1. On August 1, 2011, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), Revision of the Commission’s Program Carriage Rules, MB Docket No. 11-131, FCC 11-119. The Commission seeks comment on the following proposed revisions to or clarifications of the program carriage rules, which are intended to further improve the Commission’s procedures and to advance the goals of the program carriage statute: (i) modifying the program carriage statute of limitations to provide that a complaint must be filed within one year of the act that allegedly violated the rules; (ii) revising discovery procedures for program carriage complaint proceedings in which the Media Bureau rules on the merits of the complaint after discovery is conducted, including expanded discovery procedures (also known as party-to-party discovery) and an automatic document production process, to ensure fairness to all parties while also ensuring compliance with the expedited resolution deadlines; (iii) permitting the award of damages in program carriage cases; (iv) providing the Media Bureau or administrative law judge (“ALJ”) with the discretion to order parties to submit their best “final offer” for the rates, terms, and conditions for the programming at issue in a complaint proceeding to assist in crafting a remedy; (v) clarifying the rule that delays the effectiveness of a mandatory carriage remedy until it is upheld by the Commission on review, including codifying a requirement that the defendant MVPD must make an evidentiary showing to the Media Bureau or an ALJ as to whether a mandatory carriage remedy would result in deletion of other programming; (vi) codifying in the Commission’s rules that retaliation by an MVPD against a programming vendor for filing a program carriage complaint is actionable as a potential form of discrimination on the basis of affiliation and adopting other measures to address retaliation; (vii) adopting a rule that requires a vertically integrated MVPD to negotiate in good faith with an unaffiliated programming vendor with respect to video programming that is similarly situated to video programming affiliated with the MVPD; (viii) clarifying that the discrimination provision precludes a vertically integrated MVPD from discriminating on the basis of a programming vendor’s lack of affiliation with another MVPD; and (ix) codifying in the Commission’s rules which party bears the burden of proof in program carriage discrimination cases.
REVISED PROPOSED INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS:
47 CFR Section 76.1302(c)(4) provides that, in a case where recovery of damages is sought, the complaint shall contain a clear and unequivocal request for damages and appropriate allegations in support of such claim, and lists the information that must be included in the complaint when requesting damages. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(d) sets forth the evidence that a program carriage complaint filed pursuant to § 76.1302 must contain in order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301, including new claims pertaining to retaliation, bad faith negotiations, and discrimination. (The NPRM proposes to apply this provision to new program carriage complaints and OMB review and approval are needed).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(e)(3) requires a multichannel video programming distributor that expressly references and relies upon a document or documents in asserting a defense to a program carriage complaint or in responding to a material allegation in a program carriage complaint, to include such document or documents as part of the answer. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(h) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which the alleged violation of the program carriage rules occurred. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(j)(1) states that upon completion of an adjudicatory proceeding, the adjudicator deciding the case on the merits (i.e., either the Chief, Media Bureau or an administrative law judge) shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, mandatory carriage of a video programming vendor’s programming on defendant’s video distribution system, or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the carriage of a video programming vendor’s programming. Such order shall set forth a timetable for compliance, and shall become effective upon release, unless the adjudicator rules that the defendant has made a sufficient evidentiary showing that demonstrates that an order of mandatory carriage would require the defendant multichannel video programming distributor to delete existing programming from its system to accommodate carriage of a video programming vendor’s programming. In such instances, if the defendant seeks review of the staff, or administrative law judge decision, the order for carriage of a video programming vendor’s programming will not become effective unless and until the decision of the staff or administrative law judge is upheld by the Commission. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(j)(3) provides that, to assist in ordering an appropriate remedy, the adjudicator has the discretion to order the complainant and the defendant to each submit a final offer for the prices, terms, or conditions in dispute. The adjudicator has the discretion to adopt one of the final offers or to fashion its own remedy. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(j)(4) provides that the (i) adjudicator may require the complainant to resubmit a damages computation or damages methodology filed pursuant to § 76.1302(c)(4); and (ii) where the adjudicator issues a written order approving or modifying a damages methodology, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement on the exact amount of damages pursuant to the adjudicator-mandated methodology and within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a damages methodology order, the parties shall submit jointly to the adjudicator either: (1) A statement detailing the parties’ agreement as to the amount of damages; (2) A statement that the parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith and a request that the parties be given an extension of time to continue negotiations; or (3) A statement detailing the bases for the continuing dispute and the reasons why no agreement can be reached. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1302(k)(3) provides that, in cases where a standstill petition is granted, the adjudicator, in order to facilitate the application of remedies as of the expiration date of the previous programming contract, may request after deciding the case on the merits that the party seeking to apply the remedies as of the expiration date of the previous programming contract to submit a proposal for such application of remedies pursuant to the procedures for requesting damages set forth in § 76.1302(c)(4) and § 76.1302(j)(4). An opposition to such a proposal shall be filed within ten (10) days after the proposal is filed. A reply to an opposition shall be filed within five (5) days after the opposition is filed. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
47 CFR Section 76.1303 provides for discovery procedures in complaint proceedings alleging a violation of § 76.1301 in which the Chief, Media Bureau acts as the adjudicator. With respect to automatic document production, within ten (10) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, each party must provide certain documents listed in the Commission’s rules to the opposing party. With respect to party-to-party discovery, within twenty (20) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, each party to the complaint may serve requests for discovery directly on the opposing party, and file a copy of the request with the Commission. Within five (5) calendar days after being served with a discovery request, the respondent may serve directly on the party requesting discovery an objection to any request for discovery that is not in the respondent’s control or relevant to the dispute, and file a copy of the objection with the Commission. Within five (5) calendar days after being served with an objection to a discovery request, the party requesting discovery may serve a reply to the objection directly on the respondent, and file a copy of the reply with the Commission. To the extent that a party has objected to a discovery request, the parties shall meet and confer to resolve the dispute. Within forty (40) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, the parties shall file with the Commission a joint proposal for discovery as well as a list of issues pertaining to discovery that have not been resolved. (This proposed information collection requirement needs OMB review and approval).
The following rule sections are also covered in this information collection but do not require additional OMB review and approval:
47 CFR Section 76.7. Pleadings1 seeking to initiate FCC action must adhere to the requirements of Section 76.6 (general pleading requirements) and Section 76.7 (initiating pleading requirements). Section 76.7 is used for numerous types of petitions and special relief petitions, including general petitions seeking special relief, waivers, enforcement, show cause, forfeiture
and declaratory ruling procedures.
47 CFR Section 76.9. A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the FCC must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted. The petitions filed pursuant to this provision are contained in the existing information collection requirement and are not changed by the rule changes.
47 CFR Section 76.61(a)2 permits a local commercial television station or qualified low power television station that is denied carriage or channel positioning or repositioning in accordance with the must-carry rules by a cable operator to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7. Section 76.61(b)3 permits a qualified local noncommercial educational television station that believes a cable operator has failed to comply with the FCC’s signal carriage or channel positioning requirements (Sections 76.56 through 76.57) to file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.
47 CFR Section 76.61(a)(1) states that whenever a local commercial television station or a qualified low power television station believes that a cable operator has failed to meet its carriage or channel positioning obligations, pursuant to Sections 76.56 and 76.57, such station shall notify the operator, in writing, of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing that the cable operator is obligated to carry the signal of such station or position such signal on a particular channel.
47 CFR Section 76.61(a)(2) states that the cable operator shall, within 30 days of receipt of such written notification, respond in writing to such notification and either commence to carry the signal of such station in accordance with the terms requested or state its reasons for believing that it is not obligated to carry such signal or is in compliance with the channel positioning and repositioning and other requirements of the must-carry rules. If a refusal for carriage is based on the station's distance from the cable system's principal headend, the operator's response shall include the location of such headend. If a cable operator denies carriage on the basis of the failure of the station to deliver a good quality signal at the cable system's principal headend, the cable operator must provide a list of equipment used to make the measurements, the point of measurement and a list and detailed description of the reception and over-the-air signal processing equipment used, including sketches such as block diagrams and a description of the methodology used for processing the signal at issue, in its response.
47 CFR Section 76.914(c) permits a cable operator seeking revocation of a franchising authority’s certification to file a petition with the FCC in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76.7.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(a) permits any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC’s competitive access to cable programming rules to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the FCC to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1003.
