[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13452-13463]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-7]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket Nos. 00-168, 00-44; FCC 07-205]
Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television
Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations; Extension of the Filing
Requirement for Children's Television Programming Report (FCC Form 398)
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts a standardized form
for the quarterly reporting of programming aired in response to issues
facing a television station's community and a requirement that portions
of each television station's public inspection file be placed on the
Internet. The Commission solicited and reviewed comments regarding
whether the current requirements pertaining to television stations'
public inspection files were sufficient to ensure that the public has
adequate access to information on how the stations are serving their
communities.
DATES: The rules in this document contain information collection
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). After OMB approval is received, the Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective
date of the rules.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, FCC 07-205, adopted on November 27, 2007, and released on
January 24, 2008. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be
available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request
this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print,
audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains information collection requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It
will be 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 will be invited to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission
will publish separate documents in the Federal Register at a later date
seeking these comments. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how the Commission might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Summary of the Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. We commenced this proceeding to determine whether our current
requirements pertaining to television
[[Page 13453]]
stations' public inspection files are sufficient to ensure that the
public has adequate access to information on how the stations are
serving their communities. We tentatively concluded in that Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 65 FR 62683, October 19, 2000 that our
current requirements were not sufficient and that a standardized form
to provide information on how stations serve the public interest would
be desirable. Additionally, we proposed to enhance the public's ability
to access information by requiring television licensees to make the
contents of the public inspection files, including the standardized
form, available on their stations' Internet Web sites or,
alternatively, on the Web site of their state broadcasters association.
In this Report and Order we adopt a standardized form for the quarterly
reporting of programming aired in response to issues facing a station's
community and a requirement that portions of each station's public
inspection file be placed on the Internet.
2. In adopting these new disclosure requirements, we are not
altering in any way broadcasters' substantive public interest
obligations. Those obligations are being considered and will be
addressed in other proceedings. We simply are making information about
broadcasters' efforts more understandable and more easily accessible by
members of the public.
II. Background
3. The Commission first adopted a public inspection file rule more
than 40 years ago. The public file requirement grew out of Congress'
1960 amendment of sections 309 and 311 of the Communications Act of
1934 (Act). Finding that Congress, in enacting these provisions, was
guarding ``the right of the general public to be informed, not merely
the rights of those who have special interests,'' the Commission
adopted the public inspection file requirement to ``make information to
which the public already has a right more readily available, so that
the public will be encouraged to play a more active part in dialogue
with broadcast licensees.'' Although we are separated from that
decision by more than four decades, during which period the public file
rule has been changed many times, our goal remains the same. The action
we are taking, which is based in part on the changes in technology that
have occurred since 1965, will make the information in the public
inspection file more useful and more accessible to the public,
improving communications between broadcasters and the public they
serve.
4. Over the past four decades, the Commission's public inspection
file requirements were modified on several occasions. For instance, in
1984, the Commission required that television stations place in their
public inspection file ``every three months a list of programs that
have provided the station's most significant treatment of community
issues during the preceding three month period.'' This issues/programs
list also must include a brief narrative describing what issues were
given significant treatment and the programming that provided this
treatment together with the time, date, duration, and title of each
program in which the issue was treated. In adopting the issues/programs
list requirement for television stations, the Commission expected it to
be ``[t]he most significant source of issue-responsive information
under the new regulatory scheme.'' Moreover, the list was intended to
be a significant source of information for any initial investigation by
the public, competitors, or the Commission when renewal of the
station's license is at issue.
5. In 1998, the Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital
Television Broadcasters issued its Final Report of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television
Broadcasters (Advisory Committee Report). The Advisory Committee Report
considered, inter alia, the public inspection file and recommended that
the currently required reports on issue-responsive programming and
children's programming be augmented. The Advisory Committee found that
such public information could be distributed to the public more
effectively if it was placed on television stations' Internet Web sites
and it designed a sample standardized form which could be used to that
end. Subsequently, People for Better TV submitted proposals to the
Commission in a Petition for Rulemaking and Petition for Notice of
Inquiry asking the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
determine public interest standards and obligations of digital
broadcasters.
6. After the issuance of the Advisory Committee Report, the
Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 65 FR 4211, January 26,
2000 seeking comment on several issues related to how broadcasters
might best serve the public interest during and after the transition
from analog to digital television. Some of the issues raised in that
NOI related exclusively to television broadcasters' use of their
digital spectrum. Other issues, however, related to how broadcasters
could meet their public interest obligations on both their analog and
digital spectrum. Among these were how to enhance the public's ability
to access information on a station's performance of its public interest
obligations with regard to both issue-responsive and children's
programming, both during and after the analog-digital transition. As a
result of comments on these latter issues received in response to the
NOI, we issued the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission proposed to
replace the current issues/programs list for TV stations with a
standardized form and to require TV broadcasters to make their public
inspection files available on the Internet. For the reasons discussed
below, we now adopt, with some modifications, these proposals.
III. Report and Order
A. Placing the Public File on the Internet
7. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that television licensees
should be obligated to place the contents of their public inspection
file on their Web sites or the Web sites of their state broadcasters
association. Commenters supporting this tentative conclusion argued
that this would not be unduly burdensome given that the majority of
broadcasters already have their own Web sites. United Church of Christ
(UCC) cites a study by Ball State University and the Radio-Television
News Directors Association that found that 88 percent of the 773
stations polled said they operated Web sites. The National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB), which opposes our adoption of such a
requirement, conducted a survey that found that 83.9 percent of
television stations responding currently have their own Web sites.
Thus, it appears that most TV stations are currently using the Internet
to provide information and promotional material to the public. By their
own actions broadcasters have confirmed that the Internet is an
effective and cost-efficient method of maintaining contact with, and
distributing information to, their viewership.
8. Most commenters opposing a requirement to place the public
inspection file on the Internet cited the cost of converting and
maintaining the public file electronically. According to Benedeck, to
convert a public inspection file to electronic format and index the
documents would cost an estimated $10,000. State Broadcasters
Associations estimate that it would take a professional listserver
approximately fifteen minutes to one and a half hours, at a cost of $65
per hour, to post each page of a broadcast station's public file.
[[Page 13454]]
This cost burden would, State Broadcasters Association continues, come
at the very time when the industry's resources are being directed to
``implementation of the enormously expensive and risky new DTV
service.'' Others echo these claims.
