission within sixty days of feasibility, as well as periodic 
reports affirming continued infeasibility. Gray Comments at 7.
    \246\ See DISH Comments at 8 (arguing that ``a [reporting] 
requirement would be unduly burdensome for the satellite carrier 
because it would require a carrier to constantly track and 
reevaluate an unknown number of market modification requests.''); 
DIRECTV Comments at 10 (``the Commission should not require ongoing 
monitoring or reporting of spot beam issues. . . . [A]bsent 
technical problems reducing spot-beam coverage, spot beams remain 
static for the life of the satellite.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. We conclude that we will not grant a market modification 
petition that could not create a new carriage obligation at that time 
due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility. We find that 
our conclusion is more consistent with the statute's requirement that a 
market modification ``shall not create additional carriage obligations 
for a satellite carrier'' if it is infeasible ``at the time of the 
determination.'' \247\ We also note that

[[Page 59654]]

claims of infeasibility related to a carrier's satellites are not 
likely to change for the life of a satellite, which can be as long as 
15 years.\248\ Because we will not grant a market modification for 
which carriage would be infeasible, we find it unnecessary to require 
satellite carriers to provide notice if and when carriage later becomes 
feasible. Instead, a petitioner may re-initiate the process if at a 
later time a satellite carrier has deployed new satellites that could 
change this feasibility determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3). See also Senate Commerce 
Committee Report at 11 (indicating an expectation that ``a 
petitioner may refile its petition if at a later time a satellite 
carrier has deployed new satellites that could change this 
feasibility determination'').
    \248\ See DIRECTV Comments at 10 (``absent technical problems 
reducing spot-beam coverage, spot beams remain static for the life 
of the satellite''); DIRECTV ex parte (dated Jul. 9, 2015) at 2 
(``While the figure varies for individual satellites, 15 years 
represents a good `rule of thumb' for the life of a direct-to-home 
geostationary satellite.''). See also Amendment of Commission's 
Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, IB Docket No. 00-248, 
First Report and Order, FCC 02-45, para. 143, 67 FR 12485, Mar. 19, 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive Distant Signals via Satellite

    51. We adopt our proposal to codify the language of section 
338(l)(5), which provides that ``[n]o modification of a commercial 
television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this subsection 
shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community 
affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to 
section 339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.'' \249\ 
We also adopt our interpretation of this provision as an exception to 
the restrictions on a satellite subscriber's eligibility to receive 
``distant'' (out-of-market) signals.\250\ Commenters on this issue 
supported our proposal.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5); NPRM, para. 22. See 47 CFR 76.59(f).
    \250\ NPRM, para. 22.
    \251\ See DIRECTV Comments at 8 n.21; DISH Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. The Communications Act and copyright laws set out two key 
restrictions on a satellite subscriber's eligibility to receive 
``distant'' (out-of-market) signals.\252\ First, subscribers are 
generally eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite 
carrier only if the subscriber is ``unserved'' over the air by a local 
station of the same network.\253\ Second, even if ``unserved,'' a 
subscriber is not eligible to receive a distant station from a 
satellite carrier if the carrier is making ``available'' to such 
subscriber a local station of the same network.\254\ We conclude that 
section 338(l)(5) is largely intended as an exception to these two 
subscriber eligibility requirements. In other words, we find that the 
addition of a new local station to a local television market by 
operation of a market modification (which might otherwise restrict a 
subscriber's eligibility to receive a distant station) would not 
disqualify an otherwise eligible satellite subscriber from receiving a 
distant station of the same network. For example, a subscriber may be 
receiving a distant station because the subscriber resides in a ``short 
market,'' \255\ has obtained a waiver from the relevant network 
station,\256\ or is otherwise eligible to receive distant signals 
pursuant to section 339. That subscriber will continue to be eligible 
to receive the distant station after a market modification that adds a 
new local station of the same network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a station is 
considered ``distant'' with respect to a subscriber if such station 
originates from outside of the subscriber's local television market 
(or DMA). See id.
    \253\ The Copyright Act defines an ``unserved household,'' with 
respect to a particular television network, as ``a household that 
cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air 
signal containing the primary stream, or, on or after the qualifying 
date, the multicast stream, originating in that household's local 
market and affiliated with that network--(i) if the signal 
originates as an analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the 
Federal Communications Commission in section 73.683(a) of title 47, 
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or 
(ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal, intensity defined 
in the values for the digital television noise-limited service 
contour, as defined in regulations issued by the Federal 
Communications Commission (section 73.622(e) of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations), as such regulations may be amended from time 
to time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved household can also be 
one that is subject to one of four statutory waivers or exemptions. 
See 47 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(B) through (E).
    \254\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3). This second 
restriction on eligibility is commonly referred to as the ``no 
distant where local'' rule. A satellite carrier makes ``available'' 
a local signal to a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier 
offers that local signal to other subscribers who reside in the same 
zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See 
also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F).
    \255\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). By a 
``short market,'' we refer to a market in which one of the four 
major television networks is not offered on the primary stream of a 
local broadcast station, thus permitting satellite carriers to 
deliver a distant station affiliated with that missing network to 
subscribers in that market.
    \256\ See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The NPRM sought comment on whether section 338(l)(5) also means 
that the deletion of a local station from a local television market by 
operation of a market modification would not make otherwise ineligible 
subscribers now eligible to receive a distant station of the same 
network.\257\ We agree with DIRECTV that this provision ``was meant to 
ensure that households would not lose eligibility for distant signals 
for which they were eligible prior to modification'' and should not 
``be interpreted as denying distant signals to subscribers who newly 
become eligible for them because they have lost their local signals 
through market modification.'' \258\ Thus, the deletion of a local 
network station from a community by operation of a market modification 
may allow a satellite carrier to import a distant station of the same 
network into such community, provided subscribers in such community 
would now satisfy the requirements for receipt of distant stations 
(pursuant to section 339).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ NPRM, para. 22.
    \258\ DIRECTV Comments at 7-8, n.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Definition of Community

