83 FR 61330 - Form 325 Data Collection; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 230 (November 29, 2018)

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission eliminates the annual FCC Form 325 filing requirement for cable television systems as part of its Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative. As set forth below, the Commission finds that marketplace, operational, and technological changes have overtaken the utility of FCC Form 325, rendering it increasingly obsolete, and that much of the information collected by the form can be obtained from alternative sources. Thus, the Commission concludes that eliminating Form 325 will advance the Commission's goal of reducing outdated regulations and unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in media markets.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61330-61335]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25323]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 76

[MB Docket No. 17-290, FCC 18-136]


Form 325 Data Collection; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
eliminates the annual FCC Form 325 filing requirement for cable 
television systems as part of its Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative. As set forth below, the Commission finds that marketplace, 
operational, and technological changes have overtaken the utility of 
FCC Form 325, rendering it increasingly obsolete, and that much of the 
information collected by the form can be obtained from alternative 
sources. Thus, the Commission concludes that eliminating Form 325 will 
advance the Commission's goal of reducing outdated regulations and 
unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and 
innovation in media markets.

DATES: Effective November 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room 
TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamile Kadre, [email protected], or 
202-418-2245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 18-136, in MB Docket No. 17-290, adopted on September 
26, 2018, and released on September 26, 2018. 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 Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. With this Report and Order, we take another important step in 
our efforts to modernize our media regulations by eliminating the 
annual FCC Form 325 filing requirement for cable television systems. In 
November, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
proposing to streamline or eliminate Form 325, Annual Report of Cable 
Television Systems, which collects operational information from cable 
television systems nationwide. The majority of commenters support 
eliminating Form 325. We conclude that eliminating Form 325 will 
advance the Commission's goal of reducing outdated rules and 
unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and 
innovation in the media marketplace. On balance, we find that the 
utility of the form is limited and ultimately outweighed by the burden 
placed on cable operators to file, and on

[[Page 61331]]

the Commission to process, this outmoded form.

II. Background

    2. Form 325 collects operational information from various cable 
television systems nationwide, including data about subscriber numbers, 
equipment information, plant information, frequency and signal 
distribution information, and programming information. The form is 
required to be filed annually by: (1) All cable systems with 20,000 or 
more subscribers (which account for the vast majority of cable 
subscribers); and (2) a random sampling of smaller cable systems with 
fewer than 20,000 subscribers. Each December, the Commission sends a 
notification to each operator required to file Form 325 and instructs 
the operator to file the form electronically via the FCC's Cable 
Operations and Licensing System (COALS) within 60 days from the date of 
the letter.
    3. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
eliminate Form 325 or, in the alternative, improve and streamline the 
form. The Commission solicited input on ``the continued utility of 
collecting Form 325 data'' in light of the substantial changes in the 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) marketplace and in 
the operations of cable television systems since the Commission last 
examined the Form 325 data collection in 1999, on the costs associated 
with completing Form 325, on alternative sources for the information 
collected by the form, and on whether the benefits of the information 
collected outweighed those costs. The Commission also sought comment on 
ways to improve the Form 325 data collection, if it were retained.

III. Discussion

    5. With this Report and Order, we eliminate the Form 325 filing 
requirement for cable television systems. As the Commission noted in 
the NPRM, Form 325 was first developed over 50 years ago and the last 
significant modification of the form was nearly 20 years ago. We find 
that marketplace, operational, and technological changes have overtaken 
Form 325 and rendered it increasingly obsolete, as reflected by the 
Commission's limited use of Form 325 data. Moreover, much of the 
information collected by the form can be obtained from alternative 
sources without the burden imposed on cable operators and the 
Commission by the Form 325 filing requirement. Therefore, we eliminate 
the requirement set forth in 47 CFR 76.403 of our rules that the 
operator of every cable television system serving 20,000 or more 
subscribers and a sampling of operators with systems serving fewer than 
20,000 subscribers file Form 325 with the Commission.

