Cable Television Ownership Attribution Rules

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 98-82; FCC 98-112]

Cable Television Ownership Attribution Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), the

Commission initiates a review of its cable attribution rules. The

attribution rules seek to identify those corporate, financial,

partnership, ownership and other business relationships that confer on

their holders a degree of ownership or other economic interest, or

influence or control over an entity engaged in the provision of

communications services such that the holders should be subject to the

Commission's regulation. The Commission is initiating this rulemaking

in light of recent developments in the cable industry.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 14, 1998, and reply

comments are due on or before September 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Norton, Cable Services Bureau,

(202) 418-7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') CS Docket No. 98-82, FCC 98-

112 adopted June 4, 1998, and released June 26, 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. The NPRM initiates a review of the Commission's cable television

ownership attribution rules, which seek to identify those corporate,

financial, partnership, ownership and other business relationships that

confer on their holders a degree of ownership or other economic

interest, or influence or control over an entity engaged in the

provision of communications services such that the holders should be

subject to the Commission's regulation. The cable attribution rules are

particularly significant in the context of a number of statutory

provisions enacted as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection

and Competition Act of 1992 (the ``1992 Cable Act''), including: (1)

former section 613(a)(1), which prohibited the common ownership of

local television stations and cable systems that serve the same area

(the ``cable/broadcast station cross-ownership restriction''); (2)

section 613(f)(1)(A), which requires the Commission to establish

reasonable limits on the number of cable subscribers a person is

authorized to reach through cable systems owned by such person, or in

which such person has an attributable interest (``horizontal cable

ownership limits''); (3) section 613(f)(1)(B), which requires the

Commission to establish reasonable limits on the number of channels on

a cable system that can be occupied by a video programmer in which a

cable operator has an attributable interest (``vertical occupancy

limits''); (4) section 613(a)(2), which prohibits a cable operator from

holding a license to provide multichannel multipoint distribution

service (``MMDS''), or from offering satellite master antennae

television (``SMATV'') service separate and apart from any franchised

cable service, in any portion of the franchise area served by the cable

operator's cable system (the ``cable/MMDS'' and ``cable/SMATV'' cross-

ownership restrictions); (5) section 628, which, among other things,

requires the Commission to establish safeguards to prevent a cable

operator with an attributable interest in a programming vendor from

engaging in unfair or deceptive acts involving the distribution of

programming to an unaffiliated multichannel video programming

distributor (``program access'' rules); and (6) section 616, which,

among other things, restricts the activities of cable operators and

other multichannel programming distributors when dealing with

programming vendors, including prohibiting discrimination in the

selection, terms, or conditions of carriage, on the basis of a vendor's

affiliation or non-affiliation (``program carriage'' rules).

2. For broad structural rules such as the horizontal cable

ownership limits and vertical channel occupancy limits, that are

designed to ensure competition and diversity in the video marketplace,

the Commission adopted attribution rules from the broadcast context

where the goal is the same. The broadcast attribution standard

generally provides that partnership interests, direct ownership

interests, and voting stock interests of 5% or more are attributable.

For passive investors, the voting stock benchmark is 10%. Non-voting

stock

[[Page 37816]]

interests (including most ``preferred'' stock classes) are not

attributable. There are several exceptions to the voting stock

threshold, including a ``single majority shareholder'' exception, which

provides that minority interests will not be attributed where a single

shareholder owns more than 50% of the outstanding voting stock. In

addition, the interests of ``insulated'' limited partners are not

attributed.

3. The Commission adopted a more restrictive attribution standard

for those rules, such as the program access and program carriage rules

and the cable/MMDS and cable/SMATV cross-ownership restrictions, that

are designed not only to promote competition and diversity, but also to

deter specific discriminatory or improper conduct by cable operators or

programmers. In contrast to the broadcast attribution standard, this

more restrictive standard (1) considers a cable operator to have an

attributable interest if it holds 5% or more of an entity's stock,

whether voting or non-voting, (2) does not apply the single majority

shareholder rule, and (3) attributes limited partnership interests of

5% or more, regardless of insulation.

4. In addition, the Commission relied upon the attribution rules in

defining when an entity is considered an ``affiliate'' for certain

purposes under Title VI. The Commission applied the more restrictive

attribution standard to the ratemaking context, for purposes of

analyzing asset transfers and the provision of services between a cable

operator and its affiliate, and for purposes of limiting the amount of

pass-throughs permitted for programming services affiliated with cable

operators. The Commission also applied the more restrictive attribution

standard to the leased access provisions and the open video system

provisions.