47 CFR Section 76.1001(b)(2) permits any multichannel video programming distributor to commence an adjudicatory proceeding by filing a complaint with the Commission alleging that a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor, has engaged in an unfair act involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in § 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by §§ 76.1001(b)(2) and 76.1003. In program access cases involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, the defendant has 45 days from the date of service of the complaint to file an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. A complainant shall have the burden of proof that the defendant’s alleged conduct has the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing the complainant from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant’s reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden. In addition, a complainant alleging that a terrestrial cable programming vendor has engaged in discrimination shall have the burden of proof that the terrestrial cable programming vendor is wholly owned by, controlled by, or under common control with a cable operator or cable operators, satellite cable programming vendor or vendors in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or satellite broadcast programming vendor or vendors; an answer to such a complaint shall set forth the defendant’s reasons to support a finding that the complainant has not carried this burden. In addition, a complainant that wants a currently pending complaint involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming considered under the rules must submit a supplemental filing alleging that the defendant has engaged in an unfair act after the effective date of the rules. In such case, the complaint and supplement will be considered pursuant to the rules and the defendant will have an opportunity to answer the supplemental filing, as set forth in the rules.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(b) requires any aggrieved MVPD intending to file a complaint under this section to first notify the potential defendant cable operator, and/or the potential defendant satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor, that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Sections 76.1001 or 76.1002 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(c) describes the required contents of a program access complaint, in addition to the requirements of Section 76.7 of this part.4
47 CFR Section 76.1003(c)(3) requires a program access complaint to contain evidence that the complainant competes with the defendant cable operator, or with a multichannel video programming distributor that is a customer of the defendant satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming vendor or a terrestrial cable programming vendor alleged to have engaged in conduct described in § 76.1001(b)(1).
47 CFR Section 76.1003(d)5 states that, in a case where recovery of damages is sought, the complaint shall contain a clear and unequivocal request for damages and appropriate allegations in support of such claim.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(1) requires cable operators, satellite cable programming vendors, or satellite broadcast programming vendors whom expressly reference and rely upon a document in asserting a defense to a program access complaint filed or in responding to a material allegation in a program access complaint filed pursuant to Section 76.1003, to include such document or documents, such as contracts for carriage of programming referenced and relied on, as part of the answer. Except as otherwise provided or directed by the Commission, any cable operator, satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast programming vendor upon which a program access complaint is served under this section shall answer within twenty (20) days of service of the complaint.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(2) requires an answer to an exclusivity complaint to provide the defendant’s reasons for refusing to sell the subject programming to the complainant. In addition, the defendant may submit its programming contracts covering the area specified in the complaint with its answer to refute allegations concerning the existence of an impermissible exclusive contract. If there are no contracts governing the specified area, the defendant shall so certify in its answer. Any contracts submitted pursuant to this provision may be protected as proprietary pursuant to Section 76.9 of this part.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(3)6 requires an answer to a discrimination complaint to state the reasons for any differential in prices, terms or conditions between the complainant and its competitor, and to specify the particular justification set forth in Section 76.1002(b) of this part relied upon in support of the differential.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(4) requires an answer to a complaint alleging an unreasonable refusal to sell programming to state the defendant’s reasons for refusing to sell to the complainant, or for refusing to sell to the complainant on the same terms and conditions as complainant’s competitor, and to specify why the defendant’s actions are not discriminatory.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(f) provides that, within fifteen (15) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(g) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year7 of the date on which one of three specified events occurs.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(h)8 sets forth the remedies that are available for violations of the program access rules, which include the imposition of damages, and/or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the sale of programming to the aggrieved multichannel video programming distributor, as well as sanctions available under title V or any other provision of the Communications Act.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(j) states in addition to the general pleading and discovery rules contained in § 76.7 of this part, parties to a program access complaint may serve requests for discovery directly on opposing parties, and file a copy of the request with the Commission. The respondent shall have the opportunity to object to any request for documents that are not in its control or relevant to the dispute. Such request shall be heard, and determination made, by the Commission. Until the objection is ruled upon, the obligation to produce the disputed material is suspended. Any party who fails to timely provide discovery requested by the opposing party to which it has not raised an objection as described above, or who fails to respond to a Commission order for discovery material, may be deemed in default and an order may be entered in accordance with the allegations contained in the complaint, or the complaint may be dismissed with prejudice.
