Records of Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative
| Published date | 02 April 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 18527 |
| Record Number | 2020-06631 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18527-18532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06631]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket Nos. 20-35, 17-105; FCC 20-19; FRS 16586]
Records of Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming;
Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
eliminate or modify the Commission's rules requiring that cable
operators maintain records in their online public inspection files
regarding the nature and extent of their attributable interests in
video programming services, as well as information regarding cable
operators' carriage of such vertically integrated video programming
services on cable systems in which they have an attributable interest.
DATES: Comments due on or before May 4, 2020; reply comments due on or
before May 18, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Guo, [email protected], or 202-
418-0652.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 20-19, in MB Docket Nos. 20-35, 17-
105, adopted and released on March 2, 2020. The complete text of this
document is available electronically via the search function on the
FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/). The
complete document is available for inspection and copying in the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554 (for hours of operation, see https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-reference-information-center). To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] (mail
to: [email protected]) or call the FCC's
[[Page 18528]]
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify section 76.1710 of the
Commission's rules, which requires that cable operators maintain
records in their online public inspection files regarding the nature
and extent of their attributable interests in video programming
services. The rule also requires that their online public inspection
file contain information regarding cable operators' carriage of such
vertically integrated video programming services on cable systems in
which they have an attributable interest. The NPRM refers herein to
both parts of this rule collectively as the ``cable operator interests
in video programming recordkeeping'' requirement. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify section 76.1700(a)(7),
which lists cable operator interests in video programming as one of the
records to be maintained by cable system operators in their public
inspection file. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether
to eliminate or modify Note 2 to section 76.504, which cross-references
section 76.1710. In conjunction with the Commission's Modernization of
Media Regulation Initiative (Media Modernization), parties have urged
the Commission to re-examine several categories of information in the
online public inspection file that may be outdated, including records
regarding cable operators' interests in video programming. The
Commission's analysis of this rule indicates that its original purpose
was to aid in the compliance of a Commission regulation that was
reversed and remanded over eighteen years ago by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify this rule.
Through this NPRM, the Commission advances its efforts to modernize its
media regulations and eliminate outdated or unnecessary requirements.
Background
2. The Commission originally adopted the cable operator interests
in video programming recordkeeping requirement in 1993 as a method of
monitoring compliance with the Commission's cable channel occupancy
limits, which restricted the number of channels that could be occupied
on a vertically integrated cable system by video programmers in which
the cable operator had an attributable interest. The Commission's
channel occupancy limits placed a 40% cap on the number of channels
that could be occupied on a vertically integrated cable system (with up
to 75 channels) by video programmers in which the cable operator had an
attributable interest. For systems with more than 75 channels, the rule
required that at least 45 channels be devoted to unaffiliated
programming. The Commission adopted channel occupancy limits consistent
with section 11 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992. Under the recordkeeping requirement, cable
operators are required to maintain in their public inspection files,
for a period of at least three years, records regarding the nature and
extent of their attributable interests in all video programming
services as well as information regarding their carriage of such
vertically integrated video programming services on cable systems in
which they also have an attributable interest. The Commission initially
proposed to enforce channel occupancy limits through a process of
certification whereby cable operators would certify annually to the
Commission that their cable systems are in compliance with the channel
occupancy limits but, after receiving comments, the Commission
determined that the recordkeeping requirement would be a preferable and
less burdensome approach. The Commission stated that such records would
enable local franchise authorities to aid the Commission in monitoring
compliance with the channel occupancy limits in their respective
franchise areas. Specifically, the Commission asserted that a franchise
authority could request to inspect a local cable operator's records
should the franchise authority have questions as to whether the cable
operator was in violation of the channel occupancy limits. After such
inspection, if a franchise authority believed that a violation existed,
it could file a complaint with the Commission. The Commission also
stated that other parties seeking to report potential violations of the
channel occupancy limits could also contact the local franchise
authority or report the matter directly to the Commission.
3. The Commission reorganized its public file rules in 1999 to
reduce the regulatory burden faced by cable operators with regard to
the recordkeeping requirements. At that time, the cable operator
interests in video programming recordkeeping requirement was moved from
the channel occupancy limits provision in Subpart J of Part 76 of the
Commission's rules--where it was originally placed upon adoption--to
its own section in Subpart U, which consolidated for ease of
administration the documents to be maintained by multichannel video and
cable television services for public inspection.
4. In 2001, the channel occupancy limits were reversed and remanded
to the Commission by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The court found that the Commission failed to justify its channel
occupancy limits as not burdening substantially more speech than
necessary. However, despite that decision, the cable operator interests
in video programming recordkeeping requirement has remained part of the
public file requirements for cable operators. The Commission has sought
comment on reinstituting the channel occupancy limits but, to date, has
found the record inadequate to support adopting a specific vertical
limit on the ownership of video programming sources by owners of cable
systems. The Commission transitioned the public file requirements for
cable operators to an online format in 2016, when the Commission
expanded the list of entities required to post public inspection files
to the Commission's online database. Since then, the cable operator
interests in video programming recordkeeping requirement has been part
of the online public inspection file to be maintained by cable system
operators.
