Leased Commercial Access; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, 28761-28769 [2019-13134]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
public notice. As established by the
Commission in a 1994 rulemaking order
and in accordance with the terms of 47
CFR 1.2105(b)(2), an applicant whose
application is found to contain
deficiencies will have a limited
opportunity to bring its application into
compliance with the Commission’s
competitive bidding rules during a
resubmission window. As required by
47 CFR 1.65 and 1.2105(b), each
Auction 100 applicant must maintain
the accuracy of its previously filed Form
175. As required by 47 CFR 1.1111, each
upfront payment must be accompanied
by a Form 159.
109. In the second phase of the
process, there are additional compliance
requirements only applicable to
winning bidders. As with other winning
bidders, any small entity that is a
winning bidder will be required to
comply with the terms of: (1) 47 CFR
1.2107(b) by submitting as a down
payment within 10 business days after
release of the auction closing public
notice sufficient funds (in addition to its
upfront payment) to bring its total
amount of money on deposit with the
FCC for Auction 100 to 20% of the net
amount of its winning bid(s), a
requirement adopted by the FCC in a
1994 rulemaking order; (2) 47 CFR
1.2109(a) by submitting within 10
business days after the down payment
deadline the balance of the net amount
for each of its winning bids, a
requirement adopted by the FCC in a
1994 rulemaking order; and (3) 47 CFR
73.5005(a) by filing electronically
within 30 days following release of the
closing public notice, unless a longer
period is specified by public notice, a
properly completed long-form
application and required exhibits for
each construction permit won through
Auction 100, a requirement adopted by
the FCC for broadcast auction winning
bidders in a 1998 rulemaking order.
110. As required by 47 CFR 1.2105(c),
reports concerning a prohibited
communication must be filed with the
Chief of the Auctions Division, as
detailed in the Auction 100 Procedures
Public Notice.
111. Steps Taken to Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities. See 5
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(4).
112. MB and OEA anticipate that the
steps taken to make numerous resources
available to small entities and other
auction participants at no cost should
minimize any economic impact of the
auction processes and procedures on
small entities and should result in both
operational and administrative cost
savings for small entities and other
auction participants. For example, prior
to the beginning of bidding in Auction
100, the FCC will hold a mock auction
to allow eligible bidders the opportunity
to familiarize themselves with both the
processes and systems that will be
utilized in Auction 100. During the
auction, participants will be able to
access and participate in bidding via the
internet using a web-based system, or
telephonically, providing two cost
effective methods of participation and
avoiding the cost of travel for in-person
participation. Further, small entities as
well as other auction participants will
be able to avail themselves of a
telephonic hotline for assistance with
auction processes and procedures as
well as a technical support hotline to
assist with issues such as access to or
navigation within the electronic Form
175 and use of the FCC’s auction
bidding system. In addition, all auction
participants, including small business
entities, will have access to various
other sources of information and
databases through the Commission that
will aid in both their understanding and
participation in the process. These
resources, coupled with the description
and communication of the bidding
procedures before bidding begins in
Auction 100, should ensure that the
auction will be administered
predictably, efficiently and fairly, thus
providing certainty for small entities as
well as other auction participants.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gary Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions Division, Office of
Economics and Analytics.
[FR Doc. 2019–13100 Filed 6–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
28761
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket Nos. 07–42 and 17–105; FCC
19–52]
Leased Commercial Access;
Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission updates its leased access
rules as part of its Modernization of
Media Regulation Initiative. First, the
Commission vacates its 2008 Leased
Access Order, which never went into
effect due to a stay by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the
Office of Management and Budget
issuance of a notice of disapproval of
the associated information collection
requirements. Second, the Commission
adopts certain updates and
improvements to its existing leased
access rules.
DATES: Effective July 22, 2019, except
for §§ 76.970(h) and 76.975(e), which
are delayed. The Commission will
publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Policy
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
2120.
SUMMARY:
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order, FCC 19–52, adopted on June
6, 2019 and released on June 7, 2019.
The full text is available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This
document will also be available via
ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat. 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis
1. In the Report and Order, we update
our leased access rules as part of the
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
28762
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Commission’s Modernization of Media
Regulation Initiative. The leased access
rules, which implement the statutory
leased access requirements, direct cable
operators to set aside channel capacity
for commercial use by unaffiliated video
programmers.1 In 2018, the Commission
adopted a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) addressing leased
access proposals filed in response to the
Media Modernization Public Notice.
With this proceeding, we continue our
efforts to modernize media regulations
and remove unnecessary requirements
that can impede competition and
innovation in the media marketplace.
2. The video marketplace has changed
significantly since the Commission
initially adopted its leased access rules.
Specifically, today a wide variety of
media platforms are available to
programmers, including in particular
online platforms that creators can use to
distribute their content for free. This
change has reduced the importance of
leased access and, thus, the justification
for burdensome leased access
requirements.
3. Below, first we adopt the FNPRM’s
tentative conclusion that we should
vacate the Commission’s 2008 Leased
Access Order.2 That order never went
into effect due to a stay by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(Sixth Circuit) and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
issuance of a notice of disapproval of
the associated information collection
requirements. Second, we adopt certain
updates and improvements to our
existing leased access rules.
4. Vacating the 2008 Leased Access
Order. We adopt the FNPRM’s tentative
conclusion that we should vacate the
2008 Leased Access Order, including
the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking issued in conjunction with
that order. We conclude that this
approach, which cable operators
support, is consistent with our public
interest objectives and is the most
practical and legally tenable option
available to us. Specifically, vacating
the prior order will clarify the status of
our leased access regime, further the
Commission’s media modernization
efforts, and obviate the need to address
the significant legal concerns raised in
1 The leased access rules are in subpart N of part
76, which was listed in the Media Modernization
Public Notice as one of the principal rule parts that
pertains to media entities and that is the subject of
the media modernization review.
2 Federal Communications Commission, Leased
Commercial Access, 73 FR 10675 (final rule), 10732
(proposed rule) (Feb. 28, 2008).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
the related Sixth Circuit proceeding and
OMB Notice.3
5. By vacating the 2008 Leased Access
Order, we are resolving the longstanding
challenges to the order that have been
pending for more than a decade due to
the stay of this order.4 Vacating the 2008
Leased Access Order will not have any
impact on any party’s compliance with
or expectations concerning the leased
access requirements, because the rule
changes contained in that order never
went into effect.5 Accordingly, as a
result of our decision today, except for
the rule changes set forth below, parties
simply will remain subject to the same
leased access rules they were operating
under prior to 2008.
6. Vacating the 2008 Leased Access
Order is consistent with the
Commission’s media modernization
efforts, pursuant to which we seek to
remove rules that are outdated or no
longer justified by market realities. As
commenters point out, implementing
the 2008 Leased Access Order would
have made leased access significantly
more burdensome for cable operators,
which would be contrary to the highly
competitive marketplace in existence
today. For example, NCTA explains that
implementing the 2008 order ‘‘would
have changed the formula for
establishing the maximum permissible
rate for leased access in a manner that
would have resulted in rates
approaching zero.’’ We agree with
commenters that in today’s marketplace
the appropriate course is to ease, rather
than increase, regulatory burdens
associated with leased access and that
3 Because we vacate the 2008 Leased Access
Order, we also dismiss as moot the related NCTA
FCC Stay Request, which asked the Commission to
stay the 2008 Leased Access Order, and the TVC
Recon Petition, which sought reconsideration of the
2008 Leased Access Order.
4 Vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order
eliminates the need to move forward with the
judicial proceedings currently pending in the Sixth
Circuit. The Sixth Circuit Stay Order, which has
been in effect for over a decade, recognized ‘‘that
NCTA has raised some substantial appellate issues’’
pertaining to the rules adopted in the 2008 Leased
Access Order. Similarly, vacating the 2008 Leased
Access Order eliminates the need to overcome
OMB’s denial of the information collection
requirements associated with major portions of the
2008 Leased Access Order. OMB detailed the ways
in which certain requirements adopted in the 2008
Leased Access Order were inconsistent with the
PRA, including the Commission’s failure to
demonstrate the need for the more burdensome
requirements adopted, its failure to demonstrate
that it had taken reasonable steps to minimize the
burdens, and its failure to provide reasonable
protection for proprietary and confidential
information.
5 We need not make any modifications to our
rules to reflect our vacating of the 2008 Leased
Access Order because the leased access rules that
are currently in effect, and that currently appear in
the Code of Federal Regulations, are those that were
in existence prior to the 2008 Leased Access Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Commission should not have leased
access regulations where the maximum
allowable rates approach zero. Indeed,
as discussed below, today we find that
certain rule changes are needed to
provide cable operators with relief from
their existing leased access burdens
because the burdens are no longer
justified in today’s marketplace, given
the increased distribution alternatives
for leased access programmers. While
we recognize that some leased access
programmers have expressed a
preference for leased access via cable as
compared to alternatives such as online
programming distribution, we are
persuaded that these alternatives have
developed into a viable substitute for
leased access today. In addition, we
note that easing the regulatory burdens
associated with leased access will
effectuate the statutory requirement to
implement rules ‘‘in a manner
consistent with the growth and
development of cable systems.’’
7. We disagree with commenters
claiming that the Commission should
‘‘adopt the parts [of the 2008 Leased
Access Order] that are not subject to
OMB or Sixth Circuit . . . scrutiny and
either staff review or issue a FNPRM to
address the issues of concern to the
OMB and the Appeals Court.’’ 6 The
FNPRM sought comment on whether
there is ‘‘any policy justification for
retaining any particular rules adopted’’
in the 2008 Leased Access Order.
Commenters advocating the retention of
all portions of the 2008 Leased Access
Order ‘‘that are not subject to OMB or
Sixth Circuit . . . scrutiny’’ do not
explain with sufficient specificity which
rules from the 2008 Leased Access
Order should go into effect and why
they are justified today. We believe that
vacating the entire order and proceeding
anew is preferable to commenters’
suggested piecemeal approach.
8. Modifying the Leased Access Rules.
We next adopt certain updates and
improvements to our existing leased
access rules. It is our goal to modernize
our leased access regulations given the
significant changes in the video
marketplace, including specifically the
availability of online media platforms.
We stated in the FNPRM that this
proceeding would ‘‘advance our efforts
to modernize our media regulations and
remove unnecessary requirements that
can impede competition and innovation
6 We also reject LAPA’s request that the
Commission adopt customer service standards akin
to those in the 2008 Leased Access Order, finding
instead that the contact information requirement we
adopt below is sufficient at this time and
appropriately balances the burdens on cable
operators with the needs of leased access
programmers.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
in the media marketplace.’’ We find that
the benefits of updating our leased
access rules to reflect the current video
marketplace outweigh the anticipated
costs.
9. Part-Time Leased Access. We
eliminate the requirement that cable
operators make leased access available
on a part-time basis. Instead, our leased
access rules will apply only to leased
access programmers that purchase
channel capacity on a full-time basis 7
for at least a one-year contract term. The
Commission’s rules currently direct
‘‘[c]able operators that have not satisfied
their statutory leased access
requirements [to] accommodate parttime leased access requests,’’ but there
is no statutory requirement for part-time
leased access. And, contrary to SBN’s
suggestion ‘‘that part-time access is the
‘genuine outlet’ Congress sought to
promote with the leased access statute,’’
the legislative history does not mention
part-time leased access. Further, we are
persuaded by comments that because
part-time leased access is regulatory,
and not statutory, we should seek to
avoid unnecessary burdens in light of
possible First Amendment concerns.8 In
response to the FNPRM’s request for
further comment on this topic,9 cable
operators support elimination of the
part-time leased access requirement.
10. We find that eliminating part-time
leased access is consistent with
7 Leasing of a channel on a full-time basis will
require that the channel is under the exclusive use
of the programmer for the term of the contract.
8 SBN argues that there is no speech-related
distinction between part-time access and full-time
access, and thus the First Amendment concerns
cannot be used to ban the former but not the latter.
As an initial matter, as described above, our
elimination of part-time leased access is sufficiently
supported by policy justifications that are
independent of our First Amendment concerns. In
addition, we proceed here incrementally by
eliminating the part-time leased access rules that
impose speech burdens that are not required by
statute. In the related Second FNPRM, we seek
further comment on whether the statutory leased
access requirements continue to withstand First
Amendment scrutiny.