Diminished Utility of Form 325

    6. In light of substantial changes that have taken place in the 
MVPD marketplace and in the way that cable systems operate, we find 
that the information collected by Form 325 is far less relevant today 
than it was when the Commission last considered, and elected to retain, 
the form in 1999. As NCTA states, Form 325, with its questions about 
analog operations and system-based organization, does not reflect the 
technical realities of present-day cable service where ``individual 
systems are no longer representative of today's cable network structure 
due to the use of fiber interconnects and the elimination of numerous 
standalone headends.'' Importantly, the last time the Commission voted 
to retain Form 325 in 1999, the cable industry was less than a decade 
removed from the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 
Act) and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 
of 1992 (1992 Cable Act)--a time during which the Commission had 
recently implemented, or was still in the process of implementing, the 
regulatory mandates of those statutes. It was a time when the MVPD 
industry--and the prominence of cable operators as video providers--
looked very different than it does today. Cable operators at the time 
accounted for approximately 82 percent of total MVPD subscribers (as 
compared to roughly 55 percent today) and today's online video 
streaming services did not yet exist. Accordingly, the Commission noted 
at the time that Form 325 could be useful for monitoring forthcoming 
changes in the cable industry, including the introduction of digital 
cable services. Similarly, the Commission believed that the form could 
prove useful in collecting information regarding the transition from 
analog to digital television broadcast signals. Now, the 1996 Act and 
the 1992 Cable Act are more than 20 years behind us. The digital 
television transition for full-power broadcast stations occurred over 
nine years ago and the transition from analog to digital cable service 
is now almost universal. According to one recent estimate, 
approximately 97 percent of cable subscribers currently have digital 
cable service. Therefore, it is clear that many of the expected changes 
to the cable industry that Form 325 was designed to monitor have 
already taken place.
    7. While we acknowledge that Form 325 may have been useful at one 
time, and that the data collected by the form have been used by the 
Commission on various occasions through the years, we find that it has 
become progressively less useful to, and less used by, the Commission 
over time and has now reached a point where its limited usefulness can 
no longer justify its retention. When the Commission elected not to 
eliminate the form nearly 20 years ago, it envisioned various uses for 
which the data collected by Form 325 might be useful to the Commission 
in the future. Today, however, there is little evidence that the 
information collected by Form 325 continues to be essential for the 
purposes it once served or could have served. For instance, the 
Commission found in 1999 that cable modem and set-top box data 
collected by Form 325 could be useful for ``assess[ing] technical 
capabilities of cable systems and the future of the industry'' and that 
information on channel lineups could be used to ``determine the impact 
of our must-carry and retransmission consent'' rules. Similarly, Public 
Knowledge contends that Form 325 provides information useful to the 
Commission in fulfilling its obligations under Section 629 to promote 
the competitive availability of navigation devices. However, recent 
Commission rulemakings related to Section 629 and retransmission 
consent relied on third-party sources of data rather than Form 325 to 
inform their analysis.
    8. Indeed, recent instances where the Commission has cited Form 325 
data in rulemaking proceedings are extremely limited, and in those 
instances where it has been cited, it is not clear that the data cited 
was critical to any major decision or that it was available exclusively 
via Form 325. For instance, in the most recent example, the Commission 
cited Form 325 data in a single footnote of an order to estimate the 
number of low power television (LPTV) and Class A stations carried on 
cable systems pursuant to mandatory carriage--data which would continue 
to be available in public inspection files--and one party in that 
proceeding directly questioned the accuracy of the Commission's 
estimate. In another example, the Commission used information collected 
via Form 325 about the number of deployed set-top boxes to affirm a 
conclusion that applying IP closed captioning rules only to devices 
with built-in screens would exclude a common means by which consumers 
view programming. Beyond these examples, the Commission has

