[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19226-19235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10309]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-43; FCC 98-57]


1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media 
Applications, Rules, and Processes

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to streamline broadcast application 
and licensing procedures and reduce licensee administrative and filing 
requirements. The Commission also proposes to eliminate rules and 
procedures that no longer advance key objectives. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to mandate electronic filing for 
certain broadcast application and reporting forms. By these proposals, 
the Commission seeks

[[Page 19227]]

to preserve the public's ability to participate fully in the FCC 
broadcast licensing process, reduce unwarranted applicant and licensee 
burdens, and realize benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's electronic 
filing initiative. This NPRM contains proposed or modified information 
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the proposed or modified information collections contained in this 
proceeding.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 16, 1998. Reply 
comments are due July 16, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, 
interested parties must file an original plus six copies of all 
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If parties filing 
comments want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of the 
comments, the parties must file an original plus eleven copies. Written 
comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information 
collections on or before June 16, 1998. Written comments must be 
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
and/or modified information collections on or before June 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20554, or via Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB 
Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503 
or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services 
Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2780; James J. Brown, Video 
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-1600; or Mania K. 
Baghdadi, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2130. 
For additional information concerning the information collections 
contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214, or via the 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 98-43 and FCC No. 98-57, 
adopted April 2, 1998 and released April 3, 1998. The complete text of 
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554 and may also be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Service, (202) 857-3800 (phone), (202) 857-3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. These proposals are designed to reduce filing burdens and 
increase the efficiency of the Mass Media Bureau application 
processing. They recognize that this approach is feasible only if the 
Commission retains the capacity to verify compliance with our rules and 
the accuracy of application information through audits and inquiries. 
Therefore, these proposals include the establishment of a formal system 
of random audits along with the Commission's commitment to sanction 
applicants that do not meet their obligations of full disclosure and 
complete candor. We have tentatively identified certain policies that 
either consume significant staff resources or create burdens that may 
no longer be warranted. Accordingly, we propose to eliminate: payment 
restrictions on the sale of unbuilt stations, the requirement to submit 
contracts with assignment and transfer applications, and several rules 
that add unwarranted filing burdens on commercial new station and 
facility change applicants. We consider relaxing and conforming 
ownership report filing requirements for commercial and noncommercial 
stations. This proceeding also proposes fundamental changes in our 
construction permit extension procedures. These changes would reduce 
the need for repetitive extension filings. The Commission seeks 
comments on procedures we can adopt, consistent with statutory 
restrictions, to expedite the processing of pro forma assignment and 
transfer applications. Finally, we invite comment on other measures 
which may advance our streamlining goals.

II. Issue Analysis

A. Electronic Filing of Applications

    2. The Mass Media Bureau is currently working on facilitating 
electronic filing for 15 key broadcasting application and reporting 
forms.1 The Commission invites comment on whether electronic 
filing of these applications should be mandatory or permissive, and, if 
mandatory, whether this requirement should be phased in. If 
electronically filed applications are made available on the Internet, 
interested parties could examine them at home, at the office, or 
perhaps at the public library. The Commission invites comment on these 
tentative views. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
FCC Form 398, the Children's Programming Report, be filed 
electronically. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as 
well as on any legal, technical, or other issues raised by mandatory 
electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Mass Media Bureau is developing electronic versions of 
the following 15 forms: FCC Forms 301, 302-AM, 302-FM, 302-TV, 307, 
314, 315, 316, 340, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, and 5072. We also 
propose to require the electronic filing of Form 398, which already 
is available in electronic form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should create 
exemptions to mandatory filing for small businesses or other qualifying 
entities, and what the criteria or waiver standards should be. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there should be a 
transition period for mandatory filing and if so, should this period be 
based on whether the filer is a small entity? Should the phase-in be 
done on a form by form basis, and what phase in dates should be used? 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether voluntary electronic 
filing could or should be encouraged during the transition period. To 
spur electronic filing, the Commission requests comments on possible 
measures such as higher filing fees for paper filers. However, the 
Commission notes its lack of statutory authority to structure filing 
fees based on whether a filing is submitted in paper or electronic 
form. If Mass Media Bureau electronic filing is phased in, should 
parties also be required to submit traditional paper copies of any 
electronic filings during the transition? Would such a requirement be 
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, increase 
administrative burdens, processing, or discourage electronic filing?
    4. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act (``DCIA''), 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public 
Law 104-34, Chapter 10, 110 Stat 1321, 1321-1358 (1996), the Commission 
is required to monitor and provide information about its regulatees to 
the U.S. Treasury. The statute includes a requirement that the 
Commission collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers

[[Page 19228]]

(TIN), and share them with the U.S. Treasury. Individuals use their 
Social Security Number as their TIN.2 Employers use their 
Employer Identification Number (``EIN'') as their TIN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Therefore, for the purposes of this NPRM, the term 
``Taxpayer Identification Number'' shall mean ``Social Security 
Number'' for individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission invites comment on using TINs in a manner 
analogous to their proposed use in the Wireless Bureau's Universal 
Licensing System. We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs 
would satisfy the requirements of the DCIA, and whether it would 
provide a unique identifier for parties filing broadcast applications 
that would ensure that the system functions properly. The Commission 
would take steps to prevent misuse of TINs. Alternatively, we seek 
comment on using the Bureau's unique database generated identifiers 
that would be assigned to filers based on the date of filing and a 
three-character alphanumeric sequence. Finally, a Privacy Act 
submission would be published in the Federal Register to obtain the 
requisite public and congressional comment and Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') approval prior to implementation of the electronic 
filing system.

B. Streamlining Application Processing

    6. The current versions of most Mass Media Bureau forms rely to a 
significant extent on open-ended narrative exhibits and document 
submissions. Accordingly, the Commission believes it is necessary to 
undertake a thorough review of its broadcast forms and to reconsider 
both the information that is collected and the form in which it is 
submitted. Thus, the Commission considers changes to the license and 
permit assignment and transfer forms--Forms 314, 315 and 316; the new 
commercial station/technical modification form--Form 301; the 
construction permit extension form--Form 307; and the annual ownership 
report for commercial stations--Form 323. For Forms 314, 315, 316, and 
301, the Commission has recasted as many questions as possible into an 
electronic ``filing friendly'' format, replacing required exhibits with 
certifications and ``yes/no'' questions. We tentatively conclude that 
the broadcast application forms should restrict the use of exhibits to 
waiver requests or where additional information is necessary to support 
application elements potentially inconsistent with precedent or 
processing standards. At the same time the Commission proposes to 
reduce the amount of information applicants are now required to file. 
For Forms 307 and 323, we propose to restructure filing requirements 
altogether.
    7. As part of this process the Commission is making revisions to 
the instructions to the Mass Media Bureau application forms and adding 
worksheets, where applicable, to help clarify Commission processing 
standards and rule interpretations. The Commission's goal is to provide 
applicants with sufficient guidance to intelligently certify compliance 
with our rules and policies. The expanded application form instructions 
are viewed as crucial to this process and therefore, the Commission 
proposes to require each applicant to certify that it has read the 
instructions and disclosed fully in exhibits all matters about which 
there is any question regarding full compliance with the standards and 
criteria set forth in the instructions. The Commission invites comment 
on this proposal, and on whether it should require licensees to retain 
worksheets to assist the Commission in its compliance efforts, or 
alternatively, whether licensees should be required to place worksheets 
in their public inspection files. We also propose to narrow or 
eliminate application questions of marginal importance and believe 
these changes will not undermine the Commission's ability to make 
informed public interest determinations.
    8. The Commission also proposes to eliminate or relax a number of 
technical and non-technical rules and filing requirements. If adopted, 
these changes would both reduce applicant filing burdens and streamline 
our processing of sales, new station, and facility modification 
applications.
Assignment and Transfer Applications: Forms 314 and 315
    9. The Commission proposes substantial revisions to the sales 
application forms (FCC Forms 314 and 315), including eliminating the 
rule that restricts payments upon assignment or transfer of unbuilt 
stations, and the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as 
part of the assignment or transfer application. In addition, the 
Commission proposes other changes that are not subject to the 
rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act 
3 and therefore may be implemented without notice and 
comment. Nonetheless, the Commission discusses these changes here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule Changes
    10. Payment Restrictions on the Sale of Unbuilt Stations. Section 
73.3597(c) of the Commission's rules restricts payments upon assignment 
or transfer of an unbuilt station to reimbursement of a seller's 
expenses (``no profit'' rule).4 In addition, Sec. 73.3597(d) 
provides that where the seller retains an interest in an unbuilt 
station, the Commission must consider whether the transaction involves 
actual or potential gain to the seller over and above reimbursement of 
expenses.5 In such cases, Commission rules provide that the 
assignment or transfer application must be designated for hearing 
unless the transferor or assignor has obligated itself to provide the 
station with a capital contribution proportionate to the transferor's 
or assignor's equity share in the station for the one-year period 
commencing with program tests.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 47 CFR 73.3597(c).
    \5\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(1).
    \6\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``no profit'' rule. We 
believe that there is no statutory proscription against the for-profit 
sale of construction permits for unbuilt broadcast stations. With the 
initiation of competitive bidding for broadcast spectrum in situations 
where mutually exclusive applications are filed, the winning bidder's 
payment of fair market value for a construction permit combined with a 
restricted construction permit extension policy proposed infra will 
promote the prompt construction of broadcast facilities.7 
Thus, we tentatively conclude that we should follow the same 
construction permit sale policy which is followed in other services 
subject to auction procedures.8 Recognizing that auctions 
may not be used to award construction permits in every context, for 
example, non-commercial station construction permits or where there are 
no competing commercial stations, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the fact that a construction permit may not be issued through 
auction should cause us to retain the ``no profit'' rule in such 
situations. Commenters are invited to discuss the benefits and 
drawbacks of applying the ``no profit'' rule in cases where no auction 
takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications 
Act--Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional 
Television Fixed Service Licenses, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62 
FR 65392 (December 12, 1997) (``Auction NPRM'').
    \8\ See e.g., 47 CFR 24.839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Commission tentatively concludes that reimbursement 
restrictions should also be eliminated