9 SBN is incorrect when it claims that the FNPRM
did not provide sufficient notice of the elimination
of part-time leased access. First, the FNPRM
specifically sought comment on new rules
governing part-time leased access. In response,
commenters urged the Commission to adopt new
rules that would no longer require cable operators
to make leased access available on a part-time basis.
We adopt such rules today, but permit existing parttime commercial leased access agreements to
remain in place under their current terms. Cable
operators have the discretion to negotiate future
part-time agreements as a private contractual
matter. Second, our new rules regarding part-time
leased access are a logical outgrowth of the
Commission’s request for comment on ‘‘whether
our rules implicate First Amendment interests.’’
Finally, any argument regarding lack of notice is
refuted by the fact that leased access programmers
themselves opposed the elimination of part-time
leased access in their initial comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
marketplace changes. Since the
Commission adopted the rule governing
part-time leased access in 1993, the
available platforms to distribute
programming have multiplied,
including in particular internet options.
At the same time, the part-time leased
access requirement has continued to
apply to cable operators, and the record
indicates that those operators do not
usually generate enough revenue from
part-time leased access programming to
cover the administrative costs of
providing such programming.10 Even in
the 1997 Leased Access Order, the
Commission ‘‘recognize[d] that parttime leasing is not expressly required by
the statute, that it may impose
additional administrative and other
costs on cable operators, and that it may
pose the risk of capacity being underused.’’ Unlike in 1997, when the
Commission affirmed its rule requiring
cable operators to lease time in 30minute increments, however, our
decision today reflects the fact that the
internet has developed into a
flourishing means of distribution for
short-form programming. SBN claims
that the focus of leased access should be
providing diverse information sources
to cable subscribers. Eliminating parttime leased access, however, will not
prevent leased access programmers from
reaching all households with internet
access, including the households of
cable subscribers. We find that the costs
of mandating part-time leased access to
provide programming to the small
portion of the population without
internet access but with cable television
outweighs the benefits. While we
recognize the interest of leased access
programmers in maintaining part-time
leased access,11 we are persuaded that
10 These administrative costs include such
matters as negotiating contracts and sending
invoices, which cost the same for part-time leased
access as for full-time leased access. SBN asserts
that rather than eliminating part-time leased access,
we should ‘‘revise the pricing rules in accordance
with Section 612(c)(1) to cover the[] costs’’ that
part-time leased access imposes on cable operators.
We disagree that this is the appropriate course. We
find that in light of the other platforms now
available to distribute part-time programming, there
is no longer a sufficient policy justification for parttime leased access. We also are mindful that simply
adjusting the price that cable operators may charge
for part-time leased access would not address the
First Amendment concerns that it presents.
11 SBN states that the ‘‘Report and Order does not
address the effect of the abandonment of the parttime leasing regime on part-time programmers, most
of whom (like SBN) are small businesses.’’ In the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we analyze
the potential impact of the rule changes adopted
herein on small entities. We recognize that the
changes in the Report and Order that ease burdens
on cable operators, such as the elimination of parttime leased access, may also impact leased access
programmers, including small programmers. This
outcome, however, is justified by marketplace
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28763
the costs to cable providers associated
with accommodating part-time leased
access outweigh any countervailing
benefits, especially given the plethora of
alternative distribution options for such
programming and the applicable First
Amendment concerns.12 To the extent
that any cable operator wishes to carry
programming on a part-time basis, it
may negotiate such carriage as a private
contractual matter, outside the scope of
the leased access statute.
11. Because leased access will only
occur on a full-time basis going forward,
we delete section 76.970(h) of our rules,
which currently addresses the
maximum commercial leased access rate
for part-time channel placement.
Current § 76.970(i) and (j) will be
redesignated as § 76.970(h) and (i). We
also delete the reference to part-time
leased access rates in current section
76.970(i)(1)(ii) (redesignated section
76.970(h)(1)(ii)), and we delete section
76.971(a)(4), which sets forth the
current requirements for
accommodating part-time leased
access.13
12. Bona Fide Requests. We adopt the
proposal set out in the FNPRM to ease
burdens on cable operators by revising
changes, including in particular the availability of
online platforms for these small programmers to
distribute their content. SBN also claims that we
have not examined the effect of the elimination of
part-time leased access on barriers to market entry
and the promotion of a diversity of media voices,
which SBN contends is required by section 257 of
the Act. In fact, we find, based on evidence in the
record, that any entry barriers that existed for parttime programmers have been largely overtaken by
the plethora of alternative distribution options for
such programmers. Furthermore, in light of these
alternative distribution options, elimination of parttime leased access should have at most a minimal
adverse effect on the promotion of a diversity of
media voices, and that effect is outweighed by the
costs to cable operators of part-time leased access.
12 Cable commenters provide that if we decline to
eliminate part-time leased access entirely, we could
adopt an alternative approach pursuant to which
we could require a cable system to carry a leased
access programmer only if the programmer provides
a set minimum amount of leased access
programming. Based on the record before us, we
conclude that eliminating part-time leased access
entirely is a preferable approach, given the
alternative means of distribution available to
programmers today and the costs that part-time
leased access imposes on cable operators.
13 Section 76.970(i)(1)(i) of our rules requires a
cable operator’s response to a leased access request
to include ‘‘[h]ow much of the operator’s leased
access set-aside capacity is available.’’ ACA
proposed that cable operators should be required to
inform a potential leased access programmer only
whether the specific time slot it requests is
available, ‘‘rather than indicating the total amount
of available leased access set-aside capacity.’’
Because we eliminate the part-time leased access
requirement, ACA’s time slot proposal is no longer
relevant. We clarify that going forward, we will
permit cable operators to comply with section
76.970(i)(1)(i) by confirming whether there is a
channel available for the prospective leased access
programmer.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
28764
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
section 76.970(i) of our rules to provide
that all cable operators, and not just
those that qualify as ‘‘small systems’’ 14
under that rule, are required to respond
to a request for leased access
information only if the request is bona
fide. Larger cable systems currently
must respond to all written leased
access requests, which can be
inefficient, difficult, and costly. We also
make one change to our existing
definition of a ‘‘bona fide request’’ for
information, which currently is defined
as a request from a potential leased
access programmer that includes: ‘‘(i)
The desired length of a contract term;
(ii) The time slot desired; (iii) The
anticipated commencement date for
carriage; and (iv) The nature of the
programming.’’ Specifically, we delete
the second criteria (the time slot
desired), because as explained above we
eliminate part-time leased access and
time slot thus will be irrelevant for
programming that occupies a channel
on a full-time basis. As proposed in the
FNPRM, the criteria for a bona fide
request must be met before a cable
system will be required to provide the
information specified in section
76.970(i)(1).
13. Adoption of this bona fide request
provision will expand relief afforded
small systems to all cable operators.15
Section 76.970(i)(1) currently directs
cable operators to provide prospective
leased access programmers with the
following information: ‘‘(i) How much
of the operator’s leased access set-aside
capacity is available; (ii) A complete
schedule of the operator’s full-time and
part-time leased access rates; (iii) Rates
associated with technical and studio
costs; and (iv) If specifically requested,
a sample leased access contract.’’ Even
with the other modifications to section
76.970(i) that we adopt below, we are
persuaded that, absent this change to
our rules, some operators of systems
that do not qualify as ‘‘small’’ would
continue to spend a significant amount
of time responding to non-bona fide
leased access inquiries.
14. We recognize that this is a change
from the Commission’s previous
decision to limit the flexibility to
respond only to bona fide requests to
small cable operators. However, based
14 The leased access rules define a small system
as either (i) a system that qualifies as small under
section 76.901(c) of the Commission’s rules and is
owned by a small cable company as defined in
section 76.901(e); or (ii) a system that has been
granted special relief.
15 Current rules require operators of small cable
systems to provide the information only in response
to a bona fide request from a prospective leased
access programmer, whereas other cable system
operators must provide the information in response
to any request for leased access information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
on the record evidence that both small
and large cable operators face significant
burdens in responding to leased access
requests, we find that there is no longer
a reason to limit this flexibility to small
cable operators. We further conclude
that it does not serve the public interest
to require cable operators to continue
responding to requests that are not
considered bona fide under our rules.
We see no evidence that cable operators
will use the bona fide request
requirement to discourage leasing
access, whereas there is clear evidence
that cable operators currently are
required to undertake the expense of
responding to all requests for leased
access information even though most
such requests do not result in a leased
access programming contract.16 We
recognize that some commenters claim
that it is difficult for potential leased
access programmers to provide the
information required for a bona fide
leased access request. We find, however,
that providing this very basic
information is necessary to demonstrate
that a leased access programmer is
serious about its inquiry. We believe it
is reasonable to expect basic
information such as the desired contract
term, anticipated start date, and nature
of programing to be developed prior to
submitting a leased access request. To
the extent that the responsive
information from the cable operator
presents a concern for the programmer,
for example regarding the rate schedule,
nothing in this change would prevent
the programmer from further modifying
its request and continuing to negotiate
with the cable operator on the terms of
an agreement.
15. Contrary to the suggestion of
NCTA, we will not permit cable
operators to seek further information
from potential leased access
programmers before responding to a
leased access request, such as: (1) How
the potential leased access programmer
would deliver its programming to the
cable system; and (2) an affidavit
identifying all of the programmer’s
owners and declaring that all are in
compliance with applicable trade
sanctions. We must balance between the
competing interests of potential leased
access programmers who should be able
to obtain basic information that will
enable them to determine whether they
wish to proceed with a leased access
programming contract, and cable
operators who should not be required to
incur costs in providing information to
16 We thus are not persuaded by one commenter’s
assertion that there is no evidence that cable
companies are overwhelmed by the volume of
requests by leased access programmers.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a programmer that is not seriously
committed to securing a leased access
contract. We find that the approach we
adopt herein strikes an appropriate
balance, but we will continue
monitoring the marketplace to
determine whether any further
modifications are needed in the
future.17
16. Timeframe for Responding to
Requests. To ease burdens on cable
operators, we extend the timeframe
within which they must provide
prospective leased access programmers
with the information specified in
section 76.970(i)(1) of our rules, from 15
calendar days to 30 calendar days for
cable operators generally, and from 30
calendar days to 45 calendar days for
operators of systems subject to small
system relief. These timeframes apply
only to bona fide requests for
information pursuant to section
76.970(i), and not to simple requests for
contact information.
17. The record demonstrates that
cable operators, especially those with
multiple systems, would benefit from
having additional time to gather the
information specified in section
76.970(i)(1), as is required in response
to a request for leased access
information. First, section 76.970(i)(1)(i)
currently requires the provision of
‘‘[h]ow much of the operator’s leased
access set-aside capacity is available.’’
Although as explained above we clarify
that cable operators may comply with
that requirement by confirming whether
there is sufficient capacity for the
prospective leased access programmer,
operators still will need to analyze
current system capacity to make that
determination, given that as ACA states
capacity is constantly changing ‘‘as
cable operators add and drop channels,
and repurpose system bandwidth from
video to broadband services.’’
18. Second, section 76.970(i)(1)(ii)
requires the provision of ‘‘[a] complete
schedule of the operator’s full-time and
part-time leased access rates.’’ ACA
explains that, because the rate formula
utilizes data points that are constantly
changing, a cable operator must
complete this calculation anew in
response to every leased access request
for information. ACA further claims the
cost of determining the rates can be one
thousand dollars or more per request.
Third, section 76.970(i)(1)(iii) requires
the provision of ‘‘[r]ates associated with
technical and studio costs.’’ ACA
17 In addition, we note that section 76.970(i)(2)
currently references ‘‘paragraph (h)(1) of this
section,’’ which does not exist. Instead the rule
should have cited current paragraph (i)(1), but given
that herein we redesignate paragraph (i) as
paragraph (h), no corrective action is needed.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
explains that cable operators may not
have standardized technical and studio
costs, because these costs must be
calculated based on the specific types of
services the programmer seeks. Finally,
section 76.970(i)(1)(iv) requires, if
specifically requested, the provision of
‘‘a sample leased access contract.’’
