[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20649-20657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07505]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket Nos. 20-73, 17-105; FCC 20-41: FRS 16626]


Significantly Viewed Stations; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on modernizing 
its methodology for determining whether a television broadcast station 
is ``significantly viewed'' in a community outside of its local 
television market and therefore may be treated as a local station in 
that community, permitted under the Commission's rules to be carried by 
cable systems and satellite operators. An examination into whether the 
existing methodology has become outdated or overly burdensome, 
particularly for smaller entities, is warranted given changes in the 
marketplace in the nearly fifty years since its adoption.

DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before May 14, 2020; 
reply comments are due on or before June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 20-73 
and 17-105, by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, 
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings 
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
    [ssquf] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    [ssquf] During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-7454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-41, adopted and released on March 31, 
2020. The full text is available for public inspection and copying 
during regular

[[Page 20650]]

business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This 
document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
). Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or 
Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by 
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY).
    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may result in new or revised 
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new 
or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment 
on such requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, the Commission will seek specific comment on how it might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on 
modernizing our methodology for determining whether a television 
broadcast station is ``significantly viewed'' in a community outside of 
its local television market and thus may be treated as a local station 
in that community, permitted under the Commission's rules to be carried 
by cable systems and satellite operators. The existing process for 
determining a station's significantly viewed status was adopted nearly 
fifty years ago, and marketplace changes during this period lead us to 
examine whether this process has become outdated or overly burdensome, 
particularly for smaller entities. Our actions are taken in furtherance 
of the Commission's efforts in its Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative proceeding to update our media regulations.

II. Background

    2. Local television broadcast stations typically hold exclusive 
rights to distribute network or syndicated programming within their 
local markets. Generally, a television station's ``local market'' is 
defined by the Designated Market Area (DMA) in which it is located, as 
determined by the Nielsen Company (Nielsen). The Commission's network 
nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules protect these exclusive 
rights by generally precluding cable operators and satellite carriers 
from carrying a duplicating network or syndicated program broadcast by 
a distant station. Cable operators and satellite carriers are required 
to delete duplicative network or syndicated programming carried on any 
out-of-market signals that they import into a local market where 
exclusivity provisions exist in the relevant contractual agreements 
between broadcasters and networks or syndicators. But under the 
significantly viewed exception to the network nonduplication and 
syndicated exclusivity rules, cable operators and satellite carriers 
are not required to delete the duplicating network or syndicated 
programming where the signal of the otherwise distant station is 
determined to be significantly viewed in the relevant community. The 
significantly viewed exception is based on a demonstration, made using 
over-the-air viewership surveys, that an otherwise distant station 
receives a ``significant'' level of over-the-air viewership in a 
particular cable or satellite community and therefore should be 
considered ``local'' with respect to that community. The Commission 
originally adopted the significantly viewed exception to balance 
concerns about the economic impact to local stations resulting from 
cable system importation of competing distant stations with concerns 
that a station be available in full on cable systems in communities 
where the station is available over the air.
    3. Although cable operators have had carriage rights for 
significantly viewed stations under the Commission's rules since 1972, 
satellite carriers did not obtain carriage rights for significantly 
viewed stations until 2004. The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) changed the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (Act), to ``increas[e] regulatory parity by extending 
to satellite operators the same type of authority cable operators 
already have to carry `significantly viewed' signals into a market.'' 
SHVERA added new section 340 of the Act, which authorized satellite 
carriage of significantly viewed stations subject to certain subscriber 
eligibility restrictions. The Satellite Television Extension and 
Localism Act of 2010 (STELA) amended section 340 to modify the 
subscriber eligibility restrictions. SHVERA also amended the Copyright 
Act to establish a compulsory copyright license for satellite carriage 
of significantly viewed signals to subscribers.
    4. In 1972, the Commission established a list of significantly 
viewed stations based on viewership surveys for the periods May 1970, 
November 1970, and February/March 1971. The Commission's rules define a 
network station as significantly viewed if over-the-air viewership 
surveys demonstrate that the station exceeds a three percent share of 
viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 25 percent, by at least 
one standard error. An independent station is defined as significantly 
viewed if over-the-air viewership surveys demonstrate that the station 
exceeds a two percent share of viewing hours and a net weekly 
circulation of five percent, by at least one standard error. A 
television station, or a cable operator or satellite carrier that seeks 
to carry the station, may petition the Commission to obtain 
``significantly viewed'' status for the station in a particular 
community or communities and placement on the Significantly Viewed 
List. Under section 76.54(d) of the Commission's rules, signals of 
television stations not encompassed by the 1970-1971 surveys (i.e., not 
on-the-air at the time the surveys were taken) may be demonstrated as 
significantly viewed on a county-wide basis by independent professional 
audience surveys which cover three separate, consecutive four-week 
periods during the first three years of the subject station's operation 
and are otherwise comparable to the surveys used in compiling the 1972 
list. Alternatively, section 76.54(b) of the Commission's rules 
provides that significant viewing in a cable or satellite community:

    May be demonstrated by an independent professional audience 
survey of over-the-air television homes that covers at least two 
weekly periods separated by at least thirty (30) days but no more 
than one of which shall be a week between the months of April and 
September. If two surveys are taken, they shall include samples 
sufficient to assure that the combined surveys result in an average 
figure at least one standard error above the required viewing level. 
If surveys are taken for more than 2-weekly periods in any 12 
months, all such surveys must result in an average figure at least 
one standard error above the required viewing level. If a cable 
television system serves more than one community, a single survey 
may be taken, provided that the sample includes over-the-air 
television homes from each community that are proportional to the 
population. A satellite carrier may demonstrate significant viewing 
in more than one community or satellite community through a single 
survey, provided that the sample includes over-the-

[[Page 20651]]

air television homes from each community that are proportional to 
the population.

    The Commission maintains an updated list of significantly viewed 
stations on its website.
    5. A station may also lose its significantly viewed status if 
another station petitions for a waiver of the significantly viewed 
exception to reinstate its exclusivity rights vis-[agrave]-vis the 
significantly viewed station. In KCST-TV, the Commission held that in 
order to obtain such a waiver, a petitioner would be required to 
demonstrate for two consecutive years that a station was no longer 
significantly viewed, based either on community-specific or system-
specific over-the-air viewing data, following the methodology set forth 
in section 76.54(b). The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show 
that the station is no longer significantly viewed.
    6. Following the Commission's decision in KCST-TV, the methodology 
required by section 76.54(b) of the rules for an entity seeking a 
change in a station's significantly viewed status or a petitioner 
seeking a waiver of the significantly viewed exception evolved through 
case law. Over time, Nielsen became the primary organization through 
which entities seeking changes to the Significantly Viewed List could 
obtain television viewership surveys. Until recently, Nielsen, which 
surveys television markets to obtain television stations' viewership, 
conducted four-week audience surveys four times a year (i.e., during 
February, May, July, and November ``sweep periods''). In light of these 
quarterly surveys, the Media Bureau found that replacing each week 
required under section 76.54(b) with a sweep period is acceptable and 
added to the accuracy of the audience statistics because of the 
increased sample size. Thus, an entity seeking to change a station's 
significantly viewed status was permitted to submit the results from 
two sweep periods in each year and purchase survey data from Nielsen on 
either a community-specific or system-specific basis. In order to 
produce the required data, Nielsen re-tabulated the over-the-air data 
that it collected for its routine audience sweep periods, using in-tab 
diaries from its database for the area served by a cable system or an 
individual cable community. Notably, there have been recent cases where 
an entity seeking to make changes to the Significantly Viewed List 
could not make the showing required under section 76.54(b) and relevant 
case law for certain communities because Nielsen was unable to provide 
the requisite over-the-air viewership data for those communities.
    7. In 2019, Nielsen completed a multi-year overhaul of the way it 
measures television viewing in its 210 DMAs, replacing the paper 
diaries that Nielsen families used to record what they watched on 
television in the smallest 140 DMAs entirely with electronic 
measurement. Nielsen now uses a combination of people meters, set 
meters, code readers, and return path data (RPD) from cable and 
satellite set-top boxes to measure television viewing. In many of the 
DMAs where it uses RPD from set-top boxes, Nielsen also uses code 
readers to capture over-the-air viewership data that is missed by set-
top boxes. Nielsen then applies statistical modeling, weighting, and 
other data science techniques to the representative samples obtained 
through its electronic measurement to calculate over-the-air viewership 
data for a larger population. Additionally, instead of measuring local 
television viewership only four times a year during sweep months, 
Nielsen now provides electronic measurements every month of the year.