47 CFR Section 76.1003(l) permits a program access complainant seeking renewal of an existing programming contract to file a petition9 along with its complaint requesting a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of the existing programming contract pending resolution of the complaint, to which the defendant will have the opportunity to respond within 10 days of service of the petition, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
47 CFR Section 76.1302(a) states that any video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the regulations set forth in this subpart may commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint.
47 CFR Section 76.1302(b) states that any aggrieved video programming vendor or multichannel video programming distributor intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant multichannel video programming distributor that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in Section 76.1301 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.
47 CFR Section 76.1302(c) specifies the content of carriage agreement complaints.10
47 CFR Section 76.1302(d) states that any multichannel video programming distributor upon which a carriage agreement complaint is served under this section shall answer within thirty (30) days of service of the complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The answer shall address the relief requested in the complaint, including legal and documentary support, for such response, and may include an alternative relief proposal without any prejudice to any denials or defenses raised.
47 CFR Section 76.1302(e) states that within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.
47 CFR Section 76.1302(f) states that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.11
47 CFR Section 76.1302(g)(1) states that upon completion of such adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, mandatory carriage of a video programming vendor's programming on defendant's video distribution system, or the establishment of prices, terms, and conditions for the carriage of a video programming vendor's programming.
47 CFR Section 76.1513(a) permits any party aggrieved by conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the FCC’s regulations or in section 653 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 573) to commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint, which must be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 76.7, except to the extent such procedures are modified by Section 76.1513.
47 CFR Section 76.1513(b) provides that an open video system operator may not provide in its carriage contracts with programming providers that any dispute must be submitted to arbitration, mediation, or any other alternative method for dispute resolution prior to submission of a complaint to the Commission.
47 CFR Section 76.1513(c) requires that any aggrieved party intending to file a complaint under this section must first notify the potential defendant open video system operator that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained in this part or in Section 653 of the Communications Act. The notice must be in writing and must be sufficiently detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a complaint with the Commission.
47 CFR Section 76.1513(d) describes the contents of an open video system complaint.12
47 CFR Section 76.1513(e) addresses answers to open video system complaints.13
47 CFR Section 76.1513(f) states within twenty (20) days after service of an answer, the complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall not contain new matters.
47 CFR Section 76.1513(g) requires that any complaint filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of three events occurs.14
47 CFR Section 76.1513(h) states that upon completion of the adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies, including, if necessary, the requiring carriage, awarding damages to any person denied carriage, or any combination of such sanctions. Such order shall set forth a timetable for compliance, and shall become effective upon release.
On January 20, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order, In the Matter of Review of the Commission’s Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements, MB Docket No. 07-198, FCC 10-17. In the First Report and Order, the Commission established rules, policies, and procedures for the consideration of complaints alleging unfair acts involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming in violation of Section 628(b) of the Communications Act. The Commission also established procedures for the consideration of requests for a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of an existing programming contract by a program access complainant seeking renewal of such a contract.
On February 7, 2005, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), In the Matter of Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, FCC 05-24. The NPRM proposed rules to implement Section 202 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (“SHVERA”), which created Section 340 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), and amended the copyright laws to provide satellite carriers with the authority to offer FCC-determined “significantly-viewed” signals15 of out-of-market broadcast stations to subscribers.
On January 8, 1999, the Commission streamlined the current procedural rules for petitions or complaints filed under part 76 of the Commission’s rules.16 The general procedural requirements were consolidated in 47 CFR Sections 76.6 through 76.10. The Commission eliminated redundant requirements, expanded the types of submissions that are styled Petitions for Special Relief and filed under Section 76.7, and standardized the filing procedure for all petitions seeking a finding of effective competition under Section 76.7. The Commission also established a standard provision for Part 76 pleadings to provide a uniform filing format, deadlines, and other procedural requirements which most pleadings filed pursuant to Part 76 now follow.
This information collection does not affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act.
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 616 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
3. This collection of information does not involve the use of forms or surveys that can be completed electronically. The collection of information comprises of various pleadings to be filed before the Commission. Due to the unique nature of the pleadings, some of which contain confidential and highly proprietary documents, it is not feasible to file them in standardized electronic form format. The Commission previously noted that parties may voluntarily submit electronic copies of their pleadings to staff via e-mail in order to expedite review.