    54. For purposes of a satellite market modification, we define a 
``satellite community'' as a county, which is supported by all 
commenters on this issue.\259\ Consistent with the cable context, in a 
market modification request, the petitioner will define the satellite 
community (or communities) to be added or deleted from a particular 
station's local television market. We also retain our existing 
definition of a ``cable community'' for purposes of a cable market 
modification, having received no comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg)(2). See DISH Comments at 6; Gray 
Comments at 3; UCC Comments at 8; Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1. 
See also DIRECTV Reply at 11-12 (stating a county-based definition 
was acceptable, if certain conditions were met).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. In the NPRM, as directed by the STELAR,\260\ we sought comment 
on how to define a ``community'' for purposes of market modification in 
both the cable and satellite contexts.\261\ The concept of a 
``community'' is important in the market modification context because 
the term describes the geographic area that will be added to or deleted 
from a station's local television market (based on the statutory 
factors), which in turn determines the stations that must be carried by 
a cable operator or a satellite carrier to subscribers in

[[Page 59655]]

that community.\262\ Because of the localized nature of cable systems, 
cable communities are usually easily defined by the geographic 
boundaries of a given cable system, which are often, but not always, 
coincident with a municipal boundary and may vary as determined on a 
case-by-case basis.\263\ In the cable carriage context, the Commission 
considers market modification requests on a community-by-community 
basis \264\ and defines a community unit in terms of a ``distinct 
community or municipal entity'' where a cable system operates or will 
operate.\265\ A ``satellite community,'' however, is not as easily 
defined as a cable community. Unlike cable service, which reaches 
subscribers in a defined local area via local franchises, satellite 
carriers offer service on a national basis, with no connection to a 
particular local community or municipality. Moreover, satellite service 
is sometimes offered in areas of the country that do not have cable 
service, and thus cannot be defined by cable communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR requires the Commission to 
``update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a 
modification of a market'' in both the satellite and cable contexts. 
See STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. The legislative 
history indicates Congress' intent for the Commission ``to consider 
alternative definitions for community that could make the market 
modification process more effective and useful.'' Senate Commerce 
Committee Report at 12.
    \261\ See NPRM, para. 23. In considering how to define a 
``satellite community'' for purposes of a satellite market 
modification, the NPRM sought comment on whether to use a cable 
community-based definition (as was done in the significantly viewed 
context; see 47 CFR 76.5(gg)), a zip code-based definition, and/or a 
county-based definition. See NPRM, para. 25.
    \262\ See NPRM, para. 24. See also 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 
76.66(b)(1).
    \263\ See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations with Respect to the Definition of a Cable Television 
System and the Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No. 
20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77-205, para. 20 n.5, 42 FR 
19329, Apr. 13, 1977 (1977 Cable Order) (citing Amendment of Parts 
21, 74, and 91 to Adopt Rules and Regulations Relating to the 
Distribution of Television Broadcast Signals By Community Antenna 
Television Systems, and Related Matters, Docket Nos. 14895, 15233, 
15971, Second Report and Order, FCC 66-220, para. 149, 31 FR 4540, 
Mar. 17, 1966 (``community'' as used in the rules must be determined 
case-by-case depending on the circumstances involved).
    \264\ See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that the cable 
carriage rules apply ``on a community-by-community basis''). See 
also 47 CFR 76.5(dd), 76.59.
    \265\ See 47 CFR 76.5(dd). A cable system community is assigned 
a community unit identifier number (``CUID'') when registered with 
the Commission, pursuant to section 76.1801 of the rules. 47 CFR 
76.1801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. Satellite Community. We define a ``satellite community'' on a 
county basis. All commenters on this issue support this 
definition.\266\ DISH and Gray assert that the use of a county 
definition will better address the orphan county problem.\267\ In 
addition, UCC observes that ``[c]ounty-wide data is more easily 
available than community-specific data.'' \268\ We agree. DIRECTV, who 
initially supported only zip codes, stated in its reply that it could 
support a county-based definition, as long as satellite carriers are 
not required to provide service to the parts of a modified market 
outside the market's spot beam.\269\ We agree with commenters that a 
county definition is better suited for the national nature of satellite 
service and will most effectively promote access to in-state 
programming for subscribers in orphan counties. In addition, we agree 
that county-wide data will work effectively and is easily available. We 
also take note of the support for a county definition from both 
broadcasters and satellite carriers. Thus, we are persuaded that 
allowing satellite market modifications on a county basis would best 
effectuate the satellite market modification provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See DISH Comments at 6; Gray Comments at 3; UCC Comments 
at 8; Sen. Bennet et al. Letter at 1. See also DIRECTV Reply at 11-
12 (stating a county-based definition was acceptable, if certain 
conditions were met).
    \267\ See DISH Comments at 6 (``a county-based definition will 
most effectively promote consumer access to in-state programming''); 
Gray Comments at 3 (``county-by-county approach would best carry out 
Congress' intent to give the FCC the tools necessary to solve the 
`orphan county' problem in appropriate cases''). Gray also states 
that ``a county-by-county approach better suits the way that 
satellite providers actually provide service.'' Gray Comments at 3-
4. DISH also observes that ``[t]his approach mirrors the existing 
statutory special exceptions in section 122 designed to address 
orphan counties, such as the provision allowing a satellite carrier 
to provide in-state local broadcast stations to two counties in 
Vermont that are assigned to out-of-state DMAs.'' DISH Comments at 6 
(citing 17 U.S.C. 122(a)(4)(B)).
    \268\ UCC Comments at 8.
    \269\ DIRECTV Reply at 11-12. DIRECTV initially conditioned its 
support for a county-based definition on our requiring broadcasters 
to provide the zip codes corresponding with the county in the market 
modification petition. Id. DIRECTV later clarified that ``it should 
be a relatively easy task for either satellite carriers or 
broadcasters to associate zip codes with particular market 
modification requests.'' DIRECTV ex parte (dated July 9, 2015) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. We find this approach preferable to defining a ``satellite 
community'' on a cable community \270\ or zip code basis. In the NPRM, 
we considered a cable community and/or a zip code as two possible 
definitions of a satellite community for purposes of market 
modification.\271\ No commenters supported the cable community-based 
definition. We observed the Commission's use of a cable community-based 
definition in the significantly viewed context.\272\ As noted above, 
satellite carriers, unlike cable systems, have no connection to a 
particular local community or municipality. Given this fact, and based 
on the absence of any support for this definition, we reject a cable 
community-based definition for the satellite market modification 
context. DIRECTV supports the use of zip codes, explaining it 
determines spot-beam coverage based on zip codes, but (as noted above) 
expressed qualified support for a county-based definition.\273\ DISH 
opposes the use of zip codes, explaining that its systems recognize DMA 
boundaries based on counties, and that it would be burdensome to do 
zip-code-based modifications.\274\ Given DIRECTV's qualified support 
for a county-based definition and DISH's difficulties associated with 
the use of zip codes, we reject a zip-code-based definition for the 
satellite market modification context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ The NPRM considered the ``satellite community'' definition 
in the significantly viewed context, which is based on the 
definition of a ``cable community.'' NPRM, para. 25. See 47 CFR 
76.5(gg) (defining a ``satellite community'' for the significantly 
viewed context).
    \271\ See NPRM, para. 25.
    \272\ See 47 CFR 76.5(gg).
    \273\ DIRECTV Comments at 12; DIRECTV Reply at 11.
    \274\ DISH ex parte (dated June 11, 2015) at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Definition of ``Cable Community'' for Cable Market 
Modifications. We adopt our tentative conclusion to retain the existing 
definition of a ``cable community.'' \275\ No comments were filed on 
this issue. Section 76.5(dd) of the rules defines a ``community unit'' 
as ``[a] cable television system, or portion of a cable television 
system, that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct 
community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities 
within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete 
unincorporated areas).'' \276\ We conclude that this definition has 
worked well in cable market modifications for more than 20 years and 
should not be changed. We find that retaining the cable definition best 
effectuates the cable market modification provision. Although (as 
discussed herein) we allow a satellite community to be defined on a 
county basis, we see no reason to change the definition to allow cable 
modifications on a county basis. Despite our objective of treating 
satellite market modifications and cable market modifications similarly 
where feasible, we find that practical differences justify different 
treatment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ See NPRM, para. 23.
    \276\ 47 CFR 76.5(dd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    59. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\277\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this