[[Page 61332]]

also, on occasion, used Form 325 data to determine how many subscribers 
could potentially be affected when providing regulatory relief to 
systems and operators or to craft exemptions on the basis of number of 
subscribers served. All of this, however, amounts to just a handful of 
fairly minor uses over the past six-plus years in instances where such 
data could otherwise have been obtained from information requests or 
other inquiries.
    9. In addition, although the Commission has been statutorily 
required to produce an annual report to Congress on ``the status of 
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming,'' 
rather than use the data from Form 325, the Commission has routinely 
opened a dedicated proceeding and issued a Public Notice to solicit 
information to compile the report. As Verizon notes, the two most 
recent annual video competition reports did not cite to Form 325 at 
all, relying instead on third-party sources for such statistics as 
subscribers to cable services and the number of homes passed. Indeed, 
when the Commission sought to rely on the Form 325 data for more 
substantial use in its 13th Video Competition Report, it concluded that 
the data were inadequate for assessing whether the homes passed and 
subscriber thresholds had been met under the section 612(g) ``70/70 
test''--pursuant to which the Commission has authority to promulgate 
any additional rules necessary to provide diversity of information 
sources ``at such time as cable systems with 36 or more activated 
channels are available to 70 percent of households within the United 
States and are subscribed to by 70 percent of the households to which 
such systems are available.'' Instead, the Commission concluded that an 
industrywide information collection would be necessary to compile the 
requisite data. Even for the more discrete use of Form 325 data in the 
14th Video Competition Report--to show the percentage of households 
passed by incumbent cable systems that subscribe to these systems as 
well as the number of very small cable systems surveyed that offer 
neither internet access nor telephone services--the report itself noted 
that data from SNL Kagan could provide similar information. 
Additionally, although the Media Bureau's annual report on cable prices 
references Form 325 in a note to a table in the appendix, Bureau staff 
today relies primarily on other sources to compile the data presented 
in the table. Moreover, there is minimal public demand for the data 
presently available; only a single party annually files a Freedom of 
Information Act request for Form 325 data and no commenters claim to 
currently use or recently have used Form 325 data.
    10. In addition to being little used today, we note that the Form 
325 data are subject to certain inherent constraints that render them 
less than ideal and limit the purposes for which they can be used, such 
as the fact that Form 325 data do not correspond to common geographic 
units such as census blocks, counties, or DMAs and the Commission ``has 
no reliable method for converting the geographic area of a cable system 
to such units. As noted above, Form 325 data have not been collected 
universally across the entire cable industry since the 1990s, and Form 
325 is not filed by many of the smallest cable systems, a fact that may 
render it somewhat less useful for purposes of assessing the latter 
segment of the cable industry in particular. For example, in 
determining the carriage of in-state broadcast stations on cable 
systems for congressionally mandated reports pursuant to the Satellite 
Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA) and the STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), the Commission noted that many 
rural counties of interest for purposes of the required reports may be 
served by cable systems not subject to the Form 325 filing requirement. 
Given the diminishing relevance of, and alternative sources for, the 
Form 325 data, any attempt to expand the data collection among the 
smallest cable systems in order to make the collection more 
comprehensive would likely entail significant burdens for those systems 
least able to bear them in exchange for little, if any, offsetting 
benefit. Moreover, in addition to not being filed by many of the 
smallest cable systems, Form 325 is not filed by non-cable video 
providers either (e.g., DBS operators), further limiting its ability to 
shed light on the overall video marketplace.

