[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1943-1947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-707]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 97-248; FCC 97-415]


Program Access Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NPRM''), the Commission grants the petition for 
rulemaking filed by Ameritech New Media, Inc. requesting that the 
Commission issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its program 
access rules. Also in the NPRM the Commission seeks comment on 
proposals to amend several aspects of the program access rules. The 
Commission believes that these proposals will provide expeditious and 
effective resolution of program access complaints. These proposed rules 
are necessary to further the Commission's goals of increased 
competition and diversity in the multichannel video programming market, 
as well as foster the development of competition to traditional cable 
systems. The intended effect of this action is to seek comment on 
proposed rules and procedures applicable to the Commission's program 
access rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 2, 1998. Reply comments 
are due on or before February 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 
222, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Klein or Steve Broeckaert, 
Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau, at 
(202) 418-7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion 
and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CS Docket No. 97-248, 
FCC 97-415 which was adopted and released on December 18, 1997. A copy 
of the complete item is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The complete text may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20036, (202) 857-3800. The complete Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also is available on the Commission's 
Internet home page (http://www.fcc.gov).

Summary of Action

I. Background

    1. On December 18, 1997, the Federal Communications Commission 
(``Commission'') adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking which granted a petition for rulemaking filed by 
Ameritech New Media, Inc. (``Ameritech'') and sought comment on a 
variety of proposals relating to its program access rules. The Order 
and NPRM are summarized below.

[[Page 1944]]

A. Introduction

    2. Section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Communications Act''), prohibits unfair or discriminatory practices 
in the sale of satellite cable and satellite broadcast programming. 
Section 628 is intended to increase competition and diversity in the 
multichannel video programming market, as well as to foster the 
development of competition to traditional cable systems, by prescribing 
regulations that govern the access by competing multichannel systems to 
cable programming services. Section 628(c) instructs the Commission to 
adopt regulations to identify particular conduct that is prohibited by 
section 628(b). The Communications Act provides parties aggrieved by 
conduct alleged to violate the program access provisions the right to 
commence an adjudicatory proceeding before the Commission. Ameritech 
filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its program access rules. 
Pursuant to Sec. 1.401 of the Commission's rules, on June 2, 1997, the 
Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on Ameritech's 
petition. Timely comments and oppositions were filed on July 2, 1997; 
reply comments were filed on July 17, 1997. As discussed herein, the 
Commission is initiating a proceeding to consider the amendment of 
several aspects of the program access rules.

B. Time Limits

    3. The Commission seeks comment on Ameritech's proposed time limits 
for the processing of program access complaints: 90 days in the case of 
a complaint that can be resolved without recourse to discovery, and 
within 150 days if the complainant elects to conduct discovery. The 
Commission seeks comment on appropriate time limits for the resolution 
of program access complaints: should the Commission adopt the 90-day 
and 150-day time periods proposed by Ameritech; should some other time 
period apply; or should the Commission not adopt time limits. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the time limit, if 
any, should run from the time the complaint was filed, or whether the 
time limit should run from some other point, such as the close of 
pleadings, or the close of discovery.
    4. Further, the Commission seeks comment regarding whether one 
universally applicable time limit should apply to all program access 
complaints, or whether one time limit should be established for cases 
involving denial of programming, with another longer time limit 
established for price discrimination cases, which generally involve 
issues of greater complexity. The Commission also seeks comment on any 
other reasonable distinction between program access cases which would 
impact the appropriate time limit, if any, for resolution of that type 
of program access proceeding. In addition, the Commission seeks comment 
on Ameritech's proposal to shorten the answer (30 days to 20 days) and 
reply (20 days to 15 days) pleading periods applicable to program 
access complaints.

C. Discovery

    5. The Commission seeks comment on several means of expediting the 
discovery process. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it would speed the discovery process to have complainants 
submit proposed discovery requests with their program access complaints 
and require Defendants to submit their proposed discovery requests and 
objections to complainants' discovery requests with their answer. 
Complainants would submit their objections to defendants' discovery 
requests with their reply.
    6. The Commission seeks comment on any other change in the 
procedures applicable to program access complaints that would result in 
the necessary information disclosure in the most efficient, expeditious 
fashion possible. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether different standards for discovery should be applied to 
different types of program access complaints, such as price 
discrimination, exclusivity, and denial of programming. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the issuance of a standardized protective 
order applicable to program access complaints would expedite the 
necessary information disclosure. Further, the Commission seeks comment 
on Ameritech's proposal that complainants be entitled to discovery as 
of right, particularly in light of our conclusion not to permit 
discovery as of right in common carrier formal complaint proceedings.