[[Page 59656]]

proceeding.\278\ The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission 
received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \278\ See Amendment to the Commission's Rules Concerning Market 
Modification; Implementation of Section 102 of the STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014; MB Docket No. 15-71, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 15-34, 80 FR 19594, Apr. 13, 2015 (NPRM).
    \279\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
    60. This Report and Order adopts rules to implement section 102 of 
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) 
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (``STELA Reauthorization Act'' or 
``STELAR'').\280\ The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the 
Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial 
television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of 
satellite carriage rights.\281\ The Commission previously had the 
authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.\282\ 
With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in 
this regard in order to promote consumer access to in-state and other 
relevant television programming. Significantly, the STELAR added a new 
factor for the Commission to consider when evaluating a market 
modification petition--``whether modifying the local market of the 
television station would promote consumers' access to television 
broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.'' 
\283\ Section 102 of the STELAR, and the Commission's actions in this 
Report and Order, seek to establish a market modification process for 
the satellite carriage context and, to the extent possible, address 
satellite subscribers' inability to receive in-state programming in 
certain areas. In this Report and Order, consistent with Congress' 
intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification 
process on the current cable market modification process, the 
Commission adopts rules to implement section 102 of the STELAR by 
revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to 
apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules 
to address the unique nature of satellite television service.\284\ For 
example, the STELAR recognizes that satellite carriage of additional 
stations pursuant to a market modification might be technically and 
economically infeasible in some circumstances.\285\ In addition to 
establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of 
the STELAR directs the Commission to consider whether it should make 
changes to the current cable market modification rules,\286\ and it 
also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market 
modification statutory provision.\287\ Accordingly, as part of the 
implementation of the STELAR, the Commission makes conforming and other 
minor changes to the cable market modification rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, 
Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 
U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 
5728, 113th Cong.). See Report and Order, para. 1.
    \281\ STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067.
    \282\ See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 76.59.
    \283\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III).
    \284\ See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission revises section 76.59 of 
the rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers.
    \285\ 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (stating that ``[a] market 
determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations 
for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically 
feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of 
its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.'').
    \286\ STELAR sec. 102(d).
    \287\ See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 
534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    61. No public comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
    62. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result 
of those comments.\288\ The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    63. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules will 
apply.\289\ The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as 
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \290\ In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act.\291\ 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.\292\ The rule changes 
adopted herein will directly affect small television broadcast 
stations, small MVPD systems, which include cable system operators and 
satellite carriers and small county governmental jurisdictions. Below, 
we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate 
of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4).
    \290\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \291\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \292\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of 
dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes 
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. 
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television 
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \293\ 
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.\294\ We estimate that, 
of this total, a substantial majority may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' \295\ Thus,