5. In its comments to the Commission's Media Modernization
proceeding, Verizon listed cable operator interests in video
programming as one of several categories of information that should be
eliminated from the online public inspection file. Verizon stated that
such information is of no use or interest to consumers and, further,
that few people access the public inspection file, given that it does
not provide the kind of information typically sought by consumers.
Verizon instead contended that the Commission can request this
information, if needed, upon reasonable notice and time for production.
No commenter in the Media Modernization proceeding argued in favor of
retaining the cable operator interests in video programming
recordkeeping requirement specifically or described the utility of such
information in particular. UCC et al. argue for maintaining the online
public inspection file as a whole but do not refer specifically to the
cable operator
[[Page 18529]]
interests in video programming recordkeeping requirement.
Discussion
6. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify
the cable operator interests in video programming recordkeeping rule.
Specifically, as discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on
whether there is any remaining purpose for this rule, other potential
sources for this information, the burdens this requirement places on
cable operators, and possible modifications to the rule.
7. The Commission notes that the cable operator interests in video
programming recordkeeping requirement was adopted in order to assist in
the enforcement of the Commission's cable channel occupancy limits.
Given that those limits were reversed and remanded by the D.C. Circuit
over eighteen years ago, should this requirement be eliminated? If not,
what purpose does this rule serve today that would justify its
retention?
8. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how this information
regarding cable operator interests in video programming is used today,
if at all. Do local franchising authorities, consumers, or other
parties currently inspect the cable operator interests in video
programming records in the online public inspection file? Are these
records being utilized by local franchising authorities, consumers, or
other parties to keep track of vertical integration? If so, for what
purpose? The Commission notes that, as the recordkeeping requirement
does not apply to other video programming distributors, the information
in these records would only be useful for monitoring vertical
integration in cable operators. Given the many video programming
options from which consumers can choose today, have marketplace changes
rendered this requirement less useful or relevant?
9. UCC et al., assert generally that the online public inspection
file database is used to research and analyze how the entities required
to maintain such files are serving their communities and meeting their
obligations under the Commission's rules. If evidence of a particular
use exists, commenters are encouraged to cite specific examples of how
the information is being used currently, or has been used recently, by
any party for any related purpose. The Commission notes that, in the
over 26 years since the requirement was adopted, it is aware of only
one instance in which the rule has been invoked. The Commission is
aware of only one complaint--which was subsequently withdrawn--alleging
violation of the rule. In one other instance, the Commission discovered
an apparent violation of the rule but only took action based on other
public inspection file violations. Commenters should inform the
Commission as to the utility of the rule in today's competitive media
marketplace.
10. If the Commission were to eliminate the cable operator interest
in video programming recordkeeping rule, the Commission seeks comment
on whether the Commission or interested parties could access such
information through other methods that would be more efficient or less
burdensome for cable operators than compiling such information and
placing it in a public inspection file. For example, in the past, the
Commission has used information from various sources, such as cable
company websites, published articles, and SNL Kagan, to identify
affiliations between programming services and MVPDs for its Video
Competition Reports. Would it be more cost effective for the Commission
to undertake targeted information collections to acquire such
information, if needed, as it does in the merger context? The
Commission notes that it has collected information on the percentage of
video programming channels attributed to cable operator merger
applicants via information requests in the past. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether and to what extent such information is
redundant with or superfluous to information the Commission otherwise
collects. For example, the Commission regularly seeks information
regarding, and subsequently reports on, the state of vertical
integration in the video programming marketplace as part of its report
on competition, albeit at the MVPD industry level rather than focusing
on individual cable operators. Can such information be found readily
online? Is there a publicly available database for such information? If
so, are such alternative sources accurate and current? Are there costs
associated with accessing these alternative sources? And are these
sources adequate substitutes for information provided directly by cable
operators themselves?
11. The Commission also seeks comment on the regulatory burden for
cable operators to file this information, including the amount of time
and resources required to complete each filing. Notably, there is no
standard form filed by cable operators pursuant to this rule, and the
rule does not state how frequently cable operators should file or
update their information, instead stating only that they must maintain
records regarding the nature and extent of their interests in their
file for a period of three years. How frequently are cable operators
filing such information today? Is the information being provided and
the filing frequency being adhered to consistent among different cable
operators? Do the burdens and costs on cable operators outweigh the
utility of the information? Do any burdens associated with this
requirement place cable operators at a disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis
their video programming competitors?
12. If the Commission finds that the cable operator interests in
video programming recordkeeping rule should be retained, the Commission
seeks comment on whether modifications to the rule would be
appropriate. If the Commission was to modify the rule, what changes
should it make to reduce the burden on cable operators? For instance,
should the Commission clarify how often cable operators need to update
their information? Should the Commission retain part of rule that
requires reporting of attributable interests but eliminate the part of
the rule that requires reporting of carriage, given that channel lineup
information is widely available elsewhere?