III. Discussion

    8. As explained above, there have been recent instances where 
petitioners seeking to change a station's significantly viewed status 
for certain communities were unable to rely upon Nielsen to provide the 
over-the-air viewership data required under our rules and applicable 
case law. In addition, given Nielsen's changes to its process for 
measuring television viewing in its DMAs, it is unclear whether the 
shift to electronic measurement will sufficiently capture over-the-air 
viewing and enable Nielsen to provide would-be petitioners the 
requisite over-the-air viewership information for certain communities. 
Thus, we seek comment on the need for modifications or updates to the 
existing methodology for determining whether a station is significantly 
viewed in a community outside of its local television market. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether the methodology for 
determining a station's significantly viewed status set forth in 
section 76.54(b) of the Commission's rules and relevant case law has 
become outdated or overly burdensome. What are the costs and other 
burdens associated with making the showing currently required to 
establish a station's significantly viewed status? To what extent do 
such costs and burdens discourage or deter entities, particularly 
entities in smaller markets, from seeking changes to the Significantly 
Viewed List? To the extent that our current methodology as set forth in 
the rules and developed through case law discourages entities from 
seeking changes to the Significantly Viewed List, what impact does this 
have on the affected stations and on viewers in the relevant 
communities?
    9. As discussed above, Nielsen has been the primary organization 
through which entities seeking to establish a station's significantly 
viewed status or a waiver of the significantly viewed exception may 
obtain television viewership surveys. We seek comment on whether the 
over-the-air viewership data gathered by Nielsen today through 
electronic measurement techniques satisfies the requirement in section 
76.54(b) of our rules for an ``audience survey of over-the-air 
television homes.'' Why or why not? We also seek specific comment on 
the extent to which Nielsen is able to provide the community-specific 
or system-specific over-the-air viewership data needed to demonstrate a 
station's significantly viewed status, particularly in smaller markets. 
Has the number of communities for which Nielsen is able to provide the 
required data changed substantially since it replaced its paper diaries 
entirely with electronic measurement? If Nielsen does not collect this 
community-specific or system-specific over-the-air viewership data, are 
there other sources from which broadcasters can obtain it? We request 
comment on whether there are a significant number of communities today 
for which Nielsen or other companies are unable to provide the over-
the-air viewership data required under our rules. To the extent there 
are no commercially available sources for this information, does the 
expense to a station or other entity of commissioning over-the-air 
viewership surveys in a community or communities for which there is no 
data available deter such entities from seeking changes to the 
Significantly Viewed List? What are the expenses associated with 
commissioning such surveys? Would the costs exceed the benefits?
    10. In addition, we seek comment on what, if any, specific 
modifications or updates should be made to the current methodology for 
establishing whether a station is significantly viewed in a community 
outside of its local market. For example, is it necessary to modify the 
current rule to reflect the fact that Nielsen now measures over-the-air 
viewership data electronically? If Nielsen or other companies are 
unable to provide the community-specific or system-specific over-the-
air viewership data required under our rules for certain communities, 
how should we modify

[[Page 20652]]

