[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19226-19235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10309]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 98-43; FCC 98-57]
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media
Applications, Rules, and Processes
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to streamline broadcast application
and licensing procedures and reduce licensee administrative and filing
requirements. The Commission also proposes to eliminate rules and
procedures that no longer advance key objectives. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to mandate electronic filing for
certain broadcast application and reporting forms. By these proposals,
the Commission seeks
[[Page 19227]]
to preserve the public's ability to participate fully in the FCC
broadcast licensing process, reduce unwarranted applicant and licensee
burdens, and realize benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's electronic
filing initiative. This NPRM contains proposed or modified information
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on
the proposed or modified information collections contained in this
proceeding.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 16, 1998. Reply
comments are due July 16, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding,
interested parties must file an original plus six copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If parties filing
comments want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of the
comments, the parties must file an original plus eleven copies. Written
comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections on or before June 16, 1998. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
and/or modified information collections on or before June 16, 1998.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20554, or via Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain, OMB
Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503
or via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services
Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2780; James J. Brown, Video
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-1600; or Mania K.
Baghdadi, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2130.
For additional information concerning the information collections
contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214, or via the
Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 98-43 and FCC No. 98-57,
adopted April 2, 1998 and released April 3, 1998. The complete text of
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554 and may also be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, (202) 857-3800 (phone), (202) 857-3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Synopsis of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. These proposals are designed to reduce filing burdens and
increase the efficiency of the Mass Media Bureau application
processing. They recognize that this approach is feasible only if the
Commission retains the capacity to verify compliance with our rules and
the accuracy of application information through audits and inquiries.
Therefore, these proposals include the establishment of a formal system
of random audits along with the Commission's commitment to sanction
applicants that do not meet their obligations of full disclosure and
complete candor. We have tentatively identified certain policies that
either consume significant staff resources or create burdens that may
no longer be warranted. Accordingly, we propose to eliminate: payment
restrictions on the sale of unbuilt stations, the requirement to submit
contracts with assignment and transfer applications, and several rules
that add unwarranted filing burdens on commercial new station and
facility change applicants. We consider relaxing and conforming
ownership report filing requirements for commercial and noncommercial
stations. This proceeding also proposes fundamental changes in our
construction permit extension procedures. These changes would reduce
the need for repetitive extension filings. The Commission seeks
comments on procedures we can adopt, consistent with statutory
restrictions, to expedite the processing of pro forma assignment and
transfer applications. Finally, we invite comment on other measures
which may advance our streamlining goals.
II. Issue Analysis
A. Electronic Filing of Applications
2. The Mass Media Bureau is currently working on facilitating
electronic filing for 15 key broadcasting application and reporting
forms.1 The Commission invites comment on whether electronic
filing of these applications should be mandatory or permissive, and, if
mandatory, whether this requirement should be phased in. If
electronically filed applications are made available on the Internet,
interested parties could examine them at home, at the office, or
perhaps at the public library. The Commission invites comment on these
tentative views. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether
FCC Form 398, the Children's Programming Report, be filed
electronically. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as
well as on any legal, technical, or other issues raised by mandatory
electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Mass Media Bureau is developing electronic versions of
the following 15 forms: FCC Forms 301, 302-AM, 302-FM, 302-TV, 307,
314, 315, 316, 340, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, and 5072. We also
propose to require the electronic filing of Form 398, which already
is available in electronic form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should create
exemptions to mandatory filing for small businesses or other qualifying
entities, and what the criteria or waiver standards should be. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there should be a
transition period for mandatory filing and if so, should this period be
based on whether the filer is a small entity? Should the phase-in be
done on a form by form basis, and what phase in dates should be used?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether voluntary electronic
filing could or should be encouraged during the transition period. To
spur electronic filing, the Commission requests comments on possible
measures such as higher filing fees for paper filers. However, the
Commission notes its lack of statutory authority to structure filing
fees based on whether a filing is submitted in paper or electronic
form. If Mass Media Bureau electronic filing is phased in, should
parties also be required to submit traditional paper copies of any
electronic filings during the transition? Would such a requirement be
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, increase
administrative burdens, processing, or discourage electronic filing?
4. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act (``DCIA''),
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public
Law 104-34, Chapter 10, 110 Stat 1321, 1321-1358 (1996), the Commission
is required to monitor and provide information about its regulatees to
the U.S. Treasury. The statute includes a requirement that the
Commission collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers
[[Page 19228]]
(TIN), and share them with the U.S. Treasury. Individuals use their
Social Security Number as their TIN.2 Employers use their
Employer Identification Number (``EIN'') as their TIN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Therefore, for the purposes of this NPRM, the term
``Taxpayer Identification Number'' shall mean ``Social Security
Number'' for individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Commission invites comment on using TINs in a manner
analogous to their proposed use in the Wireless Bureau's Universal
Licensing System. We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs
would satisfy the requirements of the DCIA, and whether it would
provide a unique identifier for parties filing broadcast applications
that would ensure that the system functions properly. The Commission
would take steps to prevent misuse of TINs. Alternatively, we seek
comment on using the Bureau's unique database generated identifiers
that would be assigned to filers based on the date of filing and a
three-character alphanumeric sequence. Finally, a Privacy Act
submission would be published in the Federal Register to obtain the
requisite public and congressional comment and Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') approval prior to implementation of the electronic
filing system.