9. We believe that many of the estimates of the costs of complying
with our requirement are grossly inflated. As an initial matter, our
own cost estimates are considerably lower than those of a number of
commenters. Even if a station's public inspection file, excluding those
materials we have said could be excluded, contained as many as 10,000
pages, Commission staff estimates that the cost of placing that volume
on a broadcaster's existing Web site would involve a one-time cost less
than $15,000 and the cost of maintaining that volume on a server should
be less than $20 a month. We expect that much of that material would
already exist in electronic form, but even if it had to be converted
into electronic form the staff estimates that this would cost from as
little as $0.03 to as much as $1.50 per page. As discussed in the text,
however, given our exclusion of certain material from the requirement,
we expect the volume of material required to be posted to be
dramatically less than 10,000 pages. Therefore, as a result of the fact
that conversion into electronic form is likely to be towards the middle
to lower end of our range, and the volume of material required to be
posted is expected to be dramatically less than 10,000 pages, we think
the upper bound of total one-time cost estimates are highly unlikely to
be reached. First, we are not requiring stations that do not already
have a Web site to create one. As proposed in the NPRM, we are only
requiring a station to post its public inspection files on its Web site
if it already has one. This will eliminate all costs of starting up a
Web site that were included in the estimates supplied by commenters.
Also, the volume of material will be less than estimated by some
commenters as a result of our decision, discussed below, not to require
posting of letters from the public and allowing licensees to link to
material available on the Commission's Web site in lieu of posting it
on their own Web sites.
10. Moreover, we believe that the benefits of licensees placing
their public inspection files on the Internet outweigh the cost,
especially since the requirement will only apply to stations already
using the Internet for other purposes. Many of these stations are
already equipped to place material on the Internet. For example,
stations must already place EEO reports on their Web sites, to the
extent that they have one. The ongoing additional costs of putting
their public files on the Internet should be relatively modest once the
initial conversion of the existing paper file is complete. While the
cost of this initial conversion may be appreciable, it is a one-time
expense and, in nearly all cases, should not be overly burdensome.
Moreover, these costs are outweighed by the benefits to the public of
Internet accessibility to the information. It is beneficial for the
community to have Internet access to information it may not otherwise
be able to obtain. Links to information available on the Commission's
Web site, including a copy of ownership reports, and children's
television programming reports, educate consumers on issues that they
might not otherwise know about, absent an ability to visit a station to
inspect the public file. Further information available in the public
file, including information regarding Commission investigations and
complaints, issues/programs lists, and citizen's agreements assist
consumers in educating themselves as to the licensee and its
programming. As discussed in previous Orders, the Commission has found
that each of the items required to be placed in the public file are
important, and need to be accessible to the public. Internet access to
such information only improves public access. As such, we believe these
interests justify potential increased costs. If a particular
broadcaster finds the requirement beyond its means, we will entertain
specific, documented waiver requests for relief to lessen the financial
burden on the licensee.
11. Other commenters objecting to placing public file material on
station Web sites argued either: (1) That few people actually have
visited the stations' studios to view their public files, or (2) that
placing public file material on the station's Web site would only
enhance availability of that material to persons outside the station's
service area and that such persons have a less compelling interest in
accessing that information. NBC, for example, notes that it receives
relatively few requests to examine its stations' public inspection
files. Viacom characterizes visits to its stations' public inspection
files as ``exceedingly rare * * * less than one annually, virtually all
of whom are college students on assignment.'' The Walt Disney Company
provides a similar estimate of public file usage at its stations.
Educational Information Corporation, licensee of WCPE asserts that in
twenty years it has had only a single member of the public ask to
review its public file.
12. Before the Commission adopted the public file requirement in
1965, commenters argued that the rules were unnecessary because there
would be little or no demand for the information contained therein. The
Commission responded: ``we do not base our decision in this proceeding
on a widespread articulate demand by the public for the information we
propose to make locally available. Our primary purpose in the present
proceeding is to make information to which the public already has a
right more readily available, so that the public will be encouraged to
play a more active part in a dialogue with broadcast licensees.''
Similarly, here we are merely making material more accessible to the
public. By doing so we, like our predecessors in 1965, hope to
encourage the public to play a more active role in a dialogue with
broadcasters. The fact that our current rules may not have resulted in
widespread review of the public files by members of the public only
serves to underscore the desirability of improving the accessibility of
these files. It may well be that the requirement of physically going to
the station and viewing the file during normal business hours has
discouraged public interest in viewing the public files. By making the
file more available through the Internet, we hope to facilitate access
to the file information and foster increased public participation in
the licensing process.
13. We find it entirely consistent with Congressional intent in
adopting section 309 of the Act to embrace a public file requirement
that enhances the ability of both those within and those beyond a
station's service area to participate in the licensing process.
Additionally, we disagree with those arguing that stations placing
their public inspection files on the Internet will only benefit those
outside a station's service area; it will also benefit those within the
service area who will be able to access the file without visiting the
station during normal business hours.
14. Opponents also assert that the Commission lacks authority to
impose such a requirement. For example, Viacom argues that
``[m]aintaining a Web site--let alone posting the voluminous contents
of a public inspection file--is simply too far afield from the core
activities of broadcasting for the Commission to regulate.'' Similarly,
Sinclair argues that ``[t]he Commission does not have jurisdiction over
Web sites and therefore simply lacks the authority to enforce these
requirements.'' The Media Institute argues that a requirement to post
the
[[Page 13455]]
public inspection file on a station's Internet Web site would pose
problems of a constitutional dimension. It argues that ``[t]he proposal
demands careful scrutiny on First Amendment grounds--particularly
because the constitutional concerns here might easily be overlooked on
the assumption that a Web site was merely an electronic filing cabinet
* * *. The Commission is overreaching to suggest that it can compel
broadcasters to post certain types of speech on their Web sites.''
15. We disagree. The manner in which broadcasters communicate with
their communities is a core function of their role as licensees. Thus,
for example, we require applicants to publish notice of their filing of
certain applications in local newspapers. A requirement for broadcast
stations to place their public inspection files on the Internet Web
site does not constitute an assertion of jurisdiction over the medium
on which it must be maintained or take us beyond those areas of a
broadcaster's activity within the Commission's jurisdiction. Moreover,
we see no constitutional infirmity in this requirement. As an initial
matter, our public inspection file rules have, for more than 40 years,
required broadcasters to make certain categories of information
available to the public.
16. Even assuming that ``intermediate scrutiny'' is the appropriate
standard, a content neutral regulation such as this will be sustained
against claims that it violates the First Amendment if: (1) It advances
important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free
speech; and (2) does not burden substantially more speech than
necessary to further those interests. The instant regulation meets both
tests. First, it has been established that the public file requirement
advances the important governmental interest that Congress found in
public participation in the licensing process when it adopted the pre-
hearing procedures contained in sections 309 and 311 of the Act.
