98-9351. Cable Television Antitrafficking, Network Television, and MMDS/ SMATV Cross Ownership  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 17333-17334]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-9351]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    
    47 CFR Part 76
    
    [CS Docket No. 96-56; FCC 98-47]
    
    
    Cable Television Antitrafficking, Network Television, and MMDS/
    SMATV Cross Ownership
    
    AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Commission has denied a petition for reconsideration 
    concerning its rules on television broadcast station network and cable 
    television system cross ownership. On March 15, 1996, the Commission 
    deleted the broadcast network/cable television ownership rule in order 
    to conform the rules with statutory changes. In response to this 
    decision, a petition for reconsideration was filed contending that the 
    Commission was obligated to provide notice and an opportunity to 
    participate in the rulemaking proceeding. In responding to this 
    reconsideration petition, the Commission determined that because the 
    rule changes merely conformed the rules to the statute, notice 
    requirements did not apply.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stevenson, Cable Services 
    Bureau, (202) 418-7200.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order 
    on
    
    [[Page 17334]]
    
    Reconsideration, CS Docket No. 96-56, adopted March 25, 1998, and 
    released March 27, 1998. The full text of this decision is available 
    for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
    Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, 
    and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
    International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, 
    NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.
    
    Synopsis of the Order on Reconsideration
    
        1. In the Order on Reconsideration, we address a petition filed by 
    Network Affiliated Stations Alliance (``NASA'') with respect to the 
    Commission's implementation of the television broadcast network and 
    cable television cross ownership provisions of the Telecommunications 
    Act of 1996 (``1996 Act'') in the Order Implementing sections 202(f), 
    202(i) and 301(i) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``Order``). In 
    the Order on Reconsideration, NASA's petition is denied.
        2. Section 202(f)(1) of the 1996 Act directs the Commission to 
    revise Sec. 76.501 of its regulations (47 CFR 76.501) to permit a 
    person or entity to own or control a network of broadcast stations and 
    a cable system. Section 202(f)(2) further provides that the Commission 
    shall revise such regulations if necessary to ensure carriage, channel 
    positioning, and nondiscriminatory treatment of nonaffiliated broadcast 
    stations by a cable system.
        3. In the March 15, 1996 Order, 61 FR 15387, April 8, 1996, the 
    Commission amended its cable television ownership rules under 
    Sec. 76.501 to conform them to changes mandated by the 1996 Act. Our 
    rules have been modified to allow a person or entity to own or control 
    a network of broadcast stations and a cable system. Although the Order 
    did not implement additional rule changes regarding safeguards for 
    nonaffiliated broadcast stations, it explained that the Commission 
    would monitor the response to the rule changes to determine whether 
    additional rules were necessary. Because the rule changes made pursuant 
    to the 1996 Act merely conformed the rules to the statute, the 
    Commission determined that it had good cause for concluding that the 
    notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 
    (``APA'') were not necessary.
        4. NASA filed a petition for reconsideration of our Order. NASA 
    contends that the Commission was obligated to provide notice and an 
    opportunity to participate in the rulemaking proceeding.
        5. We recognize that Congress, in section 202(f)(2) of the 1996 
    Act, directed the Commission to revise our rules, if necessary, to 
    protect against possible anticompetitive behavior. Nothing in section 
    202(f)(2) mandates that the Commission withhold implementing the 
    explicit directive of the statute. Section 202(f)(1) requires the 
    Commission to revise its rules to allow network-cable cross ownership. 
    It does not condition the implementation of this mandate on any 
    particular finding or Commission rulemaking. The Commission had no 
    discretion to forgo or to postpone this legislative directive. To the 
    extent NASA seeks reconsideration of our decision to conform our rules 
    to the statute, its petition is denied. 6. We also reject NASA's 
    assertion that the Commission is obligated under the APA to conduct a 
    formal rulemaking to determine whether safeguards are necessary at this 
    time. We note that the explicit language of section 202(f)(2) of the 
    1996 Act calls for revision of our rules ``if necessary'' to ensure 
    nondiscriminatory treatment of nonaffiliated broadcast stations by 
    cable systems. The discretion to render the determination of necessity 
    is placed squarely with the Commission and we have determined at this 
    point that safeguards are not needed. Congress, in passing the 1996 
    Act, did not conclude that safeguards were immediately necessary and, 
    as the Commission merely conforms its rules to the new statute, we 
    reach a similar conclusion and elect to monitor the situation rather 
    than to launch a full proceeding on this issue at this time. 
    Combinations between major networks and cable operators have not yet 
    been formed, nor does the record reflect specific examples of potential 
    problems. Accordingly, we have concluded that safeguards are not 
    necessary at this time. We do not believe this conclusion violates the 
    APA. Although notice and comment is required when the Commission 
    promulgates rules that establish or impose new obligations on private 
    parties, our decision that safeguards are unnecessary at this time does 
    not impose any additional obligations.
    
     List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television.
    
    Federal Communications Commission.
    Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 98-9351 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/09/1998
Department:
Federal Communications Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
Document Number:
98-9351
Pages:
17333-17334 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
CS Docket No. 96-56, FCC 98-47
PDF File:
98-9351.pdf
CFR: (1)
47 CFR 76.501