B. Streamlining Application Processing
6. The current versions of most Mass Media Bureau forms rely to a
significant extent on open-ended narrative exhibits and document
submissions. Accordingly, the Commission believes it is necessary to
undertake a thorough review of its broadcast forms and to reconsider
both the information that is collected and the form in which it is
submitted. Thus, the Commission considers changes to the license and
permit assignment and transfer forms--Forms 314, 315 and 316; the new
commercial station/technical modification form--Form 301; the
construction permit extension form--Form 307; and the annual ownership
report for commercial stations--Form 323. For Forms 314, 315, 316, and
301, the Commission has recasted as many questions as possible into an
electronic ``filing friendly'' format, replacing required exhibits with
certifications and ``yes/no'' questions. We tentatively conclude that
the broadcast application forms should restrict the use of exhibits to
waiver requests or where additional information is necessary to support
application elements potentially inconsistent with precedent or
processing standards. At the same time the Commission proposes to
reduce the amount of information applicants are now required to file.
For Forms 307 and 323, we propose to restructure filing requirements
altogether.
7. As part of this process the Commission is making revisions to
the instructions to the Mass Media Bureau application forms and adding
worksheets, where applicable, to help clarify Commission processing
standards and rule interpretations. The Commission's goal is to provide
applicants with sufficient guidance to intelligently certify compliance
with our rules and policies. The expanded application form instructions
are viewed as crucial to this process and therefore, the Commission
proposes to require each applicant to certify that it has read the
instructions and disclosed fully in exhibits all matters about which
there is any question regarding full compliance with the standards and
criteria set forth in the instructions. The Commission invites comment
on this proposal, and on whether it should require licensees to retain
worksheets to assist the Commission in its compliance efforts, or
alternatively, whether licensees should be required to place worksheets
in their public inspection files. We also propose to narrow or
eliminate application questions of marginal importance and believe
these changes will not undermine the Commission's ability to make
informed public interest determinations.
8. The Commission also proposes to eliminate or relax a number of
technical and non-technical rules and filing requirements. If adopted,
these changes would both reduce applicant filing burdens and streamline
our processing of sales, new station, and facility modification
applications.
Assignment and Transfer Applications: Forms 314 and 315
9. The Commission proposes substantial revisions to the sales
application forms (FCC Forms 314 and 315), including eliminating the
rule that restricts payments upon assignment or transfer of unbuilt
stations, and the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as
part of the assignment or transfer application. In addition, the
Commission proposes other changes that are not subject to the
rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act
3 and therefore may be implemented without notice and
comment. Nonetheless, the Commission discusses these changes here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Changes
10. Payment Restrictions on the Sale of Unbuilt Stations. Section
73.3597(c) of the Commission's rules restricts payments upon assignment
or transfer of an unbuilt station to reimbursement of a seller's
expenses (``no profit'' rule).4 In addition, Sec. 73.3597(d)
provides that where the seller retains an interest in an unbuilt
station, the Commission must consider whether the transaction involves
actual or potential gain to the seller over and above reimbursement of
expenses.5 In such cases, Commission rules provide that the
assignment or transfer application must be designated for hearing
unless the transferor or assignor has obligated itself to provide the
station with a capital contribution proportionate to the transferor's
or assignor's equity share in the station for the one-year period
commencing with program tests.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 CFR 73.3597(c).
\5\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(1).
\6\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``no profit'' rule. We
believe that there is no statutory proscription against the for-profit
sale of construction permits for unbuilt broadcast stations. With the
initiation of competitive bidding for broadcast spectrum in situations
where mutually exclusive applications are filed, the winning bidder's
payment of fair market value for a construction permit combined with a
restricted construction permit extension policy proposed infra will
promote the prompt construction of broadcast facilities.7
Thus, we tentatively conclude that we should follow the same
construction permit sale policy which is followed in other services
subject to auction procedures.8 Recognizing that auctions
may not be used to award construction permits in every context, for
example, non-commercial station construction permits or where there are
no competing commercial stations, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the fact that a construction permit may not be issued through
auction should cause us to retain the ``no profit'' rule in such
situations. Commenters are invited to discuss the benefits and
drawbacks of applying the ``no profit'' rule in cases where no auction
takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act--Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional
Television Fixed Service Licenses, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62
FR 65392 (December 12, 1997) (``Auction NPRM'').
