Vol. 133, No. 34 — August 21, 1999

COMMISSIONS

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

EXPIRY OF ORDER

Carbon Steel Welded Pipe

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) hereby gives notice that its order made on June 5, 1995, in Review No. RR-94-004, continuing, without amendment, its review made on June 5, 1990, in Review No. RR-89-008, continuing, without amendment, the finding of the Anti-dumping Tribunal made on June 28, 1983, in Inquiry No. ADT-6-83, concerning carbon steel welded pipe in the nominal size range 12.7 mm to 406.4 mm (( in. to 16 in.) inclusive, in various forms and finishes, usually supplied to meet ASTM A53, ASTM A120, ASTM A252, ASTM A589 or AWWA C200-80 or equivalent specifications, including water well casing, piling pipe, sprinkler pipe and fencing pipe, but excluding oil and gas line pipe made to API specifications exclusively, originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea, is scheduled to expire on June 2, 2000 (Expiry No. LE-99-004). Under the Special Import Measures Act, findings of injury or threat of injury and the associated special protection in the form of anti-dumping or countervailing duties expire five years from the date of the last order or finding unless a review has been initiated. A review will not be initiated unless the Tribunal decides that there is sufficient information to indicate that it is warranted.

Persons or governments requesting or opposing the initiation of a review of the said order, pursuant to subsection 76(2) of the Special Import Measures Act, should file ten copies of written public submissions containing relevant information, opinions and arguments, with the Secretary of the Tribunal not later than September 3, 1999. Persons or governments should endeavour to base their submissions exclusively on public information; however, confidential information relevant to the issues before the Tribunal may be filed if necessary, along with a comprehensive public summary or edited version thereof.

Submissions should address all relevant factors, including:

— the likelihood of the continuation or the resumption of dumped imports if the order were allowed to expire, with supporting information, including information relating to exporters in Korea with regard to their activities in the Canadian market, their domestic market and other markets;

— the likely volumes and price ranges of dumped imports if they were to continue or to resume;

— the domestic industry's performance since the order, including trends in its production, sales, market share and profits;

— the likelihood of material injury to the domestic industry if the order were allowed to expire, having regard to the anticipated effects of a resumption of dumped imports on the industry's future performance;

— other developments affecting, or likely to affect, the performance of the domestic industry; and

— any other change in market conditions, domestically or internationally, including changes in the supply and demand for carbon steel welded pipe, as well as changes in trends and sources of imports into Canada.

Where there are opposing views, each person or government who filed a submission in response to the notice of expiry will be given an opportunity to respond in writing to the representations of other persons or governments. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will distribute copies of the public submissions to each person or government who filed a submission with the Tribunal. Those persons or governments will have one week to respond in writing to the submissions. If confidential submissions have been filed, the Secretary will notify persons or governments on how they may access these submissions through qualified counsel.

The purpose of a review is to determine whether an order or finding should be continued, with or without amendment, or rescinded. If the Tribunal decides that a review is not warranted, an order, with reasons, will be issued. An order or finding will expire unless a review is initiated before its expiry date.

If the Tribunal decides to initiate a review, it will issue a notice of review with all relevant information regarding the proceeding. The Tribunal will publish the notice in the Canada Gazette and send it to all persons or governments known to the Tribunal as having an interest in the review, who will then have an opportunity to participate in the review.

Written submissions, correspondence or requests for information regarding this notice should be addressed to: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Written or oral communications to the Tribunal may be made in English or in French.

Ottawa, August 9, 1999

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

INQUIRY

Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) has received a complaint (File No. PR-99-021) from BMCI Consulting Inc., of Ottawa, Ontario, concerning a procurement (Solicitation No. DND 99/0159) by the Department of National Defence (DND). The solicitation is for the provision of professional logistician services. Pursuant to subsection 30.13(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act and subsection 7(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Tribunal has decided to conduct an inquiry into this complaint.

It is alleged that DND has improperly evaluated a submission from another bidder as being compliant.

Further information may be obtained from: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Ottawa, August 9, 1999

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES

The following notices are abridged versions of the Commission's original notices bearing the same number. The original notices contain a more detailed outline of the applications, including additional locations and addresses where the complete files may be examined. The relevant material, including the notices and applications, is available for viewing during normal business hours at the following offices of the Commission:

— Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Ground Floor, Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2, (819) 997-2429 (Telephone), 994-0423 (TDD), (819) 994-0218 (Facsimile);

— Bank of Commerce Building, Suite 1007, 1809 Barrington Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8, (902) 426-7997 (Telephone), 426-6997 (TDD), (902) 426-2721 (Facsimile);

— Place Montréal Trust, 1800 McGill College Avenue, Suite 1920, Montréal, Quebec H3A 3J6, (514) 283-6607 (Telephone), 283-8316 (TDD), (514) 283-3689 (Facsimile);

— The Kensington Building, Suite 1810, 275 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3, (204) 983-6306 (Telephone), 983-8274 (TDD), (204) 983-6317 (Facsimile);

— 530-580 Hornby Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6, (604) 666-2111 (Telephone), 666-0778 (TDD), (604) 666-8322 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 55 St. Clair Avenue E, Suite 624, Toronto, Ontario, (416) 952-9096 (Telephone), (416) 954-6343 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, Cornwall Professional Building, Room 103, 2125 11th Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3, (306) 780-3422 (Telephone), (306) 780-3319 (Facsimile).

