[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32061-32066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 97-138, RM-8855, 8856, 8857, 8858, 8872]
Main Studio and Public Inspection File of Broadcast Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'' or
``NPRM''), the Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendment of
its rules governing main studio and local public inspection file
requirements for broadcast licensees. The Commission seeks comment on
its proposals to relax the standard governing the location of the main
studio and to allow the local public inspection file to be located at
the broadcast station's main studio, wherever located. Comment is also
sought regarding proposals to streamline the contents of the public
inspection file. For additional information, see Supplementary
Information.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 8, 1997, and reply
comments on or before September 8, 1997. Written comments by the public
on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due August
8, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 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
[[Page 32062]]
Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554, or via
the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, 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 synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-138, adopted May 22,
1997, and released May 28, 1997. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Main Studio and
Public File
1. As part of our continuing effort to ensure that our rules serve
the public interest without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens, we
here consider relaxation of our broadcast main studio and local public
inspection file rules. The main studio rule generally requires each AM
radio, FM radio, and television broadcast station to maintain its main
studio within its principal community signal contour. The local public
inspection file rules require broadcast stations to maintain a number
of records in a file that is accessible to the public. Our current
rules require that this file be located at the station's main studio
where the studio is situated in the station's community of license, or,
if the main studio is outside the community of license, at any
accessible place (such as a public registry for documents or an
attorney's office) in the station's community of license. Both rules
seek to ensure that members of the local community have reasonable
access to station management and information about the station. This
enables the residents of the community to monitor a station's public
interest performance, and encourages a continuing dialogue between the
station and its community.
2. We have received a number of petitions for rule making regarding
these rules. None of these petitions questions the underlying purposes
served by the rules. Rather, they seek to relax various aspects of the
rules in a manner they believe will lessen regulatory burdens on
licensees without any detriment to the public interest. We placed these
petitions on public notice, and received several comments and reply
comments that generally supported the petitioners' proposals. We
believe a number of these proposals may be in the public interest in
that they would provide broadcast licensees additional flexibility in
complying with the main studio and public inspection file rules, while
at the same time ensuring that the rules continue to facilitate
interaction between licensees and their local communities. This
document seeks comment on the various issues raised by these proposals.
We also take this opportunity to seek comment on various ways to update
and clarify our local public inspection file rules.
3. Main Studio Location. Prior to our most recent amendment of the
rule, broadcasters were required to maintain their main studios in
their community of license. In 1987, we relaxed the rule to permit a
station to locate its main studio outside its community of license
provided it is within its principal community contour. In doing so, we
noted that the role of the main studio in the production of programming
had diminished over the years, that community residents often
communicate with stations by telephone or mail rather than visiting the
studio, and that the growth of modern highways and mass transit systems
had reduced travel times. We further observed that the revised rule
would allow broadcasters to obtain certain efficiencies, such as
colocating a station's studio at its transmitter site or moving the
studio to lower cost areas. These factors persuaded us that relaxing
the rule would provide broadcasters greater flexibility while at the
same time ensuring that their main studios continued to be reasonably
accessible to the communities they serve.
4. Apex Associates and others filed a petition for rule making that
proposes a further relaxation of the rule. It requests the Commission
to amend the rule to provide that ``every AM, FM and TV station shall
maintain a main studio which is so situated as to be reasonably
accessible to residents of the station's community of license.'' The
petition also proposes that the definition of ``reasonably accessible''
be left within the discretion of each licensee, or in the alternative,
that this term be defined as ``within 30 minutes normal driving time''
from the community of license. All commenters support the proposed
amendment to the rules.