[[Page 59657]]

we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \294\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United 
States: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
    \295\ The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental 
organizations indicate that there were 89,476 local governments in 
2007. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 
2011, Table 428. The criterion by which the size of such local 
governments is determined to be small is a population of fewer than 
50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5). However, since the Census Bureau, in 
compiling the cited data, does not state that it applies that 
criterion, it cannot be determined with precision how many such 
local governmental organizations are small. Nonetheless, the 
inference seems reasonable that a substantial number of these 
governmental organizations have a population of fewer than 50,000. 
To look at Table 428 in conjunction with a related set of data in 
Table 429 in the Census's Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that 
inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many 
sub-entities that may well be small are included in the 89,476 local 
governmental organizations, e.g., county, municipal, township and 
town, school district and special district entities. Measured by a 
criterion of a population of fewer than 50,000, many of the cited 
sub-entities in this category seem more likely than larger county-
level governmental organizations to have small populations. 
Accordingly, of the 89,746 small governmental organizations 
identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a 
substantial majority are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired 
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in 
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that 
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony 
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.'' \296\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census 
category of ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, 
a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\297\ 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated 
for the entire year.\298\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 
1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\299\ 
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of 
businesses can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. Examples of this category are: broadband Internet 
service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers 
(wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance 
telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (``CCTV'') 
services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired 
telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system 
(``DTH'') services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite 
television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint 
distribution services (``MMDS'').
    \297\ 13 CFRCFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \298\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \299\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined 
above.\300\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\301\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\302\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\303\ Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that 
the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \301\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \302\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \303\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed 
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small 
cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide.\304\ According to the Television and Cable Factbook, there 
are 856 cable operators.\305\ Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable 
companies are small under this size standard.\306\ In addition, under 
the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 
15,000 or fewer subscribers.\307\ Current Commission records show 4,562 
cable systems nationwide.\308\ Of this total, 4,000 cable systems have 
fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 562 systems have 20,000 subscribers 
or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we 
estimate that most cable systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size 
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or 
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate 
Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, MM Docket No. 93-215, Sixth Report 
and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, FCC 95-196, 60 FR 
35854, July 12, 1995.
    \305\ See Warren Communications News, ``Television and Cable 
Factbook 2015'', Cable Volume 2, at D-1073--D-1120. We note that, 
according to NCTA, there are 660 cable systems. See NCTA, Industry 
Data, Number of Cable Operators and Systems, https://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx (visited Aug. 6, 2015). Depending upon the number of 
homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable operators 
use one or more cable systems to provide video service. See Annual 
Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery 
of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, FCC 
13-99, para. 24 (rel. July 22, 2013) (15th Annual Competition 
Report).
    \306\ SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, https://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). 
We note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer 
subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14 MVPD 
operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Competition Report, 
paras. 27-28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The 
Commission applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its 
implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial 
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, 
Report and Order, FCC 11-182, para. 37, 77 FR 40276, July 9, 2012 
(CALM Act Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one 
serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 
2011).
    \307\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
    \308\ The number of active, registered cable systems comes from 
the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) 
database on August 6, 2015. A cable system is a physical system 
integrated to a principal headend. We note that, according to NCTA, 
there are 5,208 cable systems. See NCTA, Industry Data, Number of 
Cable Operators and Systems, https://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx 
(visited Aug. 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' \309\ The Commission has determined 
that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed 
a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total 
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in 
the aggregate.\310\ Based on available data, we find that all but 10 
incumbent cable operators are small under this size

[[Page 59658]]

