[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4927-4935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2140]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 00-2; FCC 00-4]


Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 
1999: Application of Network Nonduplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, 
and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite Retransmissions

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document proposes to implement certain aspects of the 
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which was enacted on 
November 29, 1999. Among other things, the act authorizes satellite 
carriers to add more local and national broadcast programming to their 
offerings and seeks to place satellite carriers on an equal footing 
with cable operators with respect to availability of broadcast 
programming. This document discusses specifically the implementation of 
regulations that would apply current cable rules for network 
nonduplication, syndicated program exclusivity and sports blackout to 
satellite carriers.

DATES:  Comments due February 7, 2000; reply comments are due February 
28, 2000. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due March 3, 2000. Written comments must be submitted 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collection(s) on or before April 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, 
or via the Internet to [email protected], and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk 
Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via 
the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Eloise Gore at (202) 418-7200 or via 
internet at via internet at [email protected]. For additional information 
concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, 
contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), FCC 00-4, adopted January 5, 
2000; released January 7, 2000. The full text of the Commission's NPRM 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th 
Street, SW Washington, DC 20554, or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or 
may be reviewed via internet at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Notice''), we seek 
comment on our implementation of certain aspects of the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (``SHVIA''), which was enacted on 
November 29, 1999. This act authorizes satellite carriers to add more 
local and national broadcast programming to their offerings, and to 
make that programming available to some subscribers who previously have 
been prohibited from receiving broadcast programming via satellite. The 
legislation generally seeks to place satellite carriers on an equal 
footing with cable operators with respect to the availability of 
broadcast programming. By this Notice we seek comment on the adoption 
of implementing regulations that apply network nonduplication, 
syndicated program exclusivity, and sports blackout requirements to 
satellite carriers.
    2. Section 1008 of the SHVIA creates a new section 339 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (``Communications Act'') entitled ``Carriage 
of Distant Television Stations by Satellite Carriers.'' Section 339(b) 
directs the Commission to apply these three rules (i.e., network 
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout), 
previously applicable only to cable television systems, to satellite 
carriers' retransmission of nationally distributed superstations to 
subscribers. The Commission must also apply the cable sports blackout 
rule to satellite carriers' retransmission of network stations to 
subscribers, but only ``to the extent technically feasible and not 
economically prohibitive.'' This proceeding will consider how best to 
apply these rules to satellite carriers consistent with the statutory 
requirements and the Commission's goal of facilitating competition in 
the multichannel video programming distribution marketplace.
    3. The complexity of both the statutory provisions and the existing 
cable rules that we are charged with applying in this new context 
requires that we include an explanation of the existing network 
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules as 
they apply to cable operators. We seek here to minimize the likelihood 
of confusion in the future by assuring that we begin with a common 
understanding of the rules and terminology. These rules have been in 
existence for 25 years, and the nuances attendant to enforcement and 
compliance require some explication to provide a solid foundation from 
which to build a new set of rules to apply to satellite carriers. This 
is particularly important given that Congress has asked us to implement 
these new rules so that they will be ``as similar as possible'' to the 
rules applicable to cable operators. Our goal throughout this 
proceeding is to develop regulations that will be as clear and easy to 
follow as possible. Our purpose in laying out the cable rules here is 
so that the newly covered satellite carriers and other parties will 
have an understanding of the existing rules for the preparation of 
their comments in this proceeding. Likewise, it is important to 
describe in some detail the interpretation of the statute upon which we 
will base our rulemaking. We seek comment on these explanations and 
interpretations.

II. Statutory Provisions and Interpretations

    4. The first statutory provision discussed, section 339(b)(1)(A), 
requires application of three cable rules, network nonduplication, 
syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout, to satellite 
retransmission of nationally distributed superstations. The second 
statutory provision, section 339(b)(1)(B), applies one of these cable 
rules, sports blackout, to satellite retransmission of network 
stations. As discussed, one important distinction between these 
provisions is that nationally distributed superstations may be 
retransmitted to both served and unserved households, but network 
stations may only be retransmitted to unserved households.

[[Page 4928]]