While some cable operators may have a
contract readily available, the record
indicates that others may only have an
out-of-date contract in their files. For all
of these reasons, we find that the
current deadlines for providing the
information required in response to
leased access requests for information
are insufficient.18 Our new requirement
that all cable operators need only
provide the listed information in
response to a bona fide request does not
alter this analysis, because it may not
make it any easier to provide the
required information; rather, it could
lead to less frequent provision of the
information since cable operators will
not need to provide it if a request is not
bona fide.19 We see no indication in the
record that increasing the timeframe
within which cable operators must
provide the required information will
prejudice programmers seeking to lease
access. Rather, programmers seeking to
lease access can simply take the longer
timeframe into account in deciding
when to submit a bona fide request.
19. We extend each deadline by 15
calendar days, such that the general
deadline will be 30 days, and the small
system deadline will be 45 days.
Although NCTA seeks a 45-day
response period for all cable operators,
we think that tripling the current
deadline is excessive. Rather, we find it
appropriate to extend each deadline by
15 calendar days, thus maintaining the
longer deadline for small cable systems
that may lack the resources to gather
information as quickly as larger systems.
Although one commenter posits that
lengthening the deadline could deter
potential leased access programmers
from seeking access, particularly if their
programming is time-sensitive, we see
no evidence supporting this concern.
20. Application Fees and Deposits. As
proposed by NCTA and supported by
others, we permit cable operators to
impose a maximum leased access
application fee of $100 per system18 Some commenters claim that the current
deadlines are sufficient, and that cable operators
should have the required information readily
available. We are not persuaded by these comments;
instead we recognize the specific difficulties flagged
by cable operators including, in particular, ACA.
19 Given that many of the difficulties discussed in
this paragraph apply to operators of single cable
systems as well as to operators of multiple cable
systems, we will not distinguish between those
categories of operators.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
specific bona fide request,20 and we
deem as reasonable under the
Commission’s rules a security deposit or
prepayment requirement equivalent to
up to 60 days of the applicable lease
fee.21 We agree with commenters that
application fees and deposits are
justified to help reimburse cable
operators for their leased access costs,22
to discourage frivolous leased access
requests, and to reimburse cable
operators for situations in which a
leased access programmer only leases
access for a brief time before the
arrangement is terminated due to nonpayment.23 We acknowledge leased
access programmers’ concerns that any
application fee or deposit could
dissuade potential leased access
programmers, particularly small
entities, from seeking to lease access.
Accordingly, rather than permitting
‘‘nominal’’ application fees and deposits
as proposed in the FNPRM, we establish
maximum application fees and deposits
at levels that we do not expect will be
unduly burdensome for leased access
programmers.24 Cable operators may
require leased access programmers to
pay any application fee before the cable
operator provides the information set
forth in section 76.970(i)(1) in response
20 We will consider one ‘‘system-specific bona
fide request’’ to be a request covering a system that
is served by a primary headend. If a leased access
programmer wishes to provide its leased access
programming on the cable operator’s system that is
served by a different primary headend, then it
would be subject to another $100 application fee.
21 A cable operator may assess both an
application fee and a deposit or prepayment. By
‘‘application fee,’’ we mean a processing fee that the
cable operator collects and retains regardless of
whether the leased access request ultimately results
in carriage. By ‘‘deposit’’ or ‘‘prepayment,’’ we
mean a fee that the cable operator collects as part
of the execution of a leased access agreement and
then applies to offset future payments due under
the agreement. The FNPRM applied a different
definition of ‘‘deposit,’’ which would have made a
deposit part of the leased access request process.
We have determined that this approach is not
logical, given that the Commission’s rules currently
refer to leased access security deposits in the
context of section 76.971 (addressing leased access
terms and conditions) rather than section 76.970
(addressing leased access requests for information).
22 A cable operator’s leased access costs include,
as ACA states, ‘‘processing the application,
negotiating terms, and making arrangements for the
delivery of programming to the cable headend.
Negotiating a leased access agreement can be time
consuming, and for small operators often requires
the assistance of outside counsel.’’
23 While the FNPRM sought comment on whether
the Commission should permit only small cable
operators to require an application fee or deposit,
commenters did not address that issue. We
conclude that the rationale for permitting an
application fee or deposit discussed herein applies
to cable operators of all sizes.
24 Establishing a maximum for application fees
and deposits also addresses SBN’s concerns that an
approach of permitting ‘‘nominal’’ fees and deposits
would ‘‘engender deal-killing controversies over
what fees and deposits are ‘nominal.’ ’’
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28765
to a leased access request,25 whereas a
deposit may be assessed as part of the
execution of a leased access agreement.
21. We revise section 76.970(i)(1) of
our rules to provide that cable operators
are required to provide leased access
programmers with the information set
forth in that section only if the
programmer has remitted any
application fee that the cable system
operator requires up to a maximum of
$100 per system-specific bona fide
leased access request for information.
The maximum leased access application
fee applies to an entire system-specific
bona fide request, as defined above. If a
programmer amends such a request, the
cable operator cannot use the
amendment as an opportunity to assess
a second application fee. We recognize
that permitting a leased access
application fee is a departure from past
Commission practice. That past practice
was based on an expectation that cable
operators would be sufficiently
protected by the ‘‘bona fide’’ request
requirement that then applied only to
small cable operators, but as NCTA
states, ‘‘experience has shown that even
bona fide applicants may opt to walk
away without signing [an] agreement’’
which ‘‘can leave cable operators with
unreimbursed costs’’ 26 which we do not
believe Congress intended cable
operators to absorb.
22. Section 76.971(d) of our rules
already permits cable operators to
‘‘require reasonable security deposits or
other assurances from users who are
unable to prepay in full for access to
leased commercial channels.’’ We
hereby deem as reasonable under the
Commission’s rules a security deposit or
prepayment equivalent to up to 60 days
of the applicable lease fee, and we agree
with NCTA that 60 days is a reasonable
timeframe to enable cable operators to
protect themselves against lessees that
25 Leased access programmers assert that they
should not be treated any differently than potential
commercial advertisers, to which cable system
operators provide information such as rates without
requiring any payment. We disagree because, as
Charter states, ‘‘most leased access programmers
lack the performance record and financial resources
of commercial programmers with whom the
operator would customarily engage.’’ Cable
operators thus are justified in assessing fees before
the cable operator undertakes the expense of
providing the information set forth in section
76.970(i)(1). In addition, cable operators have a
different relationship with leased access
programmers than with commercial programmers
insofar as cable operators are required by statute to
engage with leased access programmers, whereas
cable operators make a voluntary business decision
to engage with commercial programmers.
26 We thus conclude that, even given the adoption
of the proposal to require all cable operators to
respond only to bona fide leased access requests,
permitting application fees remains reasonable and
justified.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
28766
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
fail to pay after launching. This
approach will address concerns that the
current case-by-case determination of
what constitutes a ‘‘reasonable’’ deposit
leads to marketplace uncertainty. A
cable operator may choose to assess
either a security deposit or prepayment
that exceeds 60 days of the applicable
lease fee, but such an assessment would
remain subject to the current case-bycase review process if the programmer
asserts that it is not reasonable. While
one leased access programmer advocates
a maximum deposit equivalent to the
cost of a single day of airtime, we find
that such an amount would be
insufficient to protect cable operators
from a leased access programmer that
ceases paying for access prior to the
completion of its agreement’s term,
which will now be a minimum of one
year. Because a deposit is assessed as
part of the execution of a leased access
agreement, it will either be applied to
payments due under the agreement, or
it will be retained by the cable operator
to compensate it for the leased access
programmer’s failure to remit payments
required by the agreement. We see no
reason to modify the existing
requirement of section 76.971(d) that
reasonable security deposits are
permitted only if the leased access user
does not prepay in full because if the
leased access user prepays in full, the
cable operator does not need protection
against nonpayment.
23. We reject requests by cable
operators to impose additional new
financial requirements on leased access
programmers aside from application
fees and deposits. Specifically, ACA
proposes that the Commission permit
cable operators to assess a ‘‘closing fee’’
upon finalization of a leased access
agreement. We find that giving cable
operators this flexibility is not necessary
because it is intended to address the
same cable operator concerns as the
application fee and security deposit.
NCTA proposes that cable operators
‘‘should be permitted to require an
acknowledgement in the application
that certain ordinary commercial
protections will apply, including that a
lessee must provide proof of insurance
. . . and pass a credit check prior to
entering into a lease.’’ In addition,
NCTA requests that the rules ‘‘provide
that if a leased access user has
previously been dropped for nonpayment, an operator can refuse to enter
into a leasing agreement with that entity
or its principals in the future.’’ We note
that our rules already permit cable
operators to ‘‘impose reasonable
insurance requirements on leased access
programmers,’’ and we decline to adopt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
further protections for cable operators
against non-payment by leased access
programmers given the expected
sufficiency of the application fees and
deposits that we authorize today.
24. Contact Information. We adopt a
requirement that cable operators
provide potential leased access
programmers with contact information
for the person responsible for leased
access matters. Multiple commenters
support a leased access contact
information requirement, and none
oppose it. We provide flexibility for
cable operators in complying with this
requirement by permitting them to
disclose on their own websites, or
through alternate means if they do not
have their own websites,27 basic contact
information including the name or title,
telephone number, and email address
for the person responsible for
responding to requests for information
about leased access channels. This
information is necessary for potential
leased access programmers to initiate
productive contact with cable systems,
which is vital to the leased access
process, and our approach is consistent
with the contact information
requirements the Commission has
adopted in other contexts. We provide
further flexibility by requiring cable
operators to provide either a contact
person’s name or title.28 This approach
eliminates the need to update the
website due to personnel changes, and
it is permissible so long as the provided
telephone number and email address
reach the appropriate person. However,
a cable operator provides the required
contact information, it should be
reasonably identifiable, though it need
not appear on a cable operator’s main
web page.29
25. Dispute Procedures. As proposed
in the FNPRM, we adopt common-sense
modifications to the procedures for
leased access disputes, which no
commenter opposed. These
27 For example, a cable operator that does not
have its own website could post its contact
information on a third-party website, such as the
website of a cable or programmer trade association,
and it could train employees to provide that website
to callers inquiring about leased access matters.
28 For example, rather than specifying the contact
person’s name, Cox has opted to provide that
communications should be directed to the ‘‘Leased
Access Coordinator’’ and it lists an email address
for this person.
29 Although the Commission adopted a
comparable requirement in the 2008 Leased Access
Order, that requirement never went into effect
because OMB disapproved of the information
collection requirements contained in that order.
The reasons for the disapproval, however, were not
specifically related to the contact information
requirement, and as explained above we have
minimized burdens of the new contact information
requirement by providing cable operators with
flexibility in complying.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
modifications resolve inconsistencies
between the leased access dispute
resolution rule (section 76.975) and the
Commission’s more general rule
governing complaints (section 76.7).
First, we adopt the proposal to revise
the terminology in section 76.975 by
referencing an answer to a petition,
rather than a response to a petition.
Second, we adopt the proposal to
modify section 76.975 by calculating the
30-day timeframe for filing an answer to
a leased access petition from the date of
service of the petition, rather than from
the date on which the petition was filed.
Third, whereas section 76.975 currently
does not include any allowance for
replies, we adopt the proposal to add a
provision stating that replies to answers
must be filed within 15 days after
submission of the answer.30 Fourth, we
adopt the proposal to add to section
76.975 a statement that section 76.7
applies to petitions for relief filed under
section 76.975, unless otherwise
provided in section 76.975. We expect
that these modifications will make
dispute procedures clearer both for the
parties to a leased access dispute and for
the Commission.31
26. Other Issues. Commenters put
forth several additional proposals in
response to the FNPRM, and we reject
the proposals at this time as follows.
27. HD leased access. We will not
require cable systems to carry leased
access programming in high definition
(HD).32 Rather, HD carriage is at the
discretion of the cable operator. This
approach is consistent with the Act,
which does not require cable systems to
carry leased access programming in HD.
Carrying leased access programming in
HD expands the use of spectrum
without increasing the volume of leased
access programming distributed.
Further, we note that cable operators
negotiate to carry even some
30 The FNPRM sought comment on whether 15
days is the appropriate timeframe for submitting a
reply to an answer to a leased access petition.