\8\ See e.g., 47 CFR 24.839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Commission tentatively concludes that reimbursement
restrictions should also be eliminated
[[Page 19229]]
for outstanding construction permits. We tentatively conclude that we
also should permit the for-profit sale of these construction permits,
which to a certain extent have already been subject to private
competitive forces. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
13. If the current ``no profit'' rule were retained, the Commission
proposes allowing permittees to certify compliance with the rule by
answering a series of ``yes/no'' questions. The Commission would
continue to have the authority to request an itemized accounting of
expenses on a case-by-case basis where disclosures in an application
raise issues or concerns.9 The Commission seeks comment on
the appropriateness of allowing permittees to certify compliance, and
particularly on our proposal to allow a seller to certify that it will
not be reimbursed for more than its out-of-pocket expenses. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be sufficient to
require sellers to place copies of all expense documentation in a
station's public file if the no-profit rule is retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 47 CFR 1.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement To Submit Contracts With Assignment and Transfer
Applications
14. The current sales forms, FCC Forms 314, 315 and 316, require
that the seller submit a copy of the contract and/or agreement for the
assignment or transfer of the station, or if the agreement has not been
reduced to writing, a written description of the complete oral
agreement. In addition, Sec. 73.3613(b) of the Commission's rules
requires that licensees and permittees file with the Commission any
documents relating to the present or future ownership or control of the
licensee or permittee within thirty days of execution. The Commission
proposes to eliminate the requirement that such contracts and/or
agreements be filed as part of assignment or transfer applications as
well as the portion of Sec. 73.3613(b) that requires that such
agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of
execution. In lieu of this requirement, the Commission proposes to
require applicants to carefully and thoroughly review their sales and
organizational documents against the detailed standards set forth in
the instructions to Forms 314 and 315. We also propose to expand
application instructions to cover both the sales and loan agreements
and also issues relating to non-party investor influence over the
assignee or transferee. Applicants would be required to disclose fully
any sales, financing or investor information where the transaction or
the assignee entity does not conform fully to the standards set forth
in the instructions. However, copies of agreements may be requested on
a case-by-case basis where disclosures made in an application raise
issues or concerns. The Commission seeks comment on whether the
proposed application procedures and certifications would suffice
instead of the requirement that applicants file the sales agreements
with their applications. In particular, the Commission requests comment
on whether the proposed instruction materials and related
certifications would suffice instead of individualized review of
agreements and contracts where complex transactions are involved.
Finally, comment is sought on whether these procedures are sufficient
to discharge our obligation under Sec. 310(d) of the Act to grant only
those applications that serve the public interest, convenience and
necessity.
15. If the Commission eliminates the requirement that applicants
file sales agreements with their applications and the rule requiring
that such agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of
execution, it proposes to require that applicants place all such
agreements in the station's public inspection file and to modify our
public inspection file rule accordingly. The Commission seeks comment
on the impact of ending the practice of having sales agreements
available for inspection in the Commission's Washington, D.C. public
reference room.
Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap Maps
16. With regard to radio applicants, the Commission proposes to
reduce administrative burdens on broadcasters and at the same time
streamline the staff review process by eliminating the requirement that
applicants submit contour overlap maps to demonstrate compliance with
our local radio ownership rules. The Commission proposes reliance on
applicant certifications in place of contour maps. An applicant would
be in a position to make this local radio ownership certification only
after completing a worksheet. To the extent a proposed transaction
would involve more than one ``market,'' as that term is defined in
Sec. 73.3555(a)(4)(ii), applicants would be required to complete the
worksheet with regard to each such market. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal, and whether our elimination of the requirement that
applicants submit contour overlap maps will detrimentally affect the
public's ability to access the information necessary to monitor station
sales and thereby undermine the opportunity for meaningful public
participation under Sec. 309(d) of the Act.10 The Commission
seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to place a copy
of the contour overlap map in the station's public inspection file. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether applicants should be exempt
from the public file requirement in those situations in which
compliance is obvious, e.g., where a certification is premised on the
fact there are forty-five or more stations in a major market. The
Commission seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to
prepare a map solely for placement in the station's public inspection
file in such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 47 U.S.C. 309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Revisions
17. Certain proposed revisions to the sales forms (FCC Forms 314
and 315) do not require changes in our rules. These changes are
intended to maximize the advantages of electronic filing and processing
and eliminate burdensome disclosure requirements. These proposed form
changes are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice
and comment rulemaking requirements.11 Nevertheless,
interested parties are urged to review the draft forms carefully so
that meaningful comments may be submitted regarding the proposed
revisions in the forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Commercial Station and Facility Change Applications: Form 301 Rule
Revisions
18. Section 73.316(c). The Commission proposes to modify
Sec. 73.316(c) to shift the filing requirements now codified in
subsections (1)-(2) and (4)-(7) from the construction permit phase to
the license phase of the FM authorization process.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 47 CFR 73.316(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Section 73.1030(a). The Commission seeks comment on its
proposal to modify Sec. 73.1030(a) by eliminating the requirement that
applicants indicate in their applications the date of radio astronomy
observatory notification.
20. Section 73.1675(a). The Commission seeks comment on its
proposal to modify this rule to eliminate the map requirement for
auxiliary facilities for the FM and TV broadcast services. Although the
Commission believes that the rationale for eliminating the
Sec. 73.1675(a) map requirement is equally applicable to the
[[Page 19230]]
FM and TV broadcast services, it proposes to retain the map requirement
for AM auxiliary facility permit applications.