Second, the requirement does not burden speech more than necessary to
further that interest. It is limited to only those items that members
of the public would reasonably need to be aware of in order to have a
dialogue with their local broadcaster and, if necessary, to participate
in pre-hearing procedures with respect to the licensing process.
Indeed, we are not requiring the posting of some public file material
because doing so would impose excessive burdens and we are allowing
broadcasters merely to link to material also found on our Web site.
Thus, to the extent that our new regulation can be said to burden
speech at all, we have assured that it ``does not burden substantially
more speech than necessary'' to further the interest served by the
public file rules.
17. Accordingly, we will require those television stations that
have an Internet Web site to place their public inspection file on
their station's Web site and to make this file available to the public
without charge. These stations have already recognized the value of
this tool to inform viewers about station programs and activities. In
order to provide sufficient time for affected television broadcasters
to come into compliance, we will require that stations currently having
a Web site place their public inspection files on that Web site 60 days
after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing Office of Management and Budget approval. Stations not
having their own Web site as of the date that this Report and Order is
adopted will have to place their files on any Web site they may later
create by the date above or within 30 days of the date it makes the Web
site available to the public, whichever is later.
18. As an alternative, stations having a Web site may place their
public inspection files on their state broadcasters association's (SBA)
Web site, where permitted by the SBA to do so. If a station places its
public file on the Web site of its SBA, however, the station must
provide a link from its own Web site to that of the SBA on which its
public files are located. We are not persuaded by the comments filed in
this proceeding that this alternative is unwarranted and unworkable.
Although, as UCC points out, ``[m]ost viewers probably do not know what
an SBA is, let alone the address of the local broadcaster's SBA Web
site,'' they do not have to know this information in order to follow a
link to that site from the station's Web site. State Broadcasters
Associations argue that this would place an ``enormous strain on the
personnel and resources of those associations.'' In addition, as Media
Institute points out, we have no jurisdiction to require such
organizations, which are not themselves under Commission regulatory
control, to make their Web sites available for such a purpose. For
these reasons, we will not require SBAs to permit stations to place
their public inspection files on their Web sites. Instead, we will
simply permit television stations, over which we do have jurisdiction,
to comply with our requirements by placing their public files on their
SBAs' Web sites, as long as their SBA permits, and the stations provide
a link to their public inspection files from their own Web sites.
19. Political File. Sections 73.3526(e)(6), 73.3527(e)(5), and
73.1943 of the Commission's rules require that stations keep as part of
their public inspection files a ``political file.'' The political file
chiefly consists of ``a complete and orderly record * * * of all
requests for broadcast time made by or on behalf of a candidate for
public office, together with an appropriate notation showing the
disposition made by the licensee of such requests, and the charges
made, if any, if the request is granted.'' These records must be placed
in the political file as soon as possible. In amending our public
inspection file rule to, inter alia, require that stations that
maintain their main studios and public files outside their community of
license must make available pursuant to telephone request photocopies
of public file material, we exempted the political file from the
requirement. We did this for two reasons. First, we recognized that
candidates and their representatives make the heaviest use of the
public inspection files, making daily or even more frequent requests
for political file information during a campaign, because the
information is in flux throughout each day of the campaign. We
determined that, were they able to make requests for political file
material by telephone, such a heavy volume of telephone calls could
unduly disrupt a station's operations. Second, we found that candidates
or their representatives, when seeking political file information in
their professional capacities, are more likely to have greater
resources and be more able to access the main studio and public file in
person than would an average citizen.
20. This reasoning also applies to Internet access to the political
file. Daily and even more frequent requests for access by political
candidates and their campaign personnel, combined with a need for the
station to update the file frequently, may make requiring the station
to place this material on the Internet inappropriate. Resources
available to political candidates likely provide them with greater
access to the station and distinguish them from members of the general
public who will benefit from ready access to Internet posting of other
parts of the public file. Political candidates and campaigns make heavy
use of the file and require quick access to material, and if the volume
of material is too great, the station may not be able to update the
Internet file quickly enough. Our rules currently require that records
be placed in the political file as soon as possible, which the rule
defines as meaning
[[Page 13456]]
``immediately absent unusual circumstances.'' This may mean multiple
updates each day during peak periods of the election season. Some
commenters argue that an Internet posting requirement for the political
file would be unduly burdensome for licensees due to the need for
frequent updating of the file and the volume of material it contains.
While Internet access would obviate the need for physical access to
each station and free station personnel from having to assist
candidates and their political committees, we conclude that the burden
of placing this material on the Internet outweighs the benefits.
21. Children's Television Programming Reports (Form 398). In MM
Docket No. 00-44, the Commission, among other things, extended
indefinitely the requirement that commercial broadcast television
licensees electronically file their quarterly Children's Television
Programming Reports (Form 398) with the Commission and required
broadcasters in the future to place the reports in their public files
at the time they are prepared. At that time we also issued a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 65 FR 67331, November 9, 2000
seeking comment on whether broadcasters should be required to provide
their completed quarterly reports at their own Web sites. Because of
the similarity of the issues presented in that proceeding to those
present here, we will resolve them in this Report and Order.
22. Only two commenters filed in response to the FNPRM. Both the
Center for Media Education (CME) and NAB supported requiring stations
to create a link to station reports on the Commission's Children's
Educational Television Web site. Unlike NAB, however, CME also
supported requiring stations to post Reports on their Web sites and to
maintain them until final action on their next renewal application.
23. Like the other non-exempted contents of licensees' public
files, the Children's Television Programming Reports must now also be
made available on the Internet. We find, however, that it is sufficient
to allow television station licensees having a Web site to provide a
link from the public inspection file portion of that Web site to the
Commission's Children's Educational Television webpage. We agree with
NAB that to replicate the reports on the licensee's Web site would be
redundant and cause needless expense to licensees. Accordingly, we
agree with NAB that a link to the Commission's Children's Educational
Television webpage is sufficient and that the report forms need not be
placed on any station's Web site that contains such a link.
24. Other Material Available on the Commission's or Other Web
sites. We will not require stations to post on their Web sites any
other material that is also available on the Commission's Web site, as
long as they provide a link directly to the information on the
Commission's Web site. For example, stations need not post a copy of
``The Public and Broadcasting'' on their own Web sites as long as they
provide a link to the manual on the Commission's Web site. It is not
necessary for more than 1,600 television stations to each have this
Commission publication on their Web site. It is sufficient that they
each have a hard copy in their public files at the main studio, and a
link to it on the Commission's Web site from their own Web site. This
measure will also serve to reduce the amount of material that must be
placed on a station's Web site, thereby reducing the cost of the
requirement. Similarly, licensees can provide links to other Web sites
containing relevant information rather than also placing the
information on the station's own Web site as long as that other site is
freely available to the public and no registration is required.