D. Damages

    7. The Commission has authority to impose forfeitures for violation 
of the program access rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
forfeitures alone are an adequate deterrent to prevent violations of 
these rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether an additional 
check on anticompetitive conduct such as the imposition of damages for 
violations of section 628 of the Communications Act may now be 
appropriate and in the public interest. In this regard, the Commission 
also seeks comment on the appropriate interaction, if any, between 
damages and the Commission's existing forfeiture authority under Title 
V to impose forfeitures for violations of the program access rules. The 
Commission also seeks comment regarding the correct procedures through 
which to implement damages or forfeitures in the context of specific 
program access proceedings. For example, the Commission seeks comment 
on the date from which damages should be levied for violations of 
section 628. The Commission seeks comment on whether the operative date 
should be the date of the notice of intent to file a program access 
complaint, as Ameritech suggests, or the date of filing of the program 
access complaint, or the date on which the violation first occurred. 
Because the complainant has the ability to file a complaint at any time 
after the 10 day notice requirement set forth in 47 CFR 76.1003(a), the 
Commission seeks comment on whether damages should be calculated from 
the date upon which the complainant filed its program access complaint 
with the Commission. The Commission also seeks comment on the adequacy 
and clarity of the forfeiture procedures and guidelines set forth in 
section 503 of the Communications Act, the Commission's rules, and case 
law. In addition the Commission seeks comment on whether, in some 
cases, the most efficient manner of processing program access cases 
would be to bifurcate the program access violation determination from 
the damages or forfeiture determination. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether Commission Staff should be given the discretion to bifurcate 
the violation and sanction portions of program access proceedings and 
whether doing so would more efficiently process such cases.
    8. The Commission also seeks comment on the calculation of damages, 
if assessed. Commenters should consider whether the Commission should 
determine damages on a case-by-case basis, or whether there should be a 
standard calculation for damages in program access matters. Those 
arguing that damages should be based on a standard calculation should 
comment on how the Commission should determine such standard 
calculation. The Commission also seeks comment on the basis on which 
damages, if assessed, should be calculated. For example, should damages 
be based on lost profit, the difference between the rate that the

[[Page 1945]]

complainant was charged and the rate the complainant should have been 
charged, or some other legitimate basis.
    9. The Commission seeks comment on whether a complainant seeking 
damages must file in its complaint or supplemental complaint either a 
detailed computation of damages or a detailed explanation of why such a 
computation is not possible at the time of filing. Commenters 
advocating the adoption of such a requirement should address whether 
the explanation standards adopted for complaints against common 
carriers should be adopted, or whether some other explanation standard 
should apply.
    10. Finally, the Commission observes that no persuasive evidence 
has been presented which suggests that punitive damages should be 
imposed in program access cases. Accordingly, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that punitive damages should not be imposed in 
program access cases. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.

E. Terrestrial-Delivery of Programming

    11. Section 628 of the Communications Act is applicable to cable 
operators, satellite cable programming vendors in which a cable 
operator has an attributable interest, and satellite broadcast 
programming vendors and generally applies to the delivery of satellite 
cable programming and satellite broadcast programming. On its face, 
section 628 does not preclude a programmer from altering its 
distribution method from satellite-distribution to terrestrial-
distribution. Such an action could arguably constitute an unfair method 
of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice, the purpose or 
effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any 
multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite 
cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate ways to address 
such situations. As a threshold matter, the Commission specifically 
asks commenters to address the statutory basis for any suggested 
remedial action, and whether legislation is needed. To the extent that 
commenters contend that Commission action is appropriate, the 
Commission seeks comment on what types of evidence a complainant may 
marshal to prevail on a claim against a programmer that has moved 
satellite-delivered programming to terrestrial delivery to evade the 
program access requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether programming that has been moved from satellite to terrestrial 
delivery can or should be subject to program access requirements based 
on the effect, rather than the purpose, of the programmer's action.

F. Buying Groups: Joint and Several Liability

    12. The Commission seeks comment on a proposal that the Commission 
clarify its program access rules to provide that any cooperative buying 
group that maintains adequate financial reserves should not be required 
to provide joint and several liability. Specifically, the Commission 
seeks comment on what financial assurances cooperative buying groups 
can provide to programming distributors such that joint and several 
liability is not necessary, while adequately protecting programming 
distributors from the financial risks associated with such 
arrangements. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
buying groups that maintain a cash reserve equal to one month's 
programming fees would satisfy such a requirement. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on any other proposals that would result in 
the elimination of joint and several liability while maintaining 
adequate protection for programmers.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the rules 
proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments on the IRFA must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on 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.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    14. In 1993, the Commission adopted its current rules intended to 
protect, pursuant to section 628 of the Communications Act, the right 
of multichannel video programming providers to obtain access to 
specified types of video programming. Ameritech filed a petition for 
rulemaking proposing that certain aspects of the Commission's program 
access rules be amended to better ensure the Communication Act's 
program access requirements. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment 
as to whether certain aspects of the Commission's program access rules 
should be amended to better enforce the Communication Act's program 
access requirements.
B. Legal Basis
    15. The authority for the action proposed for this rulemaking is 
contained in sections 4(i), 303(r), and 628 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 4(i), 303(r), and 548.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
    16. The Commission is required to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will 
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business'' and ``small organization.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'').
    17. Small MVPDs. The SBA has developed a definition of small 
entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes 
all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. 
This definition includes cable system operators, closed circuit 
television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint 
distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription 
television services. According to the Bureau of the Census, there were 
1,758 total cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less 
than $11 million in revenue. The Commission addresses below each 
service individually to provide a more precise estimate of small 
entities.
    18. Cable Systems. The Commission has developed, with SBA's 
approval, our own definition of a small cable system operator for the 
purposes of rate regulation. Under 47 CFR 76.901(e), a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. 
Based on our most recent information, the Commission estimates that 
there were 1439 cable operators that qualified as small cable companies 
at

