Implementation of Provisions of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 Governing Negotiation of Retransmission Consent Between Qualified Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Buying Groups and Large Station Groups, 9446-9450 [2020-02923]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9446-9450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02923]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 20-31; FCC 20-10; FRS 16469]


Implementation of Provisions of the Television Viewer Protection 
Act of 2019 Governing Negotiation of Retransmission Consent Between 
Qualified Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Buying Groups and 
Large Station Groups

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 20-31, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, Media Bureau 
at [email protected], or (202) 418-2936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 20-10, adopted and released on 
January 31, 2020. The full text is available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-10A1.docx. Documents 
will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. 
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose 
revisions to section 76.65 of our rules, which governs good faith 
negotiation of retransmission consent, to implement provisions in 
section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (TVPA).\1\ 
Section 1003 principally directs the Commission to adopt rules that 
provide for negotiation of retransmission consent between ``qualified 
multichannel video programming distributor [MVPD] buying group[s]'' and 
``large [broadcast] station group[s]'' as those terms are defined in 
the TVPA. As discussed below, we propose to adopt rules defining: (i) 
The term ``large station group'' as used in section 1003 of the TVPA to 
mean, in relevant part, an entity whose individual television station 
members collectively have a national audience reach of more than 20 
percent; and (ii) the term ``qualified MVPD buying group'' as used in 
section 1003 to mean, in relevant part, an entity that negotiates on 
behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all 
households receiving service from any MVPD in a given local market. In 
addition, we propose to codify in section 76.65 the provisions 
governing negotiation of retransmission consent between qualified MVPD 
buying groups and large station groups, as well as the definitions of 
``local market'' and ``multichannel video programming distributor'' set 
forth in section 1003(b)(3). Finally, we propose to make minor 
conforming changes to section 76.65. We seek comment on these 
proposals.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, Public Law 
116-94, 133 Stat. 2534, 3198 (2019) (amendments to be codified at 47 
U.S.C. 325). Through this NPRM, we satisfy Congress's directive in 
section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
by section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA, to commence a rulemaking 
proceeding to revise the Commission's rules to specify that 
``certain small MVPDs can meet the obligation to negotiate 
[retransmission consent] in good faith . . . by negotiating with a 
large station group through a qualified MVPD buying group.'' Section 
325(b)(3)(C), as amended, requires that the Commission specify such 
rules ``not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the 
TVPA,'' or March 19, 2020.
    \2\ This NPRM proposes rule revisions that implement only 
section 1003 of the TVPA; TVPA provisions not covered herein will be 
implemented in separate proceedings. In view of the 90-day deadline 
established in section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act, as amended by 
section 1003(a)(3) of the TVPA, we find that establishing the 
abbreviated pleading cycle set forth above is necessary to meet our 
statutory responsibility and serves the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

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

[[Page 9447]]

retransmission consent rules to specify that:

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

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

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

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

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

    5. There are ambiguities in the statutory definitions of ``large 
station group'' and ``qualified MVPD buying group.'' With respect to 
``large station group,'' this term could mean a group of television 
broadcast stations whose members collectively have over 20 percent 
national audience reach, or it could mean that each station in the 
group individually has such coverage. Similarly, the term ``qualified 
MVPD buying group'' could mean an entity that negotiates on behalf of 
MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households 
receiving service from any MVPD in any single local market in which the 
large station group operates. Or it could be referring to an entity 
that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that collectively serve no more than 
25 percent of all households receiving service from a single MVPD in 
any single local market in which the large station group operates. We 
initiate this proceeding to clarify these terms in order to permit 
applicable parties to utilize the new TVPA protections promptly, as 
reflected in the expedited deadline specified in the new statute.

II. Discussion

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

    \3\ Our proposed interpretation also is harmonious with the 
Commission's ownership restrictions.
    \4\ We note that the term ``collective'' is absent from the 
statutory definition of ``large station group,'' whereas it is 
included in the definition of ``qualified MVPD buying group.'' We 
seek comment on whether this has any relevance to the interpretation 
of this term.
    \5\ Indeed, no individual broadcast station even meets the 20 
percent national audience threshold. We note that the largest 
Designated Market Area (DMA) is New York, which covers roughly six 
percent of U.S. television households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We also propose to construe the phrase ``all households served 
by a [MVPD]'' in the statutory definition of ``qualified MVPD buying 
group'' to mean all households that receive service from any MVPD, 
rather than all households served by a specific MVPD in a given local 
market. Because the percentage of households that subscribe to a 
particular MVPD (or class of MVPDs) relative to the total number of 
households that subscribe to any MVPD in a given market is a 
competition metric that the Commission historically has utilized, we 
tentatively conclude that this is the most reasonable reading of the 
relevant phrase. We also believe that adopting the alternative 
interpretation would create practical problems given that the statute 
provides no guidance as to which MVPD in a given market should serve as 
the benchmark for the relevant threshold. We seek comment on these 
proposals and tentative conclusions.
    9. We also propose to implement section 1003 by: (i) Codifying in 
section 76.65 of our rules the provisions governing negotiation of 
retransmission consent between qualified MVPD buying groups and large 
station groups required by section 1003(a)(3) of the

