Notice2021-14079
Media Bureau Seeks to Update the Record in the 2018 Quadrennial Regulatory Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.''
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35089-35092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#06527f28447463676b4660656528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64301d4a2616010509240207074a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>, (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 <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-656A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-656A1.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63050000565357230500004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a6c69693f3a3e4a6c6969246d657c">[email protected]</span></a> 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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a2a7a7f1f4f084a2a7a7eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25434646101511654346460b424a53">[email protected]</span></a> 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5e1cc9bf7c7d0d4d8f5d3d6d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c692bfe884b4a3a7ab86a0a5a5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>, (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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.