our rules to take account of this? Are there other modifications that 
can be made to make the current process less costly or burdensome to 
entities seeking to make changes to a station's significantly viewed 
status? How should we address the challenges of relying on the 
requirements for sample size, given the diminished fraction of over-
the-air viewers since 1972? Commenters who propose specific 
modifications should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals, 
including the impact of the proposal on affected stations, especially 
small market stations, and viewers.
    11. Moreover, we seek comment on whether there are alternative 
methodologies for demonstrating a station's significantly viewed status 
outside of its local market. For example, it has been suggested that a 
petitioner should be permitted to establish a station's significantly 
viewed status in a particular community by making a technical showing, 
such as by using a Longley-Rice analysis, demonstrating that the 
station's signal reaches or does not reach a certain percentage of the 
population in that community. If so, what showing should be required 
and what percentage of the community's population should the station's 
signal be required to reach in order to be considered significantly 
viewed? We note that such a showing would reflect potential rather than 
actual viewing in the community at issue. We seek comment on whether it 
is reasonable to infer that if a station's signal reaches a certain 
percentage of the population in a community that the station is 
significantly viewed in the community. Why or why not? We further note 
that section 340(a)(2) of the Act, which applies to satellite carriers, 
requires the use of ``standards and procedures concerning shares of 
viewing hours and audience surveys.'' We seek comment on whether a 
methodology that allowed a petitioner to establish a station's 
significantly viewed status in a particular community based on a 
technical showing of coverage area, rather than viewership data, would 
comply with the requirements of section 340(a)(2). We seek comment on 
the costs and benefits of any proposed alternative methodologies, 
including the impact of the proposal on affected stations, especially 
small market stations, and viewers.
    12. Further, we seek comment on whether and to what extent the 
Commission has the statutory authority to modify the significantly 
viewed rules with respect to satellite carriers. Section 122(a)(2)(A) 
of the Copyright Act provides that the statutory copyright license for 
satellite carriers applies to stations that are ``determined by the 
Federal Communications Commission to be significantly viewed in such 
community, pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of 
the Federal Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, 
applicable to determining with respect to a cable system whether 
signals are significantly viewed in a community.'' The Commission 
previously has interpreted this statutory provision as precluding it 
from making substantive modifications to the section 76.54 process for 
making significantly viewed determinations. We seek comment on whether 
there is any basis for revisiting this interpretation.
    13. In particular, we note that section 340 of the Act authorizes 
satellite carriers to retransmit the signal of an out-of-market station 
to a subscriber where such signal ``is, after December 8, 2004, 
determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed in such 
community in accordance with the same standards and procedures 
concerning shares of viewing hours and audience surveys as are 
applicable under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the 
Commission to determining with respect to a cable system whether 
signals are significantly viewed in a community.'' Unlike section 
122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act, there is no requirement in section 
340 that the Commission apply rules that were in effect on a certain 
date in determining whether a station is significantly viewed. Section 
122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act and section 340 of the Act serve two 
distinct purposes. Section 122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act 
establishes the test for when satellite carriage of a significantly 
viewed station qualifies for the statutory copyright license: a station 
must be determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed in such 
community pursuant to the rules in effect on April 15, 1976. In 
contrast, section 340 of the Act establishes that a satellite carrier 
may carry a significantly viewed signal as defined by the Commission, 
and that the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules do 
not apply to a significantly viewed signal (unless a station 
successfully petitions to have a significantly viewed station removed 
from the Significantly Viewed List). Accordingly, since section 340 
does not require that the Commission apply rules that were in effect on 
a certain date in determining whether a station is significantly 
viewed, we propose to interpret section 340 as allowing the Commission 
to amend its significantly viewed rules, provided that satellite 
carriers and cable operators are subject to the same rules. We seek 
comment on this proposed reading of section 340.
    14. We note that this reading of section 340 could result in one 
set of procedures being applied in determining whether a station is 
significantly viewed for purposes of the Communications Act and a 
different set of procedures being applied in determining whether a 
station is significantly viewed for purposes of the Copyright Act. In 
other words, any modifications adopted by the Commission to the 
procedures for determining whether a station is significantly viewed 
would apply for purposes of the Commission's signal carriage and 
exclusivity rules, while the procedures that were in effect as of April 
15, 1976, would continue to apply for purposes of determining whether 
satellite carriage of a station qualifies for the statutory copyright 
license. We seek comment on whether section 122(a)(2)(A) of the 
Copyright Act--which applies only in determining whether satellite 
carriage of a significantly viewed station qualifies for the statutory 
copyright license--limits the Commission's discretion to have a 
different set of procedures for determining whether a station is 
significantly viewed for purposes of signal carriage and exclusivity 
under section 340 of the Act. We also seek comment on whether there is 
any reason to have one set of procedures for both purposes. What are 
the benefits and burdens of having two different sets of procedures? 
Commenters should address the benefits and burdens from a number of 
perspectives, such as those of broadcast stations, cable operators, 
satellite carriers, and consumers. In addition, we seek comment on 
whether updating the procedures for determining whether a station is 
significantly viewed would allow a more accurate determination of which 
stations should legitimately be accorded significantly viewed status. 
We note that exclusivity protections depend on the Significantly Viewed 
List being as accurate as possible.
    15. We recognize that having two different procedures could produce 
odd results in some cases and seek comment on the implications of such 
an approach. For example, a station could qualify as significantly 
viewed under the Commission's procedures, thus making satellite 
carriage of the station permissible under section 340 of the Act, but 
not under the procedures required to be applied by the Copyright Act. 
Under such circumstances, where a satellite carrier does not qualify 
for the section 122 compulsory copyright license, would the satellite 
carrier

