******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Implementation of the Satellite Home ) CS Docket No. 99-363 Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 ) ) Retransmission Consent Issues ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: December 22, 1999 Comment Date Section IV: 14 days after publication in the Federal Register. Reply Comment Date Section IV: 21 days after publication in the Federal Register. Comment Date Section III & V: February 1, 2000 Reply Comment Date Section III & V: February 20, 2000 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice"), we seek comment on our implementation of certain aspects of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 ("1999 SHVIA"), which was enacted on November 29, 1999. This act authorizes satellite carriers to add more local and national broadcast programming to their offerings, and to make that programming available to subscribers who previously have been prohibited from receiving broadcast fare via satellite under compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law. The legislation generally seeks to place satellite carriers on an equal footing with local cable operators when it comes to the availability of broadcast programming, and thus give consumers more and better choices in selecting a multichannel video program distributor ("MVPD"). We intend to implement the 1999 SHVIA aggressively to ensure that the pro-competitive goals underlying this important legislation are realized. 2. Among other things, the new legislation requires broadcasters, until 2006, to negotiate in good faith with satellite carriers and other MVPDs with respect to their retransmission of the broadcasters' signals, and prohibits broadcasters from entering into exclusive retransmission agreements. We are initiating, and plan to conclude, this rulemaking well ahead of our statutory deadlines for doing so because of the vital importance of these provisions of the 1999 SHVIA. Strict adherence by broadcasters to the good faith requirement is crucial if the statutory objectives are to be fulfilled. This Notice also seeks comment on the adoption of implementing regulations relating to the exercise by television broadcast stations of the right to grant retransmission consent. Retransmission consent is the process whereby television broadcasters negotiate and consent to carriage of their signals by MVPDs such as cable television operators and satellite carriers. II. BACKGROUND II 3. The advent of home satellite dish technology in the 1980's made it technically possible for the consumer to receive directly by satellite the television programming being transmitted by the television networks to their affiliates throughout the nation. This included consumers, such as those living in remote areas, who were then unable to receive network programming from a local broadcaster. Local broadcasters were concerned, however, that consumers who could, in fact, receive local broadcast signals over-the-air might nonetheless opt to receive the network signals via satellite. This would lead to a reduction to local broadcasters' viewership and, in turn, advertising revenue, thus possibly threatening the viability of free over-the-air broadcasting. 4. In 1988, Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act ("1988 SHVA") in order to provide people in unserved areas of the country with access to broadcast programming via satellite. The 1988 SHVA also reflected Congress' intent to protect the role of local broadcasters in providing free, over-the-air television. As an amendment to the Copyright Act, the 1988 SHVA protected the broadcasters' interests while simultaneously enabling satellite carriers to provide broadcast programming to those satellite subscribers who were unable to obtain broadcast network programming over-the-air. In the 1988 SHVA, Congress created a limited exception to the exclusive programming copyrights enjoyed by television networks and their affiliates. Therefore, according to the 1988 SHVA, consumers are eligible for satellite-delivered network service only when a local broadcaster grants permission or when the consumer (1) is "unserved" by the over-the-air signals of a local network affiliate, and (2) has not received cable service in the last 90 days. According to the 1988 SHVA, "unserved" means that a consumer cannot receive, using a conventional outdoor rooftop antenna, an over-the-air signal of grade B intensity. As a general matter, the effect of the 1988 SHVA was to prevent satellite carriers from retransmitting broadcast network television signals directly to consumers in most circumstances. 5. Since 1988, subscribership to direct-to-home satellite service has increased markedly. Satellite subscribers complain, however, about the limited availability of broadcast programming. At the same time, increases in satellite capacity have made it possible for satellite carriers to carry some of the local signals of individual broadcasters, not simply the feeds of a limited number of major network stations. 6. The 1999 SHVIA revises the 1988 SHVA and reflects changes not only involving the satellite industry and subscribers, but television broadcast stations and MVPDs. The 1999 SHVIA adopts changes in several areas, including retransmission consent, must-carry, and retransmission of local broadcast signals. In particular, the 1999 SHVIA addresses several limitations previously placed on satellite carriers, including the issue of satellite carrier retransmission of local broadcast programming. III. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT 7. The Commission, in Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Broadcast Signal Carriage Order"), implemented the retransmission consent provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"). The 1992 Cable Act amended Section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding provisions governing retransmission of broadcast signals by cable systems and other MVPDs. Section 325 of the 1992 Cable Act provided that television broadcast stations were required to make an election every three years whether to proceed under the mandatory cable signal carriage rules or to govern their relationship with cable operators or other MVPDs by electing retransmission consent. Congress indicated that the retransmission consent and must-carry rule election provisions adopted pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act provide a model for implementation of the retransmission consent election provisions of the 1999 SHVIA. A. Retransmission Consent and the Election Process 8. Section 1009 of the 1999 SHVIA amends Section 325(b)(1) and provides that no cable system or other MVPD shall transmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except: (A) with the express authority of the originating station; (B) pursuant to Section 614, in the case of a station electing to assert the right to carriage by a cable operator; or (C) pursuant to Section 338, in the case of a station electing to assert the right to carriage by a satellite carrier. Thereafter, the 1999 SHVIA provides that every three years television stations covered by 325(b) are required to elect retransmission consent pursuant to Section 325 or must-carry pursuant to Sections 614 or 338. 9. Amended Section 325(b)(2) provides five exceptions to the retransmission consent requirement of Section 325(b)(1). The amendment provides that the retransmission consent requirement does not apply to: (1) noncommercial television broadcast stations; (2) retransmission, in certain circumstances, of the signal of a superstation outside the station's local market by a satellite carrier; (3) until December 31, 2004, retransmission of signals of network stations directly to a home satellite antenna, if the subscriber receiving the signal is located in an area outside the local market of such station and resides in an unserved household; (4) retransmission, in certain circumstances, by a cable operator or other MVPD other than a satellite carrier of the signal of a superstation outside the station's local market; and (5) during the six month period following the date of enactment of the 1999 SHVIA, the retransmission of the signal of a television broadcast station within the station's local market by a satellite carrier directly to its subscribers. In other words, subject to the limitations set forth therein, MVPDs, including satellite carriers, may freely transmit the signals of any of the broadcasters satisfying the criteria set forth in Section 325(b)(2) without obtaining retransmission consent from such broadcasters. 10. Section 325(b)(3)(C) directs the Commission, within 45 days after the date of enactment of the 1999 SHVIA, to commence a rulemaking to administer the limitations contained in Section 325(b)(2). At the outset, we note that this Notice relates to retransmission consent only. The exercise of must carry rights by broadcasters with regard to satellite carriers does not commence until January 1, 2002 and will be addressed in a subsequent Notice and Rulemaking proceeding. As part of that proceeding, we will seek comment on any necessary or prudent revisions to our retransmission consent rules as a result of the initiation of satellite must carry. 11. The Commission was directed by Congress to undertake a rulemaking to implement a substantially similar provision of the 1992 Cable Act. In the Broadcast Signal Carriage Order, the Commission adopted such regulations. The rules implementing this provision are codified at Section 76.64 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on the appropriate manner to implement the provisions of amended Section 325(b)(2). In particular, we seek comment on whether the amended provisions should be incorporated into existing Section 76.64 of the Commission's rules, or whether some other regulatory framework or procedures would more appropriately implement amended Section 325(b)(2). We also seek comment on any other issues relevant to the implementation of Section 325(b)(2). In addition, we note that, although the statute is entitled the "Satellite" Home Viewer Improvement Act, some of the amendments Congress enacted to Section 325 appear to have general impact upon the retransmission consent provisions as applied to all MVPDs. We tentatively conclude that such was Congress' intent and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 12. Congress also amended Section 325(b) by adding new paragraph (3)(C)(i), which requires the Commission to adopt regulations which shall "establish election time periods that correspond with those regulations adopted under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. . . ." Subparagraph (B) of existing Section 325(b)(3) provides that: The regulations required by subparagraph (A) [retransmission consent and must carry rights] shall require that television stations, within one year after the date of enactment of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and every three years thereafter, make an election between the right to grant retransmission consent under this subsection and the right to signal carriage under section 614. If there is more than one cable system that services the same geographic area, a station's election shall apply to all such cable systems. The Commission adopted the required regulations in the Broadcast Signal Carriage Order. The regulations are codified in Section 76.64 of the Commission's rules. 13. We seek comment on the appropriate manner to implement Section 325(b)(3)(C)(i). In particular we seek comment on whether, following an initial election period applicable only to satellite carriers, the Commission should merely incorporate the satellite carrier must carry-retransmission consent election cycle into the Commission's regulations, employing the same rules and procedures the Commission adopted in response to the 1992 Cable Act. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether a different election cycle with different procedures is required to appropriately implement Section 325(b)(3)(C)(i) and what the effect would be of having different procedures in the cable and satellite contexts. In this regard, we seek comment on any statutory, regulatory or technical differences between satellite carriers and other MVPDs that would justify a different election scheme. Section 76.64(g) requires that broadcasters make consistent must carry- retransmission consent elections where the franchise areas of cable systems overlap. We seek comment on the consistent election requirement and how it would be implemented, if at all, in the context of any election cycle in which satellite carriers participate. We also seek comment on any other issues relevant to the implementation of Section 325(b)(3)(C)(i). IV. EXCLUSIVITY AND GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION A. Good Faith Negotiation Requirement 14. Congress further amended Section 325(b) of the Communications Act, requiring the Commission to adopt regulations that shall: . . . until January 1, 2006, prohibit a television broadcast station that provides retransmission consent from . . . failing to negotiate in good faith, and it shall not be a failure to negotiate in good faith if the television broadcast station enters into retransmission consent agreements containing different terms and conditions, including price terms, with different multichannel video programming distributors if such different terms and conditions are based on competitive marketplace considerations. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference ("Conference Report") does not explain or clarify the statutory language and merely states that: The regulations would, until January 1, 2006, prohibit a television broadcast station from . . . refusing to negotiate in good faith regarding retransmission consent agreements. A television station may generally offer different retransmission consent terms or conditions, including price terms, to different distributors. The [Commission] may determine that such different terms represent a failure to negotiate in good faith only if they are not based on competitive marketplace considerations. Accordingly, we seek comment on the good faith negotiation requirement of Section 325(b)(3)(C). 15. Congress did not expressly define the term "good faith" in the statutory language or the legislative history other than to instruct that retransmission consent agreements containing different terms and conditions, including price terms, with different video programming distributors do not reflect a failure to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the television broadcast station if such different terms and conditions are based on competitive marketplace conditions. While Congress did not expressly define what constitutes good faith under Section 325(b)(3)(C), Congress has signaled its intention to impose some heightened duty of negotiation on broadcasters in the retransmission consent process. We seek to fulfill Congress' intent by adopting substantive and procedural rules that are clear and subject to swift and effective enforcement. We therefore seek comment on the criteria that should be employed to define "good faith." We also seek comment on whether the duty of good faith negotiation applies equally to the MVPD negotiating a retransmission consent agreement. We seek comment on whether we need to explicitly define what constitutes good faith under Section 325(b)(3)(C). The Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") defines the term "good faith" as "honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction concerned." In addition, Black's Law Dictionary defines good faith as "an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice, and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage . . ." We seek comment on whether to adopt either of these definitions, or some other explicit definition of the term good faith. 16. We note that, in other contexts within both the Communications Act and other Federal laws, Congress has imposed a good faith negotiation requirement upon parties subject to a federal statutory scheme. For example, Section 8(d) of the Taft-Hartley Act details the collective bargaining duty of both employers and employees, providing that: To bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment . . . but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. In determining good faith under Section 8(d), the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") and the courts apply two independent tests to see whether a party has acted in good faith during collective bargaining. In one test, the NLRB applies an objective set of criteria to determine whether a party has violated one or more enumerated per se violations of the duty to negotiate in good faith. In the second test, the NLRB subjectively examines the "totality of the circumstances" evidencing a party's behavior during negotiations to determine whether the duty to negotiate in good faith has been violated. The objective test allows the NLRB to single out specific recurring or particularly damaging behavior. On the other hand, the subjective test allows the NLRB to punish behavior that would not by itself constitute a per se violation, but when examined along with other suspect behavior constitutes a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith. 17. Congress imposed a good faith negotiation requirement upon common carriers as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"). Section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act imposes on incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs"): The duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with section 252 the particular terms and conditions of agreements to fulfill the duties described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b) and this subsection. The requesting telecommunications carrier also has the duty to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of such agreements. In implementing Section 251(c)(1), the Commission adopted a two-part test to determine good faith similar to that used by the NLRB. Reasoning that it would be futile to try to determine in advance every possible action that might be inconsistent with the duty to negotiate in good faith, the Commission found that it was appropriate to identify factors or practices that may be evidence of failure to negotiate in good faith, but that need to be considered in light of all relevant circumstances. The Commission adopted a list of eight specific actions or practices that, among other unenumerated actions or practices to be determined on a case-by-case basis, violate the Section 251(c)(1) duty to negotiate in good faith. 