    5. The Commission rules in question here, as applied in the cable 
context, generally protect exclusive contractual rights that have been 
negotiated between broadcasters and program providers or other rights 
holders. These exclusive contractual rights are potentially threatened 
by cable systems that are capable of retransmitting programming from 
distant sources beyond the control of the contracting parties. The 
Commission's network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports 
blackout rules provide that specific programs must be deleted from 
distant signals delivered to cable subscribers if the programs are 
subject to exclusive contracts to local stations or, in the context of 
sporting events, if carriage from distant stations would violate sports 
blackout arrangements to protect gate receipts in the local market. To 
determine how best to apply these cable rules in the satellite context, 
it is first necessary to understand the underlying statutory scheme. To 
that end, we first discuss the relevant provisions of the SHVIA statute 
and our interpretations of these provisions.
A. Section 339(b)(1)(A): Application of Network Nonduplication, 
Syndicated Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout to Retransmission of 
Nationally Distributed Superstations
    6. Section 339(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act requires the 
Commission ``to apply network nonduplication protection (Sec. 76.92), 
syndicated exclusivity protection (Sec. 76.151), and sports blackout 
protection (Sec. 76.67) to the retransmission of the signals of 
nationally distributed superstations by satellite carriers to 
subscribers.'' For these purposes, a ``nationally distributed 
superstation'' is a term that is defined as a television broadcast 
station, licensed by the Commission, that meets the following three 
criteria:
    (A) is not owned or operated by or affiliated with a television 
network that, as of January 1, 1995, offered interconnected program 
service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 
affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States;
    (B) on May 1, 1991, was retransmitted by a satellite carrier and 
was not a network station at that time; and
    (C) was, as of July 1, 1998, retransmitted by a satellite carrier 
under the statutory license of section 119 of title 17, United States 
Code.
    It appears that the television broadcast stations that meet the 
foregoing criteria are limited to KTLA-TV (Los Angeles), WPIX-TV (New 
York), KWGN-TV (Denver), WSBK-TV (Boston), WWOR-TV (New York) and WGN-
TV (Chicago). We do not believe that any other station could meet these 
criteria in the future due to the date-specific conditions set forth in 
the definition. We believe this is, therefore, a finite list of the 
nationally distributed superstations covered by the statute, but we 
invite comment on this issue. We also note that the statutory 
definitions of network station, television network, and television 
broadcast station generally contemplate entities within the United 
States. We seek comment on the relevance of this issue in this 
proceeding. Are stations based in foreign countries affected by the 
SHVIA provisions requiring application of the cable exclusivity and 
sports blackout rules to satellite retransmissions?
    7. A nationally distributed superstation is a type of 
``superstation,'' which is defined in the Copyright Act of 1947, as 
amended (``Copyright Act''), as ``a television broadcast station, other 
than a network station, licensed by the Federal Communications 
Commission that is secondarily transmitted by a satellite carrier.'' By 
creating this special category known as nationally distributed 
superstations, Congress permits satellite carriers to retransmit these 
superstations to subscribers regardless of whether they are ``served'' 
or ``unserved'' pursuant to the Copyright Act. Congress achieved this 
result by amending the section 119 compulsory copyright license in the 
Copyright Act. The amended copyright provision provides that the 
retransmission of nationally distributed superstations to subscribers 
who do not reside in ``unserved households'' shall not violate the 
compulsory copyright license. While section 1005(b) of the SHVIA does 
not refer to nationally distributed superstations expressly, the 
criteria for its application are identical to those contained in the 
definition of a nationally distributed superstation. Thus, we believe 
that based on section 1005(b), there is no geographic restriction on 
the retransmission of ``nationally distributed superstations'' pursuant 
to the compulsory copyright license.
    8. In addition to amending the Copyright Act, section 1009 of the 
SHVIA amends the retransmission consent section of the Communications 
Act, which generally prohibits multichannel video programming 
distributors from retransmitting the signals of a broadcaster absent 
the broadcaster's written authorization. The SHVIA exemption allows a 
satellite carrier to retransmit the signal of a superstation in the 
absence of written consent from the superstation if: (i) the station 
was a superstation on May 1, 1991, and (ii) the station was 
retransmitted by the satellite carrier as of July 1, 1998, provided the 
satellite carrier complies with the Commission's nonduplication, 
syndicated exclusivity, and sports black out rules. This provision 
differs slightly from the definition of a nationally distributed 
superstation in that it does not specify that the superstation must not 
be affiliated with a network that existed as such as of January 1, 
1995. At this time, this distinction is without practical significance 
because the six television stations cited meet the relevant criteria of 
either definition, and there are no additional stations that are 
included or excluded by operation of this third criterion. Taking all 
these provisions together, we believe that, pursuant to these new 
statutory provisions in the Copyright Act and the Communications Act, 
satellite carriers are permitted to retransmit the signals of the 
nationally distributed superstations covered by section 339(b)(1)(A) to 
both served and unserved households without the station's consent and 
without geographic restriction.
    9. We believe that Congress' purpose in applying the network 
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules to 
these satellite retransmissions reflects a balance between providing 
access to national programming carried by the superstation and a 
recognition that, in the absence of retransmission consent 
requirements, broadcasters and rights holders will have no opportunity 
to protect their contractual rights. We also believe Congress is 
seeking to create parity between the regulations covering satellite 
carriers and cable operators. We seek comment on this interpretation of 
the operation and underlying intent of the statutory requirements.
B. Section 339(b)(1)(B): Application of the Sports Blackout Rule to 
Retransmission of Network Stations
    10. In addition to applying the existing cable rules to nationally 
distributed superstations, section 339(b)(1)(B) requires the Commission 
to ``apply sports blackout protection (Sec. 76.67) to the 
retransmission of the signals of network stations by satellite carriers 
to subscribers'' ``to the extent technically feasible and not 
economically prohibitive.'' By its terms, section 339(b)(1)(B) applies 
only to ``network stations,'' which are, generally, television 
broadcast stations owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or 
more of the television networks. Affiliates of these networks are the 
only entities that meet the definition of a

[[Page 4929]]

television network station contained in the Copyright Act and are the 
only stations covered by section 339(b)(1)(B). We note that in the 
cable context, the Commission's sports blackout rule applies to any 
television broadcast station and is not limited to network stations. We 
seek comment on whether the cable rules are indeed broader in scope 
than section 339(b)(1)(B).
    11. We also observe that the title of new section 339, ``Carriage 
of Distant Television Stations by Satellite Carriers,'' suggests that 
this section is intended to apply to satellite retransmission of 
distant network stations, notwithstanding that the text of section 
339(b)(1) does not specifically so state. We seek comment on this 
interpretation, which is relevant to determining which satellite 
retransmissions are covered by this section of the statute.