standard.\311\ We note that the Commission neither requests nor 
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.\312\ 
Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed 
$250,000,000, we are unable to estimate with greater precision the 
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable 
operators under this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
    \310\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New 
Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01-
158 (CSB, rel. Jan. 24, 2001) (establishing the threshold for 
determining whether a cable operator meets the definition of small 
cable operator at 677,000 subscribers and stating that this 
threshold will remain in effect for purposes of section 76.901(f) 
until the Commission issues a superseding public notice). We note 
that current industry data indicates that there are approximately 54 
million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today 
and that this updated number may be considered in developing size 
standards in a context different than section 76.901(f). NCTA, 
Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base (June 2014), https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited June 25, 2014).
    \311\ See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, https://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014).
    \312\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's 
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 
pursuant to [47 CFR] 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 
76.901(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Satellite Carriers. The term ``satellite carrier'' means an 
entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service 
licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in the 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service 
(FSS) frequencies.\313\ As a general practice (not mandated by any 
regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite 
facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their 
subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often 
lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the 
satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities 
package their own programming and may or may not be Commission 
licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an 
entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to 
subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station 
license.\314\ The Commission has concluded that the definition of 
``satellite carrier'' includes all three of these types of 
entities.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ The Communications Act defines the term ``satellite 
carrier'' by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in 
title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C.119(d)(6). 
Part 100 of the Commission's rules was eliminated in 2002 and now 
both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under Part 25 of 
the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Service, FCC 02-110, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148.
    \314\ See, e.g., Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, 
Request For Special Temporary Authority for the DIRECTV 5 Satellite; 
Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request for Blanket 
Authorization for 1,000,000 Receive Only Earth Stations to Provide 
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the U.S. using the Canadian 
Authorized DIRECTV 5 Satellite at the 72.5[deg] W.L. Broadcast 
Satellite Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04-2526 
(Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004).
    \315\ SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, FCC 05-187, 
paras. 59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,\316\ which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under 
this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\317\ Census data for 2007 shows that there 
were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\318\ Of this total, 
3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or 
more employees.\319\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority 
of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have 
available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities 
were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard 
formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The 
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a 
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.\320\ 
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a 
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH 
Network.\321\ Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and 
DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the 
threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires 
significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as 
defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS 
service provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \317\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \318\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \319\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \320\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002).
    \321\ See 15th Annual Competition Report, at para. 27. As of 
June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second 
largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 
million subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator 
and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 million 
subscribers. Id. at paras. 27, 110-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known 
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video 
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without 
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple 
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial 
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV 
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census 
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\322\ which was developed 
for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a 
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\323\ 
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated 
for the entire year.\324\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 
1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\325\ 
Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses 
can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \323\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \324\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \325\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish 
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home 
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of 
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band 
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are 
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of 
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from 
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt 
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD 
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired

[[Page 59659]]

Telecommunications Carriers.\326\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses 
having 1,500 or fewer employees.\327\ Census data for 2007 shows that 
there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.\328\ Of this 
total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 
1,000 or more employees.\329\ Therefore, under this size standard, we 
estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above (``By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.''). U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \327\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \328\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \329\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was 
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options 
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange 
carriers.\330\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for the 
distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. 
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\331\ OVS falls 
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, 
which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\332\ The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such 
businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\333\ Census data for 2007 
shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\334\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\335\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be 
considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has 
certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.\336\ 
Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only 
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.\337\ 
The Commission does not have financial or employment information 
regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not 
yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may 
qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See Annual Assessment of 
the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video 
Programming, MB Docket No. 06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, FCC 07-
206, para. 135, 74 FR 11102, March 16, 2009 (2009) (``Thirteenth 
Annual Cable Competition Report'').
    \331\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
    \332\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \333\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \334\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \335\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \336\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at https://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
    \337\ See Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report, para. 135. 
BSPs are newer businesses that are building state-of-the-art, 
facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services 
over a single network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. Wireless cable systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational 
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) \338\ and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) \339\ to 
transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 
BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard 
as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 
million in the previous three calendar years.\340\ The BRS auctions 
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the 
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 
61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business 
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees 
that are considered small entities.\341\ After adding the number of 
small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees 
not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 
BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA 
or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 
86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.\342\ The Commission 
offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed 
$40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 
15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) 
received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder 
with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 
percent discount on its winning bid.\343\ Auction 86 concluded in 2009 
with the sale of 61 licenses.\344\ Of the 10 winning bidders, two 
bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one 
bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and 
two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service 
(MMDS). See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules 
with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution 
Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and 
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--
Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Report and Order, FCC 95-230, para. 7, 60 FR 36524, Jul. 17, 1995.
    \339\ EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS). See id.
    \340\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).
    \341\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to 
incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-
auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business 
size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees.
    \342\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, 
Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, 
Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for 
Auction 86, AU Docket No. 09-56, Public Notice, DA 09-1376 (WTB rel. 
Jun. 26, 2009).
    \343\ Id.
    \344\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, 
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 
23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to 
Deny Period, Public Notice, DA 09-2378 (WTB rel. Nov. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television 
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting 
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,\345\

[[Page 59660]]

which was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.\346\ Census data 
for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\347\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\348\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be 
considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's 
internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 
active EBS licenses.\349\ The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 
licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions 
and school districts, which are by statute defined as small 
businesses.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \346\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \347\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \348\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
    \349\ https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp.
    \350\ The term ``small entity'' within SBREFA applies to small 
organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions 
(cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and 
special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 
601(4) through (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included 
in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.\351\ Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business 
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\352\ Census data for 
2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire 
year.\353\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, 
and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.\354\ Therefore, under this 
size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \351\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \352\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \353\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \354\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A 
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' \355\ The SBA's Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local 
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because 
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope.\356\ We have therefore 
included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, 
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \355\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \356\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, 
SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small 
Business Act contains a definition of ``small-business concern,'' 
which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small 
business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 
601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern'' 
to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 CFR 
121.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local 
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for these service providers. 
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\357\ Under this category, the SBA 
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\358\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\359\ Of this total, 3,144 firms had 
fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more 
employees.\360\ Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of 
such businesses can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \357\ This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 
``517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \358\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
    \359\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census 
Bureau, American FactFinder, ``Information: Subject Series--Estab 
and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2007--2007 Economic Census,'' NAICS code 517110, Table 
EC0751SSSZ5; available at https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
    \360\ Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data 
available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' \361\ The SBA has created the following small 
business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million 
or less in annual receipts.\362\ The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 
808 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 709 
had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 had annual receipts 
of more than $25,000,000.\363\ Because the Census has no additional 
classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number 
of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we 
conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small 
under the applicable SBA size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \361\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``515120 
Television Broadcasting,'' at https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, ``These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in 
turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined 
schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources.''
    \362\ 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.
    \363\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: 
Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms 
for the United States: 2007 (515120), https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the 
number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390 
stations.\364\ Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
July 2, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 
395.\365\ NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be 
small entities.\366\ Therefore, we estimate that