Interventions must be filed with the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, together with proof that a true copy of the intervention has been served upon the applicant, on or before the deadline given in the notice.

Secretary General

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISIONS

The complete texts of the decisions summarized below are available from the offices of the CRTC.

99-201 August 11, 1999

Fundy Cable Ltd./ltée
Fredericton, Moncton, Chatham/Newcastle, Saint John and Shediac, New Brunswick

Approved — Replacement of WTOL-TV (CBS) Detroit by WBZ-TV (CBS) Boston.

99-202 August 11, 1999

Radio Nord inc.
Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or, Quebec

Approved — Changes to the technical parameters of the transmitter at Rouyn-Noranda.

99-203 August 11, 1999

Radio-Classique Montréal inc.
Montréal, Quebec

Approved — Amendment of the licence for CJPX-FM Montréal, by adding a new Tamil-language Subsidiary Communications Multiplex Operations (SCMO) service.

99-204 August 11, 1999

Radio McGill
Montréal, Quebec

Approved — Amendment of the licence for CKUT-FM Montréal, by adding a new SCMO service in Tamil, English and French.

99-205 August 11, 1999

Fairchild Radio (Vancouver FM) Ltd.
Vancouver, British Columbia

Approved — Amendment to the licence for CHKF-FM Vancouver by adding a new Persian-language SCMO service.

99-206 August 11, 1999

Northern Cablevision Ltd.
Athabasca; Bonnyville; Fox Creek; Grande Cache; Peace River; Sexsmith; St. Paul; Wainwright; and Whitecourt, Alberta

Approved — Addition of United States (U.S.) FM radio signals of KMBI-FM, KXLY-FM, KISC-FM, KDRK-FM, KEZE-FM, KZZU-FM and KPBX-FM Spokane, Washington.

99-207 August 11, 1999

Northern Cablevision Ltd.
Grande Prairie, Alberta

Approved — Addition of U.S. FM radio signals of KMBI-FM, KXLY-FM, KISC-FM, KDRK-FM, KEZE-FM, KZZU-FM and KPBX-FM Spokane, Washington.

99-208 August 11, 1999

Northern Cablevision Ltd.
Grand Centre, Medley (CFB Cold Lake) and Cold Lake, Alberta

Approved — Addition of U.S. FM radio signals of KMBI-FM, KXLY-FM, KISC-FM, KDRK-FM, KEZE-FM, KZZU-FM and KPBX-FM Spokane, Washington.

99-209 August 11, 1999

Cable T.V. of Wetaskiwin Inc.
Wetaskiwin, Alberta

Approved — Addition of U.S. FM radio signals of KMBI-FM, KXLY-FM, KISC-FM, KDRK-FM, KEZE-FM, KZZU-FM and KPBX-FM Spokane, Washington.

99-210 August 11, 1999

Small Community T.V. Inc.
Beaverlodge; Rycroft; Spirit River; and Wembly, Alberta

Approved — Addition of U.S. FM radio signals of KMBI-FM, KXLY-FM, KISC-FM, KDRK-FM, KEZE-FM, KZZU-FM and KPBX-FM Spokane, Washington.

99-211 August 12, 1999

Pulse 24 Inc.
Across Canada

Approved — Amend the condition of licence relating to advertising material.

99-212 August 12, 1999

Viewer's Choice Canada Inc.
Across Canada

Approved — Delete the condition of licence regarding the purchase of non-proprietary exhibition rights for feature films from Canadian distributors.

99-213 August 12, 1999

Electronic Digital Delivery Inc.
Across Canada

Approved — Delete the condition of licence regarding the purchase of non-proprietary exhibition rights for feature films from Canadian distributors.

99-214 August 12, 1999

WIC Premium Television Ltd.
Across Canada

Approved — Delete the condition of licence regarding the purchase of non-proprietary exhibition rights for feature films from Canadian distributors.

99-215 August 12, 1999

Canal Indigo S.E.N.C.
Across Canada

Approved — Delete the condition of licence regarding the purchase of non-proprietary exhibition rights for feature films from Canadian distributors.

99-216 August 12, 1999

Alliance Communications Corporation and Shaw Communications Inc., on behalf of a general partnership
Across Canada

Approved — Delete the condition of licence regarding the purchase of non-proprietary exhibition rights for feature films from Canadian distributors.

99-217 August 13, 1999

Prairie Cable TV Ltd.
Consort; Coronation; and Hanna, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licences for the cable distribution undertakings serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-218 August 13, 1999

314551 Alberta Ltd.
High Level, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-219 August 13, 1999

Milk River Cable Club
Milk River, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-220 August 13, 1999

576936 Alberta Inc.
Oyen, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-221 August 13, 1999

Buffalo Creek Enterprises Limited
Anderson; Fallsway and Gateway Subdivisions, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licences for the cable distribution undertakings serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-222 August 13, 1999

Copper Valley Cablevision Ltd.
Ashcroft and Cache Creek, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-223 August 13, 1999

Barriere Cable Ltd.
Barriere, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-224 August 13, 1999

Fraser Canyon Television Association
Boston Bar; North Bend and area, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-225 August 13, 1999

Omineca Cablevision Ltd.
Fraser Lake, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-226 August 13, 1999

Omineca Cablevision Ltd.
Burns Lake and Vanderhoof, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licences for the cable distribution undertakings serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-227 August 13, 1999