III. Implementation of the Statutory Requirement

    12. In general, under the new statutory provisions, the network 
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules will 
apply when a satellite carrier retransmits a nationally distributed 
superstation to a household within a local broadcaster's zone of 
protection, and the nationally distributed superstation carries a 
program to which the local station has exclusive rights. In these 
cases, the television broadcast station holding exclusive rights may 
require the satellite carrier to blackout these particular programs for 
the satellite subscriber households within the protected zone. We seek 
comment generally on the appropriate manner in which to implement the 
provisions of section 339(b)(1) of the Communications Act. In 
particular, we seek comment on whether the amended provisions should be 
incorporated into existing Secs. 76.67, 76.92, and 76.151 of the 
Commission's rules, or whether we should adopt new separate rules for 
satellite carriers.
A. Network Nonduplication Rule
    13. The Commission's cable television network nonduplication rule 
allows a television broadcast station that has purchased exclusive 
rights to network programming within a specified area to protect its 
exclusivity on local cable systems. The rules allow a local television 
broadcast station to demand that a local cable system's duplicate 
carriage of the same program from an otherwise distant station be 
blacked out. A station may assert its exclusivity rights regardless of 
whether its signal is carried by the cable system in question. These 
rules are not statutorily mandated. They arose from the Commission's 
recognition in the 1970s and 1980s that protection of exclusive 
contractual rights is necessary both to protect local broadcasters from 
the importation of non-local stations by cable systems and to provide 
appropriate protections and incentives to program producers and 
distributors to provide the programming desired by viewers.
    14. Under the network nonduplication rule, a television station is 
entitled to assert its exclusivity rights against a cable system 
serving any ``cable community unit'' within its ``specified zone'' that 
is carrying duplicative programming for which the local station has 
obtained exclusive distribution rights. The rule applies on a community 
unit basis by requiring the cable system for a particular community 
unit to black out a specific program based on the priorities 
established in the rule. The ``specified zone'' of a television 
broadcast station is the 35 mile area surrounding its community of 
license. The zone of exclusivity protection for television stations 
licensed to smaller television markets extends an additional 20 miles, 
for a total 55 miles surrounding a smaller television station's 
community of license. We seek comment on whether Congress intended to 
retain the same geographic zones for satellite carriers as those used 
in the cable context.
    15. While the Commission's rules allow television stations to 
assert their nonduplication rights within the above territorial limits, 
a television station's rights within these areas are limited by the 
terms of the contractual agreement between the station and the holder 
of the rights to the program (``rights holder''). Thus, if the rights 
holder grants the television station a zone of protection of ten miles, 
then that station would be precluded from exercising its nonduplication 
rights against any cable system located more than ten miles from that 
station's city of license. In addition, for local programming to be 
protected, the local programming must be the same as the distant 
programming that is being imported into a local station's market.
    16. In order to exercise nonduplication protection, a television 
broadcast station must notify cable operators of the rights they have 
obtained within 60 days of the signing of a contract affording 
exclusive rights. In adopting these rules, the Commission recognized 
that affected cable operators would need sufficient time to negotiate 
for the lifting of the requested protection or to arrange for 
alternative sources of programming to fill the void left when a station 
exercised its rights. In this regard, television stations have been 
required to disclose the exact contractual terms under which they have 
been granted exclusivity protection. We seek comment on how the 
notification process described in the network nonduplication rule can 
be applied to satellite carriers and on whether the 60 day period and 
the other notification periods used in the cable context are 
appropriate for satellite carriers.
    17. There are several exceptions to application of the network 
nonduplication rule. First, the network nonduplication rule is 
inapplicable to any non-commercial educational (``NCE'') station 
programming carried in fulfillment of a cable system's mandatory 
carriage rules. Second, because of the cost of the equipment necessary 
to carry out deletions, the Commission exempted cable systems having 
fewer than 1,000 subscribers.
    18. The rule also does not apply if the distant station's signal is 
``significantly viewed'' in a relevant cable system community. The 
concept of significant viewing is directly related to whether an 
otherwise distant station's broadcast signal is viewable over-the-air 
in a cable community unit. The significantly viewed exception to the 
exclusivity rules is meant to insure that any programming that is 
available terrestrially in a community from an over-the-air station 
will not be blacked out on a community's cable system. We seek comment 
on the relevance in the satellite context of the exception for 
significantly viewed stations. Are there situations in which a 
nationally distributed superstation from an adjacent market could be 
significantly viewed within the relevant specified zone based on 
terrestrial transmission? We believe a nationally distributed 
superstation could only qualify as significantly viewed based on 
terrestrial broadcast reception over-the-air in the areas surrounding 
its city of license, thus limiting the relevance of this exception to 
those circumstances in which the superstation is actually functioning 
as a local station, and therefore, arguably, not covered by the terms 
of section 339(b)(1)(A).
    19. Under the cable network nonduplication rules, if the cable 
community unit is located in one or more overlapping specified zones, 
neither station can blackout the other station's duplicating 
programming because both stations have equal priorities. We do not 
believe a similar situation could occur in the satellite carrier 
context because superstations, as such, do not have specified zones 
outside of the markets from which they