The Commission believes that adoption of these changes would not
jeopardize the technical integrity of the broadcast services or the
consistent enforcement of our core rules and policies. The Commission
seeks comments on these modifications, and request additional
suggestions to eliminate or streamline reporting and filing
requirements which relate to Form 301 filings.
Form Revisions
21. The Commission also proposes to reorganize and streamline FCC
Form 301. It proposes to conform Forms 301, 314 and 315 non-technical
questions where regulatory concerns are identical. In addition, the
Commission proposes to reorganize the FM technical data section of the
application, section V-B. The revised section V-B would require
applicants to certify compliance with our technical rules for routine
and non-waiver issues. The technical data required for engineering
review would be organized in such a manner as to facilitate electronic
entry and processing of data.
C. Enforcement
22. The Commission's proposals would significantly streamline the
amount of information that applicants must furnish to the Commission.
Consequently, the Commission would rely more heavily on certifications
by applicants that they comply with the applicable rules. These
proposals do not signify any lessening of the Commission's expectation
that licensees conduct themselves as public trustees. Current
enforcement measures applied by the Commission range from admonitions
to forfeitures to conducting hearings to determine whether to revoke or
deny renewal of a broadcaster's license. The Commission invites comment
as to whether our existing enforcement measures and policies remain
sufficient.
23. If the proposed revisions to the Commission's application forms
and processing procedures are adopted, the Commission intends to have a
formal program of random audits to ensure that licensees continue to
comply with our rules and we intend to rely heavily on such audits. The
Commission invites comments to how it should implement such audits and
whether such audits are sufficient means of ensuring continued licensee
compliance with our rules and policies. If not, the Commission invites
comment as to what additional measures, if any, it should adopt.
D. Modifying Construction Permit Extension Procedures
24. For new or modified facilities, the Commission issues a
construction permit for either 24 months (for full power TV) or 18
months (for AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV
translator, TV booster, FM translator, FM booster, broadcast auxiliary,
or Instructional TV Fixed station (``ITFS'')). Within the specified
time frame, a permittee must complete construction and file an
application for a license to cover. Additional time may be granted only
if the licensee or permittee can demonstrate one of the following three
conditions, the so-called ``one-in-three'' showing: (1) construction is
complete and testing is underway looking toward the prompt filing of a
license application; (2) substantial progress has been made; or (3) no
progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control of the
permittee but the permittee has taken all possible steps to
expeditiously resolve the problem and proceed with construction.
25. While many permittees are now able to complete construction
within the initial construction period afforded under the current
rules, a significant number of permittees do not succeed in
constructing their proposed facilities prior to permit expiration. As a
result, the staff receives large numbers of extension applications,
creating a tremendous burden on staff resources. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to: (1) issue all construction permits for a
uniform three-year term; (2) extend permits only in circumstances where
the permit itself is the subject of administrative or judicial appeal
or where construction delays have been caused by an ``act of God;'' (3)
eliminate the current practice of providing extra time for construction
after a permit has been the subject of a modification or an assignment
or transfer of control; and (4) make construction permits subject to
automatic forfeiture upon expiration. Additionally, the Commission
proposes to apply these rules to any construction permit that is within
its initial construction period at the time these rules are adopted.
26. The Commission invites comment on the need for, and relative
merits of, a uniform period and seeks comment as to whether a three
year term is appropriate. The Commission solicits comments on typical
construction time lines and problems, particularly where commenters
support alternative permit time frames. It also seeks comment as to
whether the proposed longer construction period would remove an
incentive for prompt construction by permittees who are capable of
completing construction much earlier than the proposed three-year
deadline. Commenters are specifically asked to comment on the extent to
which construction permit applicants are unprepared and unwilling to
proceed promptly with construction when they apply, but rather are
applying to warehouse spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether we should impose a shorter construction period, e.g., one year,
for construction permits for minor modifications to licensed
facilities. The Commission does not propose to apply the three-year
construction period to the digital television (``DTV'') facilities
constructed by initial DTV licensees, which are on their own
construction schedule.13 However, in its Memorandum Opinion
and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order the
Commission established special construction rules for new NTSC
permittees whose applications remained pending on April 3,
1997.14 This limited class of permittees, which are not
eligible for an initial DTV paired license, may construct either an
analog or a digital station. These permittees also must complete
construction with the ``traditional'' two-year construction period
applied to NTSC stations, 15 and, if they initially
construct analog facilities, may convert to DTV by the 2006 deadline.
If the proposed three-year construction period is adopted, the
Commission proposes to increase to three years the initial period
afforded these NTSC permittees to construct either analog or digital
facilities. The Commission does not propose a change in the 2006
deadline for converting to DTV. The Commission invites comment as to
whether the two-year period for this group of NTSC permittees should be
extended to three years if we adopt the three-year proposal discussed
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26996 (May 16, 1997) on
reconsideration, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998). See also Sixth Report
and Order 62 FR 26684 (May 14, 1997), on reconsideration, 63 FR
13546 (March 20, 1998).
