[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