25. Letters from the Public. We will not require stations to keep
items covered by Sec. 73.3526(e)(9) of the rules, ``Letters and e-mail
from the public,'' on their Web site. One commenter contends that these
letters are one of the more voluminous components of the public file.
Tribune estimates that one of its stations, WGN-TV, has a file of
letters from the public that consumes nearly 32 linear feet of file
space consisting of more than 72,000 pages. Comments filed in this
proceeding raised the specter of having to reproduce on a station's Web
site as much as six-plus feet of material. To alleviate stations'
burden and cost, we will allow them to refrain from posting these
letters on their Web sites as long as they retain them in their
stations' ``hard copy'' public inspection files located at their main
studios and make them available to the public at that location.
Comments made by the public by e-mail will have to be placed on the
station's Web site--because stations will incur no cost other than the
cost of electronic storage--and also either printed out and placed in a
station's public file at its main studio, or made available on a
publicly accessible computer database, per Sec. 73.3526(c). This will
ensure that there is one location where all of the letters from the
public will be maintained (i.e., at the main studio). The Web site must
also provide notice that a complete set of letters from the public is
available at the main studio.
26. Accessibility of Web sites to Persons with Disabilities. In the
NPRM we solicited comment on whether we should require or encourage
television broadcasters to make Web sites, including those on which
they will place their public inspection files, accessible to persons
with disabilities using the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content
Accessibility (W3C/WAI) guidelines. Commenters were split on this
issue. Several were in favor of making broadcaster webpages, including
those containing their public files, accessible to persons with
disabilities. People for Better TV (PBTV) asserts that ``it would make
little sense for the Commission to establish reporting requirements
without clarifying the goal of making the reports fully accessible to
the community of license.'' Others argue that that it will take
substantially longer to make a Web site disability friendly, as much as
two-and-a-half to three times longer, and would increase costs.
27. We conclude that in designing the public inspection file
portion of their Web sites, television licensees must make them
accessible to the disabled through a minimal level of compliance with
the most recent W3C/WAI guidelines. As noted by one commenter, ``[i]t
is urgent that the Commission ensure that the technological
capabilities offered by new technologies, such as making web content
accessible to persons with disabilities, are used to maximize the
potential of persons with disabilities to benefit from technological
innovation to the same extent as any other person.'' These guidelines
discuss accessibility issues and provide accessible design solutions
for them. Furthermore, they provide checkpoints against which Web site
designers can measure the accessibility of their site. Each of these
checkpoints has a priority level assigned by the W3C/WAI Working Group
based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility. For example, a
``Priority 1'' checkpoint means that the web content developer must
satisfy the checkpoint or one or more groups will find it impossible to
access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a
basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents.
Other priorities either ``should'' or ``may'' be addressed in order to
remove barriers to access. Additionally, the guidelines define three
different levels of conformance to the guidelines--Levels A, Double-A
and
[[Page 13457]]
Triple-A. Level A means that all Priority 1 checkpoints have been
satisfied in the design of the Web site. Level Double-A means that all
Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints have been satisfied, and so on.
28. We will require television station licensees who maintain their
public inspection file on their Internet Web site to adhere to the most
recent Conformance Level A with regard to the public inspection file
portion of their Web site. By satisfying the minimal requirement of
satisfying Priority 1 checkpoints, no group should find it impossible
to access the contents of the public files.
29. Commenters suggested additional ways to make the public file
more accessible over the Internet to persons with disabilities. WGBH
urged that we require licensees to post public file information on a
toll-free telephone line. TDI suggested that ``broadcasters can make
chat rooms or listservs available for on-line discussions and to
disseminate information to individuals with disabilities.'' We believe
that requiring such measures would impose excessive costs on licensees.
A disabled-accessible electronic public inspection file is, we continue
to believe, the best way to make the information accessible to those
with disabilities while imposing the least additional costs on
licensees.
30. Other Means of Communicating with the Public. In the NPRM we
also asked whether there were other methods by which we could foster
licensee interaction with the public through Internet Web sites. We did
not propose to mandate any such method. Instead, we encouraged
broadcasters to use their Web sites to conduct discussions with members
of the public and sought comment on this approach. We agree with the
sole comment filed in this regard. Capitol Broadcasting Company, while
supporting the notion that broadcasters should interact with their
community by means of broadcaster-sponsored online forums, asserts that
any mandatory requirement on licensee interaction with the public
through the Internet would be premature. Although broadcaster/public
interaction is desirable, we do not see a need in this case to mandate
any specific measures beyond those being adopted herein.
31. We also solicited comment on other methods for distributing
public interest information to the public. Our tentative conclusion was
that we should not require on-air notifications of the contents and
location of the issues/programs list or mandatory publication of public
interest information in local newspapers. A few commenters supported
adoption of such methods. Upon further consideration, we believe that
viewers should be notified of the existence, location and accessibility
of the station's public file. This will increase viewer awareness and
help promote the ongoing dialogue between a station and the viewers
they are licensed to serve. We believe that the most appropriate time
for licensees to provide such notice is during the regular station
identification announcements required under our rules. The notice must
state that the station's public file is available for inspection and
where consumers can view it--e.g., at the station's main studio and on
its Web site. In order to minimize the burden on stations, we will only
require such notice twice daily. At least one of the announcements must
occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and midnight.
B. Standardized Form
32. In addition to proposing that public file information be
accessible through Internet connections, we also proposed to adopt a
standardized form for inclusion in the file that would replace the
existing quarterly issues/programs disclosure. In 1984, the Commission
eliminated many of its specific programming obligations and substituted
a general requirement that commercial television broadcast station
licensees must provide coverage of issues facing their communities and
place lists of programming used in providing significant treatment of
those issues (issues/programs lists) in the station's public inspection
files on a quarterly basis. In this proceeding we proposed to adopt a
standard programming disclosure format to be used in place of the
issues/programs list. In making this proposal, we noted the
difficulties that members of the public had encountered in accessing
programming information in the existing format. We felt that the use of
a standardized disclosure form would facilitate access to this
information and would make broadcasters more accountable to the public.
In addition, a standardized form would benefit the public by reducing
the time needed to locate information and by providing the public with
a better mechanism for reviewing broadcaster public interest
programming and activities.
