Records of Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, 18527-18532 [2020-06631]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
on the information included in
Appendix A of the Imperial PM10 Plan.
We are soliciting comments on these
proposed actions. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal for 30 days following
publication of this proposal in the
Federal Register and will consider these
comments before taking final action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographic area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed
actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as
meeting federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For these
reasons, these proposed actions:
• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Are not an Executive Order 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017)
regulatory action because SIP approvals
are exempted under Executive Order
12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1987);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Do not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the State plan for which
the EPA is proposing approval does not
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule, as it
relates to the maintenance plan, does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However,
the proposed redesignation would apply
to Indian country within the
nonattainment area. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed
redesignation action will not result in
the relaxation of measures and programs
currently in place to protect air quality
and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). The EPA has invited the Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and
the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation, who have lands
within the Imperial PM10 nonattainment
area, to consult on today’s proposed
action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18527
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 26, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020–06818 Filed 4–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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, Chad.Guo@fcc.gov, 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-informationcenter). To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov (mail to:
fcc504@fcc.gov) or call the FCC’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
18528
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 crossreferences 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18529
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-a`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-ButDisclose. 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
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18530
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
D 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.
D 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.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
D 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.
D 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 fcc504@fcc.gov
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, Chad.Guo@fcc.gov, (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
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 directto-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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18531
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
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
18532
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
1. The authority citation for part 76
continues to read as follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
§ 76.504
■
[Amended]
2. Amend § 76.504 by removing Note
2.
§ 76.1700
[Amended]
3. Amend § 76.1700 by removing and
reserving paragraph (a)(7).
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Apr 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
§ 76.1710
■
[Removed and reserved]
4. Remove and reserve § 76.1710.
[FR Doc. 2020–06631 Filed 4–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2019–0004;
FF09M21200–201–FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018–BD89
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on
Certain Federal Indian Reservations
and Ceded Lands for the 2020–21
Season
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (hereinafter, Service or we)
proposes special migratory bird hunting
regulations for certain Tribes on Federal
Indian reservations, off-reservation trust
lands, and ceded lands for the 2020–21
migratory bird hunting season.
DATES: Written Comments: You must
submit comments on the proposed
regulations by May 4, 2020.
Information Collection Requirements:
If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in
this proposed rule, please send your
comments and suggestions on this
information collection by June 1, 2020
to: Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
MS: PRB/PERMA (JAO/1N), Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or Info_
Coll@fws.gov (email).
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You
may submit comments on the proposals
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2019–
0004.
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–
MB–2019–0004, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; MS: PRB/PERMA (JAO/1N);
5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA
22041–3803.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Information Collection Requirements:
Send your comments and suggestions
on the information collection
requirements to the Service Information
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, MS: PRB/PERMA (JAO/1N), Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or Info_
Coll@fws.gov (email). Please reference
OMB Control Number 1018–0171 in the
subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior,
(202) 208–1050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Process for the Annual Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations
As part of the Department of the
Interior’s retrospective regulatory
review, we developed a schedule for
migratory game bird hunting regulations
that is more efficient and provides
hunting season dates much earlier than
was possible under the old process.
Under the new process, we develop
proposed hunting season frameworks
for a given year in the fall of the prior
year. We then finalize those frameworks
a few months later, thereby enabling the
State agencies to select and publish
their season dates in early summer. We
provided a detailed overview of the new
process in the August 3, 2017, Federal
Register (82 FR 36308).
Special Migratory Bird Hunting
Regulations for Indian Tribes
We developed the guidelines for
establishing special migratory bird
hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in
response to tribal requests for
recognition of their reserved hunting
rights and, for some Tribes, recognition
of their authority to regulate hunting by
both tribal and nontribal hunters on
their reservations. The guidelines
include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both
tribal and nontribal hunters, with
hunting by nontribal hunters on some
reservations to take place within Federal
frameworks but on dates different from
those selected by the surrounding
State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal
members only, outside of the usual
Federal frameworks for season dates and
length, and for daily bag and possession
limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal
members on ceded lands, outside of
usual framework dates and season
length, with some added flexibility in
daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations
established under the guidelines must
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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