5. In the Cable Act Reform proceeding, the Commission is reviewing

appropriate definitions of ``affiliate'' under other provisions of the

1996 Act, including the small operator provisions, the new prong of the

``effective competition'' test, and the cable-telco buy-out provisions.

Pending the adoption of final rules, the Commission requested comments

on the appropriate definition of ``affiliate'' for the cable-telco

buyout provisions and established interim rules for the small operator

and ``effective competition'' provisions. For the small operator

provisions, the interim rule adopted the definition of ``affiliate''

used for purposes of the Commission's small system cost-of-service

rules. Thus, an entity is deemed affiliated with a small cable operator

if that entity has a 20% or greater equity interest in the operator

(active or passive) or holds de jure or de facto control over the

operator. By contrast, in the ``effective competition'' context, the

interim rule provided that an ``affiliate'' is an entity that (directly

or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under

common ownership or control with, another person, where the term

``own'' means to have an equity interest (or the equivalent thereof) of

more than 10%.

6. The Commission has initiated a review of the broadcast

attribution standard under the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Review

of the Commission's Regulations Governing the Attribution of Mass Media

Interests, 60 FR 06483, MM Docket Nos. 94-150, 92-51 and 87-154, FCC

94-324, 10 FCC Rcd 3606 (1995) (``Broadcast Attribution Notice'') and

the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Regulations Governing

Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, Regulation and

Policies Affecting Investment in the Broadcast Industry and

Reexamination of the Commission's Cross-Interest Policy, 61 FR 67275,

MM Docket Nos. 94-150, 92-51 and 87-154, FCC 96-436, 11 FCC Rcd 19895

(1996) (``Broadcast Attribution Further Notice'').

7. Among the issues on which the Commission solicited comment in

the Broadcast Attribution Notice were: (1) whether to increase the

voting stock ownership benchmark from 5 percent to 10 percent; (2)

whether to increase the passive investor stock ownership benchmark from

10 percent to 20 percent; (3) whether to restrict or eliminate our

single majority shareholder exemption and whether to attribute

nonvoting shares in certain circumstances, such as where the minority

or nonvoting shareholder has contributed a significant portion of the

equity or debt financing; (4) whether to revise our insulation criteria

for limited partnership interests, and whether to adopt an equity

benchmark for noninsulated limited partners; (5) whether to treat

interests in limited liability companies (``LLCs'') and similar new

business forms, such as registered limited liability partnerships

(``RLLPs''), as we now treat limited partnerships; (6) whether to

eliminate the remaining aspects of our cross-interest policy that

prevent individuals from having ``meaningful'' interests--including key

employee relationships, joint ventures, and nonattributable equity

interests--in two broadcast stations, or a daily newspaper and a

broadcast station, or a television station and a cable system, when

both outlets serve ``substantially the same area;'' and (7) how to

treat non-equity financial relationships and multiple business

relationships that, although not individually attributable, could

combine to create sufficient influence to warrant attribution.

8. In addition to the issues raised in the Broadcast Attribution

Notice, the Broadcast Attribution Further Notice explored additional

proposals to increase the precision of the attribution rules. In the

Broadcast Attribution Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on

whether it should add a new ``equity or debt plus'' (``EDP'')

attribution rule. Under such a rule, where an interest holder is a

program supplier or same-market media entity, the Commission will

attribute its otherwise non-attributable equity and/or debt interests

in a licensee or other media entity subject to the cross-ownership

rules if those aggregated interests exceed a specified benchmark,

proposed to be set at 33 percent. Second, the Commission tentatively

concluded that it should treat television time brokerage agreements or

local marketing agreements (``LMAs'') the same as radio LMAs, and also

count radio and television LMAs toward all applicable ownership limits.

Third, the Commission invited comment as to whether it should attribute

joint sales agreements (``JSAs'') in certain circumstances. Fourth, the

Commission invited comments on its staff study of attributable

ownership interests in broadcast television stations, appended to the

Broadcast Attribution Further Notice, and on the implications of this

study regarding the impact of the proposed attribution rule changes,

particularly as to the voting stock benchmarks. Fifth, the Commission

sought comments on whether a transition period or grandfathering of

existing interests is appropriate. The Commission tentatively concluded

that any grandfathering should apply only to the current interest

holder and that interests acquired on or after December 15, 1994, the

date of adoption of the Broadcast Attribution Notice, should be subject

to any final rules adopted. The Commission invited comments as to

whether it should apply broadcast attribution criteria and add a new

EDP attribution rule for purposes of the cable/Multipoint Distribution

Service (``MDS'') cross-ownership restrictions.