5. Discussion. The Apex petition presents several legitimate
reasons for considering relaxation of the main studio rule. As an
initial matter, the parties have pointed out that the current rule may
be imposing undue burdens on licensees. There is a longstanding
Congressional and Commission policy in favor of reducing regulatory
burdens consistent with the public interest wherever appropriate. We
also believe a review of the rule is particularly warranted in light of
the recent changes in the local radio ownership rules. In 1987, the
last time the main studio rule was revised, the maximum number of radio
stations that a single licensee could own in a market was two: one AM
and one FM. Subsequently, the Commission amended the local radio
ownership rules to permit ownership of up to three commercial radio
stations, no more than two in the same service, in radio markets with
14 or fewer radio stations, provided that the owned stations, if other
than a single AM and FM combination, represented less than 50 percent
of the stations in the market; in markets with 15 or more commercial
radio stations, the rules permitted ownership of up to two AM and two
FM commercial radio stations if the combined audience share of the
commonly owned stations did not exceed 25 percent in the market. In
February 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996),
which further relaxed the local radio ownership limits. In the largest
markets, for example, a single entity can now own up to eight
commercial radio stations. A licensee owning two or more stations in
the same area may find it most efficient to operate these stations from
a centrally located studio/business office, yet the main studio rule
would require it to maintain a separate main studio for one or more of
its commonly-owned stations if they do not place a principal community
contour signal over the central studio/office. As the Apex petition
points out, this can impose substantial burdens on the licensee,
depriving it of savings that could be put to more productive use for
the benefit of the community served by the station. These burdens are
also arguably inconsistent with the economies of scale that can be
achieved through common ownership of stations that Congress implicitly
found to be in the public interest in relaxing the local radio
ownership rules in the 1996 Act.
6. We also believe that review of the main studio rule is warranted
because it may place disproportionate burdens on owners of smaller
stations. The principal community contour of a broadcast station--the
determinant of the main studio's location--varies greatly depending on
a station's channel
[[Page 32063]]
or class. High power stations, which have principal community contours
as great as 70 or 80 miles in diameter, consequently have greater
flexibility in locating their main studios under the rule than low
power stations, which can have principal community contours as small as
20 miles in diameter. While the current rule serves to ensure that the
main studio is located in the primary reception area of the station,
the petitioners and commenting parties have raised concerns about the
differential treatment between small and larger stations that call for
a review of the rule's use of a principal community contour standard.
7. We further note that, as some of the petitioners and commenters
maintain, it is possible for a main studio to be outside the station's
principal community contour and yet still be reasonably accessible to
the community of license. For example, a location outside the principal
community contour may be convenient to community residents because of
its proximity to particular commuting patterns, access to public
transportation or major highways, or the availability of ample public
parking. The current rule may be too limited to take into account these
possibilities. Conversely, many locations within a principal community
contour may be difficult or relatively inconvenient to get to.
8. Given the above factors, we generally propose to relax the main
studio rule and replace the community contour standard with a new
standard that gives licensees additional flexibility yet continues to
ensure that the main studio is reasonably accessible to a station's
community of license. We seek comment on this general proposal and its
potential impact on the public interest. We particularly invite comment
on the manner in which we should determine whether a station's main
studio is reasonably accessible to the residents of its community of
license.
9. The Apex petition argues that the revised rule should simply
require the main studio be ``reasonably accessible to residents of the
station's community of license,'' leaving it to the discretion of each
licensee to define what reasonable is in the first instance. As an
alternative, the Apex Petition argues that ``reasonably accessible''
should be defined as ``within 30 minutes normal driving time'' from the
community of license. While we seek comment on these options, we are
not inclined to adopt them given their lack of clarity. While relaxing
the rule, they would appear to create a significant amount of
uncertainty for the public and licensees regarding the appropriate
location of a station's main studio. Such a vague rule could make it
difficult for licensees to determine whether a chosen site complies
with the rule, and could generate numerous disputes which would have to
be resolved by the Commission on an individual basis, which would be
administratively inefficient.
10. Another option would involve retaining the principal community
contour standard and adopting a waiver policy that would allow a
station to locate its main studio outside the contour in specified
circumstances. Such a policy would permit the Commission to examine on
a case-by-case basis commuting patterns, population densities, local
transportation and highway systems, and other factors unique to each
community. We are disinclined, however, to pursue this approach. It too
would create considerable uncertainty and would impose substantial
administrative burdens on both licensees and the Commission. We also
note that our rules currently permit a licensee to seek a waiver of the
Commission's main studio location requirement.