33. We also tentatively concluded that the standardized form should
ask questions about categories of programming and should include
information on broadcasters' provision of closed captioning and video
description. Furthermore, we solicited comment on whether licensees
should provide a narrative description of the actions taken, in the
normal course of business, to assess a community's programming needs
and interests. We specifically stated, however, that we did not intend
this obligation to constitute a detailed and formal ascertainment
requirement but, instead, only intended it to provide the public with
information on how, in the normal course of business, licensees assess
community needs and interests. We did not propose to include on the
form non-broadcast community service activities by broadcasters. We
sought comment on whether licensees should forward an electronic copy
of the disclosure form to the Commission for inclusion in the license
file.
34. In this Report and Order, we adopt a standardized programming
report form to replace the current issues/programs list. We intend this
form to provide the public with easily accessible information in a
standardized format on each television station's efforts to serve its
community. The form includes information about efforts that have been
made to ascertain the programming needs of various segments of the
community, and information regarding closed captioning and video
described content. Adoption of this revised disclosure requirement is,
we believe, amply supported by the record and will not be unduly
burdensome for licensees.
35. Commenters urging the adoption of such a form have noted the
difficulties that they have encountered in obtaining information on
public interest programming from broadcasters, as well as the benefits
of standardized disclosure. They report that broadcasters are confused
about what they should put in their public files and describe instances
in which documents were missing and files outdated. UCC reviewed the
issues/programs lists of several broadcast stations in preparing its
comments in this proceeding. It found that some broadcasters listed
everything and anything they considered to qualify while others listed
only a few programs. It found that ``[t]he lack of uniformity and
consistency of the issues/program lists make it difficult to discern
both how much and what types of public interest programming a
broadcaster provided,'' which makes any ``overall assessment or
comparison between broadcasters virtually impossible.'' One commenter
noted that its most consistent finding was the lack of consistency in
station public inspection files. Such commenters have pointed to the
benefits that a standardized form can bring, including enhanced access
to information on the
[[Page 13458]]
extent to which broadcasters are meeting their public interest
obligations, ease of use by the public and broadcasters alike, and the
promotion of a dialog between stations and the public they serve.
36. Broadcast interests uniformly oppose use of a standardized
form. Several contend that the proposals made by the Commission in the
instant NPRM would be unconstitutional because the proposed form would
constitute programming ``quotas'' in violation of the First Amendment.
This fear is misplaced. Our decision here does not adopt quantitative
programming requirements or guidelines. This Report and Order does not
require broadcasters to air any particular category of programming or
mix of programming types. Accordingly, we reject the claim that our
decision mandates programming quotas or guidelines, or otherwise
improperly intervenes in licensee discretion.
37. Some opponents of the form assert that, if there are problems
with the level of issue-responsive programming being offered by a
specific station, the Commission's concern should be directed to the
particular station(s) involved rather than imposing a standardized form
on all television broadcasters. In addition, they assert that the
issues/programs list has worked well for two decades and that any
shortcomings of the current issues/programs list can more appropriately
be addressed through modest changes to that process rather than
adoption of a new form. Our action is not premised on the existence of
rule violations by licensees or the failings of a particular station.
Rather, the problem addressed here is the lack of accessibility and
uniformity in the issues/programs list information. These defects in
the current requirements are not susceptible to cure through the
issuance of forfeitures. The problem is systemic. According to those
who have used the current list, it has not worked well; the changes we
are making are narrowly tailored and an effective response.
38. Others argue that a lack of uniformity in issues/programs lists
is desirable and simply reflects the diversity of issues identified by
broadcasters and the programming aired in response to those issues in
different markets. We disagree that a lack of uniformity in reporting
is desirable or that diversity of issues identified by broadcasters is
the problem. For those attempting to make use of the list and to
compare the efforts of various stations, uniformity of reporting is
desirable and, indeed, may be essential. As noted above, users of the
issues/programs list have chronicled the difficulties they face when
reviewing issues/programs lists compiled by different stations.
Moreover, diversity of issues is not a problem, and our adoption of a
standardized form should not limit broadcasters' flexibility to address
various issues. We are not trying to impose uniformity in issue or
program selection by adopting a standardized form; we are simply
attempting to obtain uniformity in reporting.
39. Further, the record in the Commission's ongoing Localism
Proceeding--especially that portion amassed during a series of public
hearings conducted across the country--suggests that there may be a
communications breakdown between licensees and their communities
concerning the breadth of their local licensees' efforts to air
programming that serves communities' local needs and interests. Written
comments submitted in the Localism Docket and testimony received during
several localism field hearings indicate that many members of the
public are not fully aware of the community-responsive programming that
their local stations have aired. This lack of knowledge extends in many
cases to the existing issues/programs lists, which broadcasters have
long been required to compile and make available through their public
files. Because the lists are designed to help the public evaluate the
performance of broadcasters in their communities, the Commission takes
the mandate seriously and has sanctioned licensees that have failed to
properly maintain them. Evidence in the Localism Docket, however,
indicates that the decades-old public file concept is not serving
today's public well. At a minimum, the current public file regulatory
regime imposes unnecessary inconvenience on the public because it
essentially requires that interested individuals travel to the station
during business hours to review the material. Although such
inconvenience was unavoidable generations ago, we find that it is not
so today, given the development of the Internet over the past decade.
According to the record in the Localism Docket and other proceedings,
broadcasters themselves are well aware of the communicative potential
of the Internet and most maintain station-specific Web sites to stay in
close touch with their audiences. Evidence in the Localism Docket
indicates that many members of the public are web-savvy as well.
40. We believe that affording the public readier access to a
station's public file through online posting requirements and use of
the Standardized Television Disclosure Form will foster a better
understanding of stations' localism efforts within their communities.
That development, in turn, may produce notable benefits for the public.
First, online posting of the completed standardized form could prompt
more active dialogue between licensees and their audiences concerning
issues of public importance to local communities and how broadcasters
might go about addressing those issues on the air--which may quickly
lead to the airing of more responsive programming. Second, by enhancing
that dialogue, online posting of the standardized reporting form should
help licensees develop, air, and document in an understandable way the
kind of responsive programming directly relevant to license renewals
and assist the Commission in determining whether the licensees are
serving the public interest. Third, the disclosure form provides
information that will be useful to the Commission and the public in
assessing the effectiveness of current policies (e.g., closed
captioning).