Mascon Communications Corp.
Chase; and Pritchard, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licences for the cable distribution undertakings serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-228 August 13, 1999

Raftview Communications Ltd.
Clearwater and Blackpool, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-229 August 13, 1999

Fort Nelson Cable-Vision Ltd.
Fort Nelson, Mile Post 306 of the Alaska Highway, CFB Fort Nelson and the Village of Muskwa, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-230 August 13, 1999

Country Broadcasting Corp.
Galiano and Mayne Islands, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted communities, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-231 August 13, 1999

The Gitanyow Independent School Society
Gitanyow, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-232 August 13, 1999

Greenville Television Association
Greenville, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

99-233 August 13, 1999

Hedley Cable T.V. Ltd.
Hedley, British Columbia

Approved — Renewal of the Class 3 licence for the cable distribution undertaking serving the above-noted community, from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2006.

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-129

1. Cornwall, Ontario
Tri-Co Broadcasting Ltd.

To amend the broadcasting licence of its radio stations CFLG-FM, CJSS-FM (CJSS-AM) Cornwall.

In Public Notice CRTC 1998-132, the Commission announced that the minimum level of Canadian popular music on radio would increase from 30 percent to 35 percent, to be met both daily and weekly. The licensee is of the opinion that the new regulatory level places its stations at a competitive disadvantage to United States stations received in Cornwall. While the Commission's Border and Small Market Policy (Public Notice 1992-3) has established guidelines in assessing programming flexibility requests, the applicant views this criteria as "... reactive, after the fact."

If approved, the amendments requested in these applications would require each station both daily and weekly, to ensure that at least 25 percent of all popular music broadcast be Canadian. The texts of the proposed conditions of licence are set out below.

As an exception to the percentage of Canadian musical selections set out in subsection 2.2(8) of the Radio Regulations, 1986, it is a condition of licence that the licensee shall, in a broadcast week, devote 20 percent or more of its musical selections from content category 2 to Canadian selections broadcast in their entirety, and

As an exception to the percentage of Canadian musical selections set out in subsection 2.2(9) of the Radio Regulations, 1986, it is a condition of licence that the licensee shall, between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., in any period beginning on Monday of a week and ending on Friday of the same week, devote 20 percent or more of its musical selections from content category 2 to Canadian selections broadcast in their entirety.

Deadline for intervention: September 14, 1999

August 9, 1999

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-130

Cable Capacity Reports

Summary

In Public Notice CRTC 1997-33-2, the Commission required licensees of Class 1 broadcasting distribution undertakings, such as cable systems, with 20 000 or more subscribers to submit reports concerning their analog channel capacity. Recently, the Commission expanded this requirement to include reports on digital channel capacity. The Commission requested these reports so it could monitor the capacity of the distribution industry to accommodate new specialty services.

The purpose of the public notice is to extend the termination date of the reporting requirements from August 31, 1999, to August 31, 2001. The Commission will now require licensees to file reports every six months, rather than every three months.

Background

1. In Public Notice CRTC 1997-33-2, Postponement of Public Hearing to Consider New Specialty and Pay Television Applications, the Commission required licensees of all Class 1 broadcasting distribution undertakings with 20 000 or more subscribers to submit reports on their channel capacity. Specifically, the Commission requested the following information for each such undertaking:

— analog channel capacity;

— complete channel line-up, indicating the specific channels used for the distribution of each service;

— description of proposed analog upgrades to the distribution system, the increase to analog channel capacity that would result, and the timeframe for implementation and utilization; and

— description of plans and timeframes for the deployment of digital technology, the number of digital households served, progress towards implementation, and projected date for utilization by broadcasting and/or telecommunications services.

2. The Commission required the licensees to submit the first report no later than January 31, 1998. This report was to include information that reflected the capacity of the undertaking as of December 31, 1997. Licensees were also asked to file updated reports every three months thereafter, with the last report to be filed no later than August 31, 1999.

3. The Commission advised the licensees that they could request confidentiality for the information contained in their reports.

4. In order to facilitate the interpretation and cross-comparison of the data provided by the licensees, the Commission developed a spreadsheet form that it placed on the public file. Aggregate summaries of the data for which licensees requested and were granted confidentiality have also been placed on the public file.

Amendments to reporting requirements

5. In order to facilitate comparison of upgrades, the Commission asked licensees to submit information on the analog and digital upgrades that would be in place as of January 1, 1999. Once this date had passed, it was necessary to establish a new date for planning purposes. As well, several systems were deploying digital services, the details of which were not reflected in the capacity reports. Accordingly, the Commission sent a letter to the licensees amending the reporting requirements for April 30 and July 31, 1999, to address these lacunae. The Commission made the following changes:

— "Planned Analog Capacity January 1999" now reads "Planned Analog Capacity January 2001".

— "Planned Digital Capacity January 1999" now reads "Planned Digital Capacity January 2001".

— An additional spreadsheet form was created for those systems that now offer digital services. Its reporting requirements were designed to encompass the key elements of the digital deployments. For ease of use, it otherwise tracks the format of the analog form. The form is set out in the appendix to the public notice.

6. The Commission informed licensees that the service information would be placed on the public file (No. 12 to No. 30 inclusive on the spreadsheet). It also advised them that it was prepared to keep the non-service information confidential (No. 1 to No. 11 inclusive on the spreadsheet).