11. We consequently favor a generally applicable rule that measures
``reasonable accessibility'' in a manner that can be clearly and easily
understood and applied. One way this could be accomplished is to
require that the main studio be located within the principal community
contour of any station licensed to the community of license in
question. This would provide a clear, easy-to-apply rule, eliminate the
differential treatment in the current rule between low and high power
stations, and give many stations a larger area within which to choose a
studio location. For example, in a community with a licensed Class A FM
station and a licensed Class C FM station, either station could locate
its main studio anywhere within the latter station's principal
community contour, which generally has a radius of over 42 miles. We
question, however, whether this would provide for a studio location far
from the listeners of smaller stations. Accordingly, we seek comment on
whether this approach provides sufficient flexibility to licensees
while continuing to ensure that their main studios are reasonably
accessible to the communities they serve.
12. We also seek comment on using a straight mileage standard
rather than relying on a measurement based on signal contours. In
particular, the rule could be revised to require a station to locate
its main studio within a radius of a set number of miles from a common
reference point in the station's community of license, such as the
community's city-center coordinates. Is this approach preferable to the
use of signal contour standards? If the Commission adopts this
approach, what mileage standard would be an appropriate measure of
reasonable accessibility? Another option would combine the above two
approaches: A station could choose to locate its main studio anywhere
in the principal community contour of any station licensed to the same
community, or within a set distance from the community center,
whichever provides greater flexibility. Still another alternative would
permit an entity that owns multiple stations in a market to co-locate
the main studio for these stations at any one of the commonly owned
stations, provided each of the stations is located in the same local
market and that the main studio was within some set distance from the
community center.
13. We invite comment on these various approaches and any other
proposals that commenters believe will serve the public interest by
minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring that residents
of a local community have reasonable access to the broadcast stations
licensed to serve them. We emphasize that in proposing modifications to
our main studio rule we in no way seek to alter the obligation of each
broadcast licensee to serve the needs and interests of its community.
As the Commission has long recognized, this is a bedrock obligation of
every broadcast licensee. Rather, we propose to relax the main studio
rule in a manner consistent with this obligation.
14. Local Public Inspection File Location. The Commission requires
a broadcast station to maintain its local public inspection file at its
main studio in its community of license or at any accessible place in
the community of license (e.g., an attorney's office or local public
library) if the station's main studio is located outside the community.
As with the main studio rule, reasonable access to the public
inspection file facilitates monitoring of a station's operations and
public interest performance by the public and encourages a community
dialogue with local stations. This in turn helps ensure that stations
are responsive to the needs and interests of their local communities.
15. Several parties have filed their petitions for rule making
requesting that the Commission amend the public inspection file rule to
provide that the public file be maintained at the main studio, wherever
located. These parties state that the main studio is the most
[[Page 32064]]
logical and likely location that members of the public would seek to
find a station's public file. They also state that experience under the
current rule has shown that files maintained outside the main studio
are subject to mishandling, loss of documents, and destruction because
the files are not under the daily supervision of the licensee. In
addition, they claim that because so few members of the public actually
seek access to the off-premises public file, the expense involved in
maintaining that file often is not offset by any benefit to the public.
16. Another party, Salem Communications Corp., proposes a different
approach regarding the location of the public inspection file. It
proposes that the Commission require any licensee who elects to locate
its public file at its main studio outside its community of license to
also accommodate the public in one of the three following ways: (1)
Provide free transportation to the main studio; (2) deliver the public
file to a location specified by the requestor; or (3) provide specified
documents by mail.
17. Discussion. We propose to amend our rules to permit both
commercial and noncommercial stations to locate their local public
inspection files at their main studios, wherever located. Coupled with
our proposal above regarding the location of the main studio, this
would place the public file at the same ``reasonably accessible''
location as the main studio, which would not necessarily be in the
community of license. We also seek comment on reasonably accessible
locations for the public file of an applicant for a new station or
change of community. We propose that such a party maintain its file in
the proposed community of license or at its proposed main studio.
18. We recognize that in amending the main studio rule in 1987 the
Commission determined that the public inspection file should be
maintained in a station's community of license in order to assure
meaningful public participation in our licensing process. The
petitioners, however, have pointed to a number of public interest
reasons in favor of permitting licensees to locate their public
inspection files at their main studios, even when these are outside the
station's community of license. Allowing this flexibility will reduce
regulatory burdens on licensees while at the same time ensuring, as
with our proposed amendment to the main studio rule, that the public
file is reasonably accessible to residents of the local community, and
could well increase the convenience to the public in some cases.
Reasonable accessibility of the main studio and the public file has
been our benchmark for facilitating public involvement at the station.