Commenters did not address this issue, with the
exception of Jones’s support of the Commission’s
15-day proposal. To be consistent with the answer
filing deadline, which is 20 days under the general
complaint-filing rule but 30 days under the leased
access rule, we find that it is appropriate for the
reply filing deadline to be 10 days under the general
complaint-filing rule but 15 days under the leased
access rule.
31 Although some commenters argue that we
should make additional changes to make the
dispute resolution process faster and more efficient,
we find insufficient justification for such changes
at this time. We will revisit these issues in the
future if we determine that further modifications to
the leased access dispute resolution procedures are
needed.
32 While some leased access programmers support
a requirement that cable systems carry leased access
programming in HD, cable operators object to such
a requirement.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
commercial programming in standard
definition (SD).
28. Insurance requirements. We
decline to adopt new limits on the
insurance requirements that cable
operators may impose on leased access
programmers. We find that this proposal
is inconsistent with the Cable Services
Bureau’s prior conclusion that a cable
operator has the ‘‘right to require
reasonable liability insurance coverage
for leased access programming.’’ We are
not persuaded that this conclusion was
in error, and leased access programmers
have provided no compelling evidence
that the Commission should adopt
limits on the reasonable insurance
requirements that cable operators may
impose on leased access programmers,
including limits on naming cable
affiliates as additional insureds.33
29. Limited carriage areas. We will
not prohibit cable operators from
refusing to carry leased access
programmers on only a portion of the
operator’s system, even if the
programmer is willing to pay the
reasonable cost of a modulator or other
piece of equipment that would be
needed to limit the carriage area.34
Rather, consistent with past practice, we
will continue evaluating any
programmer complaints regarding cable
operator denials of leased access
carriage on a case-by-case basis. We
agree with Charter that the Act ‘‘does
not require that leased access be
accommodated in this piece-meal
fashion.’’ Customers depend on a
consistent channel lineup in a given
geographic area, and cable operators
should not be required to reconfigure
their systems to make leased access
programming available only on a
portion of the system. Indeed, if the
Commission permitted every leased
access programmer to provide a
modulator and request a custom service
area, the ensuing technical and
operational burdens on cable operators
easily could become unmanageable.
30. Disclosure requirements. We
decline to modify the information that
cable system operators must provide
prospective leased access programmers,
as set forth in section 76.970(i)(1) of our
rules, except for the elimination of the
reference to part-time rates discussed
above. ACA proposes that we could ease
33 Note that last year the Media Bureau dismissed
in part and otherwise denied a petition alleging that
a cable operator failed to demonstrate that its
insurance requirement was reasonable. The Bureau
concluded that ‘‘[t]he threshold issue of whether a
cable operator may require insurance coverage for
leased access programming is settled,’’ and the
cable operator ‘‘was reasonable to require insurance
coverage in this instance.’’
34 LAPA proposed that we impose such a
prohibition.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
burdens on cable operators by: (1)
Permitting them to provide ACA’s
proposed safe harbor rates, or a rate
estimate, rather than a complete rate
schedule; (2) eliminating the
requirement that they provide rates
associated with technical and studio
costs; and (3) eliminating the
requirement that they provide sample
contracts, or permitting them to provide
term sheets instead of sample contracts.
We find that a leased access
programmer may need to review the rate
schedule, technical and studio costs,
and a sample contract before deciding
whether to proceed in leasing access
under our current rules. We therefore
decline to adopt ACA’s proposals at this
time.35
31. Other proposals. We note that
commenters responding to the FNPRM
raised several additional proposals on a
variety of topics, which are not fully
developed in the record or are outside
the scope of this proceeding.36 We
decline to address any of these
proposals at this time because we find
that it is preferable to monitor the
impact of the rule changes we adopt
today before deciding if any of these
modifications are needed.
32. The First Amendment. The
changes in the video marketplace
described above call into question
whether our leased access rules are
consistent with the First Amendment.
Specifically, while the leased access
rules were originally justified as
safeguarding competition and diversity
in the face of cable operators’ monopoly
power, the growth in available platforms
to distribute programming seems to
have eroded this justification. We
sought comment on this issue in the
FNPRM. Some commenters argue that
changes in the marketplace mean that
strict scrutiny may be the appropriate
standard of review for the leased access
statute today. Some commenters further
claim that even under intermediate
scrutiny, which is the standard the D.C.
35 Similarly, we find that the costs to cable
operators of providing potential leased access
programmers with extensive additional information
would outweigh the potential benefits of providing
that additional information to prospective leased
access programmers. Accordingly, we decline to
adopt such requirements. We note, however, that
we do adopt leased access contact information
requirements. In addition, current rules require
disclosure of ‘‘[a] complete schedule of the
operator’s full-time and part-time leased access
rates.’’
36 In addition, SBN asks the Commission to
‘‘clarify that independent programmers have the
same right of access to multichannel video systems
owned by telephone companies as they have to
other cable systems.’’ To the extent there is any
doubt, we clarify that a telephone company that is
acting as a ‘‘cable operator’’ is subject to the leased
access requirements in the same manner as any
other cable operator.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28767
Circuit applied when it upheld the
leased access statute in 1996,
marketplace changes would dictate a
finding that the leased access regime is
no longer consistent with the First
Amendment. Because changes in the
marketplace have dramatically
increased diversity and competition in
the video programming market, these
commenters argue, the leased access
rules are no longer necessary to further
the government’s interest in promoting
these goals.
33. We agree that dramatic changes in
technology and the marketplace for the
distribution of programming cast
substantial doubt on the constitutional
foundation for our leased access rules.
We recognize that we rejected similar
constitutional arguments in the 2008
Leased Access Order, which we vacate
today. Our analysis has changed
because the facts have changed: as
explained above, the growth in
alternative outlets for programmers—
particularly on the internet—has
exploded in the decade since the
adoption of the 2008 Leased Access
Order. Given this proliferation of new
distribution platforms, we now find that
the First Amendment concerns raised by
commenters provide additional reason
to interpret the statutory obligations of
section 612 in a manner that reduces
burdens on the speech of cable
operators. We do so here by, among
other things, eliminating the
Commission rule requiring that cable
operators make leased access available
on a part-time basis. While our rule
changes are independently and
sufficiently supported by the policy
justifications above, we note that
constitutional concerns rely on the same
premise: that changes in the video
marketplace have substantially
weakened the justifications for leased
access.37
34. Procedural Matters. As required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), the
Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
relating to the Report and Order. In
summary, the Report and Order updates
the Commission’s leased access rules as
part of its Modernization of Media
Regulation Initiative. First, we adopt the
FNPRM’s tentative conclusion that we
should vacate the Commission’s 2008
Leased Access Order. Second, we adopt
certain updates and improvements to
our existing leased access rules. The
37 In the related Section Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, we seek further comment on
the constitutionality of the Commission’s overall
leased access regime, which the Commission
adopted pursuant to express Congressional
authorization.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
28768
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
action is authorized pursuant to sections
4(i), 303, and 612 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and
532. The types of small entities that may
be affected by the proposals contained
in the FNPRM fall within the following
categories: Cable Television Distribution
Services, Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation), Cable System
Operators (Telecom Act Standard),
Cable and Other Subscription
Programming, Motion Picture and Video
Production, and Motion Picture and
Video Distribution. The projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements are: (1)
Vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order,
including the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking issued in
conjunction with that order; (2)
Eliminating the requirement that cable
operators make leased access available
on a part-time basis; (3) Adopting the
proposal set out in the FNPRM to ease
burdens on cable operators by revising
§ 76.970(i) of our rules to provide that
all cable operators, and not just those
that qualify as ‘‘small systems’’ under
that rule, are required to respond to a
request for leased access information
only if the request is bona fide; (4)
Easing burdens on cable operators by
extending the timeframe within which
they must provide prospective leased
access programmers with the
information specified in § 76.970(i)(1) of
our rules, from 15 calendar days to 30
calendar days for cable operators
generally, and from 30 calendar days to
45 calendar days for operators of
systems subject to small system relief;
(5) Permitting cable operators to impose
a maximum leased access application
fee of $100 per system-specific bona fide
request, and deeming as reasonable
under the Commission’s rules a security
deposit or prepayment requirement
equivalent to up to 60 days of the
applicable lease fee; (6) Adopting a
requirement that cable operators
provide potential leased access
programmers with contact information
for the person responsible for leased
access matters; and (7) Adopting
common-sense modifications to the
procedures for leased access disputes,
which no commenter opposed. Finally,
commenters put forth several additional
proposals in response to the FNPRM,
and we reject the proposals at this time.
The SBA did not file comments. Many
of the actions taken in the Report and
Order will ease burdens, including
economic burdens, on cable operators of
all sizes. The changes in the Report and
Order that ease burdens on cable
operators, such as the elimination of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
part-time leased access, may also impact
leased access programmers, including
small programmers. We find that the
marketplace changes discussed above,
including in particular the availability
of online platforms for these small
programmers to distribute their content,
justify this approach. The Report and
Order considered alternatives to take
into account the impact on small
entities as follows: (1) The Report and
Order concludes that eliminating parttime leased access entirely is a
preferable approach to the alternative of
establishing a set minimum amount of
leased access programming, given the
alternative means of distribution
available to programmers today and the
costs that part-time leased access
imposes on cable operators. (2) While
we consider one commenter’s
alternative proposal of a 45-day
response period for all cable operators,
we conclude that tripling the current
deadline is excessive.
35. The Report and Order contains
new or revised information collection
requirements, as reflected in the Final
Rules, §§ 76.970(h) and 76.975(e). The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will
invite the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
the Commission previously sought
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
36. The Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order in a report to
be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
37. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it
is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 4(i), 303, and 612 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and
532, this Report and Order is hereby
adopted.
38. It is further ordered that part 76
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part
76, is amended as set forth below, and
such rule amendments shall be effective
thirty (30) days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register,
except for §§ 76.970(h) and 76.975(e)
that contain new or modified
information collection requirements,
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
which shall become effective after the
Commission publishes a notice in the
Federal Register announcing OMB
approval and the relevant effective date.
39. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in the Leased Commercial Access
proceeding, MB Docket No. 07–42, FCC
07–208, is hereby vacated.
40. It is further ordered that the March
28, 2008 Request of National Cable &
Telecommunications Association for a
Stay, MB Docket No. 07–42, is
dismissed as moot.
41. It is further ordered that the March
31, 2008 TVC Broadcasting LLC Petition
for Reconsideration, MB Docket No. 07–
42, is dismissed as moot.
42. It is further ordered that the
Commission shall send a copy of this
Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a
report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cable television, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
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
1. The authority citation for part 76
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154,
301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312,
315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521,
522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544,
544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560,
561, 571, 572, 573.
2. In § 76.970:
A. Revise paragraph (a);
B. Remove paragraph (h);
C. Redesignate paragraphs (i) and (j) as
paragraphs (h) and (i);
■ D. Revise newly redesignated
paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
■
■
§ 76.970
Commercial leased access rates.
(a) Cable operators shall designate
channel capacity for commercial use by
persons unaffiliated with the operator,
and that seek to lease a programming
channel on a full-time basis, in
accordance with the requirement of 47
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
U.S.C. 532. For purposes of 47 U.S.C.
532(b)(1)(A) and (B), only those
channels that must be carried pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. 534 and 535 qualify as
channels that are required for use by
Federal law or regulation. For cable
systems with 100 or fewer channels,
channels that cannot be used due to
technical and safety regulations of the
Federal Government (e.g., aeronautical
channels) shall be excluded when
calculating the set-aside requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
(h)(1) Cable system operators shall
provide prospective leased access
programmers with the following
information within 30 calendar days of
the date on which a bona fide request
for leased access information is made,
provided that the programmer has
remitted any application fee that the
cable system operator requires up to a
maximum of $100 per system-specific
bona fide request:
(i) How much of the operator’s leased
access set-aside capacity is available;
(ii) A complete schedule of the
operator’s full-time leased access rates;
(iii) Rates associated with technical
and studio costs; and
(iv) If specifically requested, a sample
leased access contract.