7. The information requested for these reports is required in order to monitor the roll-out of digital technology. The Commission is, therefore, extending the termination date of the reporting requirements originally set in Public Notice CRTC 1997-33-2 for two years to August 31, 2001.

8. The Commission considers that it is unlikely that licensees will make major line-up changes every three months. Accordingly, and in order to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees, the Commission will henceforth require them to submit capacity reports every six months. The licensee must, therefore, submit these reports by October 31, 1999, April 30, 2000, October 31, 2000, and April 30, 2001.

Related CRTC documents

— Public Notice CRTC 1997-33-2 dated December 11, 1997: Postponement of Public Hearing to Consider New Specialty and Pay Television Applications

— Public Notice CRTC 1998-79 dated July 30, 1998: Revised Process for Consideration of New English-language Pay and Specialty Television

— Public Notice CRTC 1999-19 dated February 3, 1999: Call for Comments on a Licensing Framework for New Pay and Specialty Services

August 9, 1999

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-131

Columbia Kootenay Broadcasting Co. Ltd.
Cranbrook, Canal Flats and Kimberley; Fernie and Sparwood, British Columbia

Approved — Transfer of control and shares.

August 11, 1999

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-132

Amendment to Broadcasters' Reporting of Their Alcohol Educational Initiatives

This notice sets out revised reporting requirements for broadcasters with respect to their on-air educational messages about the negative effects of excessive or inappropriate alcohol consumption. Requirements to broadcast such messages were introduced in Public Notice CRTC 1996-108, which set out the Commission's revised regulatory framework for alcoholic beverages advertising. Under that framework, broadcasters must submit annual reports outlining their compliance with this requirement. This notice modifies the way in which broadcasters are to report this information to the Commission each year.

Background

1. On August 1, 1996, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC 1996-108 which set out the revised regulatory framework for the broadcast of alcoholic beverage advertising. As part of these changes, the Commission announced a new requirement for broadcasters to air educational messages about the negative effects of excessive or inappropriate alcohol consumption.

2. So that the Commission could assess broadcasters' compliance with this requirement, the Commission directed broadcasters to submit annual reports outlining their alcohol educational initiatives. The Commission hereby announces a modification to the way in which broadcasters must report this information to the Commission each year.

The reporting mechanism

3. The Commission stated, in Public Notice CRTC 1996-108, that if broadcasters choose to air alcohol advertising that depicts the positive aspects of alcohol consumption, they must ensure that this aspect of their programming is balanced.

4. The Commission considered that balance could be achieved by ensuring that educational messages are broadcast to inform viewers and listeners of the harmful consequences of alcohol consumption. While the Commission continues to encourage public service messages such as the "Don't Drink and Drive" campaign, broadcasters that air alcohol advertising must also broadcast educational messages and programming relating to other potential negative effects of alcohol abuse.

5. To assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with this requirement, the Commission directed broadcasters who air alcohol advertising to file annual reports on their educational broadcasting initiatives dealing with alcohol-related problems. Public Notice CRTC 1996-108 stated that separate annual reports must be filed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and either by each specialty service or by an organization representing them. Over-the-air broadcasters that are not members of the CAB were directed to submit their own reports to the Commission.

6. Having had an opportunity to review the reports that were filed and assess the effects of its new policy, the Commission has concluded that an alternative reporting mechanism would be preferable. Given the difficulty industry associations experience in reporting on initiatives undertaken by all of their members, as well as the complexity involved in determining which licensees have reported through the associations and which have not, the Commission has decided that it will no longer require industry associations to file reports on behalf of their members.

7. Instead, the Commission will require broadcasters to provide information about their alcohol education initiatives as part of their annual returns, beginning with the annual returns for the 1998-1999 broadcast year. Accordingly, the Commission will amend the annual return form to include questions on the broadcast of alcohol education messages. Broadcasters will be asked to indicate whether they have aired such messages, and, if so, how many. While licensees will not be required to provide details of the messages or programming broadcast, the Commission will expect them to retain records of such information. On a case-by-case basis, such as in response to a complaint, the Commission may ask a licensee to provide this information.

8. The Commission considers that this revised approach will streamline the reporting mechanism and ensure that reports are received from all broadcasters, including those that are not members of a major industry association.

August 12, 1999

[34-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-133

Proposed Revisions to Certain Exemption Orders

Summary

The Commission is calling for comments on the proposed revisions to certain exemption orders that are set out in the Appendix to this notice. The deadline for interested parties to submit their comments is September 27, 1999. These proposed revisions are the result of a review of 15 exemption orders that was announced in Public Notice CRTC 1998-40.

Introduction

1. In Public Notice CRTC 1998-40, Review of Certain Exemption Orders, the Commission announced a review of 15 exemption orders that it had previously issued. The review implemented a provision of the Policy Regarding the Use of Exemption Orders (Public Notice CRTC 1996-59) indicating that the Commission would normally review exemption orders between five and seven years following the date that they were issued.

2. The Commission uses exemption orders to implement subsection 9(4) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act). This section specifies that the Commission shall exempt from regulation or licensing any class of broadcasting undertaking where it is clear that licensing or regulation will not contribute in a material way to the implementation of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in the Act.

3. The process for the review included two stages of written comments. During the first stage, interested parties provided their views on whether or not the exemption orders should be extended for another five years, and whether the orders should be modified. During the second stage, interested parties were able to respond to issues raised during first stage.