\14\ Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the
Fifth Report and Order, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998).
\15\ Id. para. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrict Extensions to Circumstances Where Delays Are Beyond the
Permittee's Control
27. The Commission also proposes to strictly limit the
circumstances that would qualify for an extension under
[[Page 19231]]
the ``circumstances beyond control'' criterion. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it can limit the tolling of the
construction period to when the grant of a construction permit is the
subject of administrative or judicial appeals or when construction has
been delayed by an ``act of God.'' The Commission proposes to define
``acts of God'' very narrowly in terms of natural disasters (e.g.,
floods, tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes) and even then to only
toll the construction period for the length of time which a diligent
permittee would need to recover from the effects of the event, up to a
maximum of one year. It also proposes to require strict documentation
of a permittee's efforts to build subsequent to such events. Commenters
are requested to address both the legal and economic consequences of
this proposal and to suggest a mechanism by which a permittee would
inform the Commission of natural disasters which have delayed
construction and request the tolling of a construction period. The
Commission seeks comment on whether this proposed rule change would be
consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. Finally, it sees comment as to
whether difficulties in obtaining local zoning authorization are
sufficiently beyond the permittee's control to warrant treatment
similar to that of delays caused by administrative and judicial review.
The Commission's tentative conclusion is that zoning delays can be
overcome and construction can be completed within the proposed three-
year construction period if a permittee pursues the zoning process
diligently.
Eliminate Post-Modification and Post-Assignment Extensions
28. When a permittee for a new facility files an application to
modify its construction permit, or an application to assign or transfer
control of its construction permit in the second half of the
construction permit's initially authorized period, the Commission
currently requires a ``one-in-three'' showing and, upon grant, the
permittee, in most instances, is provided additional time to complete
construction. The Commission proposes to eliminate both the restriction
on second-half construction period modifications and assignments and
the extended construction periods provided under our rules. The
Commission seeks comment on whether elimination of automatic extensions
when unbuilt stations have been modified, assigned, or transferred is
consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. In addition, we propose to
eliminate the requirement that permittees that modify unbuilt stations
certify that construction will commence immediately upon grant.
16 We also propose to eliminate the analogous certification
requirement for assignees and transferees.17 The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(b).
\17\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Forfeiture of Expired Construction Permits
29. While Sec. 319(b) of the Act provides for the automatic
forfeiture of an expired construction permit (unless the Commission
authorizes additional time or the delay was caused by circumstances
outside the permittee's control), the Commission's practice has been to
take an affirmative action cancelling a construction permit before it
is forfeited. In an effort to streamline this process, the Commission
proposes to make a construction permit subject to automatic forfeiture,
without further Commission action, upon expiration of the proposed
three-year construction period. The Commission seeks comment on whether
an automatic cancellation policy for expired construction permits
should be adopted and its tentative conclusion that such a procedure
would be consistent with the Act's automatic forfeiture provision.
Application of New Rules to Outstanding Permits
30. Finally, the Commission proposes that the rules regarding
construction permits, and extensions thereof, adopted in this
rulemaking proceeding be applied to any construction permit that is
currently in its initial construction period (i.e., the first 24 months
for a full power TV facilities permit and the first 18 months for an
AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV translator, TV
booster, FM translator, FM booster, or broadcast auxiliary permit). The
Commission invites comment on whether to extend the proposed extension
policy to outstanding permits, whether implementation would cause
unjustifiable hardship to permittees, and whether this approach would
result in a disservice to the public. The Commission believes, however,
that it would be administratively unworkable to apply the proposed
rules to construction permits that are already beyond their initial
construction periods (whether through extension, assignment, transfer
of control, or modification). Because many of these permits have
already been afforded a construction period close to (or, in many
instances, in excess of) the three-year term proposed in this Notice,
the Commission proposes to continue to apply the rules as they exist
today to permits outside their initial periods. The Commission invites
comment on the tentative conclusion that it is more appropriate to
continue to apply its current rules to construction permits that are
beyond their initial periods.
E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments and Transfers
31. Approximately 35 percent of radio and television assignment and
transfer applications propose pro forma transactions and are filed on
FCC Form 316. Applications are typically processed and disposed of
within 10 working days. For certain pro forma transfers and
assignments, which do not affect actual control of the licensee or
permittee and which are routinely granted by the Commission,
broadcasters have questioned whether they should be required to file an
application and wait for a grant. The Commission invites commenters to
identify any specific situations or transactions negatively impacted by
the Mass Media Bureau's current rate of disposal. Some types of pro
forma assignments or transfers may be suited for streamlined
procedures. For example: (1) court-ordered transfers to a bankruptcy
trustee; (2) certain corporate reorganizations (such as a change in an
intermediate wholly-owned subsidiary); (3) reorganization by a
corporate licensee in another state where no other changes are made;
(4) involuntary assignment or transfer of control of license or
construction permit due to death or legal disability of the individual
permittee or licensee; and (5) assignment of less than a controlling
interest in a partnership. The Commission invites comment on whether
these and/or other categories of pro forma transfers and assignments
should be subjected to a streamlined procedure and whether this may be
done while complying with Sec. 310(d).