[[Page 20653]]

nonetheless choose to carry the significantly viewed station? If so, 
how would the satellite carrier obtain the rights to retransmit the 
station's programming from each individual copyright holder? We seek 
comment on the impact of having two different procedures on regulatory 
parity between cable operators and satellite carriers. What would be 
the impact of having two different procedures on the congressional 
goals underlying section 340 and the Copyright Act?
    16. Moreover, we note that in 1977, the Commission made a 
substantive revision to the methodology in section 76.54(b) to be used 
by cable operators in determining a station's significantly viewed 
status. We seek comment on what significance the 1977 modification of 
the significantly viewed rules for cable operators has on the question 
of the Commission's statutory authority to modify the significantly 
viewed rules for satellite carriers. Given that Congress's intent in 
enacting SHVERA was to create parity between cable operators and 
satellite carriers, we also seek comment on the impact any limitation 
on Commission authority to modify the significantly viewed rules for 
satellite carriers should have on our decision on whether to modify the 
significantly viewed rules for cable operators. Could the Commission 
modify the significantly viewed rules only as to cable systems 
consistent with section 340(a)(2) of the Act? If the record amassed in 
this proceeding indicates that there are no entities, including 
Nielsen, that can provide the community-specific or system-specific 
over-the-air viewership data required to demonstrate significantly 
viewed status pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of 
the Federal Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, in a 
significant number of communities, how should this determination impact 
the Commission's decision as to whether to revise our rules pursuant to 
our authority under section 340, in light of the limitation contained 
in section 122 of the Copyright Act? That is, if it is infeasible to 
make the showing required under the existing rules because those rules 
are outdated or no longer relevant in today's marketplace, does that 
support our proposed reading of section 340 to allow the Commission to 
amend its significantly viewed rules?
    17. Additionally, we seek comment on whether to update the 
definitions of the terms ``full network station,'' ``partial network 
station,'' and ``independent station'' in section 76.5 of the 
Commission's rules to reflect marketplace changes since these 
definitions were adopted. Under these definitions, a commercial 
television broadcast station is classified as either a full network 
station, partial network station, or independent station depending on 
how many hours per week it carries of prime time programming offered by 
one of the ``three major national television networks''--i.e., ABC, 
CBS, or NBC. The Commission relies on these definitions to select the 
correct standard for determining whether a station is significantly 
viewed. We note that the Commission has recognized the Fox network as a 
fourth major national television network. We seek comment on whether to 
modify the definitions of ``full network station,'' ``partial network 
station,'' and ``independent station'' in section 76.5 to accurately 
reflect that there are now four rather than three major national 
television networks. What impact does the current treatment of Fox 
owned and affiliated stations as independent rather than network 
stations have on the process for determining a station's significantly 
viewed status and on affected stations and television viewers? 
Alternatively, we seek comment on whether to update these definitions 
to track with the definition of ``network station'' set forth in the 
Copyright Act. Under this definition, ``network station'' means ``a 
television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission . 
. . that is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or more of 
the television networks in the United States that offer an 
interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours 
per week to at least 25 of its affiliated television licensees in 10 or 
more States.'' Stations owned by or affiliated with Fox and a number of 
other networks, such as The CW, MyNetwork TV, Univision, and Telemundo, 
would be considered ``network stations'' under this definition.
    18. We note that the Commission previously has rejected requests to 
update the definitions of ``full network station,'' ``partial network 
station,'' and ``independent station'' in section 76.5 to track with 
the definition of ``network station'' in the Copyright Act, concluding 
that the Copyright Act requires use of the rules in effect as of April 
15, 1976, including these definitions. Although section 340 of the Act 
requires that the Commission use the definition in the Copyright Act in 
determining subscriber eligibility to receive significantly viewed 
stations from satellite carriers, the Commission found that it was 
precluded by statute from conforming the definitions in its rules with 
the Copyright Act definition because section 122(a)(2)(1) of the 
Copyright Act requires use of the Commission rules in effect as of 
April 15, 1976. The Commission therefore determined that it would 
continue to use the definitions of network station and independent 
station in our rules for purposes of determining whether a station is 
significantly viewed, but use the copyright definition of network 
station for purposes of subscriber eligibility and the other 
applications of the significantly viewed provisions. We seek comment on 
whether we should revisit this interpretation. As discussed above, 
section 122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act applies only in determining 
whether satellite carriage of a significantly viewed station qualifies 
for the statutory copyright license. Furthermore, section 340 of the 
Act does not require that the Commission apply rules that were in 
effect on a certain date in determining whether a station is 
significantly viewed. Accordingly, we propose to interpret section 340 
as allowing the Commission to amend its significantly viewed rules to 
update the definitions of ``full network station,'' ``partial network 
station,'' and ``independent station'' in section 76.5. What impact 
would modification of these definitions have on affected stations, 
cable operators, satellite carriers, and consumers? What policy goals 
would be served by amending the significantly viewed rules to update 
these definitions? What impact, if any, would modification of these 
definitions have on the congressional goals underlying section 340 and 
the Copyright Act? Does it make sense from a legal or policy 
perspective to continue to treat Fox and certain other network owned 
and affiliated stations as ``independent stations'' for purposes of 
determining the station's significantly viewed status but as network 
stations in all other respects? We seek comment on these issues.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and 
rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be