4. The Commission received 103 comments — 69 in stage 1 and 34 in stage 2. Most comments supported the Commission's approach to exemptions, but parties raised substantive issues related to 8 of the 15 orders covered by the review. Minor changes were suggested to other orders.

5. The Commission appreciates the high quality of the submissions and wishes to thank all parties for their views and participation. The Commission considered all of the submissions in developing the proposed exemption orders. The full public record for this proceeding is available at CRTC offices.

6. After examining these comments, the Commission is issuing the 12 proposed revised exemption orders set out in the appendix for public comment. Please note that, for the convenience of interested parties, the text in the proposed exemption orders that differs from the existing exemption orders has been underlined.

7. The orders that the Commission proposes to revise, and wishes to receive comments on, are the following:

— Exemption order respecting resource development installations (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1981-79)

— Exemption order respecting low-power radio: Temporary resource development distribution undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-44)

— Exemption order respecting low-power radio: Limited duration special event facilitating undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-45)

— Exemption order respecting low-power radio: Ultra low power announcements service (LPAS) undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-46)

— Exemption order respecting carrier current undertakings whose services are not carried on distribution undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-47)

— Exemption order respecting radio and television temporary network special event type 1 undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-48)

— Exemption order respecting distribution undertaking temporary network special event type 2 undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-49)

— Exemption order respecting closed circuit video programming undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-50)

— Exemption order respecting still image programming service undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-51)

— Exemption order respecting community programming network undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-52)

— Exemption order respecting terrestrial relay distribution network undertakings (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-53)

— Exemption order respecting master antenna television systems (revises the order set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-54, as amended by Public Notice CRTC 1994-133)

8. The Commission wishes to emphasize that its primary interest is to receive comments on whether or not the proposed orders accurately reflect the determinations set out later in this notice.

9. The Commission has decided not to change the remaining three exemption orders covered by this review:

— CBC Radio Licence Partial Exemption Order (Public Notice CRTC 1991-93)

— Order Exempting Certain Shortwave Broadcasting Undertakings (Public Notice CRTC 1991-105)

— House of Commons and Provincial or Territorial Legislature Proceedings Exemption Order (Public Notice CRTC 1992-6)

10. In order to provide a context for the proposed orders, the remainder of this notice discusses the substantive issues raised by parties. It sets out the Commission's determinations on whether changes are called for and summarizes the changes that it is proposing. Proposed changes to the orders not discussed in this section generally relate to matters of terminology. For example, references to the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 have been changed to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, which came into force on January 1, 1998.

Low power radio: Limited duration special event facilitating undertaking

11. The current exemption order for limited duration special event facilitating undertakings is set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-45 dated April 30, 1993. It defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to allow those attending special, generally recognized events, a fuller appreciation of those events through the provision of locally originated programming related directly to these events.

12. The Commission proposes to make it clear that an undertaking may broadcast up to 28 consecutive days for any specific event. If a party were to broadcast programming relating to another specific event in the same year, even if it were to use the same equipment, the Commission would consider it to be a second, separate undertaking. It would therefore qualify again under the exemption order.

13. The Commission also proposes to amend the exemption order to include the definitions of the types of sponsorship advertising that such undertakings may broadcast. Formerly, the order did not include these definitions but provided a cross-reference to another Commission document where the definitions were set out.

14. Finally, the Commission proposes to add an exemption criterion indicating that exempt undertakings in this class must abide by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) codes respecting sex-role portrayal and advertising to children. This criterion was included in the exemption order for certain native radio undertakings set out in Public Notice (PN) CRTC 1998-62. The Commission considers that it should also apply to other exempted low-power radio undertakings.

Carrier current undertakings

15. Carrier current stations generally serve buildings on university and college campuses. They make use of very low-power AM transmitters that radiate a signal through the electrical system of one or more buildings. The signal can be received by AM radios in or near these buildings.

16. The exemption order for carrier current undertakings that the Commission reviewed is set out in PN 1993-47. The order defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to provide a locally originated programming service for the benefit of residents of such institutions as colleges and universities.

17. The Commission does not propose to amend the exemption order to include minimum requirements for Canadian and French-language music, as one party suggested. The Commission notes that no concern was raised regarding the level of Canadian and French-language vocal music that carrier current stations actually play. It further considers that, should significant concerns about carrier current stations' performance in these areas be revealed in the future, the appropriate response would be to license this class of undertakings rather than add such requirements to the exemption order.

18. The Commission does, however, propose to add an exemption criterion indicating that exempted undertakings in this class must abide by the CAB codes respecting sex-role portrayal and advertising to children.

Temporary network special event undertakings

19. There are two exemption orders related to temporary network special event undertakings. One applies only to radio and television; the other applies only to cable.

20. The current exemption order relating to radio and television is set out in PN 1993-48, Exemption Order Respecting Radio and Television Temporary Network Special Event Type 1 Undertakings. It defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to supply radio and/or television stations licensed or exempted by the Commission with coverage of unexpected, non-recurring events, such as special concerts and commemorative programs, or of public emergencies such as natural disasters and major accidents.

21. The current exemption order relating to cable is set out in PN 1993-49, Exemption Order Respecting Cable Temporary Network Special Event Type 2 Undertakings. It defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to supply cable systems with coverage of not-for-profit or charitable events such as the Special Olympics or telethons raising money for certain charities.