[[Page 19229]]

for outstanding construction permits. We tentatively conclude that we 
also should permit the for-profit sale of these construction permits, 
which to a certain extent have already been subject to private 
competitive forces. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
    13. If the current ``no profit'' rule were retained, the Commission 
proposes allowing permittees to certify compliance with the rule by 
answering a series of ``yes/no'' questions. The Commission would 
continue to have the authority to request an itemized accounting of 
expenses on a case-by-case basis where disclosures in an application 
raise issues or concerns.9 The Commission seeks comment on 
the appropriateness of allowing permittees to certify compliance, and 
particularly on our proposal to allow a seller to certify that it will 
not be reimbursed for more than its out-of-pocket expenses. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be sufficient to 
require sellers to place copies of all expense documentation in a 
station's public file if the no-profit rule is retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 47 CFR 1.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement To Submit Contracts With Assignment and Transfer 
Applications
    14. The current sales forms, FCC Forms 314, 315 and 316, require 
that the seller submit a copy of the contract and/or agreement for the 
assignment or transfer of the station, or if the agreement has not been 
reduced to writing, a written description of the complete oral 
agreement. In addition, Sec. 73.3613(b) of the Commission's rules 
requires that licensees and permittees file with the Commission any 
documents relating to the present or future ownership or control of the 
licensee or permittee within thirty days of execution. The Commission 
proposes to eliminate the requirement that such contracts and/or 
agreements be filed as part of assignment or transfer applications as 
well as the portion of Sec. 73.3613(b) that requires that such 
agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of 
execution. In lieu of this requirement, the Commission proposes to 
require applicants to carefully and thoroughly review their sales and 
organizational documents against the detailed standards set forth in 
the instructions to Forms 314 and 315. We also propose to expand 
application instructions to cover both the sales and loan agreements 
and also issues relating to non-party investor influence over the 
assignee or transferee. Applicants would be required to disclose fully 
any sales, financing or investor information where the transaction or 
the assignee entity does not conform fully to the standards set forth 
in the instructions. However, copies of agreements may be requested on 
a case-by-case basis where disclosures made in an application raise 
issues or concerns. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
proposed application procedures and certifications would suffice 
instead of the requirement that applicants file the sales agreements 
with their applications. In particular, the Commission requests comment 
on whether the proposed instruction materials and related 
certifications would suffice instead of individualized review of 
agreements and contracts where complex transactions are involved. 
Finally, comment is sought on whether these procedures are sufficient 
to discharge our obligation under Sec. 310(d) of the Act to grant only 
those applications that serve the public interest, convenience and 
necessity.
    15. If the Commission eliminates the requirement that applicants 
file sales agreements with their applications and the rule requiring 
that such agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of 
execution, it proposes to require that applicants place all such 
agreements in the station's public inspection file and to modify our 
public inspection file rule accordingly. The Commission seeks comment 
on the impact of ending the practice of having sales agreements 
available for inspection in the Commission's Washington, D.C. public 
reference room.
Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap Maps