[[Page 9448]]

TVPA \6\ and the definitions of ``local market'' and ``multichannel 
video programming distributor'' set forth in section 1003(b)(3); and 
(ii) deleting the phrase ``as defined in 17 U.S.C. 122(j)'' in section 
76.65(viii) and (ix). We seek comment on these proposed rule revisions 
and on whether other revisions are needed to implement section 1003 of 
the TVPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

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

Ex Parte Rules

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

Filing Requirements

    12. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    13. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    14. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Additional Information

    15. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn 
Remy of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, at [email protected] or 
(202) 418-2936.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the rules proposed in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page 
of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    17. In this NPRM, pursuant to section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act, as 
amended by section 1003 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 
2019, we commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise our retransmission 
consent rules to specify, among other things, that certain small 
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) may satisfy their 
obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith by 
negotiating with a large broadcast station group through a qualified 
MVPD buying group. In particular, we propose to revise section 76.65 of 
our rules to define: (i) The term ``large station group'' as used in 
section 1003 of the TVPA to mean, in relevant part, an entity whose 
individual television station members collectively have a national 
audience reach of more than 20 percent; and (ii) the term ``qualified 
MVPD buying group'' as used in section 1003 to mean, in relevant part, 
an entity that negotiates on behalf of MVPDs that

[[Page 9449]]

collectively serve no more than 25 percent of all households receiving 
service from any MVPD in a given local market. In addition, we propose 
to codify in section 76.65 the provisions governing negotiation of 
retransmission consent between qualified MVPD buying groups and large 
station groups, as well as the definitions of ``local market'' and 
``multichannel video programming distributor'' set forth in section 
1003(b)(3). We also propose to make minor conforming changes to section 
76.65.\7\ The NPRM seeks comment on these proposals and on whether 
other rule revisions are needed to implement section 1003 of the TVPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Legal Basis

    18. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 
4(j), 303(r), and 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 325, and section 1003 of the 
Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    19. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.\8\ Below is a 
list of such small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 632.

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

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    20. The NPRM does not propose to adopt any reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements. The NPRM proposes to revise the 
Commission's rules to permit certain small MVPDs to meet their 
statutory obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith 
by designating a qualified MVPD buying group to negotiate on their 
behalf with a large broadcast station group. In particular, the NPRM 
proposes to revise such rules by, among other things, clarifying the 
meaning of the statutory terms ``large station group'' and ``qualified 
MVPD buying group'' so as to facilitate smaller MVPDs' use of the new 
collective bargaining provisions consistent with Congressional intent. 
The proposed rule revisions would impose no new regulatory compliance 
burdens on small television broadcast stations.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
small entities.''
    22. Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks to implement section 
1003 of the TVPA in a way that reduces burdens on smaller MVPDs that 
negotiate retransmission consent against large broadcast station groups 
with greater bargaining leverage by allowing them to negotiate 
collectively as a buying group for retransmission consent with such 
groups. As noted, the proposals in the NPRM, if adopted, likely would 
not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities, and would 
have a positive economic impact on smaller MVPDs that choose to avail 
themselves of the TVPA's new collective bargaining provisions to 
negotiate against large broadcast station groups that have significant 
market power. We invite comment on the economic impact of our proposals 
on small entities, and on how the Commission could minimize any 
potential burdens on such entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    23. None.
    24. We adopt this NPRM pursuant to the authority found in sections 
4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 325, and section 1003 of 
the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Cable television, Communications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

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

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

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


Sec.  76.65   Good faith and exclusive retransmission consent 
complaints.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) * * *
    (viii) Coordination of negotiations or negotiation on a joint basis 
by two or more television broadcast stations in the same local market 
to grant retransmission consent to a multichannel video programming 
distributor, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under 
common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the 
Commission.
    (ix) The imposition by a television broadcast station of 
limitations on the ability of a multichannel video programming 
distributor to carry into the local market of such station a television 
signal that has been deemed significantly viewed, within the meaning of 
Sec.  76.54 of this part, or any successor regulation, or any other 
television broadcast signal such

[[Page 9450]]

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

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