22. These exemption orders permit broadcasting undertakings to supply coverage of certain types of events, on a network basis, without the need to apply for a licence.

23. The Commission considers it appropriate to maintain two separate exemption orders for such undertakings. It is of the view that there is no compelling reason why cable systems need access to the same type of programming that is allowed under the exemption order relating to Type 1 undertakings. It also does not consider it appropriate to expand the order relating to Type 2 undertakings so that cable networks could provide feeds to radio and television undertakings, as some parties suggested.

24. The Commission does, however, propose to add a criterion to the orders indicating that exempted undertakings in this class must abide by the CAB codes respecting gender portrayal and advertising to children.

Closed circuit video programming undertakings

25. The current exemption order for closed circuit video programming undertakings is set out in PN 1993-50 as amended by PN 1996-151. The amended order defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to provide a programming service, whether for a separate fee or not, to temporary residents of hotels, motels and hospitals or to the inmates of prisons only, and not to residents of permanent dwelling places. The programming consists only of feature motion pictures intended for theatrical release, video games programming services, or information about the city or about the premises served by the undertakings, and does not contain any commercial messages.

26. One party suggested that a new exemption criterion be added that would require these undertakings to make financial contributions to the production of Canadian programming. The Commission does not consider that closed circuit video programming undertakings should have such requirements when they are not subject to a licensing regime. It is not convinced that licensing is necessary or desirable considering their limited influence on the broadcasting system.

27. Some parties made reference to the trapping or "notching out" of signals in hotels, motels, hospitals, etc. and the substitution of closed circuit video services for these signals. In 1996, the Commission issued PN 1996-151 amending the exemption order set out in PN 1993-50. This amendment made it clear that these exempt programming services could not delete any channel provided as part of the basic service of a licensed cable undertaking serving the premises in question and replace it with closed circuit services. Some parties suggested operators of these exempt undertakings should not be allowed to "notch out" any channel provided by cable systems.

28. The Commission considers that the provision of basic cable service to hotel and motel guests, in addition to exempt services, reaches an appropriate balance. After considering all comments concerning the "notching out" issue, the Commission does not consider that changes to criterion 5 as set out in PN 1996-151 are necessary.

29. It was also suggested that the Commission should require closed circuit video undertakings to comply with the CAB codes relating to gender portrayal and violence. The Commission notes that these codes already apply to Canadian conventional and discretionary services. In addition, pay and pay-per-view services have their own codes with respect to violence and adult content that the Commission has approved. Adult films must be passed by provincial censor boards, and hotels and motels normally ensure that access to adult material is restricted through the use of blocking devices. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider that applying the CAB codes to these exempt undertakings is necessary.

Still image programming service undertakings

30. The current exemption order for still image programming service undertakings is set out in PN 1993-51. The order defines the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to provide distribution undertakings with programming consisting of still images (including graphic images) with or without an audio component, and with or without a fee being charged to any distribution undertaking receiving the service.

31. The Commission is not proposing substantive changes to this order.

32. Broadcasters considered that a criterion should be added that would, in effect, require these exempt services to make contributions to Canadian programming. The Commission notes that issuing an exemption order means that the Commission has decided that licensing would not contribute materially to the realization of the Act's objectives. It does not consider that still image programming undertakings should have such requirements when they are not subject to a licensing regime. The Commission is not convinced that licensing is necessary or desirable considering their limited influence on the broadcasting system.

33. One party considered that the order should be amended to permit insertion of certain full motion promotional material. Such material would be designed to enhance viewer awareness of Canadian broadcasting services and provide access for public service announcements. It was also suggested that the order should permit the use of computer-generated effects.

34. The Commission notes that distributors can already promote Canadian services on their barker channels and during local availabilities on non-Canadian satellite services. It is concerned that allowing computer-generated effects could result in still image operations effectively becoming full-motion services that would compete with licensed services. This would be well beyond the intention of the exemption order.

Combining exempt services on a single channel

35. The Commission wishes to clarify that it will permit a broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) to distribute a still image service as well as one falling under the Exemption Order Respecting Teleshopping Programming Service Undertakings (Public Notice CRTC 1995-15) on a single channel.

36. However, the Commission emphasizes that it is not giving blanket approval for other combinations of exempt services on one channel. Any other proposal involving the distribution of more than one exempt service on a single channel must be submitted for prior approval. The Commission is concerned that some combinations might result in a hybrid service that goes beyond what was intended by the exemption orders.

37. The Commission notes that the exemption order related to teleshopping services is scheduled for review after the year 2000. The Commission will evaluate the impact of allowing the distribution of exempt still image and teleshopping services on the same channel as part of that review.

Terrestrial relay distribution network undertakings (TRDNUs)

38. The current exemption order for TRDNUs is set out in PN 1993-53. The order defined the purpose of these undertakings as follows:

... to receive the programming services of radio or television stations, foreign or domestic, and distribute those programming services, unaltered, to affiliated distribution undertakings with or without a fee, on a local or regional basis.

39. The Commission is not proposing substantive changes to the exemption order for TRNDUs.

40. While acknowledging that TRNDUs may provide competition with satellite relay distribution undertakings (SRDU) for the delivery of some signals, it considers that the criteria set out in the exemption order limits the scope of their operations. For example, TRNDUs are limited to local or regional operation and may not make use of satellite technology. The Commission considers that it is appropriate to maintain these criteria given that TRNDUs are exempt from licensing. In light of this, it considers that it is not necessary to require further contributions to the broadcasting system by TRNDUs due to the more limited scope of their operations.