Alternative Sources for Information Currently Collected by Form 325

    11. As mentioned above, the Commission has increasingly been 
turning to public and third-party sources of data to help guide its 
policymaking. In this regard, we note that information on subscribers, 
equipment, physical plant, frequency and signal distribution, or 
programming, such as that currently collected via Form 325, is 
available through alternative sources. For instance, although Public 
Knowledge asserts that the data collected via Form 325 provide valuable 
information on the broadband industry, the Commission noted in the NPRM 
that the cable modem and telephony subscriber data collected by Form 
325 are similar, and likely inferior, to data collected via Form 477--
the Commission's primary vehicle for collecting information about the 
broadband industry. In addition to Form 477, other sources of cable 
industry data include: Information collected via FCC Forms 320, 322, 
324, 327, and 333; information provided pursuant to section 76.1205 and 
section 76.1709; other governmental filings, such as Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and Copyright Office Statements of 
Account; information released by industry groups such as ACA and NCTA; 
and information available through commercial sources such as SNL Kagan 
and S&P Global Market Intelligence (S&P Global), BIA/Kelsey (BIA 
Advisory Services), The Nielsen Company, and Television and Cable 
Factbook (Warren Communications). In particular, as noted in the NPRM, 
channel lineup information, such as that collected by Form 325, is 
widely available from public sources that include cable operator 
websites and third-party guide services. Additionally, information 
related to the carriage of leased access programming, the availability 
of which was once a concern underpinning the collection of channel 
lineup information, is now available through at least one commercial 
source, and the Commission also provides information on the average 
number of leased access channels in its Cable Price Survey Report. We 
believe that these other sources available to the Commission generally 
offer the accuracy, timeliness, and ongoing availability that the 
Commission once looked to Form 325 to provide, as evidenced by the fact 
that both the Commission and industry stakeholders regularly rely upon 
such sources, not Form 325, for various purposes. Specifically, we find 
that other sources besides Form 325 also provide voluminous, 
standardized information that can be used to conduct year-over-year 
comparisons, as the Commission routinely does.
    12. Of course, even after eliminating the Form 325 filing 
requirement, the Commission retains the ability to obtain data on an 
as-needed basis. For example, the Commission regularly seeks detailed 
market-by-market information from applicants in transactions involving 
MVPDs or internet service providers regarding homes passed, numbers of 
subscribers, services provided, and competitors faced, among other 
things. The Commission often seeks similar

[[Page 61333]]

information from third-party competitors as well. This is ultimately a 
more cost-effective and targeted approach than trying to collect data 
through an industrywide mechanism such as Form 325. In addition, the 
Commission also retains the ability to collect information and data 
through rulemakings, inquiries, and other collections, which may yield 
more current data than Form 325.
    13. In short, we believe the information available through all of 
these alternative sources is sufficiently reliable that we can 
confidently eliminate Form 325. We therefore disagree with Public 
Knowledge's assertions that information collected in rulemakings and 
other proceedings cannot be considered a sufficiently reliable 
alternative to Form 325 data because firms are not compelled to 
disclose the information and are not subject to a certification of 
accuracy. First, we note that there is an expectation that parties 
submitting comments or data in Commission proceedings will not provide 
false or misleading information to the Commission, and even if a party 
provides information that arguably could be seen as biased or one-sided 
in some way, respondents in Commission proceedings have an opportunity 
to set the record straight by highlighting such bias for the Commission 
or submitting their own contrary analyses. Moreover, we note that 
making false statements to the United States government is punishable 
by law; therefore, many of the other federal filings mentioned above 
likely would be at least as reliable and accurate as Form 325 filings, 
and thus could serve a cross-check function similar to that which 
Public Knowledge asserts Form 325 data fulfill.
    14. In addition, we find that other publicly available sources, 
including those mentioned above, are likely to be more useful than the 
information collected by Form 325 in keeping the public informed about 
the cable industry. Such sources generally present a more up-to-date 
picture of the industry than Form 325 data, which are currently 
withheld from the public for three years due to competitive concerns. 
Furthermore, we note that no commenters in this proceeding state that 
they are currently using, or have recently used, the Form 325 data for 
any purpose, which is not surprising given the datedness of the 
information and the abundance of other sources available. Lastly, 
although Public Knowledge correctly notes that proprietary information 
from commercial sources can be expensive and subject to restrictive 
licensing terms, the Commission analyzes such sources in producing 
video competition reports and other documents available to the public, 
and many alternatives to Form 325 data are available to and have been 
used by commenters in Commission proceedings.
    15. While we agree with Public Knowledge that the Commission has a 
responsibility--and Congress and the public have an interest--in 
remaining informed about the nature and evolution of the cable 
industry, we find today that Form 325 does not remain necessary to 
fulfilling that responsibility.