[[Page 20654]]

identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 
for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission 
will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, 
the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

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

    20. Local television broadcast stations typically hold exclusive 
rights to distribute network or syndicated programming within their 
local markets. The Commission's network nonduplication and syndicated 
exclusivity rules protect these exclusive rights by generally 
precluding cable operators and satellite carriers from carrying a 
duplicating network or syndicated program broadcast by a distant 
station. Under the significantly viewed exception to the network 
nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, cable operators and 
satellite carriers are not required to delete the duplicating network 
or syndicated programming where the signal of the otherwise distant 
station is determined to be significantly viewed in the relevant 
community. The significantly viewed exception is based on a 
demonstration, made using over-the-air viewership surveys, that an 
otherwise distant station receives a ``significant'' level of over-the-
air viewership in a particular cable or satellite community and 
therefore should be considered ``local'' with respect to that 
community.
    21. The Commission in 1972 established a list of significantly 
viewed stations based on viewership surveys for the periods May 1970, 
November 1970, and February/March 1971. The Commission's rules define a 
network station as significantly viewed if over-the-air viewership 
surveys demonstrate that the station exceeds a three percent share of 
viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 25 percent, by at least 
one standard error. An independent station is defined as significantly 
viewed if over-the-air viewership surveys demonstrate that the station 
exceeds a two percent share of viewing hours and a net weekly 
circulation of five percent, by at least one standard error. A 
television station, or a cable operator or satellite carrier that seeks 
to carry the station, may petition the Commission to obtain 
``significantly viewed'' status for the station in a particular 
community or communities and placement on the Significantly Viewed 
List. Under section 76.54(d) of the Commission's rules, signals of 
television stations not encompassed by the 1970-1971 surveys (i.e., not 
on-the-air at the time the surveys were taken) may be demonstrated as 
significantly viewed on a county-wide basis by independent professional 
audience surveys which cover three separate, consecutive four-week 
periods during the first three years of the subject station's operation 
and are otherwise comparable to the surveys used in compiling the 1972 
list. Alternatively, section 76.54(b) of the Commission's rules 
provides that significant viewing in a cable or satellite community:

    May be demonstrated by an independent professional audience 
survey of over-the-air television homes that covers at least two 
weekly periods separated by at least thirty (30) days but no more 
than one of which shall be a week between the months of April and 
September. If two surveys are taken, they shall include samples 
sufficient to assure that the combined surveys result in an average 
figure at least one standard error above the required viewing level. 
If surveys are taken for more than 2-weekly periods in any 12 
months, all such surveys must result in an average figure at least 
one standard error above the required viewing level. If a cable 
television system serves more than one community, a single survey 
may be taken, provided that the sample includes over-the-air 
television homes from each community that are proportional to the 
population. A satellite carrier may demonstrate significant viewing 
in more than one community or satellite community through a single 
survey, provided that the sample includes over-the-air television 
homes from each community that are proportional to the population.