[[Page 59661]]

the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \364\ See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2014, 
Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) (Broadcast Station Totals) at 
https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331381A1.pdf.
    \365\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
    \366\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations \367\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include 
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not 
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to 
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, 
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not 
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business 
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \367\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a 
third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 
13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that 
applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of 
Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, 
as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As 
noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size 
standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in 
annual receipts.\368\ The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed Class A television stations to be 431.\369\ The Commission has 
also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.\370\ 
Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \368\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120.
    \369\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
    \370\ See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    83. The Report and Order revises section 76.59 of the rules to 
apply also to the satellite television context. The new satellite rules 
permit commercial television broadcast stations, satellite carriers and 
county governments to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial 
television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of 
satellite carriage rights.\371\ Under section 76.59 of the rules, 
commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already 
file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable 
carriage rights. Consistent with the current cable requirements, the 
adopted rules require petitioners to file market modification requests 
and/or responsive pleadings in accordance with the procedures for 
filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.\372\ 
Consistent with the current cable requirements, the adopted rules 
require petitioners to provide specific forms of evidence to support 
market modification petitions, should they ch0ose to file such 
petitions.\373\ A television broadcast station that becomes eligible 
for mandatory satellite carriage by operation of a market modification 
may elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to 
a satellite carrier within 30 days of the market determination.\374\ A 
satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving 
the station's request for carriage.\375\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ See Report and Order para. 9.
    \372\ See Report and Order paras. 12-13. Broadcasters and 
satellite carriers that want to oppose market modification requests 
would need to file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 CFR 
76.7.
    \373\ See Report and Order para. 17 (discussing evidentiary 
requirements for filing market modification petitions). These 
requirements are codified in 47 CFR 76.59.
    \374\ See Report and Order at para. 24. Carriage elections must 
be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 
76.66(d)(1). See Report and Order at para. 26. Section 76.66(d)(1) 
requires that an election request made by a television station must 
be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of 
business, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 
76.66(d)(1)(ii). The rule requires that a television station's 
written notification shall include the following information: (1) 
Station's call sign; (2) Name of the appropriate station contact 
person; (3) Station's address for purposes of receiving official 
correspondence; (4) Station's community of license; (5) Station's 
DMA assignment; and (6) Station's election of mandatory carriage or 
retransmission consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii).
    \375\ See Report and Order at para. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. The Report and Order establishes a process that will allow a 
prospective petitioner (i.e., broadcaster or county government) to 
obtain a certification from a satellite carrier about whether or not 
(and to what extent) carriage resulting from a contemplated market 
modification is technically and economically feasible for such carrier 
before the prospective petitioner undertakes the time and expense of 
preparing and filing a market modification petition.\376\ To initiate 
this process, a prospective petitioner may make a request in writing to 
a satellite carrier for the carrier to provide the certification about 
the feasibility or infeasibility of carriage. A satellite carrier must 
respond to this request within a reasonable amount of time by providing 
a feasibility certification to the prospective petitioner.\377\ A 
satellite carrier must also file a copy of the correspondence and 
feasibility certification it provides to the prospective petitioner in 
this docket electronically via ECFS so that the Media Bureau can track 
these certifications and monitor carrier response time. If the carrier 
is claiming spot beam coverage infeasibility, then the certification 
provided by the carrier must be the same detailed certification that 
would be required in response to a market modification petition.\378\ 
For any other claim of infeasibility, the carrier's feasibility 
certification must explain in detail the basis of such infeasibility 
and must be prepared to provide documentation in support of its claim, 
in the event the prospective petitioner decides to challenge the 
carrier's claim.\379\ If carriage is feasible, a statement to that 
effect must be provided in the certification.\380\ If a broadcaster or 
county government has concerns about the adequacy of the carrier's 
certification, or has some reason to question the validity of the 
carrier's certification, the broadcaster or county government may raise 
such concerns in a (separate) petition for special relief or its market 
modification petition.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \376\ See Report and Order para. 45.
    \377\ Id. With respect to what would be a reasonable amount of 
time for a carrier to respond to a request for a feasibility 
certification, we expect carriers will generally be able to respond 
within 45 days of receipt of a prospective petitioner's written 
request; however, we find that it would be reasonable for the 
satellite carrier to respond in 90 days if the carrier has to 
process several requests at the same time. If the response is after 
45 days, the carrier must provide an explanation for the longer time 
period in its certification (e.g., having to respond to multiple 
simultaneous requests). If the Media Bureau finds that a carrier is 
routinely taking up to 90 days to respond or is not providing a 
reasonable explanation for when it takes 90 days to respond, the 
Bureau may order such carrier to respond to future requests in a 
shorter time period or may take other enforcement action. With this 
process, we are trying to balance the need to provide broadcasters' 
with as fast a response as possible, while recognizing that 
satellite carriers may have problems responding to numerous requests 
at once.
    \378\ See Report and Order paras. 37-39.
    \379\ See Report and Order para. 45.
    \380\ See Report and Order para. 45.
    \381\ See Report and Order para. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. The adopted rules require a satellite carrier to provide a 
detailed and specialized certification to demonstrate its claim that 
satellite carriage resulting from a market modification would be 
technically or economically infeasible due to insufficient spot beam 
coverage.\382\ Satellite carriers will be required to provide 
supporting