Burdens Imposed by Form 325 Data Collection

    16. According to commenters, Form 325 is a significant burden to 
cable operators. ACA, NCTA, and Verizon report substantial time spent 
on these forms, in excess of Commission estimates. According to NCTA, 
even if the Commission's two-hour estimate for completion of a Form 325 
reflected operators' experience, larger operators ``would still need to 
devote 10 weeks' worth of employee time'' to complete the required 
forms. ACA points to ``several reasons for this lengthy timeframe,'' 
including that the form requires gathering of information that is not 
used in the typical course of business and collaboration among 
employees who do not typically interface. According to ACA, such a 
burden is particularly challenging for smaller operators with fewer 
resources at their disposal. NCTA also asserts that, ``[d]epending on 
internal workload and resources, some operators must hire contract 
workers to input data.'' In addition, both NCTA and ACA point to the 
need for operators to retain outside counsel ``to ensure that sensitive 
Form 325 data is provided confidential treatment.'' While commenters 
did not provide estimates of the monetary costs associated with 
completing and filing Form 325, the limited utility of the data 
collected therein cannot justify the number of hours expended by 
operators with limited resources in completing Form 325. Further, even 
the Commission's lower estimate of two hours to complete a Form 325 for 
each PSID represents a burden that likely outweighs the limited 
usefulness of Form 325 data today. Finally, we note that the Form 325 
data collection also places significant burdens on Commission staff to 
collect, compile, and maintain the data.
    17. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on ways to improve 
Form 325, if it were retained. In response, Public Knowledge suggests 
that rather than eliminate Form 325, the Commission should improve it 
and make better use of the data collected. However, we find that any 
attempt to overhaul Form 325 to make it more up-to-date and useful 
would be substantial and would likely result in creating a form that 
would duplicate other similarly up-to-date and useful sources that 
already exist. At the same time, we note that our action today does not 
obviate the need or legal obligation to file other data with the 
Commission, nor does it preclude future collection of relevant cable 
system information by the Office of Economics and Analytics once it is 
up and running.
    18. In sum, we find that the Form 325 is outdated and imposes 
significant burdens on both cable operators and Commission staff. 
Because this filing requirement no longer provides sufficient 
offsetting benefits to justify its retention, we find that its 
elimination is in the public interest.

IV. Procedural Matters

    19. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This document eliminates, and 
thus does not contain new or revised, information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, therefore, it does 
not contain any new or modified ``information burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the NPRM in MB Docket 17-290. The Commission sought 
written public comments on proposals in the NPRM, including comment on 
the IRFA. The Commission received no direct comments on the IRFA, 
although some commenters discussed the effect of the proposals on 
smaller entities, as discussed below. The present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    21. The Report and Order arises from a Public Notice issued by the 
Commission in May 2017, launching an initiative to modernize the 
Commission's media regulations. The Report and Order finds that 
marketplace, operational, and technological changes have overtaken Form 
325 and rendered it increasingly