    The Commission maintains an updated list of significantly viewed 
stations on its website.
    22. A station also may petition for a waiver of the significantly 
viewed exception to reinstate its exclusivity rights vis-[agrave]-vis a 
significantly viewed station. In KCST-TV, the Commission held that in 
order to obtain such a waiver, a petitioner would be required to 
demonstrate for two consecutive years that a station was no longer 
significantly viewed, based either on community-specific or system-
specific over-the-air viewing data, following the methodology set forth 
in section 76.54(b). The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show 
that the station is no longer significantly viewed.
    23. Over time, Nielsen became the primary organization through 
which entities seeking changes to the Significantly Viewed List could 
obtain television viewership surveys. Until recently, Nielsen, which 
surveys television markets to obtain television stations' viewership, 
conducted four-week audience surveys four times a year (i.e., during 
February, May, July, and November ``sweep periods''). The Media Bureau 
found that replacing each week required under KCST-TV with a sweep 
period is acceptable and, if anything, added to the accuracy of the 
audience statistics because of the increased sample size. Thus, a 
petitioner seeking to show that a station is no longer significantly 
viewed was permitted to submit the results from two sweep periods in 
each year and purchase survey data from Nielsen on either a community-
specific or system-specific basis. In order to produce the data 
required for exclusivity waivers, Nielsen re-tabulated the over-the-air 
data that it collected for its routine audience sweep periods, using 
in-tab diaries from its database from the area served by a cable system 
or an individual cable community. In 2019, Nielsen completed a multi-
year overhaul of the way it measures television viewing in its 210 
DMAs, replacing the paper diaries that Nielsen families used to record 
what they watched on television in the smallest 140 DMAs entirely by 
electronic measurement. Nielsen now uses a combination of people 
meters, set meters, code readers, and return path data (RPD) from cable 
and satellite set-top boxes to measure television viewing. Nielsen then 
applies statistical modeling, weighting, and other data science 
techniques to the representative samples obtained through its 
electronic measurement to calculate viewership data for a larger 
population.
    24. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the methodology for 
determining a station's significantly viewed status set forth in 
section 76.54(b) of the Commission's rules and relevant case law has 
become outdated or overly burdensome. In particular, the NPRM seeks 
comment on the costs and other burdens associated with making the 
showing required to establish a station's significantly viewed status 
under the current process and the extent to which such costs and 
burdens discourage or deter entities, particularly smaller entities, 
from seeking changes to the Significantly Viewed List. The NPRM seeks 
comment on whether the over-the-air viewership data gathered by Nielsen 
today through electronic measurement techniques satisfies the 
requirement in section 76.54(b) of our rules for an ``audience survey 
of over-the-air television homes.'' Further, the NPRM notes that there 
have been recent cases where an entity seeking to make changes to the 
Significantly Viewed List could not make the showing required under 
section 76.54(b) and relevant case law for certain communities because

[[Page 20655]]