(2) Operators of systems subject to
small system relief shall provide the
information required in paragraph (h)(1)
of this section within 45 calendar days
of a bona fide request from a prospective
leased access programmer. For these
purposes, systems subject to small
system relief are systems that either:
(i) Qualify as small systems under
§ 76.901(c) and are owned by a small
cable company as defined under
§ 76.901(e); or
(ii) Have been granted special relief.
(3) Bona fide requests, as used in this
section, are defined as requests from
potential leased access programmers
that have provided the following
information:
(i) The desired length of a contract
term;
(ii) The anticipated commencement
date for carriage; and
(iii) The nature of the programming,
(4) All requests for leased access must
be made in writing and must specify the
date on which the request was sent to
the operator.
(5) Operators shall maintain, for
Commission inspection, sufficient
supporting documentation to justify the
scheduled rates, including supporting
contracts, calculations of the implicit
fees, and justifications for all
adjustments.
(6) Cable system operators shall
disclose on their own websites, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
through alternate means if they do not
have their own websites, a contact name
or title, telephone number, and email
address for the person responsible for
responding to requests for information
about leased access channels.
(i) Cable operators are permitted to
negotiate rates below the maximum
rates permitted in paragraphs (c)
through (g) of this section.
§ 76.971
[Amended]
3. Amend § 76.971, by removing
paragraph (a)(4).
■ 4. Amend § 76.975 by revising
paragraph (e) and adding paragraph (i)
to read as follows:
■
§ 76.975 Commercial leased access
dispute resolution.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The cable operator or other
respondent will have 30 days from
service of the petition to file an answer.
If a leased access rate is disputed, the
answer must show that the rate charged
is not higher than the maximum
permitted rate for such leased access,
and must be supported by the affidavit
of a responsible company official. If,
after an answer is submitted, the staff
finds a prima facie violation of our
rules, the staff may require a respondent
to produce additional information, or
specify other procedures necessary for
resolution of the proceeding. Replies to
answers must be filed within fifteen (15)
days after submission of the answer.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Section 76.7 applies to petitions for
relief filed under this section, except as
otherwise provided in this section.
[FR Doc. 2019–13134 Filed 6–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0012;
FF09M21200–178–FXMB1232099BPP0L2]
RIN 1018–BC72
Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations
for Managing Resident Canada Goose
Populations
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In 2005, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or ‘‘we’’)
published a final environmental impact
statement on management of resident
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28769
documented resident Canada goose
population levels ‘‘that are increasingly
coming into conflict with people and
causing personal and public property
damage.’’ Subsequently, the Service
implemented several actions intended
to reduce, manage, and control resident
Canada goose populations in the
continental United States and to reduce
related damages; those actions included
depredation and control orders that
allow destruction of Canada goose nests
and eggs by authorized personnel
between March 1 and June 30. However,
some resident Canada geese currently
initiate nests in February, particularly in
the southern United States, and it seems
likely that in the future nest initiation
dates will begin earlier and hatching of
eggs will perhaps end later than dates
currently experienced. This final rule
amends the depredation and control
orders to allow destruction of resident
Canada goose nests and eggs at any time
of year.
DATES: This rule is effective July 22,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments we received on
the proposed rule, as well as the
proposed rule itself, the related
environmental assessment, and this
final rule, are available at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
I. Padding, Atlantic Flyway
Representative, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly
Drive, Laurel, MD 20708; (301) 497–
5851; paul_padding@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority and Responsibility
Migratory birds are protected under
four bilateral migratory bird treaties the
United States entered into with Great
Britain (for Canada in 1916, as amended
in 1999), the United Mexican States
(1936, as amended in 1972 and 1999),
Japan (1972, as amended in 1974), and
the Soviet Union (1978). Regulations
allowing the take of migratory birds are
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 703–712), which
implements the above-mentioned
treaties. The Act provides that, subject
to and to carry out the purposes of the
treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to determine
when, to what extent, and by what
means allowing hunting, killing, and
other forms of taking of migratory birds,
their nests, and eggs is compatible with
the conventions. The Act requires the
Secretary to implement a determination
by adopting regulations permitting and
governing those activities.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR1.SGM
20JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28761-28769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13134]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket Nos. 07-42 and 17-105; FCC 19-52]
Leased Commercial Access; Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission updates its leased access
rules as part of its Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative.
First, the Commission vacates its 2008 Leased Access Order, which never
went into effect due to a stay by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit and the Office of Management and Budget issuance of a
notice of disapproval of the associated information collection
requirements. Second, the Commission adopts certain updates and
improvements to its existing leased access rules.
DATES: Effective July 22, 2019, except for Sec. Sec. 76.970(h) and
76.975(e), which are delayed. The Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, [email protected], of the Policy
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, FCC 19-52, adopted on June 6, 2019 and released on June 7,
2019. The full text is available for public inspection and copying
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
1. In the Report and Order, we update our leased access rules as
part of the
[[Page 28762]]
Commission's Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative. The leased
access rules, which implement the statutory leased access requirements,
direct cable operators to set aside channel capacity for commercial use
by unaffiliated video programmers.\1\ In 2018, the Commission adopted a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) addressing leased access
proposals filed in response to the Media Modernization Public Notice.
With this proceeding, we continue our efforts to modernize media
regulations and remove unnecessary requirements that can impede
competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The leased access rules are in subpart N of part 76, which
was listed in the Media Modernization Public Notice as one of the
principal rule parts that pertains to media entities and that is the
subject of the media modernization review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The video marketplace has changed significantly since the
Commission initially adopted its leased access rules. Specifically,
today a wide variety of media platforms are available to programmers,
including in particular online platforms that creators can use to
distribute their content for free. This change has reduced the
importance of leased access and, thus, the justification for burdensome
leased access requirements.
3. Below, first we adopt the FNPRM's tentative conclusion that we
should vacate the Commission's 2008 Leased Access Order.\2\ That order
never went into effect due to a stay by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) issuance of a notice of disapproval of the associated
information collection requirements. Second, we adopt certain updates
and improvements to our existing leased access rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Communications Commission, Leased Commercial Access,
73 FR 10675 (final rule), 10732 (proposed rule) (Feb. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order. We adopt the FNPRM's
tentative conclusion that we should vacate the 2008 Leased Access
Order, including the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in
conjunction with that order. We conclude that this approach, which
cable operators support, is consistent with our public interest
objectives and is the most practical and legally tenable option
available to us. Specifically, vacating the prior order will clarify
the status of our leased access regime, further the Commission's media
modernization efforts, and obviate the need to address the significant
legal concerns raised in the related Sixth Circuit proceeding and OMB
Notice.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Because we vacate the 2008 Leased Access Order, we also
dismiss as moot the related NCTA FCC Stay Request, which asked the
Commission to stay the 2008 Leased Access Order, and the TVC Recon
Petition, which sought reconsideration of the 2008 Leased Access
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. By vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order, we are resolving the
longstanding challenges to the order that have been pending for more
than a decade due to the stay of this order.\4\ Vacating the 2008
Leased Access Order will not have any impact on any party's compliance
with or expectations concerning the leased access requirements, because
the rule changes contained in that order never went into effect.\5\
Accordingly, as a result of our decision today, except for the rule
changes set forth below, parties simply will remain subject to the same
leased access rules they were operating under prior to 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order eliminates the need to
move forward with the judicial proceedings currently pending in the
Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit Stay Order, which has been in
effect for over a decade, recognized ``that NCTA has raised some
substantial appellate issues'' pertaining to the rules adopted in
the 2008 Leased Access Order. Similarly, vacating the 2008 Leased
Access Order eliminates the need to overcome OMB's denial of the
information collection requirements associated with major portions
of the 2008 Leased Access Order. OMB detailed the ways in which
certain requirements adopted in the 2008 Leased Access Order were
inconsistent with the PRA, including the Commission's failure to
demonstrate the need for the more burdensome requirements adopted,
its failure to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to
minimize the burdens, and its failure to provide reasonable
protection for proprietary and confidential information.
\5\ We need not make any modifications to our rules to reflect
our vacating of the 2008 Leased Access Order because the leased
access rules that are currently in effect, and that currently appear
in the Code of Federal Regulations, are those that were in existence
prior to the 2008 Leased Access Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Vacating the 2008 Leased Access Order is consistent with the
Commission's media modernization efforts, pursuant to which we seek to
remove rules that are outdated or no longer justified by market
realities. As commenters point out, implementing the 2008 Leased Access
Order would have made leased access significantly more burdensome for
cable operators, which would be contrary to the highly competitive
marketplace in existence today. For example, NCTA explains that
implementing the 2008 order ``would have changed the formula for
establishing the maximum permissible rate for leased access in a manner
that would have resulted in rates approaching zero.'' We agree with
commenters that in today's marketplace the appropriate course is to
ease, rather than increase, regulatory burdens associated with leased
access and that the Commission should not have leased access
regulations where the maximum allowable rates approach zero. Indeed, as
discussed below, today we find that certain rule changes are needed to
provide cable operators with relief from their existing leased access
burdens because the burdens are no longer justified in today's
marketplace, given the increased distribution alternatives for leased
access programmers. While we recognize that some leased access
programmers have expressed a preference for leased access via cable as
compared to alternatives such as online programming distribution, we
are persuaded that these alternatives have developed into a viable
substitute for leased access today. In addition, we note that easing
the regulatory burdens associated with leased access will effectuate
the statutory requirement to implement rules ``in a manner consistent
with the growth and development of cable systems.''
7. We disagree with commenters claiming that the Commission should
``adopt the parts [of the 2008 Leased Access Order] that are not
subject to OMB or Sixth Circuit . . . scrutiny and either staff review
or issue a FNPRM to address the issues of concern to the OMB and the
Appeals Court.'' \6\ The FNPRM sought comment on whether there is ``any
policy justification for retaining any particular rules adopted'' in
the 2008 Leased Access Order. Commenters advocating the retention of
all portions of the 2008 Leased Access Order ``that are not subject to
OMB or Sixth Circuit . . . scrutiny'' do not explain with sufficient
specificity which rules from the 2008 Leased Access Order should go
into effect and why they are justified today. We believe that vacating
the entire order and proceeding anew is preferable to commenters'
suggested piecemeal approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We also reject LAPA's request that the Commission adopt
customer service standards akin to those in the 2008 Leased Access
Order, finding instead that the contact information requirement we
adopt below is sufficient at this time and appropriately balances
the burdens on cable operators with the needs of leased access
programmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Modifying the Leased Access Rules. We next adopt certain updates
and improvements to our existing leased access rules. It is our goal to
modernize our leased access regulations given the significant changes
in the video marketplace, including specifically the availability of
online media platforms. We stated in the FNPRM that this proceeding
would ``advance our efforts to modernize our media regulations and
remove unnecessary requirements that can impede competition and
innovation
[[Page 28763]]
in the media marketplace.'' We find that the benefits of updating our
leased access rules to reflect the current video marketplace outweigh
the anticipated costs.
9. Part-Time Leased Access. We eliminate the requirement that cable
operators make leased access available on a part-time basis. Instead,
our leased access rules will apply only to leased access programmers
that purchase channel capacity on a full-time basis \7\ for at least a
one-year contract term. The Commission's rules currently direct
``[c]able operators that have not satisfied their statutory leased
access requirements [to] accommodate part-time leased access
requests,'' but there is no statutory requirement for part-time leased
access. And, contrary to SBN's suggestion ``that part-time access is
the `genuine outlet' Congress sought to promote with the leased access
statute,'' the legislative history does not mention part-time leased
access. Further, we are persuaded by comments that because part-time
leased access is regulatory, and not statutory, we should seek to avoid
unnecessary burdens in light of possible First Amendment concerns.\8\
In response to the FNPRM's request for further comment on this
topic,\9\ cable operators support elimination of the part-time leased
access requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Leasing of a channel on a full-time basis will require that
the channel is under the exclusive use of the programmer for the
term of the contract.
\8\ SBN argues that there is no speech-related distinction
between part-time access and full-time access, and thus the First
Amendment concerns cannot be used to ban the former but not the
latter. As an initial matter, as described above, our elimination of
part-time leased access is sufficiently supported by policy
justifications that are independent of our First Amendment concerns.
