[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35089-35092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14079]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 18-349; DA 21-657; FR ID 33524]


Media Bureau Seeks to Update the Record in the 2018 Quadrennial 
Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal 
Communications Commission seeks to update the record in the 2018 
Quadrennial Review proceeding, in which the Commission has sought 
comment, pursuant to its obligation under of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, on whether its media ownership rules remain ``necessary in the 
public interest as the result of competition.''

DATES: Comment Date: August 2, 2021. Reply Comment Date: August 30, 
2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ty Bream, Industry Analysis Division,

[[Page 35090]]

Media Bureau, [email protected], (202) 418-0644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Media Bureau's 
Public Notice in MB Docket No. 18-349, DA 21-657, that was released 
June 4, 2021. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-656A1.pdf. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, 
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format, etc.) and reasonable accommodations (accessible format 
documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by 
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the FCC's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

    1. Introduction. With this Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks to 
update the record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding, in which 
the Commission has sought comment, pursuant to its obligation under 
Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on whether its 
media ownership rules remain ``necessary in the public interest as the 
result of competition.'' The prior comment and reply comment period in 
this proceeding closed two years ago. On April 1, 2021, the U.S. 
Supreme Court issued an opinion in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 
S.Ct. 1150 (2021), reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 939 F.3d 567 
(3d Cir. 2019), and restoring the Commission's media ownership rules as 
adopted in the combined 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review proceeding. 
Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, in a separate order, the 
Media Bureau is reinstating the changes adopted in three orders that 
were part of, or related to, the 2010/2014 proceeding--the 2018 
Incubator Order (83 FR 43773, Aug. 28, 2018); the 2017 Order on 
Reconsideration (83 FR 755, Jan. 8, 2018); and the eligible entity 
definition from the 2016 Second Report and Order (81 FR 76262, Nov. 1, 
2016). Given the passage of time since the prior comment period ended, 
as well as the subsequent litigation culminating with the Supreme 
Court's recent decision, we now seek further comment to update the 
record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding.
    2. Background. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
requires the Commission to review its media ownership rules every four 
years to determine whether they remain ``necessary in the public 
interest as the result of competition.'' The Commission reviews these 
rules to ensure that they continue to serve the core policy goals of 
competition, localism, and diversity as intended. On December 12, 2018, 
the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to 
initiate the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding and to seek comment on 
whether to retain, modify, or eliminate any of its structural media 
ownership rules. See 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, 84 FR 6741 (Feb. 28, 
2019). The NPRM also sought comment on several diversity-related 
proposals offered in the record of the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review 
proceeding. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision to restore the 
changes made in the Order on Reconsideration, including the elimination 
of several rules, three structural ownership rules remain that are 
subject to the Commission's quadrennial review process. They are the 
Local Radio Ownership Rule (47 CFR 73.3555(a)), the Local Television 
Ownership Rule (47 CFR 73.3555(b)), and the Dual Network Rule (47 CFR 
73.658(g)). These are the same three structural rules on which the 
Commission sought comment in the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM.
    3. As noted above, the decision of the Supreme Court reversed a 
prior decision by the Third Circuit, which had vacated and remanded the 
Order on Reconsideration and the Incubator Order in their entirety, as 
well as the eligible entity definition from Second Report and Order. In 
its decision, the Third Circuit found that the Commission failed to 
consider adequately the effect of its rule changes on ownership by 
women and minorities. The Commission sought review of that decision by 
the Third Circuit en banc, which was denied on November 20, 2019. The 
court's mandate issued on November 29, 2019, reinstating the media 
ownership rules adopted in the Second Report and Order. The Media 
Bureau issued an Order on December 20, 2019 to restore those rules to 
the Code of Federal Regulations. See 85 FR 5163 (Jan. 29, 2020).
    4. The Commission, as well the National Association of 
Broadcasters, each filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking 
review of the Third Circuit's decision by the Supreme Court. The Court 
granted the petitions, and on April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued 
an opinion reversing the Third Circuit's decision and restoring the 
Order on Reconsideration, the Incubator Order, and the revenue-based 
eligible entity definition from the Second Report and Order. In doing 
so, the Court found that the Commission's decision in the 2017 Order on 
Reconsideration to repeal or modify several of its rules was not 
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and 
that the Commission had reasonably considered the available evidence in 
concluding that such changes were not likely to harm minority and 
female ownership. In addition, because the Court reached its decision 
based on other grounds, the Court did not reach arguments from industry 
petitioners that Section 202(h) bars the Commission from considering 
minority and female ownership as part of its quadrennial review.
    5. Contemporaneously with this Public Notice and consistent with 
the Supreme Court's decision, the Media Bureau, in a separate order, is 
reinstating the changes adopted in the Order on Reconsideration and the 
Incubator Order as well as the eligible entity definition adopted in 
the Second Report and Order. As the order sets forth, the Newspaper/
Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule, the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership 
Rule, and the Television Joint Sales Agreement Attribution Rule are 
eliminated, and the Local Television Ownership Rule and Local Radio 
Ownership Rule are reinstated as adopted in the Order on 
Reconsideration. In addition, the eligible entity standard and its 
application to regulatory measures as set forth in the Second Report 
and Order are reinstated, as are the regulatory measures adopted in the 
Incubator Order.
    6. Discussion. With this Public Notice, we open a new comment 
window, specifically to encourage the submission of new or additional 
information to update the record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review 
proceeding. As noted above, the formal comment and reply period in this 
proceeding closed two years ago. Nonetheless, as evident from the 
docket in this proceeding, the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding has 
generated, and continues to generate, significant interest, including 
through the submission of additional information even after the initial 
comment period has ended. Accordingly, we ask commenters to take this 
opportunity to update the record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review 
proceeding, including with regard to the diversity-related proposals 
cited therein. Specifically, the diversity-related proposals mentioned 
in the 2018