Nielsen was unable to provide the requisite over-the-air viewership 
data for those communities. The NPRM accordingly seeks comment on the 
extent to which Nielsen is able to provide the community-specific or 
system-specific over-the-air viewership data needed to demonstrate a 
station's significantly viewed status, particularly in smaller markets.
    25. The NPRM seeks comment what, if any, specific modifications or 
updates should be made to the current methodology for establishing 
whether a station is significantly viewed in a community outside of its 
local market. In addition, the NPRM seeks proposals for new or 
alternative methodologies for establishing whether a station is 
significantly viewed in a community outside of its local market. 
Commenters who propose alternative methodologies should discuss the 
costs and benefits of their proposals, including the impact of the 
proposal on affected stations, especially small market stations, and 
viewers.
    26. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to update the 
definitions of the terms ``full network station,'' ``partial network 
station,'' and ``independent station'' in section 76.5 of the 
Commission's rules to reflect marketplace changes since these 
definitions were adopted. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on 
whether to modify these definitions to reflect that there are four 
rather than three major national television networks. Alternatively, 
the NPRM seeks comment on whether to update these definitions to 
conform with the definition of ``network station'' set forth in the 
Copyright Act. Under this definition, ``network station'' means ``a 
television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission . 
. . that is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or more of 
the television networks in the United States that offer an 
interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours 
per week to at least 25 of its affiliated television licensees in 10 or 
more States.''
    27. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's authority 
to modify the significantly viewed rules with respect to satellite 
carriers in light of section 122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act, which 
explicitly limits application of the statutory copyright license for 
satellite carriers to stations that are ``determined by the Federal 
Communications Commission to be significantly viewed . . . pursuant to 
the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal 
Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, applicable to 
determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are 
significantly viewed in a community.'' Although the Commission 
previously has interpreted this statutory provision as precluding it 
from making substantive modifications to the section 76.54 process for 
making significantly viewed determinations and to the definitions of 
``full network station,'' ``partial network station,'' and 
``independent station'' in section 76.5 of the Commission's rules, the 
NPRM seeks comment on whether there is any basis for revisiting this 
interpretation. The NPRM notes that section 340 of the Act authorizes 
satellite carriers to retransmit the signal of an out-of-market station 
to a subscriber where such signal ``is, after December 8, 2004, 
determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed in such 
community in accordance with the same standards and procedures 
concerning shares of viewing hours and audience surveys as are 
applicable under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the 
Commission to determining with respect to a cable system whether 
signals are significantly viewed in a community.'' Unlike section 
122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act, there is no requirement in section 
340 that the Commission apply rules that were in effect on a certain 
date in determining whether a station is significantly viewed. Section 
122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act and section 340 of the Act serve two 
distinct purposes. Section 122(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act 
establishes the test for when satellite carriage of a significantly 
viewed station qualifies for the statutory copyright license: A station 
must be determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed in such 
community pursuant to the rules in effect on April 15, 1976. In 
contrast, section 340 of the Act establishes that a satellite carrier 
may carry a significantly viewed signal as defined by the Commission, 
and that the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules do 
not apply to a significantly viewed signal (unless a station 
successfully petitions to have a significantly viewed station removed 
from the Significantly Viewed List). Accordingly, since section 340 
does not require that the Commission apply rules that were in effect on 
a certain date in determining whether a station is significantly 
viewed, the NPRM proposes to interpret section 340 as allowing the 
Commission to amend its significantly viewed rules, provided that 
satellite carriers and cable operators are subject to the same rules.

C. Legal Basis

    28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 303, 
325, 339, 340, and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 303, 325, 339, 340, and 534.

D. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    30. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated television broadcast 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for such businesses: 
those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in 
that year. Of this number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or 
less. Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of 
commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the 
applicable SBA size standard.
    31. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,374. Of this total, 1,257 stations had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
January 8, 2018, and therefore these licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE)

[[Page 20656]]

television stations to be 388. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not 
compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the 
revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such 
stations would qualify as small entities.
    32. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    33. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of 
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. 
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this 
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. 
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    34. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% 
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.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video 
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. 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.
    35. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at 
the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census 
category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the 
wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry. The SBA determines that a wireline business is small if 
it has fewer than 1500 employees. Census data for 2012 indicate that 
3,117 wireline companies were operational during that year. Of that 
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on that 
data, we conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small under 
the applicable standard. However, currently only two entities provide 
DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: 
DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network. DIRECTV and DISH Network each 
report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small 
business. Accordingly, we must conclude that internally developed FCC 
data are persuasive that in general DBS service is provided only by 
large firms.

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

    36. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The NPRM does not 
propose any new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

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

    37. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    38. The NPRM seeks comment on modernizing the methodology set forth 
in the Commission's rules for determining whether a television 
broadcast station is significantly viewed in a community outside of its 
local television market. To the extent that the current methodology has 
become outdated or overly burdensome, it may discourage or deter 
entities, particularly entities in smaller markets, from seeking 
changes to the Significantly Viewed List. Any revisions to the current 
process, if adopted, would reduce the costs and burdens associated with 
establishing a station's significantly viewed stations by establishing 
a more viable and less burdensome process for seeking changes to the 
Significantly Viewed List. Thus, any such revisions are expected to 
benefit small entities.

[[Page 20657]]

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

    39. None

H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    40. This document may result in new or modified information 
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). If the Commission adopts any new or 
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish 
a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the 
requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission will seek comment on 
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

I. Ex Parte Rules

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

J. Filing Procedures

    42. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    43. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    44. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    45. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media 
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7454.

V. Ordering Clauses

    46. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 303, 325, 339, 340, and 614 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303, 325, 339, 340, and 534, this Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    47. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-07505 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P