[[Page 1946]]

the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to 
serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in 
transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable 
operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer 
than 1439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by 
the decisions and rules the Commission is adopting. The Commission 
believes that only a small percentage of these entities currently 
provide qualifying ``telecommunications services'' as required by the 
Communications Act and, therefore, estimate that the number of such 
entities are significantly fewer than noted.
    19. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small 
cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000 
subscribers in the United States. Therefore, the Commission found that 
an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a 
small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total 
annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in 
the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that the 
number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 
1450. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system 
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues 
exceed $250,000,000, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate 
with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    20. Multipoint Multichannel Distribution Systems (``MMDS''). The 
Commission refined the definition of ``small entity'' for the auction 
of MMDS as an entity that together with its affiliates has average 
gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the 
preceding three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in 
the context of MMDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.
    21. The Commission completed its MMDS auction in March 1996 for 
authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (``BTAs''). Of 67 winning 
bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. Five bidders indicated that 
they were minority-owned and four winners indicated that they were 
women-owned businesses. MMDS is an especially competitive service, with 
approximately 1573 previously authorized and proposed MMDS facilities. 
Information available to us indicates that no MMDS facility generates 
revenue in excess of $11 million annually. The Commission concludes 
that, for purposes of this FRFA, there are approximately 1634 small 
MMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction 
rules.
    22. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS''). Because DBS provides 
subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA definition of cable and 
other pay television services (SIC 4841). As of December 1996, there 
were eight DBS licensees. Estimates of 1996 revenues for various DBS 
operators are significantly greater than $11,000,000 and range from a 
low of $31,132,000 for Alphastar to a high of $1,100,000,000 for 
Primestar. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no DBS operator 
qualifies as a small entity.
    23. Home Satellite Dish (``HSD''). The market for HSD service is 
difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears little 
resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265 
channels of programming placed on C-band satellites by programmers for 
receipt and distribution by MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled 
and approximately 150 are unscrambled. HSD owners can watch unscrambled 
channels without paying a subscription fee. To receive scrambled 
channels, however, an HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiver-
decoder from an equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD 
programming packager. Thus, HSD users include: (1) viewers who 
subscribe to a packaged programming service, which affords them access 
to most of the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; 
(2) viewers who receive only nonsubscription programming; and (3) 
viewers who receive satellite programming services illegally without 
subscribing.
    24. According to the most recently available information, there are 
approximately 30 program packagers nationwide offering packages of 
scrambled programming to retail consumers. These program packagers 
provide subscriptions to approximately 2,314,900 subscribers 
nationwide. This is an average of about 77,163 subscribers per program 
packager. This is substantially smaller than the 400,000 subscribers 
used in the Commission's definition of a small multiple system operator 
(``MSO''). Furthermore, because this is an average, it is likely that 
some program packagers may be substantially smaller.
    25. Open Video System (``OVS''). The Commission has certified nine 
OVS operators. Of these nine, only two are providing service. On 
October 17, 1996, Bell Atlantic received approval for its certification 
to convert its Dover, New Jersey Video Dialtone (``VDT'') system to 
OVS. Bell Atlantic subsequently purchased the division of Futurevision 
which had been the only operating program package provider on the Dover 
system, and has begun offering programming on this system using these 
resources. Metropolitan Fiber Systems was granted certifications on 
December 9, 1996, for the operation of OVS systems in Boston and New 
York, both of which are being used to provide programming. Bell 
Atlantic and Metropolitan Fiber Systems have sufficient revenues to 
assure us that they do not qualify as small business entities. Little 
financial information is available for the other entities authorized to 
provide OVS that are not yet operational. The Commission believes that 
one OVS licensee may qualify as a small business concern. Given that 
other entities have been authorized to provide OVS service but have not 
yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that at least 
some of the OVS operators qualify as small entities.
    26. Satellite Master Antenna Television (``SMATVs''). Industry 
sources estimate that approximately 5200 SMATV operators were providing 
service as of December 1995. Other estimates indicate that SMATV 
operators serve approximately 1.05 million residential subscribers as 
of September 1996. The ten largest SMATV operators together pass 
815,740 units. If the Commission assumes that these SMATV operators 
serve 50% of the units passed, the ten largest SMATV operators serve 
approximately 40% of the total number of SMATV subscribers. Because 
these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file 
financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission is not 
aware of any privately published financial information regarding these 
operators. Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated 
number of units served by the largest ten SMATVs, the Commission 
concludes that a substantial number of SMATV operators qualify as small 
entities.
    27. Local Multipoint Distribution System (``LMDS''). Unlike the 
above pay television services, LMDS technology and spectrum allocation 
will allow licensees to provide wireless telephony,