[[Page 35091]]

Quadrennial Review NPRM include extending cable procurement 
requirements to broadcasters, adopting formulas aimed at creating media 
ownership limits that promote diversity, and developing a model for 
market-based, tradeable ``diversity credits'' to serve as an 
alternative method for setting ownership limits.
    7. We seek comment, first, on materials that have been filed in the 
docket of this proceeding since the formal comment and reply period 
ended in May 2019. To the extent they have not already done so, 
commenters are invited to review these materials and the issues they 
raise and comment on them as they feel is appropriate. In particular, 
we seek comment on whether these materials, either individually or 
collectively, highlight any issues, including issues that may not have 
been fully explored by the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, that 
commenters believe now warrant further comment and consideration. 
Moreover, are there issues raised in the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, 
or in the record in response to that NPRM, for which new and relevant 
information has come to light? Commenters are strongly encouraged at 
this stage to provide detailed analysis, empirical evidence, and/or 
specific proposals that the Commission should consider in relation to 
such issues. In so doing, commenters should explain how such analysis, 
evidence, or proposals relate to the Commission's interest in ensuring 
that its rules continue to promote the goals of competition, localism, 
and diversity.
    8. Beyond reviewing the existing record in light of the passage of 
time, we also seek submission of new or additional information 
regarding the media marketplace that commenters believe is relevant to 
this proceeding. Specifically, we seek information regarding the 
broadcast industry's evolution since early 2019 and its current 
trajectory, including the effects, if any, of technological change, new 
entry, consolidation, or changing market conditions. We seek comment in 
particular on the further development and impact of technological 
advances and industry practices. In the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, 
the Commission sought comment on whether and, if so how, it should 
account for multicast streams, satellite stations, or low power 
television stations for purposes of the Local Television Ownership 
Rule. How should the increased use of these platforms, and other 
innovations, such as the continued deployment and use of the ATSC 3.0 
transmission standard by the broadcast television industry, inform our 
review? What implications, if any, do these or other developments have 
for the Commission's broadcast ownership rules or its core policy goals 
of competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity, which support those 
rules? Have recent industry developments altered the incentives or 
behavior of any market participants in ways that are relevant to this 
proceeding?
    9. Similarly, we seek comment on any other relevant trends that 
have been, or are being, observed within the broadcast industry or in 
related markets. Among other things, the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM 
noted the growth of online audio and video sources, including as 
sources for news and information, as well as the continued strength and 
importance of broadcast radio and television stations in the local 
communities they serve. To what extent, if at all, have trends such as 
these (or others) continued, accelerated, flattened, or reversed in 
recent years, such that the Commission should take account of any new 
or continuing trendlines in the current proceeding? What do these 
trends indicate with respect to consumers' relative reliance on various 
sources for local news and information, and is there any difference in 
this respect between local and national news and information? Are there 
recent trends regarding broadcast industry ratings or revenues, 
including advertising, retransmission consent, and online revenues, 
that are relevant to this proceeding? In what ways will such trends 
impact the evolution and the viability of the broadcast industry? Are 
there other industry events or trends that have not previously been 
described or fully explored in this proceeding that may be relevant to 
the Commission? The 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, for example, notes 
the importance of the internet as a means to access audio and video 
content today. In this regard, commenters should distinguish between 
internet sources (e.g., websites, mobile applications, social media 
accounts) that are independent of, as opposed to those that are 
affiliated with, broadcast stations (e.g., television station 
websites). How, if at all, should the Commission consider recent trends 
regarding access to, or usage of, broadband internet service or other 
technologies in conjunction with the media ownership rules?