32. Under such a streamlined procedure certain assignments and
transfers, as listed above, could be carried out by licensees or
permittees, subject only to a requirement that the Commission be
notified of the assignment or transfer within a certain period
thereafter (say 30 days) and the requirement that an Ownership Report
Form be filed within 30 days after the assignment or
transfer.18 Would Sec. 310(d) permit adoption of such a
notification procedure? In the context of Cable Television Relay
Service (``CARS''), we have streamlined transfers by providing
[[Page 19232]]
that prior Commission consent is not required for assignments or
transfers of control ``in cases where the change in ownership does not
affect the identity or controlling interest of the
licensee.''19 The Commission invites comment as to whether
this precedent is applicable to broadcast transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 47 CFR 73.3615(f).
\19\ 47 CFR 78.35(c); Report and Order, 50 FR 23417 (June 4,
1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. The Commission also invites comment on the procedures that
should be followed for notifications of transactions that are
determined to fall outside the scope of per se grantable applications.
Commenters should also consider the procedures the Commission should
adopt in response to notifications for transactions that the Commission
concludes are both voluntary and involve a substantial change in
ownership or control, and thus are subject to the public notice and
petition to deny provisions of Sec. 309(d). Finally, the Commission
invites comment on the sanctions that should be imposed for such
erroneous notifications.
34. The Commission also uses ``short form'' procedures in
connection with tender offers and proxy contests to acquire control of
entities that hold Commission licenses.20 We question
whether the streamlining options considered in this Notice should apply
to our tender offer and proxy contest processing policies. Accordingly,
we seek comment on our tentative conclusion that the proposed
streamlining procedures should not be extended to cover the processing
of ``short form'' applications relating to tender offers and proxy
contests for control of Commission licensees. Assuming that a
notification procedure could be adopted consistent with Sec. 310(d),
are there benefits to obtaining prior consent to such transactions that
would be lost if the Commission adopts a notification requirement?
Should the Commission require that a notification and Ownership Report
both be filed with the Commission or, in the alternative, would an
Ownership Report be sufficient in this regard? Is the thirty-day period
an appropriate time limit for the notification requirement? Should the
Commission require that a notification letter be filed, or should the
Commission adopt a new notification form for this purpose? If the
Commission requires that a notification letter or form be filed, what
information should be required to be filed in the letter? Finally,
should the Commission place such notifications on public notice to
permit the public an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
application of the ``blanket'' consent to a particular transaction?
Alternatively, would a requirement that the notification be placed in
the station's public file be sufficient in this regard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See generally Tender Offers and Proxy Contests, 59 Rad.
Reg. 1536 (1986), appeal dismissed sub nom. Office of Communication
of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 826 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir.
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. As an alternative to a notification procedure, the Commission
could keep the current application process but, in the case of certain
specified pro forma assignments and transfers, permit applicants to
proceed, at their own risk, to consummate the transfer or assignment if
Commission action denying the application is not taken within a set
short period after the application is filed. The Commission invites
comment as to whether this alternative would be consistent with
Sec. 310(d). The Commission would, in the event that this proposal is
adopted, retain the authority to deny the assignment or transfer even
after such a consummation and require that the transaction be unwound.
Thus, the Commission believes its authority under section 310 of the
Act would be retained.
36. Assuming such an alternative procedure is consistent with
Sec. 310(d), the Commission invites comment as to the appropriate time
period for Commission action, e.g., ten business days. Further, the
Commission invites comment as to whether such a proposal would
significantly and meaningfully reduce regulatory burdens and provide
adequate relief. The Commission notes its concern that it may be
difficult to unwind sales transactions after they have occurred. It
invites comment as to whether this is a significant negative factor
that should be considered or whether it should rely on applicants to
make a reasoned judgment as to whether they should assume the risk that
a transaction consummated prior to FCC consent must be subsequently
unwound. The Commission notes that this proposal would apply only to
narrow categories of pro forma transfers and assignments, as specified
above, where Commission consent is routinely granted. The Commission
invites comment on all aspects of this proposal.
F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting Requirements
37. The Commission proposes to reduce the frequency with which
Ownership Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and
noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast stations must be
filed with the Commission. Currently, most licensees of commercial
broadcast stations are required to file Ownership Reports annually.
This proposal would relax this requirement so that such licensees would
have to file Ownership Reports when they file their stations' license
renewal applications and four years thereafter, at the mid-point of
their scheduled license term. In addition, the Commission proposes to
formalize the Commission's current practice of requesting an Ownership
Report within 30 days of an approved assignment or transfer by amending
Sec. 73.3615 of the Commission's Rules to specifically require that
every commercial and noncommercial educational licensee or permittee
file an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 or 323-E within 30 of days of
consummation of an approved license assignment or transfer of control.