1. Programming Information
41. The first section of the Standardized Television Disclosure
Form we are adopting asks for general information on the station: The
station's call sign, channel number, community of license, ownership
information, name of the licensee and other basic facts that identify
the station. The next section calls for the summary reporting of
overall programming in various categories during the preceding three
month period. The following sections ask for more specific information
concerning the programming provided in several categories. Following
this is a section that asks whether the licensee undertook any efforts
to determine the programming needs of its community, designed any
programming to address the needs identified and, if so, a description
of the steps the licensee took.. Next, there is a section on the
provision of service for persons with disabilities. It asks for
information on closed captioning, voluntary video description efforts,
and access to emergency information provided to the disabled.
42. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the standardized
form should ask questions about categories of programs and noted the
categories of programs proposed by the Presidential Advisory Committee
on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters. The
Committee proposed to include the following categories: Local and
national news programming,
[[Page 13459]]
local and national public affairs programming, programming that meets
the needs of underserved communities, programming that contributes to
political discourse, other local programming that is not otherwise
addressed in the form, and PSAs. In response to the NPRM, the Public
Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition (PIC) submitted a proposed
standardized form suggesting use of the following categories: Local
civic programming, local electoral affairs programming, public service
announcements, paid public service announcements, and independent
programming. Definitions were included with each of these categories,
providing, for example, that local civic programming ``includes
broadcasts of interviews with or statements by elected or appointed
officials and relevant policy experts on issues of importance to the
community, government meetings, legislative sessions, conferences
featuring elected officials, and substantive discussion of civic issues
of interest to local communities or groups.'' In addition, PIC proposed
that we collect information regarding independently produced
programming, which they defined as ``programming produced by an entity
not owned or controlled by an owner of a national television network,
including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, and WB. If an owner of a national
television network owns or controls more than a one-third financial
interest in the program, acts as the distributor of such program in
syndication, or owns the copyright in such program, the owner of a
national television network will be considered to be the producer of
that program for the purposes of this processing guideline.''
43. Based on the record, we conclude that in order to ensure the
maximum benefit from standardizing broadcasters' disclosure
obligations, it is appropriate to list specific programming categories
on the form. The Commission has developed a list of categories drawn
from the comments filed in this proceeding. We have reviewed the
categories and definitions proposed by PIC and consider most of them
appropriate. For instance, in response to PIC's proposal that we
include a question on the form regarding independently produced
programming, we agree that the public would benefit from broadcasters
providing information about the amount of programming they air that is
not produced by a national television network. As the Supreme Court has
recognized, ``[s]afeguarding the public's right to receive a diversity
of views and information over the airwaves is * * * an integral
component of the FCC's mission.'' Allowing broadcasters complete
discretion to decide what kinds of programming to list in their
quarterly forms may result in a broadcaster's failure to give a
complete picture of how they are trying to fulfill their public
interest obligations. This can lead to a significant gap between what
broadcasters say they are doing and what the public perceives the
broadcasters are doing to serve local audiences. For example, the
broadcaster could simply ignore electoral programming (even if it aired
some), leaving members of the public reviewing the report in the dark
concerning this aspect of the broadcaster's service. We emphasize,
however, that neither the form nor this Report and Order establishes
any new programming obligations. Editorial control will remain in the
hands of the licensee. All that we require is that broadcasters report
the quantities of different types of programming that they choose to
air. Accordingly, we reject the claims of some commenters that having
to list program types on the standardized form will create program
quotas, or result in the Commission selecting licensees' programming
for them. Moreover, in determining whether a program falls within these
categories, the Commission will, as it does in other contexts,
generally rely on the good faith judgment of the broadcaster. We
believe that this approach appropriately balances the interests of the
public in having adequate access to information about how stations are
serving their communities with broadcasters' ability to make
programming choices.
44. We do not share the concerns of some commenters that the
standardized form will discourage broadcaster creativity or result in
homogenization of television nonentertainment programming. Each
licensee will remain free to determine how best to address the issues
facing its community. We see no reason the standardized form would
result in uniform responses by stations. Indeed, the dialog that will
result from the enhanced disclosure and standardized reporting form
requirements may provide broadcasters with input that stimulates
creative responses to community issues rather than homogenizing
programming responses. We recognize that the standardized form's
requirement that each relevant program or program segment be listed is
a change from the current rule that requires only listing of programs
that have provided the ``most significant treatment'' of community
issues during the preceding three-month period. We agree with
commenters that the current issues/programs lists have not provided an
effective means for the public to assess licensees' performance. The
requirement to present a comprehensive list of programming in each
category, rather than merely samples of programming in each category,
will provide the public with a better basis on which to evaluate
whether a broadcaster has substantially fulfilled its public interest
obligation to provide programming responsive to the needs and interests
of its community. The more comprehensive disclosure will also allow the
public to participate more effectively in license renewal proceedings.
We also note that commenters have discussed a lack of uniformity and
consistency in the way that broadcasters maintain their lists, and
commented that these practices make any overall assessment extremely
difficult. As such, we believe that the benefits of a standardized form
that requires broadcasters to list all relevant programming outweighs
the burdens placed upon broadcasters.
2. Identifying Community Issues
45. The standardized form we are adopting asks two fundamental
questions with regard to the identification of community issues. First,
it asks whether the licensee has undertaken efforts to assess the
programming needs of its community. Second, it asks whether the
licensee has designed its programming to address those needs. These
questions may be answered simply ``Yes'' or ``No.'' Second, the form
will provide space to describe efforts taken in this regard. Critics of
the proposals assert that by requiring licensees to report how they
determined what issues are facing their communities, we would
essentially be re-imposing substantive ascertainment obligations. The
requirement we are adopting does not remotely approach re-imposition of
the detailed ascertainment obligations the Commission previously
eliminated. Unlike prior ascertainment requirements, our standardized
form does not mandate the nature, frequency, or methodology to be used
by licensees in determining how to assess and meet their communities'
needs; identify the community members that must be consulted; require
that only certain levels of station employees conduct ascertainment; or
even identify the programming needs of particular segments of the
community. It is only asking the licensee whether and how it assessed
and addressed the community's programming needs.
[[Page 13460]]
3. Closed Captioning and Video Description
46. In the NPRM we tentatively concluded that the standardized
disclosure form should include information on broadcasters' provision
of video description and closed captioning. The standardized form we
are adopting today will ask broadcasters whether or not they have met
the closed captioning requirements contained in Sec. 79.1 of the
rules. Additionally, it will require licensees to provide the number of
hours and percentage of various categories of nonexempt video
programming that included captioning, and to list programs that were
not captioned due to an exemption and the basis for that exemption.
Similarly, it will provide space for information on licensees'
provision of video description services which make television
programming more accessible to members of the audience who are blind or
visually impaired.