    10. We note that the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM sought comment on 
the impact, if any, of the 2017 completion of the Incentive Auction and 
the repack of the spectrum band on the Local Television Ownership Rule. 
Shortly after the release of the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, the 
Commission reported that several dozen stations had discontinued 
operations while the vast majority of winning bidders chose instead to 
remain on the air through channel sharing arrangements. How, if at all, 
has the Incentive Auction and its aftermath affected the broadcast 
industry?
    11. In considering market trends since the comment period ended in 
May 2019, we seek comment specifically on the impact of the COVID-19 
pandemic on this proceeding. For example, the Commission's most recent 
Communications Marketplace Report (released on December 31, 2020) 
discusses some possible effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 
broadcast radio and television industries, most notably through 
decreased advertising revenue. The report, however, also notes that, 
despite MVPD subscriber declines, ``retransmission consent revenue 
earned by major station groups increased in both the first and second 
quarters of 2020 by nearly 20% compared to the first and second 
quarters of 2019,'' suggesting that retransmission consent revenues for 
television stations ``have not been meaningfully affected by the COVID-
19 pandemic.'' To what extent, if at all, should the Commission 
consider, in this proceeding, changes to, or effects on, the broadcast 
radio and television industries as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? 
What are those changes or effects? Which, if any, should be considered 
temporary in nature and which could be expected to have a lasting 
impact? What implications, if any, do they have for the Commission's 
broadcast ownership rules?
    12. In addition to identifying and describing developments and 
trends, we also ask commenters to tell us whether there is any further 
empirical evidence the Commission should consider. For instance, are 
there any new or additional data that are now available, or studies 
that have been published or performed, that would inform the 
Commission's analysis? If so, we encourage commenters to submit copies 
of such data or studies in the docket of this proceeding (to the extent 
they have not already done so) and urge commenters to provide any 
interpretations, analyses, and conclusions based on such materials. In 
particular, we welcome any insights or analysis of research regarding 
how to further the Commission's policy goals and whether such research 
suggests any specific rule changes. If so, in what ways do the data or 
other information support such changes? We encourage commenters to draw 
any such conclusions or connections between the

[[Page 35092]]

data and potential policy or rule changes as tightly and as explicitly 
as possible. Where possible, we also encourage commenters to quantify 
and explain the benefits or costs associated with any policy or rule 
they discuss or, in the alternative, to explain the difficulties faced 
in trying to quantify benefits and costs in this context and how the 
Commission might nonetheless evaluate them in the absence of extensive 
or conclusive objective metrics. Moreover, in addition to identifying, 
analyzing, and submitting existing materials, we welcome commenters to 
take this opportunity to compile data or conduct further research that 
can be submitted to the Commission during the new comment window.
    13. Finally, we seek comment on whether there are any other legal 
or economic factors, changes, or issues that the Commission should 
consider in the context of this quadrennial review and, if so, how the 
Commission should evaluate or address them.
    14. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The NPRM included an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
603, exploring the potential impact on small entities of the 
Commission's proposals. We invite parties to file comments on the IRFA 
in light of this request to refresh the record.
    15. Ex Parte Rules--Permit But Disclose. This proceeding shall be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules (47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.). Persons making ex 
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    16. Filing Comments and Replies. All filings must be submitted in 
MB Docket No. 18-349. 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). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     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.
    17. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    18. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, please contact Ty Bream of the Media Bureau, Industry 
Analysis Division, [email protected], (202) 418-0644.

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-14079 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P