9. This NPRM initiates a similar review of the attribution issues

as they specifically relate to the Commission's cable rules. The NPRM

seeks comment on the same issues raised in the broadcast attribution

proceedings as they pertain to the cable industry, and on whether and

how these issues should factor into the review of the

[[Page 37817]]

Commission's cable attribution rules. In particular, the Commission

asks commenters to focus on: (1) the proposed ``equity or debt plus''

addition to the current attribution rules, and specifically those

relationships in the cable context that may provide sufficient

incentive and ability for an otherwise nonattributable interest holder

to exert an attributable influence or control; (2) the attribution of

certain contractual or other business relationships in the cable

context (including affiliations that allow different cable entities to

purchase programming, technology or equipment on common terms,

analogous to JSAs and LMAs in the broadcast context) that may implicate

diversity and competition concerns, irrespective of debt or equity; (3)

the impact of raising the stock ownership benchmark for active and

passive investors in the cable context, particularly seeking empirical

data and analysis similar to the Commission staff study on the same

subject in the broadcasting context; (4) whether to retain, modify, or

eliminate the single majority shareholder exemption; and (5) whether a

transition period or grandfathering of existing interests is

appropriate if we decide to adopt more restrictive attribution rules.

Because the Broadcast Attribution Notice and the Broadcast Attribution

Further Notice already address application of the attribution rules to

the cable/MMDS and the cable/broadcast cross-ownership restrictions,

the Commission will not revisit and therefore does not seek comment on

those issues in the NPRM.

10. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the assumptions underlying

the cable attribution rules are still valid. In particular, comment is

sought on whether any relevant differences exist between the cable and

broadcasting industries that would support a distinct cable attribution

standard even for those cable rules designed, like the broadcasting

ownership rules, to ensure competition and diversity. In the NPRM, the

Commission notes that the broadcast attribution rules focus primarily

on those relationships which confer on their holders influence or

control over a broadcaster's key business decisions in the areas of

budget, personnel and programming. Comment is sought on whether, in the

cable context, these are the appropriate key business areas and whether

the underlying areas of concern should include cable entities'

technology decisions and practices. The NPRM seeks comment on whether

there are differences in ownership, financing or management structures,

industry health, typical stockholdings, informal business arrangements,

or outside financial claims that render one of the industries more or

less subject to the types of influence or control that the attribution

rules seek to identify. Also, because the current cable attribution

rules do not distinguish between types of cable operators, comment is

sought on whether any relevant differences exist among cable operators

that would warrant different attribution rules.

11. In the NPRM, the Commission also solicits comment on whether

and how we should re-evaluate the more restrictive attribution standard

applicable to certain of the rules described above, such as the program

access and program carriage rules and the cable/MMDS and cable/SMATV

cross-ownership restrictions. In particular, the Commission seeks

comment on: (1) whether the more restrictive standard serves the

purposes for which it was intended; (2) whether the more restrictive

standard is over- or under-inclusive; (3) whether the more restrictive

attribution standard should be revised in relation to the broadcast

attribution standard; (4) whether these two attribution standards

should be treated as completely separate and independent formulations;

and (5) whether, in view of the purposes it serves, we should require a

more compelling showing before modifying the more restrictive standard.

12. In the NPRM, comment is sought on whether and how any changes

in our cable attribution rules should affect the Commission's various

definitions of ``affiliate.'' In particular, the Commission seeks

comment on whether and how those affiliation rules that are expressly

based on the cable attribution rules should change if the underlying

attribution rules are changed.

13. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment as to the business

arrangements involved in recent cable system partnerships, joint

ventures, swaps, transfers, mergers and acquisitions, particularly

those transactions announced or consummated in 1997 or thereafter,

including those discussed in the Commission's 1997 annual report on the

status of competition in the delivery of video programming. Commenters

should identify the entities involved in each transaction, the

projected date of consummation, details of the new structure including:

the percentage and nature (e.g., voting or non-voting, limited or

general partnership, insulated or non-insulated, rights of conversion)

of each entity's ownership interests, the number of officers,

directors, and other key personnel appointed by each entity to a

management committee, board or other governing body, the portion of the

equity or debt financing contributed by each entity, and any authority

or power held by each entity to review, veto or otherwise influence the

management or operation of the cable systems, as well as the ability to

purchase programming, technology, or equipment under common contract

terms. The Commission seeks information, in particular, as to any

business arrangements undertaken to insulate one or more parties to

these transactions from control or influence over key business aspects

of the cable systems at issue. Comment is also sought as to the

development of the Commission's cable attribution rules to avoid

inconsistency with any other statutes or regulations (e.g., those of

the Internal Revenue Service or the Financial Accounting Standards

Board) that may influence the structuring of the business arrangements

at issue.