41. One party suggested that, where Canadian television signals are received within their Grade A or Grade B official contours and are then distributed by a TRNDU to licensed distribution undertakings, the Canadian television station should be able to request simultaneous substitution over United States signals providing the same program. The Commission notes that implementing this suggestion would represent a fundamental change to the current simultaneous substitution policy since substitution privileges would be extended beyond a broadcaster's local market. The Commission considers that this issue goes well beyond the scope of the current proceeding.

Master antenna television systems (MATVs)

42. The current exemption order for MATVs, set out in PN 1994-133, indicates that these undertakings have, as their general purpose:

... the distribution to the temporary or permanent residents of multiple unit dwellings such as hotels, apartment buildings, condominiums and row houses, of services generally accessible by residents of single unit dwellings.

43. MATVs were first established to provide adequate television reception for multiple unit dwellings (MUDs) where the inadequacy of reception by set-top antennas required the use of roof-top antennas. With the introduction of distribution of broadcast signals by satellite, many of these systems adopted this technology and became known as Satellite Master Antenna Television Systems (SMATVs). The MATV exemption order applies to SMATVs as well.

44. The Commission has exempted MATVs from licensing since 1977. Its original rationale for exemption was set out in a public announcement dated March 16, 1977:

To the extent that an MATV system is analogous to a homeowner's roof-top antenna in both its configuration and its range of services, it may, without adverse effect on its viewers or on the Canadian broadcasting system, be exempted from Commission licensing procedures. When a system goes beyond that point, however, in terms of territorial reach, extra programming services, operation for direct commercial gain, etc., then it must for the benefit of both viewers and the broadcasting system as a whole, be the subject of regulation and licensing by the Commission.

45. Comments received during the current review fell into two broad categories. Those involved with the MATV industry and the buildings they serve generally considered that the exemption order should be more flexible. On the other hand, licensed undertakings, such as cable distribution undertakings, considered that MATVs should be subject to requirements that are similar to those imposed on other distributors, preferably through licensing.

46. The issues raised can be discussed under three headings: whether or not to license MATVs, suggestions for new requirements, and possible revisions to the existing exemption criteria.

Licensing of MATVs

47. The Commission considers that it is appropriate to continue to regulate MATVs through an exemption order. Further, it will not introduce a registration requirement for these undertakings.

48. The Commission notes that, although MATVs do not have the same regulatory obligations as other distributors, the criteria set out in the exemption order place substantial restrictions on their operations. Specifically, MATVs are not allowed to cross public roadways and must confine their operations to property that the company operating them owns. Further, MATVs may not operate on a for-profit basis. As such, their ability to directly compete with licensed BDUs for subscribers is limited.

49. A few parties submitted that the Commission should adopt a registration requirement for these undertakings to help ensure that they are aware of and are meeting the terms of the exemption order. The Commission has previously examined the question of registration and, in PN 1996-59, stated that "any registration or reporting request for exempt undertakings would be difficult and would, in practice, be tantamount to licensing."

50. Parties made various suggestions concerning the type of information that MATVs should provide during the registration process. The Commission, however, considers that it is unnecessary to request much of the information suggested in these comments. For example, it is not necessary to have rate information since these undertakings are not rate regulated. It also considers that it is not necessary to obtain a statement that the system will comply with the exemption order since, consistent with the Commission's current practice, any compliance and enforcement actions will be initiated through the complaints process.

51. While there may be certain advantages to a registration process, the Commission, on balance, considers that its current practice of not requiring registration of exempt MATVs remains appropriate.

Imposing additional requirements

52. The Commission has decided not to introduce any new requirement for MATVs.

53. A number of parties recommended that the Commission place additional requirements on MATVs, similar to those that it places on licensed BDUs. The Commission considers that the restrictions under which MATVs operate mean that they can never become full competitors with licensed BDUs.

54. Further, MATVs differ from new entrants in the distribution market, such as direct-to-home satellite services (DTH) and multi-point distribution systems (MDS), in that their operations are confined to the property owned by the person operating the MATV. Unlike other new entrants, who may serve anyone within their authorized service areas, the current restriction on MATVs effectively limits the total number of residential units that any one MATV can serve.

55. The Commission also notes that it may not be practical to require a small MATV system to fulfil complex requirements such as simultaneous substitution. The current exemption order requires MATVs to distribute all local Canadian television stations and to ensure that most of the video channels on the undertaking are devoted to the distribution of Canadian programming services. The Commission considers that these distribution requirements are sufficient for MATV systems, given the restrictions under which they operate.

56. The Commission does not propose to require MATVs to make financial contributions to Canadian programming, as some suggested. It considers that, given the small size of most MATVs and the relatively small amounts that they would contribute to the production funds, the practical difficulties in administering a contribution scheme for MATVs outweigh the potential benefits.

Amendments to existing exemption criteria

Criterion 1

57. Criterion 1 of the MATV exemption order currently requires the person carrying on the undertaking to own or lease the land upon which the undertaking is situated. The Commission does not propose to amend this criterion to allow third parties to operate exempt MATV undertakings. This means that the building owners (or landlord or condominium corporation) must control the MATV undertaking.