[[Page 1947]]

data, and/or video services. A LMDS provider is not limited in the 
number of potential applications that will be available for this 
service. Therefore, the definition of a small LMDS entity may be 
applicable to both cable and other pay television (SIC 4841) and/or 
radiotelephone communications companies (SIC 4812). The SBA definition 
for cable and other pay services is defined above. A small 
radiotelephone entity is one with 1500 employees or less. However, for 
the purposes of this NPRM, the Commission includes only an estimate of 
LMDS video service providers.
    28. LMDS is a service that is expected to be auctioned by the FCC 
in 1998. The vast majority of LMDS entities providing video 
distribution could be small businesses under the SBA's definition of 
cable and pay television (SIC 4841). However, the Commission proposed 
to define a small LMDS provider as an entity that, together with 
affiliates and attributable investors, has average gross revenues for 
the three preceding calendar years of less than $40 million. The 
Commission has not yet received approval by the SBA for this 
definition.
    29. There is only one company, CellularVision, that is currently 
providing LMDS video services. Although the Commission does not collect 
data on annual receipts, the Commission assumes that CellularVision is 
a small business under both the SBA definition and our proposed auction 
rules. Accordingly, the Commission affirms its tentative conclusion 
that a majority of the potential LMDS licensees will be small entities, 
as that term is defined by the SBA.
    30. Program Producers and Distributors. The Commission has not 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to producers or 
distributors of television programs. Therefore, the Commission will 
utilize the SBA classifications of Motion Picture and Video Tape 
Production (SIC 7812), Motion Picture and Video Tape Distribution (SIC 
7822), and Theatrical Producers (Except Motion Pictures) and 
Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (SIC 7922). These SBA definitions 
provide that a small entity in the television programming industry is 
an entity with $21.5 million or less in annual receipts for SIC 7812 
and 7822, and $5 million or less in annual receipts for SIC 7922. The 
1992 Bureau of the Census data indicate the following: (1) there were 
7265 U.S. firms classified as Motion Picture and Video Production (SIC 
7812), and that 6987 of these firms had $16,999 million or less in 
annual receipts and 7002 of these firms had $24,999 million or less in 
annual receipts; (2) there were 1139 U.S. firms classified as Motion 
Picture and Tape Distribution (SIC 7822), and that 1007 of these firms 
had $16,999 million or less in annual receipts and 1013 of these firms 
had $24,999 million or less in annual receipts; and (3) there were 5671 
U.S. firms classified as Theatrical Producers and Services (SIC 7922), 
and that 5627 of these firms had less than $5 million in annual 
receipts.
    31. Each of these SIC categories is very broad and includes firms 
that may be engaged in various industries including television. 
Specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms 
exclusively produce and/or distribute programming for television or how 
many are independently owned and operated. Consequently, the Commission 
concludes that there are approximately 6987 small entities that produce 
and distribute taped television programs, 1013 small entities primarily 
engaged in the distribution of taped television programs, and 5627 
small producers of live television programs that may be affected by the 
rules adopted in this proceeding.
D. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    32. The rules proposed in this NPRM will not require a change in 
record keeping requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    33. The NPRM proposes various alternatives which may expand access 
to video programming by small entities.
F. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With These Rules
    34. None.

B. Ex Parte Presentations

    35. The NPRM is a permit but disclose notice and comment rule 
making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during 
the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in 
Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

C. Comments

    36. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments 
on or before February 2, 1998 and reply comments on or before February 
23, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an 
original and six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting 
comments. Parties are also asked to submit, if possible, draft rules 
that reflect their positions. If you want each Commissioner to receive 
a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original and eleven 
copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 
222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Deborah Klein of the Cable 
Services Bureau, 2033 M Street, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20554. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this 
docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20037. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    37. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on 
diskette, where possible. Such diskette submissions would be in 
addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements 
addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to 
Deborah Klein of the Cable Services Bureau, 2033 M Street, N.W., 7th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission must be on a 3.5 inch 
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and 
WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in ``read 
only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's 
name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date 
of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Administrative practice and procedure.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-707 Filed 1-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P