14. With respect to each ownership or relational interest discussed

herein, the Commission seeks comment on whether the specified level or

degree of ownership interest in, or relationship to, an entity would be

likely to impart the ability to influence or control the operations of

that entity, including core areas such as budget, personnel,

programming, technology, or competitive practices, such that the

ownership rules should be implicated. Consistent with the purpose of

section 257 of the 1996 Act to reduce market entry barriers for small

businesses, comment is also sought on the impact that any changes to

the Commission's cable ownership attribution or affiliation standards

will have on market entry barriers for small businesses. In the NPRM,

the Commission asks interested parties to support their comments with

empirical data and economic analyses regarding levels of influence in

business organizations and current market conditions.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

15. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. Sec. 603 (``RFA''), the Commission is incorporating an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact on

small entities of any policies or proposals contained in this NPRM.

Written public comments concerning the effect of the proposals in the

NPRM, including the IRFA, on small businesses are requested. Comments

must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the

deadlines for the submission of comments in this proceeding. The

Commission shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the

[[Page 37818]]

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

16. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This

proceeding is being initiated to obtain comment on whether the

Commission's cable attribution and affiliation rules continue to serve

their intended goals, and whether certain aspects of those rules should

be revised to make them more effective. The actions proposed in the

NPRM are intended to ensure that the Commission effectively implements

the various cable rules that include an attribution or affiliation

standard by identifying those interests that may result in undue market

power by large entities, such as large cable multiple systems owners,

and undermine a competitive, diverse and fair marketplace.

Legal Basis

17. Authority for the actions proposed in the NPRM is contained in

sections 4, 303, 612, 613, 616, 623, 628, 652 and 653 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154, 303, 532,

533, 536, 543, 548, 572 & 573.

18. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to

Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA generally defines ``small

entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''

``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction'' and

``the same meaning as the term `small business concern' under the Small

Business Act unless the Commission has developed one or more

definitions that are appropriate for its activities. A small business

concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is

not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration

(``SBA''). The Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

provision of the RFA also applies to nonprofit organizations and to

governmental organizations such as governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with

populations of less than 50,000. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3), the

statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency

after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of

such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.''

19. Local Franchising Authorities. There are 85,006 governmental

entities in the United States. This number includes such entities as

states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. Any

official actions with respect to cable systems will typically be

undertaken by local franchising authorities (``LFAs''), which primarily

consist of counties, cities and towns. Of the 85,006 governmental

entities, 38,978 are counties, cities and towns. The remainder are

primarily utility districts, school districts, and states, which

typically are not LFAs. Of the 38,978 counties, cities and towns,

37,566 or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000. Thus,

approximately 37,500 ``small governmental jurisdictions'' may be

affected by the rules proposed in the NPRM.

20. Cable Services or Systems. SBA has developed a definition of

small entities for cable and other pay television services under

Standard Industrial Classification 4841 (SIC 4841), which covers

subscription television services, which includes all such companies

with annual gross revenues of $11 million or less. This definition

includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services,

direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,

satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services.

According to the Census Bureau, there were 1,323 such cable and other

pay television services generating less than $11 million in revenue

that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.

21. The Commission has developed its own definition of a ``small

cable company'' and ``small system'' for the purposes of rate

regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company,'' is

one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our

most recent information, the Commission estimates that there were 1,439

cable companies that qualified as small cable companies at the end of

1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over

400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions

that caused them to be combined with other cable companies.

Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 1,439

small entity cable companies that may be affected by the proposal

adopted in the NPRM. The Commission's rules also define a ``small

system,'' for the purposes of cable rate regulation, as a cable system

with 15,000 or fewer subscribers. The Commission does not request nor

does it collect information concerning cable systems serving 15,000 or

fewer subscribers and thus is unable to estimate at this time the

number of small cable systems nationwide.

22. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a ``small

cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through

an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all

subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity

or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed

$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000

subscribers in the United States. Therefore, the Commission found that

an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers is deemed a small

operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual

revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the

aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that the

number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals

1,450. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system

operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues

exceed $250,000,000, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate

with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would

qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the

Communications Act. The Commission is likewise unable to estimate the

number of these small cable operators that serve 50,000 or fewer

subscribers in a franchise area.