[[Page 59662]]

documentation upon request by the Commission and must therefore retain 
such supporting documentation substantiating potential review by the 
Commission.\383\ As noted in section C of this FRFA, neither one of the 
satellite carriers, DISH nor DIRECTV, qualify as a small entity and 
small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to become 
DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with 
satellite services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ See Report and Order paras. 35-36.
    \383\ See Report and Order para. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    86. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency has 
taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including 
a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.\384\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. Consistent with the statute's goal of promoting regulatory 
parity between cable and satellite service, the Report and Order 
applies the existing cable market modification rules to the satellite 
context, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique 
nature of satellite television service. Therefore, the adopted rules 
for the first time allow a commercial television broadcast station to 
request a modification of its local television market for purposes of 
satellite carriage. Small TV stations that choose to file satellite 
market modification petitions must comply with the associated filing 
and evidentiary requirements (explained in section D of the FRFA); 
however, the filing of such petitions is voluntary. In addition, small 
TV stations may want to respond to a petition to modify its market (or 
the market of a competitor station) filed by a satellite carrier or a 
competitor station; however, there are no standardized evidentiary 
requirements associated with such responsive pleadings. Through a 
market modification process, a small TV station may gain or lose 
carriage rights with respect to a particular community, based on the 
five statutory factors, to better reflect localism.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \385\ See Report and Order para. 6. Section 338(l) of the Act 
provides that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the 
Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism 
by taking into account the following five factors: (1) Whether the 
station, or other stations located in the same area--(a) have been 
historically carried on the cable system or systems within such 
community; and (b) have been historically carried on the satellite 
carrier or carriers serving such community; (2) whether the 
television station provides coverage or other local service to such 
community; (3) whether modifying the local market of the television 
station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast 
station signals that originate in their State of residence; (4) 
whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried 
by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the 
requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of 
concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of 
sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (5) 
evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not 
subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming 
distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video 
programming distributors in such community. 47 U.S.C. 
338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v). See also discussion at Report and Order 
at section III.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. In the IRFA, we invited small TV stations to comment on whether 
they are more or less likely, on the whole, to benefit from market 
modifications.\386\ In addition, we invited comment on whether there 
are any alternatives we should consider to the Commission's proposed 
implementation of section 102 of the STELAR that would minimize any 
adverse impact on small TV stations, but which are consistent with the 
statute and its goals, such as promoting localism and regulatory 
parity.\387\ We received no comments in direct response to these 
inquiries. In comments to the NPRM, Gray Television, Inc. (``Gray'') 
proposed that the Commission should establish a presumption in favor of 
applying prior cable market modification determinations to satellite 
markets to lower the burden on television broadcast stations, including 
small stations.\388\ In the Report and Order, the Commission rejected 
Gray's proposal, finding it was inconsistent with the statute's 
requirement to apply the statutory factors to each market modification 
petition.\389\ The Commission did observe, however, that consideration 
of historic carriage is one of the five statutory factors that the 
Commission is required to consider in evaluating market modification 
requests and explained that consideration under such factor would 
``give sufficient weight to prior decisions without the need to 
establish a presumption.'' \390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ NPRM, para. 25.
    \387\ Id.
    \388\ Comments of Gray Television, Inc., MB Docket No. 15-71, at 
4-5 (filed May 13, 2015) (Gray Comments).
    \389\ See Report and Order para. 23 (explaining the reasons for 
not establishing a presumption that prior cable market 
determinations should apply to satellite markets).
    \390\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    89. Unique to satellite market modifications, the STELAR provides 
that a satellite carrier is not required to carry a station pursuant to 
a market modification if it is not technically and economically 
feasible for the carrier to do so.\391\ The Report and Order allows 
satellite carriers to demonstrate spot beam coverage infeasibility by 
providing a detailed and specialized certification under penalty of 
perjury.\392\ To avoid unnecessary burdens on broadcasters, satellite 
carriers, and the Commission, the Report and Order established a 
process for the parties to exchange information regarding feasibility 
of carriage prior to the filing of a prospective market modification 
petition.\393\ The adopted rules allow TV broadcast stations to request 
a certification regarding claims of technical or economic infeasibility 
from a satellite carrier before filing a prospective market 
modification petition, and the station may seek review of such 
certification by filing a petition for special relief before filing a 
prospective petition for market modification.\394\ This process will 
particularly benefit small stations, allowing them to avoid the time 
and expense of filing a market modification petition that could not 
result in carriage of the station. In comments to the NPRM, the 
Virginia Broadcasting Corp. (``WVIR-TV'') expressed concern that a 
certification approach would not provide broadcasters with sufficient 
information to challenge the validity of the satellite carrier's claim 
of infeasibility.\395\ The Report and Order addressed this concern by 
requiring a detailed and specialized certification that is subject to 
penalties for perjury and which would contain sufficient detail to 
ensure that the analysis performed by the satellite carrier was 
appropriate and valid.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \391\ See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3) (providing that ``[a] market 
determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations 
for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically 
feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of 
its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.''). 
See also discussion in Report and Order at section III.D.
    \392\ See Report and Order para. 36.
    \393\ See section D of this FRFA.
    \394\ See Report and Order paras. 39-40.
    \395\ Reply Comments of Virginia Broadcasting Corp., MB Docket 
No. 15-71, at 1 (filed May 28, 2015) (WVIR-TV Reply) (urging the 
Commission ``to reject suggestions by DBS operators that would 
impose heavy burdens on broadcasters seeking market modifications--
burdens that would be particularly onerous for small market 
television stations--by withholding information that is uniquely in 
their possession regarding technical and economic infeasibility or 
by requiring broadcasters to provide support for market modification 
requests that goes well beyond what is required in the cable 
television context.'').
    \396\ See Report and Order paras. 35-36.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59663]]