4. This agency does not impose similar information collection requirements on the respondents. There are no similar data available.
5. This information collection will facilitate competition in the video distribution and video programming markets, therefore conferring benefits upon various MVPDs, including those that are smaller entities.
6. If this information were not to be collected, the Commission would be limited in its ability to consider program carriage complaints.
7. The NPRM provides that, in cases where a standstill petition is granted, the adjudicator may request the party seeking to apply the remedies as of the expiration date of the previous programming contract to submit a proposal for such application of remedies pursuant to the procedures for requesting damages set forth in § 76.1302(c)(4) and § 76.1302(j)(4). An opposition to such a proposal shall be filed within ten (10) days after the proposal is filed. A reply to an opposition shall be filed within five (5) days after the opposition is filed. In addition, the NPRM provides for the following deadlines for discovery procedures in complaint proceedings alleging a violation of § 76.1301 in which the Chief, Media Bureau acts as the adjudicator: (i) within ten (10) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, each party must provide certain documents listed in the Commission’s rules to the opposing party; (ii) within twenty (20) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, each party to the complaint may serve requests for discovery directly on the opposing party, and file a copy of the request with the Commission; (iii) within five (5) calendar days after being served with a discovery request, the respondent may serve directly on the party requesting discovery an objection to any request for discovery that is not in the respondent’s control or relevant to the dispute, and file a copy of the objection with the Commission; (iv) within five (5) calendar days after being served with an objection to a discovery request, the party requesting discovery may serve a reply to the objection directly on the respondent, and file a copy of the reply with the Commission; and (v) within forty (40) calendar days after the Chief, Media Bureau releases a decision finding that the complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation of § 76.1301 and stating that the Chief, Media Bureau will issue a ruling on the merits of the complaint after discovery, the parties shall file with the Commission a joint proposal for discovery as well as a list of issues pertaining to discovery that have not been resolved. The information collection will require respondents to submit information that they might deem confidential, such as programming contracts. The FCC’s rules contain procedures for the protection of the information’s confidentiality. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.
8. The Commission submitted the 60 day Federal Register Notice to the Federal Register seeking public comment on the proposed requirements contained in this supporting statement. Please see 76 FR 60675 published on September 29, 2011. To date, no comments have been received as a result of this notice.
9. There will be no payment or gifts given to respondents.
10. Any information submitted by parties as part of their petition, complaint, answer or reply may be submitted pursuant to a request for confidentiality under Section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.
11. This collection of information does not address matters of a sensitive nature.
12. This collection accounts for general petitions filed pursuant to Section 76.7, as well as part 76 filings filed pursuant to specific rule sections. Two filing parties are generally involved.
We estimate that parties initiating their own filings will have a burden of 78 hours and parties using outside counsel will have a burden of 5.2 hours. We estimate that approximately 324 filings will be made annually in accordance with procedures in Sections 76.7, 76.9, 76.61, 76.914, 76.1001, 76.1003, 76.1302, 76.1303, and 76.1513.
Total Number of Annual Respondents: 648 Broadcast Stations, Cable Operators, Satellite Carriers, MVPDs and Programming Vendors
Total Number of Annual Responses = 324 filings x 2 parties/filing = 648 responses/filings
Annual Burden Hours: Parties Initiating Their Own Filings: We estimate that 50% of parties will initiate their own filings at an average of 78 hours per filing.
324 filings (50% of 648 filings) x 78 hours/filing = 25,272 hours
Parties Using Outside Counsel: We estimate that 50% of parties will use outside legal counsel to initiate their filings. These parties will undergo an average burden of 5.2 hours to coordinate filing information with outside legal counsel.
324 filings (50% of 648 filings) x 5.2 hours/filing = 1685 hours
Total Annual Burden Hours 25,272 hours + 1685 hours = 26,957 hours
Annual “In-house” Cost: We estimate that an in-house attorney and paralegal will initiate 50% of the filings and will also coordinate information with outside legal counsel for the remaining 50% of the filings. We estimate an average hourly wage for paralegal staff at $30.00 per hour and the legal staff at $50.00 per hour.