[[Page 61334]]

obsolete, as reflected by the Commission's limited use of Form 325 data 
and reliance on alternative sources of data that offer the accuracy, 
timeliness, and ongoing availability that the Commission once looked to 
Form 325 to provide. In addition, the Report and Order finds that 
efforts to make Form 325 more up-to-date and useful would be 
substantial and would likely result in creating a form that would 
duplicate other similarly up-to-date and useful sources that already 
exist. The Report and Order concludes that the Form 325 data collection 
represents a significant burden on cable operators, as well as on 
Commission staff, and that this burden outweighs the limited usefulness 
of Form 325 data. Accordingly, the Report and Order adopts the NPRM's 
proposal to eliminate Form 325. Specifically, the Report and Order 
eliminates: (i) The requirement that the operator of every operational 
cable television system that serves 20,000 or more file with the 
Commission a Form 325 soliciting general information and frequency and 
signal distribution information on a Physical System Identification 
Number (``PSID'') basis; and (ii) the requirement that Form 325 be 
filed by any cable operator with less than 20,000 subscribers selected 
by random sampling.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the IRFA

    22. No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    23. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and to provide a detailed 
statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those 
comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to 
this proceeding.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 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 will be 
affected by the rules 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. 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. The final 
rules adopted herein affect small television and radio broadcast 
stations and small entities that operate daily newspapers. A 
description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the 
number of such small entities, is provided below.
    25. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). 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. 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 there are currently 4,300 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, 3,550 cable systems have 
fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 750 systems have 15,000 or more 
subscribers. Thus, we estimate 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 1 
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 million.'' There are approximately 51,859,070 
cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an 
operator serving fewer than 518,590 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, we find that all but six incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note 
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that 
some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are 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.

Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities

    27. The Report and Order eliminates the rule requiring cable system 
operators to complete Form 325. Accordingly, the Report and Order does 
not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements 
for small entities. The Report and Order thus will not impose 
additional obligations or expenditure of resources on small businesses.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its 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 
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.
    29. In this proceeding, the Commission has three chief alternatives 
available for Form 325--eliminate the form, modernize and streamline 
it, or retain it. The Commission finds that marketplace, operational, 
and technological changes have overtaken Form 325 and rendered it 
increasingly obsolete, as reflected by the Commission's limited use of 
Form 325 data and reliance on alternative sources of data that offer 
the accuracy, timeliness, and ongoing availability that the Commission 
once looked to Form 325 to provide. The Commission finds further that 
eliminating the form will benefit small entities by reducing the burden 
and costs of compliance. Thus, the Report and Order eliminates the 
obligation for cable systems to file Form 325. Eliminating this 
requirement is intended to modernize the Commission's regulations and 
reduce costs and recordkeeping burdens for affected entities, including 
small entities. According to commenters, small entities spend as many 
as ten hours completing Form 325. Under the revised rules, affected 
entities no longer will need to expend time and resources collecting, 
maintaining, and organizing the information requested in the form or

[[Page 61335]]

completing the form. Therefore, removing this information collection 
requirement will help small entities in particular to cut unnecessary 
costs related to gathering the information requested in Form 325 and 
completing the form. Thus, we anticipate that affected small entities 
will benefit from these revisions.

Report to Congress

    30. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    31. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    32. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 303, this Order is 
adopted.
    33. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in 
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 303, the Commission's rules 
ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A, effective as of the date of 
publication of a summary in the Federal Register.
    34. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
    35. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of the Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office.
    36. It is further ordered that, should no petitions for 
reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB 
Docket No. 17-290 shall be terminated and its docket closed.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, and 76 of title 47 
as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 
225, unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  0.408   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  0.408 in the table in paragraph (b) by removing the 
entry for ``3060-0061, FCC 325, 01/31/20''.

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
3. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 
303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless otherwise 
noted.


0
4. Amend Sec.  1.1703 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1703   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Filings. Any application, notification, registration statement, 
or report in plain text, or, when as prescribed, on FCC Forms, 320, 
321, 322, 324, or 327, whether filed in paper form or electronically.
* * * * *


Sec.  1.1705   [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  1.1705 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(5) and by 
removing ``325,'' from paragraph (b) introductory text and from 
paragraph (c)(1).

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
6. 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, 338, 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.

Subpart I--[Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve subpart I, consisting of Sec.  76.403.

[FR Doc. 2018-25323 Filed 11-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P