We also believe that it would serve the public interest to provide
stations greater flexibility in locating the public inspection file and
main studio given the increased number of same-market, multiple-station
owners under the new radio ownership rules. As described in our
discussion of the main studio rule, this is consistent with the
relaxation of these rules because it allows stations to avail
themselves of economies of scale and allows them to channel their
resources in ways that would better serve the public. In addition, it
would appear that the main studio is the most logical and likely place
for the public to expect to find a station's public inspection file,
given that it will typically be listed in the local telephone
directory. Furthermore, we believe the public would be better served if
the file is maintained and stored under the direct control of the
station. Not only would there be greater assurance that the file is
kept up-to-date and in proper order, but also the public would be able
to request assistance in researching the public file if necessary.
19. We invite comment on our proposal to permit licensees to locate
their local public inspection file at their main studio, even when the
main studio is outside the station's community of license. We
particularly seek comment on whether this will ensure that the public
file continues to be reasonably accessible to a station's local
community. We also ask broadcasters to describe specifically the
efficiencies that can be achieved in providing greater flexibility
under the rule, and how these efficiencies can benefit the public.
Parties are invited to comment on the proposals advanced by Salem
Communications Corp. to ensure public access, as described above, and
any other such alternatives regarding the accessibility and location of
the public inspection file that they believe would serve the public
interest.
20. Public Inspection File Contents. We also take this opportunity
to seek comment on updating our requirements regarding the materials
that a station must place in its public inspection file. As stated
above, the public file contains information that facilitates meaningful
public participation in monitoring licensee compliance with public
interest obligations. The requirements regarding the contents of the
public file for noncommercial educational stations are similar to those
that apply to commercial stations, although there is some variation.
Currently, the public inspection file for both commercial and
noncommercial stations must contain general information pertaining to
the station, such as certain applications and related materials the
station may have filed with the FCC, ownership reports, employment
reports, and a list of programs aired by the station during the
previous three months that provided its most significant treatment of
community issues (the ``issues/programs list''). Broadcast licensees
must also maintain a separate file concerning broadcasts by political
candidates. In addition, all commercial broadcast television licensees
must maintain a public file containing information regarding the
educational and informational children's programming they air pursuant
to the Children's Television Act of 1990. The Commission recently
revised these children's television public file requirements in its
children's television proceeding.
21. We propose to amend our rules to eliminate or revise certain
aspects of the local public inspection file rules that are out-of-date
or that require clarification. In particular, we plan to revise the
rules as follows:
(a) We propose to delete the requirement that licensees maintain in
their public file the 1974 manual entitled ``The Public and
Broadcasting.'' This manual is long out-of-date.
(b) We will delete the reference in Sec. 73.3526(a)(11) of our
rules regarding the maintenance of reports that were required under our
financial interest and syndication rules, which have been repealed.
(c) We will correct the cross-reference in the local public
inspection file rules to the rule section governing a licensee's
political file.
(d) We plan to delete the note set forth under Secs. 73.3526(a)(1)
and 73.3527(a)(1) of our rules. This note provides that certain
applications filed on or before May 13, 1965--the date of a previous
FCC Report and Order regarding the local public inspection file rules--
need not be placed in the station's public file. This exemption is no
longer needed given that, even without the exemption, the retention
periods for maintaining such applications have long since expired.
We seek comment on these proposals and any other similar revisions
that would serve to update or clarify the public inspection file rules.
For instance, are there certain applications covered by the existing
rule that no longer need to be maintained in the public file?
22. We also consider here a proposal to revise our requirements
regarding the responsibility for maintaining public
[[Page 32065]]
file materials when a station's license is assigned to a new owner. The
rules provide that after the Commission approves an application for
assignment of license and the transaction has been consummated, the
assignee is responsible for ensuring that the public file contain all
the documents previously required to be maintained in the file by the
assignor. A petition for rule making filed by David Tillotson requests
that the Commission amend the public file rule to delete this
requirement. Tillotson maintains the proposed change is warranted
because the public file need only contain information concerning the
current licensee or permittee. According to Tillotson, the public has
no practical use for information regarding the ownership, programming
and EEO practices of a station's prior licensees, and therefore a new
licensee should not be required to bear the burden of reconstructing
the prior licensee's public file. As to this type of licensee-specific
information, we believe there is merit to these arguments, and invite
comment on amending our rules to relieve license assignees of this
burden. We note, however, that there may be information in the public
file relevant to a station's facilities (e.g., engineering material in
a modification application filed by the assignor) that is not licensee-
specific and therefore should be maintained by the assignee. We seek
comment on this issue.