[[Page 4930]]

originate, and, under the new statutory requirement, network 
nonduplication applies only to the retransmission of nationally 
distributed superstations and not to retransmission of network 
stations. We seek comment on this issue.
B. Syndicated Program Exclusivity Rule
    20. The Commission's syndicated program exclusivity rule allows 
local stations to protect their exclusive distribution rights for 
syndicated programming on local cable systems in a local market. This 
rule is similar in operation to the network nonduplication rule, but it 
applies to exclusive contracts for syndicated programming, rather than 
for network programming. In this rule, too, a local television station 
is entitled to assert its exclusivity rights within a specified zone of 
35 miles surrounding a television station's city of license. Unlike the 
network nonduplication rule, however, the maximum zone of protection 
allowed under the rules is 35 miles surrounding a television station's 
city of license in a non-hyphenated television market and 35 miles 
surrounding each named city in any size hyphenated market; the zone of 
protection is not greater in smaller markets.
    21. As with network nonduplication, the syndicated exclusivity rule 
applies on a community unit basis by requiring the cable system for a 
particular community unit to black out a specific program based on the 
priorities established in the rule. In addition, the geographic limits 
for exclusivity under the Commission's rules are limited by the terms 
of the contractual agreement between the station and the holder of the 
rights to the program. Thus, if the rights holder grants the television 
station a zone of protection of ten miles, then that station would be 
precluded from exercising its exclusivity rights against any cable 
system located more than ten miles from that station's city of license. 
In addition, as with the network nonduplication rules, for syndicated 
programming to be protected, the programming covered by the contract 
must be the same as the distant programming.
    22. To exercise syndicated exclusivity protection under the cable 
rule, a television broadcast station must notify cable operators of the 
rights they have obtained within 60 days of the signing of a contract 
affording exclusivity rights, and must disclose the exact contractual 
terms under which they have been granted exclusivity protection. In 
addition to the television broadcast station, distributors of 
syndicated programming are also allowed to seek protection for a period 
of one year from the initial licensing of such programming anywhere in 
the United States, except where the relevant programming has already 
been licensed. We seek comment on whether the rights holder should, in 
the satellite context, notify the satellite carrier directly. We also 
seek comment on whether the 60 day period and the other notification 
periods used in the cable context for both network nonduplication and 
syndicated exclusivity are appropriate for satellite carriers.
    23. The exceptions to application of the syndicated program 
exclusivity rule are similar to those that apply to the network 
nonduplication rule. Cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers 
are exempted, again because of the cost of the equipment necessary to 
carry out deletions. This rule also does not apply if the distant 
station's signal is ``significantly viewed'' in a relevant cable system 
community. In addition, the syndicated programming of an otherwise 
distant station need not be blacked out if that station's grade B 
signal encompasses the relevant cable community. There is no exception 
to the syndicated exclusivity rules for NCE station programming carried 
pursuant to mandatory carriage because the syndicated exclusivity rule 
applies only to commercial stations.
C. Sports Blackout Rule
    24. The Commission's sports broadcasts rule (``sports blackout 
rule'') is designed to allow the holder of the exclusive distribution 
rights to local programming, in this case sporting events, to control, 
through contractual agreements, the display of that event on local 
cable systems. Unlike the other cable rules we are required to apply to 
satellite carriers, only the sports blackout rule applies to 
retransmission of both nationally distributed superstations and network 
stations. The purpose of the sports blackout rule is to insure the 
continued general availability of sports programming to the public. The 
Commission adopted this rule based on a concern that sports teams would 
refuse to sell the rights to their local games to television stations 
serving distant markets due to their fear of losing gate receipts if 
the local cable system imported the local sporting event carried on the 
distant station. The Commission stated this would have the ultimate 
undesirable effect of making sporting events available to fewer 
viewers. When a subject sporting event will not be aired live by any 
local television station carried on a community unit cable system, the 
sports blackout rule allows the rights holder to the event to demand 
that the local cable system blackout the distant importation of the 
subject sporting event. Section 76.67(a) applies ``if the event is not 
available live on a television broadcast signal carried by the 
community unit meeting the criteria specified in Secs. 76.5(gg)(1) 
through 76.5(gg)(3) of this part.'' 47 CFR 76.5(a). The former 
Sec. 76.5(gg) defined ``basic cable service'' for purposes of basic 
cable service rate regulation and incorporated the standard for 
mandatory carriage under the Commission's original 1972 must-carry 
rules. In summary, for purposes of rate regulation of the basic tier at 
that time, Sec. 76.5(gg) provided that the basic tier for cable systems 
serving communities located outside all major and smaller television 
markets included television broadcast stations within whose Grade B 
contours the community of the community unit was located; for 
communities in smaller television markets, the basic tier included 
television broadcast stations within whose specified zone the community 
of the community unit is located, commercial television broadcast 
stations licensed to communities in other smaller television markets 
within whose Grade B contours the community of the community unit is 
located, and television broadcast stations licensed to communities that 
are generally considered to be part of the same smaller television 
market; and for communities in major television markets, the basic tier 
included television broadcast stations within whose specified zone the 
community of the community unit is located and television broadcast 
stations licensed to other designated communities of the same major 
television market; as well as, in all size markets, commercial 
television broadcast stations that were significantly viewed in the 
community of the community unit. The zone of protection afforded by the 
sports blackout rule is generally 35 miles surrounding the reference 
point of the broadcast station's community of license in which the live 
sporting event is taking place. As with the Commission's exclusivity 
rules, the sports blackout rule specifies notification procedures 
regarding the sports programming to be deleted. However, the time frame 
allowed for notification is significantly shorter in the case of the 
sports blackout rule, and can be as little as 24 hours in contrast to 
60 days for the other rules. We seek comment on whether the same timing 
should apply for both cable operators and satellite carriers.