23. Satellite Master Antennae Television (``SMATV'') Operators.

Industry sources estimate that approximately 5200 SMATV operators were

providing service as of December 1995. Other estimates indicate that

SMATV operators serve approximately 1.05 million residential

subscribers as of September 1996. The ten largest SMATV operators

together pass 815,740 units. If it is assumed that these SMATV

operators serve 50% of the units passed, the ten largest SMATV

operators serve approximately 40% of the total number of SMATV

subscribers. Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are

not required to file financial data with the Commission. Furthermore,

the Commission is not aware of any privately published financial

information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated number of

operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest ten

SMATVs, the Commission believes that a substantial number of SMATV

operators qualify as small entities.

24. Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs''). Neither the Commission nor

the SBA

[[Page 37819]]

has developed a definition for small LECs. The closest applicable

definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most

reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide

is the data that the Commission collects annually in connection with

the TRS Worksheet. According to the Commission's most recent data,

1,347 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of

local exchange services. The Commission does not have information on

the number of carriers that are not independently owned and operated,

nor what carriers have more than 1,500 employees, and thus the

Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision

the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under

SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are

fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs.

25. Cable Programmers. The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to producers or distributors of

cable television programs. Therefore, the Commission will utilize the

SBA classifications of Motion Picture and Video Tape Production (SIC

7812), and Theatrical Producers (Except Motion Pictures) and

Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (SIC 7922). These SBA definitions

provide that a small entity in the cable television programming

industry is an entity with $21.5 million or less in annual receipts for

SIC 7812, and $5 million or less in annual receipts for SIC 7922.

Census Bureau data indicate the following: (a) there were 7,265 firms

in the United States classified as Motion Picture and Video Production

(SIC 7812), and that 6,987 of these firms had $16.999 million or less

in annual receipts and 7,002 of these firms had $24.999 million or less

in annual receipts; and (b) there were 5,671 firms in the United States

classified as Theatrical Producers and Services (SIC 7922), and that

5627 of these firms had $4.999 million or less in annual receipts.

26. Description of Projected Recording, Record keeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements. If the Commission's cable ownership

attribution or affiliation standards are changed, the Commission may

have to change certain cable reporting requirements and cable entities

may be required to observe new recording, record keeping or other

compliance requirements that would be necessary to ensure compliance

with the new attribution or affiliation standards. Cable entities also

may have to adjust the organization of their business interests in

order to comply with any new attribution or affiliation standards that

the Commission may adopt.

27. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The actions proposed

in the NPRM are intended to ensure that the Commission effectively

implements the various cable rules that include an attribution or

affiliation standard by identifying more accurately those interests

that may result in undue market power by large entities, such as large

cable multiple systems owners, and undermine a competitive, diverse and

fair marketplace. Accordingly, as discussed in the above descriptions

of the proposed rule changes, and in the Broadcast Attribution Notice

and Broadcast Attribution Further Notice, the approaches proposed in

this NPRM should promote fairness and diversity for all cable systems

and other small entities listed above. The Commission invites comments

on these approaches, including comment on whether alternative

approaches will mitigate any unwarranted expenses incurred by smaller

entities by virtue of their size alone.

28. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with the

Proposed Rules. None.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

29. The proposals contained herein have been analyzed with respect

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the ``1995 Act''). The

Commission has determined that, if we change our cable ownership

attribution or affiliation standards, the Commission may have to

require cable entities to comply with new or modified information

collection requirements that would be necessary to ensure compliance

with the new attribution or affiliation standards. If the Commission,

in a subsequent rulemaking in this proceeding, implements new or

modified information collection requirements, those requirements will

first be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as

prescribed by the Act.

Procedural Provisions

30. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''

proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under

Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons

making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum

summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of

the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.

More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments

presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised.

Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set

forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).

31. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR. 1.415 and 1.419, comments are

due August 14, 1998, and reply comments are due September 3, 1998. To

file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original plus four

copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you

want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments and

reply comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should

send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554.

Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239,

Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington D.C.

20554.

Ordering Clauses

32. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that pursuant to the

authority in sections 4, 303, 612, 613, 616, 623, 628, and 653 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 532, 533,

536, 543, 548, 572 and 573, notice is hereby given of proposed

amendments to part 76, in accordance with the proposals, discussions,

and statement of issues in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and that

comment is sought regarding such proposals, discussion, and statement

of issues.

33. It is further ordered that the Office of Public Affairs

Reference Operation Division shall send a copy of this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

[[Page 37820]]

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98-18036 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P