In addition, we proceed here incrementally by eliminating the part-
time leased access rules that impose speech burdens that are not
required by statute. In the related Second FNPRM, we seek further
comment on whether the statutory leased access requirements continue
to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
\9\ SBN is incorrect when it claims that the FNPRM did not
provide sufficient notice of the elimination of part-time leased
access. First, the FNPRM specifically sought comment on new rules
governing part-time leased access. In response, commenters urged the
Commission to adopt new rules that would no longer require cable
operators to make leased access available on a part-time basis. We
adopt such rules today, but permit existing part-time commercial
leased access agreements to remain in place under their current
terms. Cable operators have the discretion to negotiate future part-
time agreements as a private contractual matter. Second, our new
rules regarding part-time leased access are a logical outgrowth of
the Commission's request for comment on ``whether our rules
implicate First Amendment interests.'' Finally, any argument
regarding lack of notice is refuted by the fact that leased access
programmers themselves opposed the elimination of part-time leased
access in their initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. We find that eliminating part-time leased access is consistent
with marketplace changes. Since the Commission adopted the rule
governing part-time leased access in 1993, the available platforms to
distribute programming have multiplied, including in particular
internet options. At the same time, the part-time leased access
requirement has continued to apply to cable operators, and the record
indicates that those operators do not usually generate enough revenue
from part-time leased access programming to cover the administrative
costs of providing such programming.\10\ Even in the 1997 Leased Access
Order, the Commission ``recognize[d] that part-time leasing is not
expressly required by the statute, that it may impose additional
administrative and other costs on cable operators, and that it may pose
the risk of capacity being under-used.'' Unlike in 1997, when the
Commission affirmed its rule requiring cable operators to lease time in
30-minute increments, however, our decision today reflects the fact
that the internet has developed into a flourishing means of
distribution for short-form programming. SBN claims that the focus of
leased access should be providing diverse information sources to cable
subscribers. Eliminating part-time leased access, however, will not
prevent leased access programmers from reaching all households with
internet access, including the households of cable subscribers. We find
that the costs of mandating part-time leased access to provide
programming to the small portion of the population without internet
access but with cable television outweighs the benefits. While we
recognize the interest of leased access programmers in maintaining
part-time leased access,\11\ we are persuaded that the costs to cable
providers associated with accommodating part-time leased access
outweigh any countervailing benefits, especially given the plethora of
alternative distribution options for such programming and the
applicable First Amendment concerns.\12\ To the extent that any cable
operator wishes to carry programming on a part-time basis, it may
negotiate such carriage as a private contractual matter, outside the
scope of the leased access statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These administrative costs include such matters as
negotiating contracts and sending invoices, which cost the same for
part-time leased access as for full-time leased access. SBN asserts
that rather than eliminating part-time leased access, we should
``revise the pricing rules in accordance with Section 612(c)(1) to
cover the[] costs'' that part-time leased access imposes on cable
operators. We disagree that this is the appropriate course. We find
that in light of the other platforms now available to distribute
part-time programming, there is no longer a sufficient policy
justification for part-time leased access. We also are mindful that
simply adjusting the price that cable operators may charge for part-
time leased access would not address the First Amendment concerns
that it presents.
\11\ SBN states that the ``Report and Order does not address the
effect of the abandonment of the part-time leasing regime on part-
time programmers, most of whom (like SBN) are small businesses.'' In
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we analyze the potential
impact of the rule changes adopted herein on small entities. We
recognize that the changes in the Report and Order that ease burdens
on cable operators, such as the elimination of part-time leased
access, may also impact leased access programmers, including small
programmers. This outcome, however, is justified by marketplace
changes, including in particular the availability of online
platforms for these small programmers to distribute their content.
SBN also claims that we have not examined the effect of the
elimination of part-time leased access on barriers to market entry
and the promotion of a diversity of media voices, which SBN contends
is required by section 257 of the Act. In fact, we find, based on
evidence in the record, that any entry barriers that existed for
part-time programmers have been largely overtaken by the plethora of
alternative distribution options for such programmers. Furthermore,
in light of these alternative distribution options, elimination of
part-time leased access should have at most a minimal adverse effect
on the promotion of a diversity of media voices, and that effect is
outweighed by the costs to cable operators of part-time leased
access.
\12\ Cable commenters provide that if we decline to eliminate
part-time leased access entirely, we could adopt an alternative
approach pursuant to which we could require a cable system to carry
a leased access programmer only if the programmer provides a set
minimum amount of leased access programming. Based on the record
before us, we conclude that eliminating part-time leased access
entirely is a preferable approach, given the alternative means of
distribution available to programmers today and the costs that part-
time leased access imposes on cable operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Because leased access will only occur on a full-time basis
going forward, we delete section 76.970(h) of our rules, which
currently addresses the maximum commercial leased access rate for part-
time channel placement. Current Sec. 76.970(i) and (j) will be
redesignated as Sec. 76.970(h) and (i). We also delete the reference
to part-time leased access rates in current section 76.970(i)(1)(ii)
(redesignated section 76.970(h)(1)(ii)), and we delete section
76.971(a)(4), which sets forth the current requirements for
accommodating part-time leased access.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Section 76.970(i)(1)(i) of our rules requires a cable
operator's response to a leased access request to include ``[h]ow
much of the operator's leased access set-aside capacity is
available.'' ACA proposed that cable operators should be required to
inform a potential leased access programmer only whether the
specific time slot it requests is available, ``rather than
indicating the total amount of available leased access set-aside
capacity.'' Because we eliminate the part-time leased access
requirement, ACA's time slot proposal is no longer relevant. We
clarify that going forward, we will permit cable operators to comply
with section 76.970(i)(1)(i) by confirming whether there is a
channel available for the prospective leased access programmer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Bona Fide Requests. We adopt the proposal set out in the FNPRM
to ease burdens on cable operators by revising
[[Page 28764]]
section 76.970(i) of our rules to provide that all cable operators, and
not just those that qualify as ``small systems'' \14\ under that rule,
are required to respond to a request for leased access information only
if the request is bona fide. Larger cable systems currently must
respond to all written leased access requests, which can be
inefficient, difficult, and costly. We also make one change to our
existing definition of a ``bona fide request'' for information, which
currently is defined as a request from a potential leased access
programmer that includes: ``(i) The desired length of a contract term;
(ii) The time slot desired; (iii) The anticipated commencement date for
carriage; and (iv) The nature of the programming.'' Specifically, we
delete the second criteria (the time slot desired), because as
explained above we eliminate part-time leased access and time slot thus
will be irrelevant for programming that occupies a channel on a full-
time basis. As proposed in the FNPRM, the criteria for a bona fide
request must be met before a cable system will be required to provide
the information specified in section 76.970(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The leased access rules define a small system as either (i)
a system that qualifies as small under section 76.901(c) of the
Commission's rules and is owned by a small cable company as defined
in section 76.901(e); or (ii) a system that has been granted special
relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Adoption of this bona fide request provision will expand relief
afforded small systems to all cable operators.\15\ Section 76.970(i)(1)
currently directs cable operators to provide prospective leased access
programmers with the following information: ``(i) How much of the
operator's leased access set-aside capacity is available; (ii) A
complete schedule of the operator's full-time and part-time leased
access rates; (iii) Rates associated with technical and studio costs;
and (iv) If specifically requested, a sample leased access contract.''
Even with the other modifications to section 76.970(i) that we adopt
below, we are persuaded that, absent this change to our rules, some
operators of systems that do not qualify as ``small'' would continue to
spend a significant amount of time responding to non-bona fide leased
access inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Current rules require operators of small cable systems to
provide the information only in response to a bona fide request from
a prospective leased access programmer, whereas other cable system
operators must provide the information in response to any request
for leased access information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We recognize that this is a change from the Commission's
previous decision to limit the flexibility to respond only to bona fide
requests to small cable operators. However, based on the record
evidence that both small and large cable operators face significant
burdens in responding to leased access requests, we find that there is
no longer a reason to limit this flexibility to small cable operators.
We further conclude that it does not serve the public interest to
require cable operators to continue responding to requests that are not
considered bona fide under our rules. We see no evidence that cable
operators will use the bona fide request requirement to discourage
leasing access, whereas there is clear evidence that cable operators
currently are required to undertake the expense of responding to all
requests for leased access information even though most such requests
do not result in a leased access programming contract.\16\ We recognize
that some commenters claim that it is difficult for potential leased
access programmers to provide the information required for a bona fide
leased access request. We find, however, that providing this very basic
information is necessary to demonstrate that a leased access programmer
is serious about its inquiry. We believe it is reasonable to expect
basic information such as the desired contract term, anticipated start
date, and nature of programing to be developed prior to submitting a
leased access request. To the extent that the responsive information
from the cable operator presents a concern for the programmer, for
example regarding the rate schedule, nothing in this change would
prevent the programmer from further modifying its request and
continuing to negotiate with the cable operator on the terms of an
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ We thus are not persuaded by one commenter's assertion that
there is no evidence that cable companies are overwhelmed by the
volume of requests by leased access programmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Contrary to the suggestion of NCTA, we will not permit cable
operators to seek further information from potential leased access
programmers before responding to a leased access request, such as: (1)
How the potential leased access programmer would deliver its
programming to the cable system; and (2) an affidavit identifying all
of the programmer's owners and declaring that all are in compliance
with applicable trade sanctions. We must balance between the competing
interests of potential leased access programmers who should be able to
obtain basic information that will enable them to determine whether
they wish to proceed with a leased access programming contract, and
cable operators who should not be required to incur costs in providing
information to a programmer that is not seriously committed to securing
a leased access contract. We find that the approach we adopt herein
strikes an appropriate balance, but we will continue monitoring the
marketplace to determine whether any further modifications are needed
in the future.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In addition, we note that section 76.970(i)(2) currently
references ``paragraph (h)(1) of this section,'' which does not
exist. Instead the rule should have cited current paragraph (i)(1),
but given that herein we redesignate paragraph (i) as paragraph (h),
no corrective action is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Timeframe for Responding to Requests. To ease burdens on cable
operators, we extend the timeframe within which they must provide
prospective leased access programmers with the information specified in
section 76.970(i)(1) of our rules, from 15 calendar days to 30 calendar
days for cable operators generally, and from 30 calendar days to 45
calendar days for operators of systems subject to small system relief.
These timeframes apply only to bona fide requests for information
pursuant to section 76.970(i), and not to simple requests for contact
information.
17. The record demonstrates that cable operators, especially those
with multiple systems, would benefit from having additional time to
gather the information specified in section 76.970(i)(1), as is
required in response to a request for leased access information. First,
section 76.970(i)(1)(i) currently requires the provision of ``[h]ow
much of the operator's leased access set-aside capacity is available.''
Although as explained above we clarify that cable operators may comply
with that requirement by confirming whether there is sufficient
capacity for the prospective leased access programmer, operators still
will need to analyze current system capacity to make that
determination, given that as ACA states capacity is constantly changing
``as cable operators add and drop channels, and repurpose system
bandwidth from video to broadband services.''
18. Second, section 76.970(i)(1)(ii) requires the provision of
``[a] complete schedule of the operator's full-time and part-time
leased access rates.'' ACA explains that, because the rate formula
utilizes data points that are constantly changing, a cable operator
must complete this calculation anew in response to every leased access
request for information. ACA further claims the cost of determining the
rates can be one thousand dollars or more per request. Third, section
76.970(i)(1)(iii) requires the provision of ``[r]ates associated with
technical and studio costs.'' ACA
[[Page 28765]]
explains that cable operators may not have standardized technical and
studio costs, because these costs must be calculated based on the
specific types of services the programmer seeks. Finally, section
76.970(i)(1)(iv) requires, if specifically requested, the provision of
``a sample leased access contract.'' While some cable operators may
have a contract readily available, the record indicates that others may
only have an out-of-date contract in their files. For all of these
reasons, we find that the current deadlines for providing the
information required in response to leased access requests for
information are insufficient.\18\ Our new requirement that all cable
operators need only provide the listed information in response to a
bona fide request does not alter this analysis, because it may not make
it any easier to provide the required information; rather, it could
lead to less frequent provision of the information since cable
operators will not need to provide it if a request is not bona
fide.\19\ We see no indication in the record that increasing the
timeframe within which cable operators must provide the required
information will prejudice programmers seeking to lease access. Rather,
programmers seeking to lease access can simply take the longer
timeframe into account in deciding when to submit a bona fide request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Some commenters claim that the current deadlines are
sufficient, and that cable operators should have the required
information readily available. We are not persuaded by these
comments; instead we recognize the specific difficulties flagged by
cable operators including, in particular, ACA.