[[Page 4931]]

    25. As with the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity 
rules, the sports blackout rule does not apply to cable systems with 
fewer than 1,000 subscribers. This exemption is based on the cost of 
the equipment needed to delete programming. We seek comment on whether 
there is an analogous situation for satellite carriers. Will there be 
situations in which there may be no more than 1,000 subscribers in an 
area subject to program blackout, and, if so, is there a significant 
cost to blacking out this limited number of subscribers? We seek 
specific information from satellite carriers on the likelihood of the 
occurrence of this situation. We seek comment on these questions with 
respect to the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, 
as well as the sports blackout rule. We particularly seek specific 
information from satellite carriers on the comparative costs per 
subscriber of deleting programming where more than or less than 1,000 
subscriber households are affected.
    26. As noted, the sports blackout rule for cable systems applies 
only in a limited 35 mile geographic area surrounding the relevant 
broadcast station's community reference point and only when no local 
television station is carrying the event. Typically this area contains 
households that can receive a signal of Grade B intensity or better. 
Because the section 119 compulsory copyright license only allows the 
retransmission of distant network stations to unserved households, i.e. 
those that cannot receive a signal of Grade B intensity, and because 
the existing sports blackout zone is typically limited to an area 
containing only served households, we expect that there would be few 
occasions where a subscriber residing within a sports blackout zone 
would be eligible to receive protected programming via distant network 
retransmissions made pursuant to the section 119 compulsory copyright 
license. Thus, there may be very few occasions where, as a practical 
matter, the sports blackout rule could be invoked for a satellite 
retransmission of network stations. It may, however, present technical 
and economic challenges to the satellite carrier to take the actions 
necessary to blackout out the sports broadcast in these comparatively 
few situations. We seek comment on this issue.
    27. The SHVIA's directive to apply the network nonduplication, 
syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules to satellite 
retransmission of nationally distributed superstations appears to apply 
without any limitation based upon a satellite carrier's technical 
ability to comply. The SHVIA, however, limits application of the sports 
blackout rule to retransmission of network stations ``to the extent 
technically feasible and not economically prohibitive.'' The 
legislative history suggests that a ``very serious economic threat to 
the health of the carrier'' is necessary to justify deviating from the 
cable rules. We seek comment concerning the circumstances in which the 
sports blackout rule should apply in the satellite context, on whether 
the 35 mile zone is appropriate in the satellite context, and, 
particularly, on the technical and economic consequences related to 
satellite carriers' compliance with the rule.
    28. We note that satellite carriers routinely provide pay-per-view 
events and descramble programming by use of ``conditional access'' 
mechanisms. With regard to the question of technical and economic 
effects on the satellite carrier, we ask whether conditional access 
mechanisms can be used to blackout sports programming on network 
stations. If the satellite provider can identify the households 
required to be blacked out for a specific sporting event, would 
conditional access provide the means to initiate the blackout? How much 
lead time would a satellite carrier need if conditional access can meet 
this requirement? What would the cost be per subscriber to implement 
sports blackout, as compared to the other exclusivity rules, using 
conditional access? Commenters are asked to address consideration of 
both the economic and technical considerations facing satellite 
carriers.
    29. Under the new section 122 of the Copyright Act, a satellite 
carrier may retransmit the signal of a network station to all 
subscribers within that station's local market, which is defined as its 
Designated Market Area (``DMA''). It is possible that in areas in which 
there are two affiliates of the same network within the same DMA, a 
``served'' subscriber would be eligible to receive both network 
stations based on the satellite carrier's ``local-into-local'' license 
because the subscriber resides in the DMA of the second station. The 
geographic area for purposes of the sports blackout zone surrounding 
one of the affiliates is most often smaller than the DMA. If one of the 
affiliates is not carrying the event, the sports blackout rule can be 
triggered. If the second affiliate is carrying the event, then the 
satellite carrier might be required to blackout the event being 
transmitted by the second affiliate to subscribers within the 35 mile 
zone. Alternatively, this situation may never occur if, as a practical 
matter, the contractual arrangements allow the rights holder to 
prohibit both affiliates from broadcasting the event in question. We 
seek comment on whether the two-affiliates-in-one market scenario is 
likely to occur, and whether the rules should treat this situation 
differently from the retransmission of a distant network station.