In the event the Commission adopts a notification procedure for certain
pro forma assignments and transfers, the Commission proposes to require
the filing of an Ownership Report within thirty days of the
consummation of those transactions. Comment on all aspects of these
proposals is invited. We also seek comment on whether it should adopt
the same proposed relaxed ownership reporting requirements for
noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast station licensees and
permittees.
38. The Commission invites comment on its tentative conclusion that
the proposed relaxation in ownership reporting would ease paperwork
burdens on licensees and permittees without impairing the public's
ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station owners. The
Commission also tentatively concludes the proposal would not adversely
affect its ability to monitor ownership of commercial and noncommercial
educational broadcast stations and compliance with the Commission's
multiple ownership limitations and the alien ownership and prior
consent provisions of Sec. 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. We also invite comment as to whether our proposals would
hinder members of the public and other broadcasters in obtaining
necessary ownership information and monitoring ownership changes.
39. The current ownership reporting requirements are stricter for
noncommercial stations than for commercial stations. The Commission
proposes, therefore, to conform Form 323-E and Form 323 reporting
requirements. We seek comment on whether eliminating the 30-day
supplemental reporting requirement, coupled with the addition of a
regular four-year filing requirement, would
[[Page 19233]]
result in an overall reduction of the burden on noncommercial
educational licensees.
40. The Commission invites comment as to whether a two-year or
other reporting interval would be more appropriate or beneficial. In
this regard, commenters contending that a four-year reporting
requirement would be detrimental to the public's or the Commission's
ability to monitor adequately significant changes in the ownership of
broadcast stations should provide specific examples and arguments to
substantiate their position.
Ordering Clauses
41. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,
308, 309, and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
42. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this
Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
III. Administrative Matters
A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Notice proposes rule and procedural revisions which may
contain an information collection requirement. As part of our
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general
public and OMB to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collection contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments
are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy
of any comments on the information collections contained herein should
be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room
234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--
17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
fain__t@al.eop.gov.
B. Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte
presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with
Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when
presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum
summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of
the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised.
Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set
forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (``IRFA'') is contained in the Attachment. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act,21 the Commission has prepared an
IRFA of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written public comments
are requested on the IRFA. The Commission asks a number of questions in
its IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the industries
covered by this Notice. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice and
must have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
\21\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(1981), as amended.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Attachment
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(``RFA''),22 the Commission has prepared this present
Initial Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''). Written public
comments are requested on this IRA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition,
the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has
been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law 194-12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (``CWAA''). Title II of the
CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (``SBREFA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
With this Notice, the Commission commences a proceeding to
review its broadcast applications and related rules. The
Commission's goals are to streamline its procedures, speed
introduction of new and expanded services to the public, reduce
administrative burdens on regulatees, increase public access to
information about the Bureau's actions and processing activities,
and maximize efficiency in the use of Commission resources, while
maintaining the technical integrity of broadcast services, fostering
the Commission's goals of competition and diversity, continuing
enforcement of the Commission's core rules and policies, and
permitting members of the public a continued opportunity to monitor
station performance. This review is taken in conjunction with the
Commission's 1998 biennial regulatory review. Although Congress did
not mandate this area of review, the Commission nonetheless
undertakes it to assure that its rules and processes are no more
regulatory than necessary to achieve Commission goals.
B. Legal Basis
Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found
in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 308, 309,
and 310.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations,
small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.
601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small
business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. 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''). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency after
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
of such term which are appropriate to the
[[Page 19234]]
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.'' 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ While we tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of
``small business'' greatly overstates the number of radio and
television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not
suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the proposals on
small television and radio stations, for purposes of this Notice, we
utilize the SBA's definition in determining the number of small
businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we reserve
the right to adopt a more suitable definition of ``small business''
as applied to radio and television broadcast stations or other
entities subject to the proposed rules in this Notice and to
consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are
radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in
the future. See Report and Order, 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996)
(Children's Television Programming), citing 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rules and policies will apply to television
broadcasting licensees, radio broadcasting licensees and potential
licensees of either service. The Small Business Administration
defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than
$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.24
Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public,
except cable and other pay television services.25
Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,
and other television stations.26 Also included are
establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and
which produce taped television program materials.27
Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped
television program materials are classified under another SIC
number.28 There were 1,509 television stations operating
in the nation in 1992.29 That number has remained fairly
constant as indicated by the approximately 1,569 operating
television broadcasting stations in the nation as of January 31,
1998.30 For 1992,31 the number of television
stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155
establishments.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996).
\25\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).
\26\ Id. See Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual
(1987), at 283.
\27\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).
\28\ Id. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production);
SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services
(producers of live radio and television programs)).
\29\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, note 33, supra, Appendix A-9.
\30\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January
31, 1998.
\31\ Census for Communications' establishments are performed
every five years ending with a ``2'' or ``7''. See Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce, supra.