47. Some commenters assert that this requirement would be of little
benefit to individuals with disabilities since it is a retrospective
look at what programming was captioned rather than a guide to what
upcoming programming would be accessible. We adopt this requirement not
to turn the standard reporting form into a programming guide for
persons with disabilities, but in order to allow the public, including
the disability community, to meaningfully participate in the licensing
process. It will provide a basis upon which both individuals with
disabilities and those interested in disability access issues will be
able to provide meaningful input on licensee compliance with Sec. 79.1
of the rules. Moreover, the form will allow licensees voluntarily
providing video description to disclose this means of addressing the
needs of their community.
48. Because of the importance the Commission places on the
accessibility of emergency information, particularly considering our
nation's priority of homeland security, we are including in the
Standardized Television Disclosure Form space in which we will require
television stations to report on their efforts to make emergency
information available to further the protection of life, health,
safety, and property as defined in Sec. 79.2 of the rules. We are also
asking stations to provide information on whether they made the
information accessible to persons with disabilities. Our rules
currently require stations to make emergency information available to
individuals with disabilities through a variety of methods. We conclude
that reporting in the Standardized Television Disclosure Form on the
provision of emergency programming to persons with disabilities, the
provision of which is already required by our rules, would provide the
station's community with valuable public interest information.
4. Mechanics of Making the Standardized Form Available
49. The NPRM tentatively concluded that each licensee must make the
form available on a quarterly basis. We also proposed that television
broadcasters retain the standardized form in their public inspection
files and on their Web sites until final action has been taken on the
stations' next renewals. We received little comment on this issue. The
comments that did address this issue were uniformly in favor of
requiring the form to be updated quarterly. We will require that the
standardized form be updated on a quarterly basis in the same manner as
the issues/programs list which it replaces. Also, the standardized
public interest forms must be retained by licensees until their next
renewal has become final.
50. Although we stated in the NPRM that we were not inclined to
require the electronic filing of the standardized form with the
Commission, some commenters urged us to do so. UCC contends that by
requiring broadcasters to electronically file the form with the
Commission, public interest groups and academics would have easier
access to the information of hundreds of broadcasters in one place.
Additionally, UCC contends that such filing would enable the Commission
to use the aggregate information to monitor trends and determine
whether the public interest is being served. PBTV similarly urges the
form be filed with the Commission so that it can be reviewed by the
Commission at renewal time.
51. Our goal in standardizing the form is to help foster
communications between the broadcaster and the public it serves. We
agree with UCC that requiring licensees file the form with the
Commission will also enable us to use aggregate information to monitor
trends in the industry. We also agree that mandatory filing will make
the forms more easily accessible by public interest groups and
academics. Aggregating this information on the Commission's Web site
substantially decreases the burden on those interested in this
information. Instead of searching the Web sites of all stations, those
interested in compiling and comparing the information will find one
database much easier to use. We believe this outweighs the burden of
submitting a form that is already required to be compiled. Submission
of the form does not place a substantial burden on licensees. We will
therefore require stations to file electronically with the Commission
on a quarterly basis on the 30th day of the succeeding calendar quarter
(i.e., April 30 for the first quarter report; July 30 for the second
quarter report; October 30 for the third quarter report; and January 30
of the succeeding year for the last quarter report).
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
52. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis in this Report and Order is below.
53. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the NPRM. Prior to issuing that NPRM we had developed a
record in our television public interest obligation proceeding NOI,
that indicated that members of the public had encountered difficulties
in trying to access information that our current rules require be
maintained in stations' public inspection files. The Commission sought
written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment
on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Adopted Rules
54. The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether our
current requirements pertaining to television stations' public
inspection files are sufficient to ensure that the public has adequate
access to information on how the stations are serving their
communities. We tentatively concluded in the NPRM that our current
requirements were not sufficient and that a standardized form to
provide information on how stations serve the public interest would be
desirable. Additionally, we proposed to enhance the public's ability to
access public interest information by requiring television licensees to
make the contents of the public inspection files, including the
standardized form, available on their stations' Internet Web sites or,
alternatively, on that of their state broadcasters association. In this
Report and Order we adopt a standardized form for the quarterly
reporting of programming aired in response to issues facing a station's
community and a requirement that portions of each station's public
inspection file be placed on the Internet.
[[Page 13461]]
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
55. As noted, prior to our NPRM the record in our television public
interest obligation proceeding (NOI) indicated that members of the
public had encountered difficulties in trying to access information
that our current rules require be maintained in stations' public
inspection files. Although not submitted in direct response to the
IRFA, comments also asserted that the new requirements would be costly.
In the NPRM, which contained an IRFA, we tentatively concluded that our
current requirements were not sufficient and that a standardized form
to provide information on how stations serve the public interest would
be desirable. Additionally, we proposed to enhance the public's ability
to access information by requiring television licensees to make the
contents of the public inspection files, including the standardized
form, available on their stations' Internet Web sites or,
alternatively, on the Web site of their state broadcasters association.
We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Apply
56. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small business concern'' under section 3
of the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1)
Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by
the SBA.
57. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million
small businesses, according to SBA data. A ``small organization'' is
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The
term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as
``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts,
or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
58. Television Broadcasting. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities
for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.'' The
SBA has created a small business size standard for Television
Broadcasting entities, which is: such firms having $13 million or less
in annual receipts. According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of
May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in
the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. We
note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies
as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number
of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate
revenues from affiliated companies.
59. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent.
60. There are also 2,117 low power television stations (``LPTV'').
Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV
licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business
size standard.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
61. Television broadcasters that currently maintain a Web site
would be required to place the major portion of their public inspection
files on that Web site or, if permitted, on their state broadcasters
association's Web site. (A station that places public inspection files
on its state broadcasters association's Web site must link to that site
from its own Web site.) Broadcast stations would also continue to
maintain a hard copy of the public inspection files at their main
studios, as is currently required by the Commission's rules.
62. In addition, a standardized public interest reporting form
would replace the current issues/programs list for television station
licensees. This form would ask for information on the broadcast of a
number of types of nonentertainment programming including the date,
time, and duration of the programming, the program stream it was
broadcast on (in the case of digital television multicasting), whether
the program was captioned, and the steps taken by the licensee to
acquaint itself with the issues facing its community. (This form will
not establish programming guidelines or an ascertainment methodology.)