IV. Additional Discussion and Request for Comment

    30. We also seek comment, generally, on how to apply the terms of 
the three existing cable rules to satellite carriers. As discussed, the 
cable rules refer to ``community units,'' which correspond to separate 
and discrete communities or municipal entities that comprise cable 
systems. In the cable context, all cable subscribers who are in a 
community unit that lies in whole or in part within the specified zone 
experience program deletions if the program is covered by one of these 
rules. There are, however, no boundaries for satellite service that 
readily and necessarily correspond to the cable community unit. Is it 
necessary to administer these rules in the satellite context using the 
same community unit concept that applies in the cable context? Or, is 
it more appropriate to consider each household served by the satellite 
carrier and determine if it is within a broadcaster's specified zone 
for protection under the rules? In either case, the satellite carrier 
must be able to determine the location of each subscriber in relation 
to the relevant zone of protection for each local broadcast television 
station. How can a satellite carrier accurately locate a subscriber 
whose address is a post office box or rural route number? Is it 
appropriate to use the subscriber's zip code for this purpose? We seek 
comment on which approach best serves the purposes of the statute while 
not unnecessarily depriving satellite subscribers who are beyond the 
specified zone--but within a community unit that lies partially within 
the specified zone--of programming. We also seek comment on how the use 
of DMA in the SHVIA to define the local market applies to determination 
of the specified zone for purposes of the nonduplication, syndicated 
exclusivity and sports blackout rules in the satellite context.
    31. The syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout rules make 
specific provision for what type of programming a cable system may 
substitute for programming deleted pursuant to these rules. For 
example, when a program is blacked out based on syndicated rights, a 
cable operator may substitute a

[[Page 4932]]

program from any other television broadcast station and carry that 
program. We seek comment on what types of programming and methods of 
substitution are appropriate for satellite carriers. What role do 
retransmission consent requirements, as well as copyright licensing 
requirements, play in determination of substitute programming?
    32. Congress apparently chose not to extend application of the 
network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to 
retransmission of television broadcast stations other than nationally 
distributed superstations. We believe that the statutory requirements, 
nevertheless, will protect all contractual arrangements because the 
satellite carrier either needs the retransmission consent of the 
independent station or voluntarily complies with the exclusivity and 
sports blackout rules. We believe, therefore, that the interests of 
rights holders and local broadcasters are protected, but we seek 
comment on this issue.
    33. It has been suggested that the Commission consider certain 
additional issues concerning the distribution of sports programming 
that are related to, but not directly covered by, the SHVIA. The 
National Football League sells packages of programming to networks on a 
national basis, but different games are broadcast locally on a regional 
basis, often in two-game packages. To the extent that broadcasts of 
games are carried into local markets on distant broadcast signals via 
satellite, the network nonduplication and other rules involved in this 
proceeding appear to offer neither the stations nor the leagues 
involved any protection beyond the rights to the particular games that 
local stations are authorized to broadcast. In light of the SHVIA's 
restrictions on households that are eligible to receive distant network 
signals, it is not clear to what extent carriage of distant signals 
providing different games merits remedial action. We seek comment on 
the question of how the patterns of sports carriage involved are 
addressed by the new law, and whether they can and should be addressed 
in the regulations the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to it.
    34. We note, too, that WPIX, KTLA, and KWGN are WB affiliates and 
WSBK and WWOR are UPN affiliates; thus all are both ``network 
stations'' as well as ``nationally distributed superstations,'' 
pursuant to the definitions in the SHVIA. Should the exclusivity rules 
apply to blackout programming on a local station if that station is 
also a nationally distributed superstation or should the station be 
treated only as a local station within its local market, 
notwithstanding that it is a nationally distributed superstation 
outside its market? We note by way of analogy that, in the context of 
mandatory cable carriage, we have concluded that local commercial 
stations do not become superstations until such time as they are 
retransmitted via satellite outside their market, an activity unrelated 
to their status as local commercial broadcast stations within their 
market. We seek comment on the applicability of that conclusion in the 
satellite context.
    35. In addition, if we decide that it is necessary for the 
satellite carrier rules for sports blackout protection for network 
stations to differ from sports blackout protection for nationally 
distributed superstations due to technical feasibility and economic 
prohibitions, we seek comment on whether the sports blackout protection 
for these stations should apply to them as superstations, rather than 
as network stations.
    36. Section 339(b)(1) and the relevant part of the Joint 
Explanatory Statement are silent regarding application of the 
exclusivity and sports blackout rules to the retransmission of digital 
broadcast signals. In the pending proceeding considering cable 
mandatory carriage of digital signals, we requested comment on how 
these cable rules would function for cable carriage of digital signals. 
Similarly here, we question whether Congress intended to apply these 
rules to satellite retransmission of digital broadcast signals. We note 
that the SHVIA can be read as applying to both analog and digital 
broadcast signals. An alternative interpretation is that Congress was 
only concerned about the carriage of analog signals given that 
elsewhere in the statute Congress expressly mentioned digital signals 
and, presumably, could have done so in this context as well. We seek 
comment on whether and how the exclusivity rules could apply to 
satellite carriage of digital broadcast signals, and whether there is a 
meaningful distinction between analog and digital carriage issues for 
satellite carriers in this context.
    37. As a final matter, we note that several sections of the 
existing cable rules contain outdated cross-references to other 
sections of the rules. We welcome comment on these and any other such 
corrections that are needed. For example, Sec. 76.67 contains a 
reference to Sec. 76.5(gg) for purposes of identifying the broadcast 
television stations that trigger the rule's application. Section 
76.5(gg) has been eliminated. The Commission deleted Sec. 76.5(gg) in 
its 1993 Order rescinding cable service rate regulation. We seek 
comment on whether we should reinstate a standard based upon the 
original criteria incorporated into Sec. 76.5(gg) or adopt a new 
standard. In addition, we welcome comment on changes to the application 
of the rules in the cable context to the extent necessary or desirable 
for harmonizing the regulatory requirements among the affected parties. 
Also, existing Sec. 76.5(ii) references Sec. 76.5(o). The correct 
reference should be to Sec. 76.5(m). Furthermore, the existing Note to 
Sec. 76.92 references Sec. 76.658(m) in the last sentence. The correct 
reference should be to Sec. 73.658(m), as correctly stated in the 
second sentence of the Note.
    38. In addition, Sec. 76.51 lists the top 100 television markets in 
the United States. The ``Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Corona-Fontana-
Riverside, Calif.'' market is listed at Sec. 76.51(a)(2). In 1995, the 
Commission redesignated the ``Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Corona-
Fontana-Riverside, Calif.,'' market as the ``Los Angeles-San 
Bernardino-Corona-Riverside-Anaheim, Calif.'' market. However, the 
published amendment to Sec. 76.51(a) intended to effectuate the 
foregoing change inadvertently amended Sec. 76.51(a)(28), rather than 
Sec. 76.51(a)(2). As a result, the redesignated ``Los Angeles-San 
Bernardino-Corona-Riverside-Anaheim, Calif.'' market is listed as 
Sec. 76.51(a)(28) and the ``Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Corona-Fontana-
Riverside, Calif.'' market still is listed as Sec. 76.51(a)(2). The 
``Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida'' market, which was listed 
at Sec. 76.51(28) at the time the Commission adopted the Los Angeles 
Redesignation Order, was deleted inadvertently from Sec. 76.51(a)(28) 
and currently is not listed elsewhere in Sec. 76.51. The correct 
reference in Sec. 76.51(a)(2) should be to the ``Los Angeles-San 
Bernardino-Corona-Riverside-Anaheim, Calif.'' market. The correct 
reference in Sec. 76.51(a)(28) should be to the ``Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater, Florida'' market.