18. We seek comment on whether to adopt a two-part objective-subjective test for good faith similar to that embraced by the NLRB and by the Commission pursuant to Section 251 of the Communications Act. In this regard, we seek comment on specific actions or practices which would constitute a per se violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with Section 325(b)(3)(C). Establishing a specific list of per se requirements or prohibitions would lend clarity to, and thus expedite, the negotiation process and would do likewise with respect to our enforcement mechanism, where enforcement became necessary. In addition to any other actions or practices, we ask commenters to address whether it would be appropriate to include in any such list provisions similar to the per se violations set forth in Section 51.301 of the Commission's. Although the Section 51.301 process provides a basis for comment in this proceeding, we emphasize that the good faith standard of SHVIA is different in significant respects. We also seek comment on any other specific legal precedent upon which we should rely and any other regulatory approach that might appropriately implement the good faith negotiation requirement of Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act. 19. Section 325(b)(3)(C) permits television broadcast stations to negotiate in good faith retransmission consent agreements with different MVPDs with different terms and conditions, including price terms, provided that such different terms and conditions are based upon "competitive marketplace considerations." We seek comment on what constitutes a competitive marketplace consideration. We seek to define the term as specifically as possible in this rulemaking, rather than to adopt a general standard to be fleshed out in subsequent adjudication. While we will resolve each case on its own merits, adding specification to our rules should add certainty to the negotiation process and reduce the number of cases presented to the Commission for adjudication. We note that the Commission has adopted non-discrimination standards in both the program access and open video system contexts. We seek comment on the relevance, if any, of these standards to what constitutes a "competitive market consideration." We seek comment on the scope of the relevant marketplace to which Congress refers. In addition, we seek comment on any other factors or approaches to determining what constitutes competitive marketplace considerations under Section 325(b)(3)(C). In this regard, we note that the Commission has recently relaxed the television broadcast ownership rules, in certain circumstances, permitting companies to own two television broadcast stations within a given market. We seek comment on this development and its impact upon a broadcaster's duty to negotiate in good faith. For example, can companies with two broadcast stations within the same market negotiate a joint retransmission consent agreement or should they be required to negotiate separate arms-length retransmission consent agreements on behalf of each station? 20. The Commission is aware that direct broadcast satellite providers have entered into retransmission consent agreements with television broadcast stations that predate enactment of Section 325(b)(3)(C). In addition, we note that we are also aware of agreements that have been executed since the enactment of the 1999 SHVIA. We seek comment on the impact on these agreements of the duty to negotiate in good faith. B. Prohibition of Exclusive Retransmission Consent 21. Section 325(b) of the Communications Act also directs the Commission to commence a rulemaking proceeding that shall: until January 1, 2006, prohibit a television broadcast station that provides retransmission consent from engaging in exclusive contracts. . . The accompanying Conference Report contains no language to clarify or explain the prohibition, stating only: The regulations would, until January 1, 2006, prohibit a television broadcast station from entering into an exclusive retransmission consent agreement with a multichannel video programming distributor . . . 22. The Commission established a similar prohibition in rulemakings following passage of the 1992 Cable Act. The 1992 Cable Act called upon the Commission to "establish regulations to govern the exercise by television broadcast stations of the right to grant retransmission consent . . ." In the Broadcast Signal Carriage Order, the Commission recognized that "exclusivity can be an efficient form of distribution, but, in view of the concerns that led Congress to regulate program access and signal carriage arrangements, we believe that it is appropriate to extend the same nonexclusivity safeguards to non-cable multichannel distributors with respect to television broadcast signals, at least initially." The Commission established the following prohibition on exclusive retransmission contracts: Exclusive retransmission consent agreements are prohibited. No television broadcast station shall make an agreement with one multichannel distributor for carriage, to the exclusion of other multichannel distributors. 23. Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii) requires us to "until January 1, 2006, prohibit a television broadcast station that provides retransmission consent from engaging in exclusive contracts." We seek comment on what activities would constitute "engaging in" exclusive retransmission agreements. We note that Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii) prohibits a broadcaster from "engaging in" exclusive retransmission consent agreements, while the Conference Report describes the prohibition of "entering into" exclusive retransmission consent agreements. While the phrase "engaging in" could be interpreted to suggest a currently effective exclusive relationship, it would appear to allow television broadcast stations to negotiate future exclusive contracts that would take effect on or after January 1, 2006. We seek comment on whether the statute allows negotiation and execution of such agreements before January 1, 2006. We also note the distinction between the phrases "engaging in" and "entering into." While the statutory phrase "engaging in" seems to indicate not only the act of entering into a contract, but also the acts necessary to performance of a contract, the phrase "entering into" seems to indicate only the process of negotiating and formalizing a contract. We seek comment on the significance, if any, of the Conference Report's use of the phrase "entering into." 24. The Conference Report states that the prohibition applies to "an exclusive retransmission consent agreement with a multichannel video programming distributor" until January 1, 2006. On its face, this provision would seem to sunset any prohibition on exclusive retransmission consent contracts for all multichannel video program distributors. Under this reading of the statute, the Commission's rule prohibiting exclusive retransmission consent agreements for cable operators would be deemed abrogated as of January 1, 2006. We seek comment on whether this was Congress' intent in enacting Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii). In addition, we seek comment regarding what public interest concerns are involved in such a sunset. Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii) appears to have immediate effect. We seek comment on the existence of exclusive satellite carrier retransmission consent agreements that either predate the enactment of the 1999 SHVIA or under the Commission's rules implementing Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii). Assuming any such agreements exist, we seek comment on what, if anything, the Commission should do about them. 25. We seek comment on what evidence should be required to demonstrate the existence of an exclusive contract in violation of Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii). Presumably, if companies are engaged in an exclusive contractual relationship, they are in violation of the statute's prohibitions. However, there is no mechanism for determining whether such exclusive contracts exist. As such, it may be difficult for a MVPD not party to an exclusive retransmission consent agreement to determine whether one exists. We seek comment on approaches to establishing the existence of an exclusive retransmission consent agreement. C. Procedural Issues 26. In directing the Commission to adopt regulations which, until January 1, 2006, prohibit exclusive carriage agreements and require good faith negotiation of retransmission consent agreements, Congress did not indicate what procedures the Commission should employ to enforce these provisions. We seek comment on what procedures the Commission should employ to enforce the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 325(b)(3)(C). As indicated above, our goal is swift and certain enforcement of the rules that Congress has directed us to adopt to further the pro-competitive goals of the 1999 SHVIA. Commenters should state whether the same set of enforcement procedures should apply to both the exclusivity prohibition and the good faith negotiation requirement, or whether the Commission should adopt different procedures tailored to each prohibition. We seek comment regarding whether special relief procedures of the type found in Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules provide an appropriate framework for addressing issues arising under Section 325(b)(3)(C). We seek comment on whether expedited procedures are necessary to the appropriate resolution of either exclusivity or good faith proceedings. We seek comment on whether there are circumstances in which the use of alternative dispute resolution services would assist in determining whether a television broadcast station negotiated in good faith as defined by Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii) and the Commission's rules adopted thereunder. 27. We also seek comment on how the burden of proof should be allocated. In this regard, we seek comment on whether the burden should rest with the complaining party until it has made a prima facie showing and then shift to the defending party. Under this approach, we seek comment on what would constitute a prima facie showing sufficient to shift the burden to the defending party. 28. Section 325(b)(3)(C) directs that the regulations adopted by the Commission prohibit exclusive carriage agreements and require good faith negotiation of retransmission consent agreements "until January 1, 2006." We seek comment on whether the Commission's rules regarding exclusive carriage agreements and good faith negotiation should automatically sunset on this date. We seek comment on whether any sunset of regulations should apply to television broadcast stations negotiations with all MVPDs or solely to negotiations with satellite programming distributors. We also seek comment on what, if anything, is the Commission's role with regard to these issues after January 1, 2006. V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement and Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 29. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is attached to this order as Appendix A. This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. B. Ex Parte Rules 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 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b). C. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments 31. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on Sections III and V of this Notice or before February 1, 2000 and reply comments on or before February 20, 2000; interested parties may file comments on Section IV of this Notice on or before 14 days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 21 days after publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form