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
63. Several steps were taken, in part, to minimize any possible
significant impact on small entities. For instance, we determined that
only the television broadcasters that currently maintain a Web site
would be required to place the major portion of their public inspection
files on that Web site or, if permitted, on their state broadcasters
association's Web site. Thus, if television broadcasters do not already
maintain a Web site, they will not be required to create one. It is
probable that the smaller the television station entity is, the less
likely it is to have a Web site. In addition, television stations would
not be required to place letters from the public on their Web sites,
given the volume of material involved. Stations would also be permitted
to link to the Commission's Web site rather than place the Commission
publication ``The Public and Broadcasting'' and their quarterly
Children's Television Programming Report (Form 398) on their own Web
site.
[[Page 13462]]
Report to Congress
64. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report
and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
B. Congressional Review Act
65. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
66. This document contains modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''),
Public Law 104-13. It will be 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 will be invited to comment
on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in
this proceeding.
67. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this present
document, we have assessed the effects of requiring all television
broadcasters to utilize a Standardized Television Disclosure Form for
reporting on their public interest programming in lieu of the
currently-required issues/programs list. We find that television
stations with fewer than 25 employees will have to use the new form but
that the economic impact on such businesses, and, indeed, on stations
with any number of employees, will be attenuated by reason of the fact
that much of the information required for the new standardized form is
already required for the issues/programs list it replaces.
D. Additional Information
68. This document is available in alternative formats (computer
diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with
disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact Brian
Millin at (202) 418-7426 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY), or via e-mail
at bmillin@fcc.gov. For additional information on this proceeding,
contact Holly Saurer of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-
7283, or via e-mail at holly.saurer@fcc.gov.
V. Ordering Clauses
69. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307, this Report and Order is
adopted and Sec. Sec. 73.1201, 73.3526 and 73.3527 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 73.1201, 73.3526 and 73.3527, are amended as set forth
below. Rule Sec. Sec. 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3527(e)(8) contain a
collection requirement under the PRA and are not effective until after
approval by OMB, as discussed below.
70. It is further ordered that the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
71. It is further ordered that the requirement that stations place
their public inspection files on their Web sites shall be effective 60
days after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval.
72. It is further ordered that the requirement that stations use
the Television Standardized Disclosure Form, which is subject to
approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), shall be
effective 60 days after the Commission publishes a notice in the
Federal Register announcing OMB approval of the form, or upon the next
quarterly reporting date, whichever is later.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, and 554.
0
2. Section 73.1201 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.1201 Station identification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Twice daily, the station identification for television stations
must include a notice of the existence, location and accessibility of
the station's public file. The notice must state that the station's
public file is available for inspection and that consumers can view it
at the station's main studio and on its Web site. At least one of the
announcements must occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and midnight.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 73.3526 is amended by revising paragraph (b), adding
paragraph (e)(9)(iii) and revising paragraph (e)(11)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations.
* * * * *
(b) Location of the file. The public inspection file shall be
located as follows:
(1) A hard copy of the public inspection file shall be maintained
at the main studio of the station. An applicant for a new station or
change of community shall maintain its file at an accessible place in
the proposed community of license or at its proposed main studio.
(2) A television station licensee or applicant that had a Web site
for its station[s] as of January 24, 2008 shall also place the contents
of its public inspection file on its Web site or, if permitted, the Web
site of its state broadcasters association as of 60 days after the
Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB
approval. A station not having their own Web site as of November 27,
2007, must place their files on any Web site they may later create or,
if permitted, on the Web site of its state broadcasters association, by
60 days after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval or within 30 days of the date it makes the Web
site available to the public, whichever is later. A station that places
public inspection files on its state broadcasters association's Web
site must link to that site from its own Web site. A television
licensee or applicant does not have to place on its Web site any
material that is available on another freely accessible Web site for
which no registration is required as long as it provides a link to that
Web site. This applies, for example, to material that is posted on the
FCC's Web site, such as
[[Page 13463]]
material required by paragraph (e)(8) of this section (``The Public and
Broadcasting'') and paragraph (e)(11)(iii) of this section
(``Children's Television Programming Reports''). A licensee does not
have to post letters from the public on the electronic version of its
public inspection files but must post on its Web site e-mails from the
public.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(9) * * *
(iii) Written communication does not need to be posted to the
public file placed on a station's Web site, but e-mail messages must be
placed on the station's Web site, in addition to being placed in a
station's public file at its main studio. The Web site must also
provide notice that a complete set of letters from the public is
available at the main studio.
* * * * *
(11)(i) TV Standardized Public Interest Reporting Form. For
commercial TV and Class A TV broadcast stations, every three months a
completed Standardized Television Disclosure Form with regard to the
station's efforts to determine the issues facing its community and the
programming aired during the preceding three month period in response
to those issues. The form for each calendar quarter is to be filed by
the thirtieth day of the succeeding calendar quarter (e.g., January 30
for the quarter October-December, April 30 for the quarter January-
March, etc.). The forms described in this paragraph shall be retained
in the public inspection file until final action has been taken on the
station's next license renewal application.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 73.3527 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e)(8) to
read as follows:
Sec. 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial
educational stations.
* * * * *
(b) Location of the file. The public inspection file shall be
located as follows:
(1) A hard copy of the public inspection file shall be maintained
at the main studio of the station. An applicant for a new station or
change of community shall maintain its file at an accessible place in
the proposed community of license or at its proposed main studio.
(2) A television station licensee or applicant that had a Web site
for its station[s] as of January 24, 2008, shall also place the
contents of its public inspection file on its Web site or, if
permitted, the Web site of its state broadcasters association as of 60
days after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval. A station not having their own Web site as of
November 27, 2007, must place their files on any Web site they may
later create or, if permitted, on the Web site of its state
broadcasters association, by 60 days after the Commission publishes a
notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval or within 30
days of the date it makes the Web site available to the public,
whichever is later. A station placing its public inspection files on
its state broadcasters association's Web site must link to that site
from its own Web site. A television licensee or applicant does not have
to place on its Web site any material that is available on another
freely accessible Web site for which no registration is required as
long as it provides a link to that Web site. This applies, for example,
to material that is posted on the FCC's Web site, such as material
required by paragraph (e)(7) of this section (``The Public and
Broadcasting'').
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(8) TV Standardized Public Interest Reporting Form. For
noncommercial educational TV and Class A TV broadcast stations, every
three months a completed Standardized Public Interest Reporting Form
with regard to the station's efforts to determine the issues facing its
community and the programming aired during the preceding three month
period in response to those issues. The form for each calendar quarter
is to be filed by the thirtieth day of the succeeding calendar quarter
(e.g., January 30 for the quarter October-December, April 30 for the
quarter January-March, etc.). The forms described in this paragraph
shall be retained in the public inspection file until final action has
been taken on the station's next license renewal application.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-5052 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P