13. Finally, the Commission seeks information and data on the
benefits and costs associated with possible elimination or modification
of the cable operator interests in video programming recordkeeping
rule. The Commission asks commenters supporting retention,
modification, or elimination of the rule to explain the anticipated
economic impact of any proposed action, including the impact on small
and independent entities, and, where possible, to quantify benefits and
costs of proposed actions and alternatives.
Procedural Matters
14. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation
[[Page 18530]]
consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or
other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to
such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or
other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers
where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them
in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during
ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
15. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
Commenting parties may file comments in response to this Notice in MB
Docket No. 20-35; interested parties are not required to file duplicate
copies in the additional dockets listed in the caption of this notice.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
[ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking
proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
17. With respect to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the RFA is contained in
the Appendix. Written public comments are requested on the IFRA and
must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments
on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with a distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA. In addition, a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA will be sent to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will be published in the Federal
Register.
18. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document seeks comment on whether
the Commission should adopt new or modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection
requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
19. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
20. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, please contact Chad Guo of the Media Bureau, Industry
Analysis Division, [email protected], (202) 418-0652.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
21. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written
public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified
in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
22. This NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify the
requirement that cable operators maintain records in their online
public inspection file regarding the nature and extent of their
attributable interests in all video programming services as well as
information regarding their carriage of such vertically integrated
video programming services on cable systems in which they have an
attributable interest for a period of at least three years. An
attributable interest is an ownership interest in, or relationship to,
an entity that gives the interest holder a certain degree of influence
or control over the entity as defined in the Commission's rules.
Vertically integrated video programming is video programming carried by
a cable system and produced by an entity in which the cable system's
operator has an attributable interest. The rule's original
[[Page 18531]]
purpose was to aid in the enforcement of the Commission's channel
occupancy limits, which have been reversed and remanded by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Eliminating or modifying this
rule would reduce the burden of maintaining the public inspection file
on cable operators.
B. Legal Basis
23. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
303(r), and 613 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 533.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
24. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act (SBA). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. Below, the Commission provides a description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,
where feasible.
25. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 4,200 cable operators
nationwide, all but 9 are small under this size standard. In addition,
under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small system'' is a
cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data
indicate that, of 4,200 systems nationwide, 3,900 have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this
standard, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small
entities.
26. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 subscribers shall
be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds
that all but six incumbent cable operators are small entities under
this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Therefore the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
27. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. . . .
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA size
standard for this industry establishes as small, any company in this
category which has annual receipts of $38.5 million or less. Census
data for 2012 show that there were 367 firms that operated for that
entire year. Of that number, 319 operated with annual receipts of less
than $25 million a year. Thus, under this size standard, the majority
of such businesses can be considered small entities.
28. Motion Picture and Video Production. These entities may be
indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing and
distributing motion pictures, videos, television programs, or
television commercials.'' The Commission notes that establishments in
this category may be engaged in various industries, including cable
programming. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
this category, which is: Those having $32.5 million or less in annual
receipts. Census data for 2012 show that there were 8,203 firms that
that operated that year. Of that number, 8,075 had annual receipts of
$24,999,999 or less. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
such businesses can be considered small entities.
29. Motion Picture and Video Distribution. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in acquiring distribution rights and
distributing film and video productions to motion picture theaters,
television networks and stations, and exhibitors.'' The Commission
notes that establishments in this category may be engaged in various
industries, including cable programming. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category, which is: those having $32.0
million or less in annual receipts. Census data for 2012 show that
there were 307 firms that operated for that entire year. Of that
number, 294 had annual receipts of $24,999,999 or less. Thus, under
this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered
small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
30. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or revise the
recordkeeping requirement, in section 76.1710 of the Commission's
rules, regarding cable operator interests in video programming. This
rule requires cable operators maintain records in their online public
inspection files regarding the nature and extent of their attributable
interests in video programming services, as well as information
regarding cable operators' carriage of such vertically integrated video
programming services on cable systems in which they have an
attributable interest. Elimination of these rules would reduce
compliance requirements for cable operators. The NPRM also seeks
comment on whether, if the rule is retained, it should be revised and,
if so, how.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
[[Page 18532]]
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
32. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or modify a
current requirement that cable operators maintain records in their
online public inspection file, specifically the cable operator
interests in video programming recordkeeping requirement. Eliminating
or modifying this obligation would reduce the overall public inspection
file burden on cable operators. There could also be an impact on small
independent video programmers to the extent any programmers relied on
the public file in question for information that is not easily
available elsewhere. The NPRM seeks comment on eliminating or modifying
this public file requirement, including any comments that might oppose
eliminating or modifying this requirement.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
33. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable Television, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521,
522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549,
552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
Sec. 76.504 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 76.504 by removing Note 2.
Sec. 76.1700 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 76.1700 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(7).
Sec. 76.1710 [Removed and reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 76.1710.
[FR Doc. 2020-06631 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