V. Administrative Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules
    39. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under 
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if 
disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are 
generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that a memorandum summarizing a

[[Page 4933]]

presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the 
presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More 
than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required. See Sec. 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. 
Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set 
forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).
B. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments
    40. 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 7, 2000 and reply comments on or before February 
28, 2000. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (``ECFS'') or by filing paper copies. Comments 
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet to http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy 
of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or 
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, 
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each 
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form your e-mail address.'' A sample 
form and directions will be sent in reply.
    41. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If participants want each Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies 
must be filed. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in 
the caption of this proceeding commenters must submit two additional 
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings 
must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office 
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Cable Services Bureau contact for this 
proceeding is Eloise Gore at (202) 418-7200, TTY (202) 418-7172, or at 
[email protected].
    42. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. Parties should submit diskettes to Eloise Gore, 
Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street NW, Room 4-A802, Washington, DC 
20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in 
an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and Microsoft Word, or 
compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover 
letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette 
should be clearly labeled with the party's name, proceeding (including 
the lead docket number in this case [CS Docket No. 00-2]), type of 
pleading (comments or reply comments), date of submission, and the name 
of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include 
the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette 
should contain only one party's pleadings, referable in a single 
electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to 
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Written comments by the 
public on the proposed information collections are due March 3, 2000. 
Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before April 
3, 2000. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should 
be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-
C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected] and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 
725--17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Statement
    Paperwork Reduction Act: This NPRM contains a proposed information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) 
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. OMB notification of action is due April 3, 
2000. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.
    Title: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act 
of 1999: Application of Network Nonduplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, 
and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite Retransmission.
    Type of Review: New collection or revision of existing collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: Satellite carriers--xxxx.
    Estimated Time Per Response: xxxx hours.
    Total Annual Burden: xxxx.
    Cost to Respondents: xxxx.
    Needs and Uses: Congress directed the Commission to adopt 
regulations that apply network nonduplication, syndicated program 
exclusivity, and sports blackout requirements to satellite carriers 
pursuant to the changes outlined in the Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvement Act of 1999. The availability of such information will 
serve the purpose of informing the public of the method of broadcast 
signal carriage.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    a. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(``IRFA'') of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the possible policies and rules that would result from this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Notice''). 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 on the Notice 
provided. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
    b. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes. On 
November 29, 1999, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 
was enacted (``SHVIA''). Section 1008 of the SHVIA creates a new 
section 339 of the Communications Act entitled ``Carriage of Distant 
Television Stations by Satellite Carriers.'' The Notice discusses 
adoption of implementing regulations relating to the cable rules 
concerning network nonduplication, syndicated program exclusivity, and 
sports