\32\ The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number
of small business establishments because the relevant Census
categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No
category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate
as it is possible to calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Small Business Administration defines a radio
broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in annual
receipts as a small business.33 A radio broadcasting
station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural
programs by radio to the public.34 Included in this
industry are commercial religious, educational, and other radio
stations.35 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily
are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program
materials are similarly included.36 However, radio
stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged
in producing radio program material are classified under another SIC
number.37 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent
(5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5
million in revenue in 1992.38 Official Commission records
indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in
1992.39 As of January 31, 1998, official Commission
records indicate that 12,241 radio stations were operating, of which
7,488 were FM stations.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4832.
\34\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce, supra, Appendix A-9.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
\38\ The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same
facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM
combination counts as one establishment.
\39\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.
\40\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January
31, 1998.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the proposed rules will affect many of the approximately
1,569 television stations, approximately 1,208 of which are
considered small businesses.41 Additionally, the proposed
rules will affect some of the 12,241 radio stations, approximately
11,751 of which are small businesses.42 These estimates
may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures
on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from
non-television or non-radio affiliated companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at
less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 1998 total of
1569 TV stations to arrive at 1,208 stations categorized as small
businesses.
\42\ We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with
less than $5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to
the 12,241 individual station count to arrive at 11,751 individual
stations as small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to owners of operating radio and television
stations, any entity who seeks or desires to obtain a television or
radio broadcast license may be affected by the proposals contained
in this item. The number of entities that may seek to obtain a
television or radio broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment
as to such number.
D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
The measures proposed in this Notice would reduce the reporting
required of prospective and current applicants, permittees and
licensees. All proposals aim to reduce the overall administrative
burden upon both the public and the Commission. We propose to make
the electronic filing of many broadcast related applications
mandatory and seek comment as to whether to do so on a phased-in
basis. We note that such a phased-in procedure has been used
elsewhere to benefit small businesses. For example, the SEC
incorporated its mandatory filing rules in stages. While most
companies were phased into the electronic filing system in 1993,
small businesses were not completely phased in until May 1996. We
believe that electronic filing could, among other things, speed the
processing of applications, save Commission resources, and make
filing easier for regulatees by informing them of certain errors in
their applications before they are actually sent.
The full benefits of electronic filing and processing would not
be realized simply by concerting the current version of each form
into an electronic format. We have therefore concluded that it is
necessary to undertake a thorough review of broadcast forms and to
reconsider both the information that is collected and the form in
which it is submitted. Accordingly, we propose to delete or narrow
overly burdensome questions and to rely more on applicant
certifications. If adopted, these changes would both reduce
applicant filing burdens and streamline our processing of sales, new
station, and facility modification applications. We also tentatively
propose to eliminate the rule restricting payments upon assignment
or transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we tentatively propose to
eliminate the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as
part of the assignment or transfer application, and that such
agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of
execution. Instead, we propose that such agreements would have to be
placed in the station's public inspection file and the current
permittee or licensee would be required to certify to such
placement. In addition, we propose to make revisions to the sales
forms that are intended to maximize the advantages of electronic
filing and processing.
We further propose to reduce the frequency with which Ownership
Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and noncommercial
educational AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations must be filed with the
Commission. We tentatively believe that this proposal would ease the
paperwork burden on licensees and permittees without impairing the
public's ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station
owners.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
This Notice solicits comment on a variety of alternatives
discussed herein. These
[[Page 19235]]
alternatives are intended to streamline our rules and procedures.
Our goals are to reduce applicant and licensee burdens, realize
fully the benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's current electronic
filing initiative, and preserve the public's ability to participate
fully in our broadcast licensing processes. These proposals are
designed to reduce filing burdens and increase the efficiency of
application processing. Any significant alternatives presented in
the comments will be considered.
F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules
The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do
not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.
It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this
Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
A copy of this IRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM;
OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM
in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
OMB Approval Number: None.
Title: NPRM--Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and
Processes.
Form Nos.: FCC 301 (3060-0027), FCC 302-AM (3060-0627), FCC 302-
FM (3060-0506), FCC 302-TV (3060-0029), FCC 307 (3060-0407), FCC 314
(3060-0031), FCC 315 (3060-0032), FCC 316 (3060-0009), FCC 340
(3060-0034), FCC 345 (3060-0075), FCC 346 (3060-0016), FCC 347
(3060-0017), FCC 349 (3060-0405), FCC 350 (3060-0404), FCC 398
(3060-0754), FCC 5072 (change of address form), FCC 323 (3060-0010)/
FCC 323-E (3060-0084)
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit
institutions.
Number of Respondents: 13,767 (this number includes respondents
for all forms listed above).
Estimated Time Per Response: Varies from 2.5 hours to 1,016
hours (this represents the lowest burden/highest burden forms).
Frequency of Response: Reporting requirement, on occasion.
Estimated Cost to Respondent: $65,898,600 (this number
represents a total of all information collections involved).
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 174,082 hours (this number
represents a total of all information collections).
Needs and Uses: With this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on
streamlining broadcast applications and licensing procedures,
reducing administrative and filing requirements and eliminating
rules and procedures that no longer advance key regulatory
objectives. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to mandate
electronic filing for broadcast application and reporting forms.
[FR Doc. 98-10309 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