Paralegal: 13,478 hours x $30/hour = $ 404,340
Attorney: 13,479 hours x $50/hour = $ 673,950
Total Annual “In-House” Cost: $ 1,078,290
These estimates are based on Commission’s staff knowledge and familiarity with the availability of the data required.
13. Annual Cost Burden:
a. Total capital and start-up costs: $0
b. Half of the respondents are expected to receive assistance from consulting attorneys at costs of $300/hour17 when initiating their filings (50% of 648 filings = 324 filings). Therefore, the total operation and maintenance costs = 324 filings x 18 hours x $300/hr. = $1,749,600.
c. Total Annualized Cost: $1,749,600.
14. Cost to the Government: The Commission staff performing work that reviews these filings consists of attorneys at the GS-15, step 5 level ($67.21/hour), paralegals at the GS-12, step 5 level ($40.66/hour) and administrative personnel at the GS-5, step 5 level ($18.50/hour).
Legal review: 648 filings x 12.3 hours/filing x $67.21/hour = $535,690.59
Paralegal review: 648 filings x 3.7 hours/filing x $40.66/hour = $97,486.42
Admin. review: 648 filings x 2 hours/filing x $18.50/hour = $23,976.00
Total Cost to the Federal Government: $657,153.01
15. As a result of the NPRM, FCC 11-119, there are program changes to this collection. They are as follows: the total number of respondents has increased by +8, the total number of annual responses has increased by +8 responses, the total annual burden hours increased by +3,917 and total annual cost burden increased by +$684,000 for this information collection. There are no adjustments to this information collection.
16. The data will not be published for statistical use.
17. The Commission does not seek approval to not display the expiration date for this collection of information.
18. There are no other exceptions to the Certification Statement.
B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods:
No statistical methods are employed.
1 A pleading is a formal written document that contains the factual and legal allegations of a party.
2 See 47 CFR Section 76.61(a)(3)(i) – (iii) for the specific items that should be contained in the complaint.
3 See 47 CFR Section 76.61(b)(1)(i) – (ii) for the specific items that should be contained in the complaint.
4 See 47 CFR Section 76.1003(c)(1) – (8) for the specific complaint content requirements.
5 See 47 CFR Section 76.1003(d)(2) – (3) for specific items to be filed with the complaint for recovery of damages.
6 See 47 CFR Section 76.1003(e)(3)(i) – (iii) for specific requirements pertaining to answering a discrimination complaint.
7 47 CFR Section 76.1003(g)(1) – (3) specify the events that trigger the one-year period for filing the complaint.
8 47 CFR Section 76.1003(h)(3)(ii) states that the complainant must demonstrate with specificity the damages arising from the program access violation. Also, 47 CFR Section 76.1003(h)(3)(iii)(B)(1) – (3) specifies what should be submitted to the Commission within thirty days from the issuance of the damage methodology order.
9 The complainant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate requirements in its petition as outlined in 47 CFR Section 76.1003(l)(1)(i) – (iv).
10 See 47 CFR Section 76.1302(c)(1) – (3) for the specific content requirements for carriage agreement complaints.
11 See 47 CFR Section 76.1302(f)(1) – (3) for the three events.
12 See 47 CFR Section 76.1513(d)(1) – (4) for specific requirements pertaining to the complaints.
13 See 47 CFR Section 76.1513(e)(1) – (2) for specific requirements pertaining to the open video system complaints.
14 See 47 CFR Section 76.1513(g)(1) – (3) for the three events.
15 The NPRM implemented the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA), which establishes for satellite carriers and subscribers the concept of “significantly viewed,” which has applied in the cable context for more than 30 years. The concept of “significantly viewed” signals is used to differentiate between out-of-market television broadcast stations that have significant over-the-air non-cable viewing and those that do not. The designation of “significantly viewed” status is important because it will enable a broadcast station assigned to one market to be treated as a “local” station with respect to a particular cable or satellite community in another market, and thus enable its cable or satellite carriage into that market.
16 See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review: Part 76 - Cable Television Service Pleading and Complaint Rules, 14 FCC Rcd 418 (1999).
17 Attorneys are expected to take 18 hours to complete tasks.
| File Type | application/msword |
| Author | SGERMAN |
| Last Modified By | cathy.williams |
| File Modified | 2011-09-29 |
| File Created | 2011-08-30 |