\19\ Given that many of the difficulties discussed in this
paragraph apply to operators of single cable systems as well as to
operators of multiple cable systems, we will not distinguish between
those categories of operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. We extend each deadline by 15 calendar days, such that the
general deadline will be 30 days, and the small system deadline will be
45 days. Although NCTA seeks a 45-day response period for all cable
operators, we think that tripling the current deadline is excessive.
Rather, we find it appropriate to extend each deadline by 15 calendar
days, thus maintaining the longer deadline for small cable systems that
may lack the resources to gather information as quickly as larger
systems. Although one commenter posits that lengthening the deadline
could deter potential leased access programmers from seeking access,
particularly if their programming is time-sensitive, we see no evidence
supporting this concern.
20. Application Fees and Deposits. As proposed by NCTA and
supported by others, we permit cable operators to impose a maximum
leased access application fee of $100 per system-specific bona fide
request,\20\ and we deem as reasonable under the Commission's rules a
security deposit or prepayment requirement equivalent to up to 60 days
of the applicable lease fee.\21\ We agree with commenters that
application fees and deposits are justified to help reimburse cable
operators for their leased access costs,\22\ to discourage frivolous
leased access requests, and to reimburse cable operators for situations
in which a leased access programmer only leases access for a brief time
before the arrangement is terminated due to non-payment.\23\ We
acknowledge leased access programmers' concerns that any application
fee or deposit could dissuade potential leased access programmers,
particularly small entities, from seeking to lease access. Accordingly,
rather than permitting ``nominal'' application fees and deposits as
proposed in the FNPRM, we establish maximum application fees and
deposits at levels that we do not expect will be unduly burdensome for
leased access programmers.\24\ Cable operators may require leased
access programmers to pay any application fee before the cable operator
provides the information set forth in section 76.970(i)(1) in response
to a leased access request,\25\ whereas a deposit may be assessed as
part of the execution of a leased access agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We will consider one ``system-specific bona fide request''
to be a request covering a system that is served by a primary
headend. If a leased access programmer wishes to provide its leased
access programming on the cable operator's system that is served by
a different primary headend, then it would be subject to another
$100 application fee.
\21\ A cable operator may assess both an application fee and a
deposit or prepayment. By ``application fee,'' we mean a processing
fee that the cable operator collects and retains regardless of
whether the leased access request ultimately results in carriage. By
``deposit'' or ``prepayment,'' we mean a fee that the cable operator
collects as part of the execution of a leased access agreement and
then applies to offset future payments due under the agreement. The
FNPRM applied a different definition of ``deposit,'' which would
have made a deposit part of the leased access request process. We
have determined that this approach is not logical, given that the
Commission's rules currently refer to leased access security
deposits in the context of section 76.971 (addressing leased access
terms and conditions) rather than section 76.970 (addressing leased
access requests for information).
\22\ A cable operator's leased access costs include, as ACA
states, ``processing the application, negotiating terms, and making
arrangements for the delivery of programming to the cable headend.
Negotiating a leased access agreement can be time consuming, and for
small operators often requires the assistance of outside counsel.''
\23\ While the FNPRM sought comment on whether the Commission
should permit only small cable operators to require an application
fee or deposit, commenters did not address that issue. We conclude
that the rationale for permitting an application fee or deposit
discussed herein applies to cable operators of all sizes.
\24\ Establishing a maximum for application fees and deposits
also addresses SBN's concerns that an approach of permitting
``nominal'' fees and deposits would ``engender deal-killing
controversies over what fees and deposits are `nominal.' ''
\25\ Leased access programmers assert that they should not be
treated any differently than potential commercial advertisers, to
which cable system operators provide information such as rates
without requiring any payment. We disagree because, as Charter
states, ``most leased access programmers lack the performance record
and financial resources of commercial programmers with whom the
operator would customarily engage.'' Cable operators thus are
justified in assessing fees before the cable operator undertakes the
expense of providing the information set forth in section
76.970(i)(1). In addition, cable operators have a different
relationship with leased access programmers than with commercial
programmers insofar as cable operators are required by statute to
engage with leased access programmers, whereas cable operators make
a voluntary business decision to engage with commercial programmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. We revise section 76.970(i)(1) of our rules to provide that
cable operators are required to provide leased access programmers with
the information set forth in that section only if the programmer has
remitted any application fee that the cable system operator requires up
to a maximum of $100 per system-specific bona fide leased access
request for information. The maximum leased access application fee
applies to an entire system-specific bona fide request, as defined
above. If a programmer amends such a request, the cable operator cannot
use the amendment as an opportunity to assess a second application fee.
We recognize that permitting a leased access application fee is a
departure from past Commission practice. That past practice was based
on an expectation that cable operators would be sufficiently protected
by the ``bona fide'' request requirement that then applied only to
small cable operators, but as NCTA states, ``experience has shown that
even bona fide applicants may opt to walk away without signing [an]
agreement'' which ``can leave cable operators with unreimbursed costs''
\26\ which we do not believe Congress intended cable operators to
absorb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ We thus conclude that, even given the adoption of the
proposal to require all cable operators to respond only to bona fide
leased access requests, permitting application fees remains
reasonable and justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Section 76.971(d) of our rules already permits cable operators
to ``require reasonable security deposits or other assurances from
users who are unable to prepay in full for access to leased commercial
channels.'' We hereby deem as reasonable under the Commission's rules a
security deposit or prepayment equivalent to up to 60 days of the
applicable lease fee, and we agree with NCTA that 60 days is a
reasonable timeframe to enable cable operators to protect themselves
against lessees that
[[Page 28766]]
fail to pay after launching. This approach will address concerns that
the current case-by-case determination of what constitutes a
``reasonable'' deposit leads to marketplace uncertainty. A cable
operator may choose to assess either a security deposit or prepayment
that exceeds 60 days of the applicable lease fee, but such an
assessment would remain subject to the current case-by-case review
process if the programmer asserts that it is not reasonable. While one
leased access programmer advocates a maximum deposit equivalent to the
cost of a single day of airtime, we find that such an amount would be
insufficient to protect cable operators from a leased access programmer
that ceases paying for access prior to the completion of its
agreement's term, which will now be a minimum of one year. Because a
deposit is assessed as part of the execution of a leased access
agreement, it will either be applied to payments due under the
agreement, or it will be retained by the cable operator to compensate
it for the leased access programmer's failure to remit payments
required by the agreement. We see no reason to modify the existing
requirement of section 76.971(d) that reasonable security deposits are
permitted only if the leased access user does not prepay in full
because if the leased access user prepays in full, the cable operator
does not need protection against nonpayment.
23. We reject requests by cable operators to impose additional new
financial requirements on leased access programmers aside from
application fees and deposits. Specifically, ACA proposes that the
Commission permit cable operators to assess a ``closing fee'' upon
finalization of a leased access agreement. We find that giving cable
operators this flexibility is not necessary because it is intended to
address the same cable operator concerns as the application fee and
security deposit. NCTA proposes that cable operators ``should be
permitted to require an acknowledgement in the application that certain
ordinary commercial protections will apply, including that a lessee
must provide proof of insurance . . . and pass a credit check prior to
entering into a lease.'' In addition, NCTA requests that the rules
``provide that if a leased access user has previously been dropped for
non-payment, an operator can refuse to enter into a leasing agreement
with that entity or its principals in the future.'' We note that our
rules already permit cable operators to ``impose reasonable insurance
requirements on leased access programmers,'' and we decline to adopt
further protections for cable operators against non-payment by leased
access programmers given the expected sufficiency of the application
fees and deposits that we authorize today.
24. Contact Information. We adopt a requirement that cable
operators provide potential leased access programmers with contact
information for the person responsible for leased access matters.
Multiple commenters support a leased access contact information
requirement, and none oppose it. We provide flexibility for cable
operators in complying with this requirement by permitting them to
disclose on their own websites, or through alternate means if they do
not have their own websites,\27\ basic contact information including
the name or title, telephone number, and email address for the person
responsible for responding to requests for information about leased
access channels. This information is necessary for potential leased
access programmers to initiate productive contact with cable systems,
which is vital to the leased access process, and our approach is
consistent with the contact information requirements the Commission has
adopted in other contexts. We provide further flexibility by requiring
cable operators to provide either a contact person's name or title.\28\
This approach eliminates the need to update the website due to
personnel changes, and it is permissible so long as the provided
telephone number and email address reach the appropriate person.
However, a cable operator provides the required contact information, it
should be reasonably identifiable, though it need not appear on a cable
operator's main web page.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For example, a cable operator that does not have its own
website could post its contact information on a third-party website,
such as the website of a cable or programmer trade association, and
it could train employees to provide that website to callers
inquiring about leased access matters.
\28\ For example, rather than specifying the contact person's
name, Cox has opted to provide that communications should be
directed to the ``Leased Access Coordinator'' and it lists an email
address for this person.
\29\ Although the Commission adopted a comparable requirement in
the 2008 Leased Access Order, that requirement never went into
effect because OMB disapproved of the information collection
requirements contained in that order. The reasons for the
disapproval, however, were not specifically related to the contact
information requirement, and as explained above we have minimized
burdens of the new contact information requirement by providing
cable operators with flexibility in complying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Dispute Procedures. As proposed in the FNPRM, we adopt common-
sense modifications to the procedures for leased access disputes, which
no commenter opposed. These modifications resolve inconsistencies
between the leased access dispute resolution rule (section 76.975) and
the Commission's more general rule governing complaints (section 76.7).
First, we adopt the proposal to revise the terminology in section
76.975 by referencing an answer to a petition, rather than a response
to a petition. Second, we adopt the proposal to modify section 76.975
by calculating the 30-day timeframe for filing an answer to a leased
access petition from the date of service of the petition, rather than
from the date on which the petition was filed. Third, whereas section
76.975 currently does not include any allowance for replies, we adopt
the proposal to add a provision stating that replies to answers must be
filed within 15 days after submission of the answer.\30\ Fourth, we
adopt the proposal to add to section 76.975 a statement that section
76.7 applies to petitions for relief filed under section 76.975, unless
otherwise provided in section 76.975. We expect that these
modifications will make dispute procedures clearer both for the parties
to a leased access dispute and for the Commission.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The FNPRM sought comment on whether 15 days is the
appropriate timeframe for submitting a reply to an answer to a
leased access petition. Commenters did not address this issue, with
the exception of Jones's support of the Commission's 15-day
proposal. To be consistent with the answer filing deadline, which is
20 days under the general complaint-filing rule but 30 days under
the leased access rule, we find that it is appropriate for the reply
filing deadline to be 10 days under the general complaint-filing
rule but 15 days under the leased access rule.
\31\ Although some commenters argue that we should make
additional changes to make the dispute resolution process faster and
more efficient, we find insufficient justification for such changes
at this time. We will revisit these issues in the future if we
determine that further modifications to the leased access dispute
resolution procedures are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Other Issues. Commenters put forth several additional proposals
in response to the FNPRM, and we reject the proposals at this time as
follows.