23. Finally, we propose to clarify the general requirement in
Sec. 73.1202(a) of our rules that all written comments and suggestions
received from the public by licensees of commercial AM, FM, and TV
broadcast stations regarding operation of their station shall be
maintained in the local public inspection file. We wish to clarify that
such written comments and suggestions include electronic mail messages
transmitted via the internet to stations that are capable of receiving
them. Internet ``email'' is now commonly used by many members of the
public and is increasing in popularity. Stations may print out a hard
copy of such an internet message and place it in their public file.
Parties are invited to comment on this proposed clarification.
24. Retention Periods. We also take this opportunity to review the
retention periods for the materials in a licensee's local public
inspection file as well as its political file. These retention periods,
set forth in Secs. 73.3526(e) and 73.3527(e) of the rules, vary
depending on the type of record involved, as the following illustrative
list indicates:
(a) Political file materials, which are kept in a separate file,
must be retained for two years.
(b) With respect to commercial broadcast stations, letters received
from members of the public must be retained for three years.
(c) A licensee's issues/programs list must be retained for the term
of the station's license, which the current rule states as five years
for television licensees and seven years for radio licensees. This
provision predates our recent decision extending both television and
radio broadcast license terms to eight years.
(d) A television licensee's documentation of its performance under
the Children's Television Act of 1990 must be retained for the term of
a station's license, which the current rule states as five years.
Again, this provision predates the recent extension of license terms to
eight years.
(e) The various applications a station must place in its public
file generally must be retained by a permittee or a licensee for a
period beginning with the date that they are tendered for filing and
ending with the expiration of one license term (five years for
television licensees or seven years for radio licensees) or until the
grant of the first renewal application of the television or radio
broadcast license in question, whichever is later.
25. We wish to ensure that our public file retention period
requirements provide clear guidance to licensees and the public,
facilitate meaningful public participation in monitoring licensee
compliance with our rules and policies, and minimize unnecessary
paperwork burdens on broadcasters. At a minimum, we propose to revise
any public file retention periods that are tied to the broadcast
license term (e.g., the issues/programs list) to reflect the new
license term of eight years. This is consistent with the rule's purpose
in providing the public access to information that is relevant to a
station's performance throughout its license term, facilitating
monitoring of licensee performance by interested parties as well as
their participation in the license renewal process. In addition, we
propose to amend the rules to reflect that all documents that are
required to be retained for the license term be retained not only for
the eight-year license term, but also until the grant of the renewal
application is no longer subject to appeal either at the FCC or in the
courts. This will ensure that the public has access to pertinent
information regarding the licensee's performance during the pendency of
its renewal application. We invite comment on this issue.
26. We also seek comment on whether any of our public file
retention periods can be shortened to reduce regulatory burdens
consistent with the public interest. In particular, our current rules
generally require a licensee to retain certain applications filed with
the FCC until the expiration of one license term or until grant of the
first renewal application of the television or radio broadcast license
in question. The applications subject to this retention period include,
for example, license assignment and transfer applications and
applications for major facility modifications. We question the need to
require licensees to retain these materials for this period of time,
and propose that they retain such applications only during the period
in which they are pending before the FCC or the courts. This would
appear to be the period of time that they would have particular
relevance to the public. We also note that other public file materials
may provide an alternative source for the information contained in
these applications; the ownership reports, for example, provide
information about a licensee's ownership structure that can be found in
an assignment or transfer application. We seek comment on this
proposal. Are there some applications or parts of applications that
should be kept for a longer period? For example, some applications
contain an exhibit in support of a rule waiver and the Commission has
granted the waiver based, in part, on the applicant's public interest
representation. How long should the new owner be required to retain
such an application or the waiver exhibit in its public file?
27. We seek comment on other ways to clarify and streamline our
retention period requirements. What are the appropriate retention
periods for a licensee's annual employment reports and annual ownership
reports? Should we modify the requirement that commercial stations
retain letters from the public for three years? We particularly seek
comment on the appropriate retention period for letters from the public
regarding violent programming given the new statutory requirement that
licensees summarize such letters in their renewal applications.