[[Page 4934]]

broadcasts to satellite carriers. Section 339(b) directs the Commission 
to apply these three cable rules to satellite carriers' retransmission 
of nationally distributed superstations to subscribers. The Commission 
is also to apply the sports broadcasts rule to satellite carrier's 
retransmission of network stations to subscribers, but only to the 
extent technically feasible and not economically prohibitive.
    c. Legal Basis. The authority for the action proposed in this 
rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 339 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 
and 339.
    d. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The IRFA directs the Commission to 
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The IRFA 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``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) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (``SBA''). The rules we may adopt as a 
result of the Notice will affect television station licensees, 
satellite carriers and video program distributors and delivery 
services.
    e. Television Stations. The proposed rules and policies will apply 
to television broadcasting licensees. The Small Business Administration 
defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $10.5 
million in annual receipts as a small business. Television broadcasting 
stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting 
visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay 
television services. Included in this industry are commercial, 
religious, educational, and other television stations. Also included 
are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and 
which produce taped television program materials. Separate 
establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television program 
materials are classified under another SIC number. There were 1,509 
television stations operating in the nation in 1992. That number has 
remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,579 
operating full power television broadcasting stations in the nation as 
of May 31, 1998.
    f. Thus, the proposed rules will affect many of the approximately 
1,579 television stations; approximately 1,200 of those stations are 
considered small businesses. These estimates may overstate the number 
of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do 
not include or aggregate revenues from non-television affiliated 
companies.
    g. In addition to owners of operating television stations, any 
entity that seeks or desires to obtain a television broadcast license 
may be affected by the proposals contained in this item. The number of 
entities that may seek to obtain a television broadcast license is 
unknown. We invite comment as to such number.
    h. Small Multiple Video Program Distributors (``MVPDs''): 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, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint 
distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription 
television services. According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, 
there were 1,758 total cable and other pay television services and 
1,423 had less than $11 million in revenues. We address services 
individually to provide a more precise estimate of small entities.
    i. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS''): There are four licenses of 
DBS services under Part 100 of the Commission's Rules. Three of those 
licensees are currently operational. Two of the licensees which are 
operational have annual revenues which may be in excess of the 
threshold for a small business. The Commission, however, does not 
collect annual revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is unable to 
ascertain the number of small DBS licensees that could be impacted by 
these proposed rules. DBS service requires a great investment of 
capital for operation, and we acknowledge that there are entrants in 
this field that may not yet have generated $11 million in annual 
receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if 
independently owned and operated.
    j. Home Satellite Delivery (``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 package. 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 non-subscription programming; and (3) viewers 
who receive satellite programming services illegally without 
subscribing. Because scrambled packages of programming are most 
specifically intended for retail consumers, these are the services most 
relevant to this discussion.
    k. According to the most recently available information, there are 
approximately 30 program packages nationwide offering packages of 
scrambled programming to retail consumers. These program packages 
provide subscriptions to approximately 2,314,900 subscribers 
nationwide. This is an average of about 77,163 subscribers per program 
package. This is substantially smaller than the 400,000 subscribers 
used in the Commission's definition of a small MSO. Furthermore, 
because this is an average, it is likely that some program packages may 
be substantially smaller.
    l. Entities which may be indirectly affected by the rules we may 
adopt as a result of the Notice are cable television systems.
    m. 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 the Commission's rules, a ``small 
cable company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers 
nationwide. Based on our most recent information, we estimate that 
there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable 
companies at 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, we estimate that there are fewer than 
1,439 small entity cable systems operators that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules emanating out of the Notice.
    n. 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

[[Page 4935]]

States and is not affiliate 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, 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, we find that 
the number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less 
totals approximately 1,450. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable 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. It should be further noted that recent industry 
estimates project that there will be a total of 64,000,000 subscribers 
and we have based our fee revenue estimates on that figure.
    o. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other 
Compliance Requirements. In order to implement Section 1008 of the 
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which creates a new 
Section 339 of the Communications Act, the Commission has proposed to 
add new rules and modify others, as the provisions at issue previously 
were applicable only to cable. We have yet to determine whether to 
amend existing provisions of the Commission's rules, or to adopt some 
other regulatory framework or procedures. There are compliance 
requirements involving the nonduplication protection, syndicated 
exclusivity, and sports blackout rules. To exercise nonduplication 
protection and syndicated exclusivity protection, the rights holder to 
specific network or syndicated programming will have to notify and 
report to the satellite carrier, and do so within 60 days of the 
signing of a contract affording exclusivity rights. Such notification 
and reporting is required to take place within a shorter time period in 
the sports blackout context. In certain instances, staff may have to 
dedicate time and effort to monitoring and ensuring that notifications 
are properly given in a timely manner to satellite carriers.
    p. There may be costs associated with hiring accounting or 
engineering personnel, as there may be instances where entities may 
have to provide detailed information relating to such aspects of their 
particular operations. Specifically, costs here may relate possibly to 
conducting engineering studies to accurately determine zones of 
protection. Further, there will likely be costs in equipment necessary 
to carry out deletions. The Commission recognized the significant costs 
involved in implementing deletions and exempted systems having 1,000 or 
fewer subscribers.
    q. In terms of record keeping, entities may have to keep a record 
of the contractual terms and agreements and may be required to maintain 
such information within their business environment. At this time, small 
businesses might not be impacted differently in any of the above, but 
we seek comment on these matters.
    r. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. 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: (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 or reporting 
requirements under the rule for 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.
    s. As indicated, the provisions of Section 339 refer to 
superstations and network stations, in terms of television broadcast 
stations. This legislation, however, applies to small entities and 
large entities equally. The Commission acknowledges that consideration 
should be given to possible differences in size of entities, as 
evidenced by the fact that there are certain exemptions in the 
application of these rules. Overall, at this time, small entities are 
not treated differently and might not be impacted differently, but we 
seek comment.
    t. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    43. Pursuant to section 1008 of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 
1999, section 339(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
notice is hereby given of the proposals described in this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking.
    44. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Cable Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2140 Filed 2-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P