27. HD leased access. We will not require cable systems to carry
leased access programming in high definition (HD).\32\ Rather, HD
carriage is at the discretion of the cable operator. This approach is
consistent with the Act, which does not require cable systems to carry
leased access programming in HD. Carrying leased access programming in
HD expands the use of spectrum without increasing the volume of leased
access programming distributed. Further, we note that cable operators
negotiate to carry even some
[[Page 28767]]
commercial programming in standard definition (SD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ While some leased access programmers support a requirement
that cable systems carry leased access programming in HD, cable
operators object to such a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Insurance requirements. We decline to adopt new limits on the
insurance requirements that cable operators may impose on leased access
programmers. We find that this proposal is inconsistent with the Cable
Services Bureau's prior conclusion that a cable operator has the
``right to require reasonable liability insurance coverage for leased
access programming.'' We are not persuaded that this conclusion was in
error, and leased access programmers have provided no compelling
evidence that the Commission should adopt limits on the reasonable
insurance requirements that cable operators may impose on leased access
programmers, including limits on naming cable affiliates as additional
insureds.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Note that last year the Media Bureau dismissed in part and
otherwise denied a petition alleging that a cable operator failed to
demonstrate that its insurance requirement was reasonable. The
Bureau concluded that ``[t]he threshold issue of whether a cable
operator may require insurance coverage for leased access
programming is settled,'' and the cable operator ``was reasonable to
require insurance coverage in this instance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Limited carriage areas. We will not prohibit cable operators
from refusing to carry leased access programmers on only a portion of
the operator's system, even if the programmer is willing to pay the
reasonable cost of a modulator or other piece of equipment that would
be needed to limit the carriage area.\34\ Rather, consistent with past
practice, we will continue evaluating any programmer complaints
regarding cable operator denials of leased access carriage on a case-
by-case basis. We agree with Charter that the Act ``does not require
that leased access be accommodated in this piece-meal fashion.''
Customers depend on a consistent channel lineup in a given geographic
area, and cable operators should not be required to reconfigure their
systems to make leased access programming available only on a portion
of the system. Indeed, if the Commission permitted every leased access
programmer to provide a modulator and request a custom service area,
the ensuing technical and operational burdens on cable operators easily
could become unmanageable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ LAPA proposed that we impose such a prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Disclosure requirements. We decline to modify the information
that cable system operators must provide prospective leased access
programmers, as set forth in section 76.970(i)(1) of our rules, except
for the elimination of the reference to part-time rates discussed
above. ACA proposes that we could ease burdens on cable operators by:
(1) Permitting them to provide ACA's proposed safe harbor rates, or a
rate estimate, rather than a complete rate schedule; (2) eliminating
the requirement that they provide rates associated with technical and
studio costs; and (3) eliminating the requirement that they provide
sample contracts, or permitting them to provide term sheets instead of
sample contracts. We find that a leased access programmer may need to
review the rate schedule, technical and studio costs, and a sample
contract before deciding whether to proceed in leasing access under our
current rules. We therefore decline to adopt ACA's proposals at this
time.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Similarly, we find that the costs to cable operators of
providing potential leased access programmers with extensive
additional information would outweigh the potential benefits of
providing that additional information to prospective leased access
programmers. Accordingly, we decline to adopt such requirements. We
note, however, that we do adopt leased access contact information
requirements. In addition, current rules require disclosure of ``[a]
complete schedule of the operator's full-time and part-time leased
access rates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Other proposals. We note that commenters responding to the
FNPRM raised several additional proposals on a variety of topics, which
are not fully developed in the record or are outside the scope of this
proceeding.\36\ We decline to address any of these proposals at this
time because we find that it is preferable to monitor the impact of the
rule changes we adopt today before deciding if any of these
modifications are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ In addition, SBN asks the Commission to ``clarify that
independent programmers have the same right of access to
multichannel video systems owned by telephone companies as they have
to other cable systems.'' To the extent there is any doubt, we
clarify that a telephone company that is acting as a ``cable
operator'' is subject to the leased access requirements in the same
manner as any other cable operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. The First Amendment. The changes in the video marketplace
described above call into question whether our leased access rules are
consistent with the First Amendment. Specifically, while the leased
access rules were originally justified as safeguarding competition and
diversity in the face of cable operators' monopoly power, the growth in
available platforms to distribute programming seems to have eroded this
justification. We sought comment on this issue in the FNPRM. Some
commenters argue that changes in the marketplace mean that strict
scrutiny may be the appropriate standard of review for the leased
access statute today. Some commenters further claim that even under
intermediate scrutiny, which is the standard the D.C. Circuit applied
when it upheld the leased access statute in 1996, marketplace changes
would dictate a finding that the leased access regime is no longer
consistent with the First Amendment. Because changes in the marketplace
have dramatically increased diversity and competition in the video
programming market, these commenters argue, the leased access rules are
no longer necessary to further the government's interest in promoting
these goals.
33. We agree that dramatic changes in technology and the
marketplace for the distribution of programming cast substantial doubt
on the constitutional foundation for our leased access rules. We
recognize that we rejected similar constitutional arguments in the 2008
Leased Access Order, which we vacate today. Our analysis has changed
because the facts have changed: as explained above, the growth in
alternative outlets for programmers--particularly on the internet--has
exploded in the decade since the adoption of the 2008 Leased Access
Order. Given this proliferation of new distribution platforms, we now
find that the First Amendment concerns raised by commenters provide
additional reason to interpret the statutory obligations of section 612
in a manner that reduces burdens on the speech of cable operators. We
do so here by, among other things, eliminating the Commission rule
requiring that cable operators make leased access available on a part-
time basis. While our rule changes are independently and sufficiently
supported by the policy justifications above, we note that
constitutional concerns rely on the same premise: that changes in the
video marketplace have substantially weakened the justifications for
leased access.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ In the related Section Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, we seek further comment on the constitutionality of the
Commission's overall leased access regime, which the Commission
adopted pursuant to express Congressional authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Procedural Matters. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to the Report and
Order. In summary, the Report and Order updates the Commission's leased
access rules as part of its Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative. First, we adopt the FNPRM's tentative conclusion that we
should vacate the Commission's 2008 Leased Access Order. Second, we
adopt certain updates and improvements to our existing leased access
rules. The
[[Page 28768]]
action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 303, and 612 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 532.
The types of small entities that may be affected by the proposals
contained in the FNPRM fall within the following categories: Cable
Television Distribution Services, Cable Companies and Systems (Rate
Regulation), Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard), Cable and
Other Subscription Programming, Motion Picture and Video Production,
and Motion Picture and Video Distribution. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are: (1) Vacating the
2008 Leased Access Order, including the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking issued in conjunction with that order; (2) Eliminating the
requirement that cable operators make leased access available on a
part-time basis; (3) Adopting the proposal set out in the FNPRM to ease
burdens on cable operators by revising Sec. 76.970(i) of our rules to
provide that all cable operators, and not just those that qualify as
``small systems'' under that rule, are required to respond to a request
for leased access information only if the request is bona fide; (4)
Easing burdens on cable operators by extending the timeframe within
which they must provide prospective leased access programmers with the
information specified in Sec. 76.970(i)(1) of our rules, from 15
calendar days to 30 calendar days for cable operators generally, and
from 30 calendar days to 45 calendar days for operators of systems
subject to small system relief; (5) Permitting cable operators to
impose a maximum leased access application fee of $100 per system-
specific bona fide request, and deeming as reasonable under the
Commission's rules a security deposit or prepayment requirement
equivalent to up to 60 days of the applicable lease fee; (6) Adopting a
requirement that cable operators provide potential leased access
programmers with contact information for the person responsible for
leased access matters; and (7) Adopting common-sense modifications to
the procedures for leased access disputes, which no commenter opposed.
Finally, commenters put forth several additional proposals in response
to the FNPRM, and we reject the proposals at this time. The SBA did not
file comments. Many of the actions taken in the Report and Order will
ease burdens, including economic burdens, on cable operators of all
sizes. The changes in the Report and Order that ease burdens on cable
operators, such as the elimination of part-time leased access, may also
impact leased access programmers, including small programmers. We find
that the marketplace changes discussed above, including in particular
the availability of online platforms for these small programmers to
distribute their content, justify this approach. The Report and Order
considered alternatives to take into account the impact on small
entities as follows: (1) The Report and Order concludes that
eliminating part-time leased access entirely is a preferable approach
to the alternative of establishing a set minimum amount of leased
access programming, given the alternative means of distribution
available to programmers today and the costs that part-time leased
access imposes on cable operators. (2) While we consider one
commenter's alternative proposal of a 45-day response period for all
cable operators, we conclude that tripling the current deadline is
excessive.
35. The Report and Order contains new or revised information
collection requirements, as reflected in the Final Rules, Sec. Sec.
76.970(h) and 76.975(e). The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission
previously sought specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.''
36. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
37. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to
the authority found in sections 4(i), 303, and 612 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 532,
this Report and Order is hereby adopted.
38. It is further ordered that part 76 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR part 76, is amended as set forth below, and such rule amendments
shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in
the Federal Register, except for Sec. Sec. 76.970(h) and 76.975(e)
that contain new or modified information collection requirements, which
shall become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the
Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the relevant effective
date.
39. It is further ordered that the Commission's Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Leased Commercial
Access proceeding, MB Docket No. 07-42, FCC 07-208, is hereby vacated.
40. It is further ordered that the March 28, 2008 Request of
National Cable & Telecommunications Association for a Stay, MB Docket
No. 07-42, is dismissed as moot.
41. It is further ordered that the March 31, 2008 TVC Broadcasting
LLC Petition for Reconsideration, MB Docket No. 07-42, is dismissed as
moot.
42. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
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. In Sec. 76.970:
0
A. Revise paragraph (a);
0
B. Remove paragraph (h);
0
C. Redesignate paragraphs (i) and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i);
0
D. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 76.970 Commercial leased access rates.
(a) Cable operators shall designate channel capacity for commercial
use by persons unaffiliated with the operator, and that seek to lease a
programming channel on a full-time basis, in accordance with the
requirement of 47
[[Page 28769]]
U.S.C. 532. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. 532(b)(1)(A) and (B), only those
channels that must be carried pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 534 and 535 qualify
as channels that are required for use by Federal law or regulation. For
cable systems with 100 or fewer channels, channels that cannot be used
due to technical and safety regulations of the Federal Government
(e.g., aeronautical channels) shall be excluded when calculating the
set-aside requirement.
* * * * *
(h)(1) Cable system operators shall provide prospective leased
access programmers with the following information within 30 calendar
days of the date on which a bona fide request for leased access
information is made, provided that the programmer has remitted any
application fee that the cable system operator requires up to a maximum
of $100 per system-specific bona fide request:
(i) How much of the operator's leased access set-aside capacity is
available;
(ii) A complete schedule of the operator's full-time leased access
rates;
(iii) Rates associated with technical and studio costs; and
(iv) If specifically requested, a sample leased access contract.
(2) Operators of systems subject to small system relief shall
provide the information required in paragraph (h)(1) of this section
within 45 calendar days of a bona fide request from a prospective
leased access programmer. For these purposes, systems subject to small
system relief are systems that either:
(i) Qualify as small systems under Sec. 76.901(c) and are owned by
a small cable company as defined under Sec. 76.901(e); or
(ii) Have been granted special relief.
(3) Bona fide requests, as used in this section, are defined as
requests from potential leased access programmers that have provided
the following information:
(i) The desired length of a contract term;
(ii) The anticipated commencement date for carriage; and
(iii) The nature of the programming,
(4) All requests for leased access must be made in writing and must
specify the date on which the request was sent to the operator.
(5) Operators shall maintain, for Commission inspection, sufficient
supporting documentation to justify the scheduled rates, including
supporting contracts, calculations of the implicit fees, and
justifications for all adjustments.
(6) Cable system operators shall disclose on their own websites, or
through alternate means if they do not have their own websites, a
contact name or title, telephone number, and email address for the
person responsible for responding to requests for information about
leased access channels.
(i) Cable operators are permitted to negotiate rates below the
maximum rates permitted in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section.
Sec. 76.971 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 76.971, by removing paragraph (a)(4).
0
4. Amend Sec. 76.975 by revising paragraph (e) and adding paragraph
(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.975 Commercial leased access dispute resolution.
* * * * *
(e) The cable operator or other respondent will have 30 days from
service of the petition to file an answer. If a leased access rate is
disputed, the answer must show that the rate charged is not higher than
the maximum permitted rate for such leased access, and must be
supported by the affidavit of a responsible company official. If, after
an answer is submitted, the staff finds a prima facie violation of our
rules, the staff may require a respondent to produce additional
information, or specify other procedures necessary for resolution of
the proceeding. Replies to answers must be filed within fifteen (15)
days after submission of the answer.
* * * * *
(i) Section 76.7 applies to petitions for relief filed under this
section, except as otherwise provided in this section.
[FR Doc. 2019-13134 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P