28. An Electronic Public File Option. We recognize that many
stations are equipped with computers and make information available to
the public on their own World Wide Web home pages on the internet. We
encourage stations to do so, as it facilitates a dialogue between
licensees and their
[[Page 32066]]
communities that can lead to better service to the public. Indeed, in
our recently completed children's television proceeding we encouraged
stations to post their Children's Educational Programming Reports on
their Web sites. We wish to explore other ways in which information now
maintained in the local public inspection file could be made available
to the internet.
29. We realize, of course, that many Americans and broadcast
stations do not have internet access or even computers. There may be
options, however, that would allow stations to take advantage of this
new technology in ways that reduce paperwork burdens while at the same
time provide the public greater access to information about the
station. For example, we seek comment on giving stations the option of
maintaining all or part of the public inspection file in a computer
database rather than in paper files. For example, commercial television
licensees will soon be able to complete their Children's Television
Programming Reports directly on their computers and then file them
electronically with the FCC. A station that chooses to do so could also
maintain these Reports in a computer file at its station rather than
placing them in its ``paper'' public inspection file as it is presently
required to do every quarter. The station that chooses this option
would be required to make a computer terminal available to members of
the public interested in reviewing the station's ``electronic'' public
file, and also, as set forth under the current rules, would be required
to provide paper copies of such public file materials on request. We
would also encourage such stations to post their ``electronic'' public
files on any World Wide Web sites they maintain. We seek comment on
this option as well as other means of using computer technology to
provide access to public inspection file materials.
30. In this document we review various aspects of our main studio
and local public inspection file rules. In doing so, we seek to
minimize regulatory burdens and facilitate meaningful interaction
between broadcast stations and the communities they serve. We have
traditionally relied on this interaction as a primary means of ensuring
that broadcasters are responsive to the needs and interests of their
communities.
31. Authority. This document is issued pursuant to authority
contained in Secs. 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303, 307.
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 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same
time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due August 11,
1997. 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: New Collection (will modify four existing
collections: 3060-0171, Sec. 73.1125-Station main studio location;
3060-0214, Sec. 73.3526-Local Public Inspection File of Commercial
Stations; 3060-0215, Sec. 73.3527-Local Public Inspection File of
Noncommercial Educational Stations; and 3060-0211, Sec. 73.1943-
Political File.
Title: Review of the Commission's Rules regarding the main studio
and local public inspection files of broadcast television and radio
stations.
Form No.: None
Type of Review: New collection
Respondents: Licensees/permittees of broadcast stations
Number of Respondents, Estimated Time Per Response, Total Annual
Burden: Section 73.1125 requires the filing of an estimated 135
notifications per year with an average burden of 0.5 hours per request.
Section 73.3526 requires an estimated 10,262 commercial radio stations
to maintain a public inspection file. The average burden on a
commercial radio licensee/permittee is 2 hours per week (104 hours per
year) to maintain a public inspection file. We also estimate that 1,187
commercial television stations will be required to maintain a public
inspection file. The average burden on a commercial television
licensee/permittee is 2.5 hours per week (130 hours per year) to
maintain a public inspection file. These estimates for Sec. 73.3526
contain only the burden associated with the public inspection file.
Section 73.3527 requires an estimated 2,214 noncommercial educational
radio and television stations to maintain a public inspection file. The
average burden on such a licensee/permittee is 2 hours per week (104
hours per year) to maintain a public inspection file. This estimate for
Sec. 73.3527 contains only the burden associated with the public
inspection file. With respect to Sec. 73.1943, we estimate that 25
political broadcasts per station (13,664 stations) will be made and a
record kept with an average burden of 0.25 hours per request. The total
annual burden for these collections is 1,537,282 hours. These figures
are contingent on any decision reached upon adoption of a Report and
Order.
Needs and Uses: The main studio and public file rules seek to
ensure that members of the local community have access to the broadcast
stations that are obligated under the FCC's rules to serve them. This
rule making proceeding seeks to relieve undue regulatory burdens while
retaining basic obligations of broadcast licensees to serve their
communities of license.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-15389 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