58. The Commission considers that the restriction on third-party ownership is consistent with the general principle that MATVs should provide a service similar to that in single family residences where the homeowners are responsible for controlling their antenna or dish. It also considers that a third party operating an MATV would be acting in a manner that is not appreciably different from an existing licensed cable system. The appropriate approach for a third party wanting to control an MATV would therefore be to apply to the Commission for a licence to operate a BDU.

59. As one means to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the Commission will expect that any contract between the building owner (or landlord or building owner, where appropriate) and a third-party service company include provisions to ensure that effective and real control remains with the building owner.

60. The Commission also wishes to clarify that it interprets the term "condominium corporation" to also include any other type of housing cooperative.

Criterion 2

61. Criterion 2 prohibits an MATV from being connected to land not owned by the MATV operator identified in criterion 1. The only connections permitted are those that:

(a) permit an MATV to receive conventional off-air television signals and to use a satellite dish to receive signals; and

(b) permit an MATV to use either microwave or optical fibre technology to connect the distribution plant of the MATV with its remote head end.

62. The Commission does not propose to amend criterion 2 to permit an MATV to serve separate buildings on adjacent properties or to permit the territories served by such undertakings to cross over or under a public street or roadway.

63. While recognizing that permitting MATVs to serve separate properties could increase their efficiency, the Commission considers that such an operation would be virtually identical to that of a licensed distribution undertaking. It therefore considers that any MATV wanting to serve separate properties should apply to the Commission for a BDU licence.

64. The Commission does, however, propose to amend criterion 2 to make it clear that MATVs, while still restricted from connecting with other MATVs using optical fibre, may use optical fibre to receive and distribute signals that are received from licensed programming undertakings.

65. In response to requests, the Commission also wishes to clarify that criterion 2 does not restrict the reception of signals in digital format, prohibit the use of wireless control devices by subscribers, or limit or prohibit the use of a fibre distribution system.

Criterion 3

66. Criterion 3, in part, prohibits a person carrying on an MATV undertaking from realizing any commercial gain or profit from the MATV. The Commission does not propose to amend this criterion to allow MATVs to operate on a for-profit basis, as one party suggested.

67. The Commission notes that the not-for-profit nature of MATVs has been a fundamental principle of the exemption order from its inception. It does not consider that an MATV should be allowed to operate on a for-profit basis and compete with licensed distributors without assuming the same obligations as those licensed distributors. It therefore considers that MATVs wanting to operate on a for-profit basis should apply to the Commission for a BDU licence.

68. In response to another concern raised in the submissions, the Commission wishes to clarify that an MUD receiving all of its signals from a wireless distribution undertaking would represent a bulk billing account for the wireless operator. An owner receiving signals exclusively from such a source would thus not be carrying on a broadcasting distribution undertaking and need not be licensed or bring itself under the MATV exemption order. It should also be noted, however, that an owner who receives some signals from such a source would contravene criterion 2.

Criterion 4

69. Under criterion 4, MATVs are required to distribute all local off-air television stations, as are cable licensees. The Commission proposes to replace therein the reference to the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 with a reference to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

Criterion 5

70. Criterion 5 permits MATVs to distribute only those signals that the Commission has authorized the local cable operator to distribute. The Commission proposes to replace the reference to "cable distribution undertaking" with a reference to "terrestrial distribution undertaking" to coincide with the terminology used in the current regulations.

71. This change allows MATVs to distribute signals carried by local licensees of distribution undertakings that use alternate technologies. However, the change precludes MATVs from distributing signals not available from local distribution undertakings, even if they are available from DTH undertakings.

72. The Commission also wishes to clarify that the current wording of this criterion permits MATVs to distribute all services, including audio services, authorized for cable distribution. Thus, no amendment to the criterion is necessary to permit MATVs to distribute digital audio services included on the appropriate list of eligible satellite services or radio stations receivable over the air, as some parties suggested. The Commission notes that the criterion does not prevent MATVs from distributing the signals of affiliates of networks distributed by local cable operators that originate in different time zones.

Criterion 6

73. Criterion 6 requires that the majority of video services distributed by an MATV be Canadian. In order to make this criterion coincide with the regulations, the Commission proposes to amend it so that the operator must ensure that the majority of video and audio signals received in each individual dwelling unit be Canadian.

Criteria 7 and 8

74. Criterion 7 prevents most MATVs from distributing feature films. Criterion 8 permits certain types of MATVs to distribute feature films, video games or information about the city or premises served by the undertaking. The Commission does not propose to amend these criteria to allow MATVs that serve permanent residences to distribute locally originated feature films, as some parties suggested.

75. The Commission is concerned that this would allow MATVs to enter the pay-per-view and video-on-demand industry without holding a licence. In the event that an MATV wishes to provide such a service, the Commission considers that it should apply for a licence.

76. The Commission wishes to clarify that, since criterion 5 provides that MATVs may distribute any service authorized for the local cable operator, MATVs are permitted to distribute licensed video-on-demand services.

Other matters — Inside wire

77. The Commission considers that the issue of the transfer of inside wire in MUDs is outside the scope of this review. The Commission remains of the opinion that many aspects of this issue are appropriately addressed by the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee established in Public Notice CRTC 1998-12.

Call for comments

78. The Commission invites written comments on the draft exemption orders set out in the appendix to the notice. The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before September 27, 1999.

August 12, 1999

[34-1-o]

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).