    90. The adopted rules, for the first time, allow satellite carriers 
to request market modifications. The adopted rules also allow satellite 
carriers to assert claims of infeasibility by certification, which will 
minimize the burden on them, although the Commission may require 
satellite carriers to provide documentation upon request.\397\ As 
previously discussed, only two entities--DIRECTV and DISH Network--
provide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, which requires a 
great investment of capital for operation. As noted in section C of 
this FRFA, neither one of these two entities qualify as a small entity 
and small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to 
become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs 
associated with satellite services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \397\ See Report and Order para. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Report to Congress
    91. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\398\ In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.\399\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    \399\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    92. This document contains modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\400\ 
The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the 
Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, 
we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002 (SBPRA),\401\ we previously sought specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 
U.S.C.). See OMB Control Number 3060-0546. The Commission received 
pre-approval for this modified collection on June 17, 2015; however, 
we are making additional modifications to this collection in this 
Report and Order.
    \401\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), 
Publaw Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of 
title 44 U.S.C.). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Congressional Review Act

    93. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \402\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Ordering Clauses

    94. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 102 of the 
STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 
Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 325, 338 and 614 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
303(r), 325, 338 and 534, this Report and Order is hereby adopted, 
effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.
    95. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby 
amended as set forth in Appendix B of the Report and Order and will 
become effective November 2, 2015, except for 47 CFR 76.59(a) and (b), 
which contain information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.
    96. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Broadcast television, Cable television, Satellite television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
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.

0
2. Section 76.5 is amended by revising paragraph (gg) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (gg) Satellite community. (1) For purposes of the significantly 
viewed rules (see Sec.  76.54), a separate and distinct community or 
municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within 
unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated 
areas). The boundaries of any such unincorporated community may be 
defined by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas. Satellite 
communities apply only in areas in which there is no pre-existing cable 
community, as defined in paragraph (dd) of this section.
    (2) For purposes of the market modification rules (see Sec.  
76.59), a county.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 76.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.7  General special relief, waiver, enforcement, complaint, 
show cause, forfeiture, and declaratory ruling procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Certificate of service. Petitions and Complaints shall be 
accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system 
operator, multichannel video programming distributor, franchising 
authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other 
interested person who is likely to be directly affected if the relief 
requested is granted.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 76.59 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), 
and (b)(5) and (6), adding paragraph (b)(7), revising paragraph (d), 
and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  76.59  Modification of television markets.

    (a) The Commission, following a written request from a broadcast 
station, cable system, satellite carrier or county government (only 
with respect to satellite modifications), may deem that the television 
market, as defined either by Sec.  76.55(e) or Sec.  76.66(e), of a 
particular commercial television broadcast station should include 
additional communities within its television market or exclude 
communities from such station's television market. In this respect, 
communities may be considered part of more than one television market.
    (b) * * *
    (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and

[[Page 59664]]

geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or 
satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features 
that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and 
the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any 
other evidence contributing to the scope of the market.
    (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for full-power digital 
stations) or protected contour maps (for Class A and low power 
television stations) delineating the station's technical service area 
and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite 
carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the 
service areas.

    Note to paragraph (b)(2):  Service area maps using Longley-Rice 
(version 1.2.2) propagation curves may also be included to support a 
technical service exhibit.

* * * * *
    (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or 
other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide 
listings.
    (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its 
average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over 
Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD 
households or other specific audience indicia, such as station 
advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.
    (7) If applicable, a statement that the station is licensed to a 
community within the same state as the relevant community.
* * * * *
    (d) A cable operator or satellite carrier shall not delete from 
carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the 
pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this section.
    (e) A market determination under this section shall not create 
additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not 
technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish 
such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of 
the determination.
    (f) No modification of a commercial television broadcast station's 
local market pursuant to this section shall have any effect on the 
eligibility of households in the community affected by such 
modification to receive distant signals from a satellite carrier 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 339.
0
5. Section 76.66 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(6) and revising 
paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  76.66  Satellite broadcast signal carriage.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Carriage after a market modification. Television broadcast 
stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a 
satellite carrier (pursuant to Sec.  76.66) due to a change in the 
market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to 
Sec.  76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new 
definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with 
respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage 
within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television 
broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the 
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (e) Market definitions. (1) A local market, in the case of both 
commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations, is the 
designated market area in which a station is located, unless such 
market is amended pursuant to Sec.  76.59, and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-24999 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.