    16. With regard to radio applicants, the Commission proposes to 
reduce administrative burdens on broadcasters and at the same time 
streamline the staff review process by eliminating the requirement that 
applicants submit contour overlap maps to demonstrate compliance with 
our local radio ownership rules. The Commission proposes reliance on 
applicant certifications in place of contour maps. An applicant would 
be in a position to make this local radio ownership certification only 
after completing a worksheet. To the extent a proposed transaction 
would involve more than one ``market,'' as that term is defined in 
Sec. 73.3555(a)(4)(ii), applicants would be required to complete the 
worksheet with regard to each such market. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal, and whether our elimination of the requirement that 
applicants submit contour overlap maps will detrimentally affect the 
public's ability to access the information necessary to monitor station 
sales and thereby undermine the opportunity for meaningful public 
participation under Sec. 309(d) of the Act.10 The Commission 
seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to place a copy 
of the contour overlap map in the station's public inspection file. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether applicants should be exempt 
from the public file requirement in those situations in which 
compliance is obvious, e.g., where a certification is premised on the 
fact there are forty-five or more stations in a major market. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to 
prepare a map solely for placement in the station's public inspection 
file in such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 47 U.S.C. 309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Revisions
    17. Certain proposed revisions to the sales forms (FCC Forms 314 
and 315) do not require changes in our rules. These changes are 
intended to maximize the advantages of electronic filing and processing 
and eliminate burdensome disclosure requirements. These proposed form 
changes are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements.11 Nevertheless, 
interested parties are urged to review the draft forms carefully so 
that meaningful comments may be submitted regarding the proposed 
revisions in the forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Commercial Station and Facility Change Applications: Form 301 Rule 
Revisions
    18. Section 73.316(c). The Commission proposes to modify 
Sec. 73.316(c) to shift the filing requirements now codified in 
subsections (1)-(2) and (4)-(7) from the construction permit phase to 
the license phase of the FM authorization process.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 47 CFR 73.316(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Section 73.1030(a). The Commission seeks comment on its 
proposal to modify Sec. 73.1030(a) by eliminating the requirement that 
applicants indicate in their applications the date of radio astronomy 
observatory notification.
    20. Section 73.1675(a). The Commission seeks comment on its 
proposal to modify this rule to eliminate the map requirement for 
auxiliary facilities for the FM and TV broadcast services. Although the 
Commission believes that the rationale for eliminating the 
Sec. 73.1675(a) map requirement is equally applicable to the

[[Page 19230]]

FM and TV broadcast services, it proposes to retain the map requirement 
for AM auxiliary facility permit applications.
    The Commission believes that adoption of these changes would not 
jeopardize the technical integrity of the broadcast services or the 
consistent enforcement of our core rules and policies. The Commission 
seeks comments on these modifications, and request additional 
suggestions to eliminate or streamline reporting and filing 
requirements which relate to Form 301 filings.
Form Revisions
    21. The Commission also proposes to reorganize and streamline FCC 
Form 301. It proposes to conform Forms 301, 314 and 315 non-technical 
questions where regulatory concerns are identical. In addition, the 
Commission proposes to reorganize the FM technical data section of the 
application, section V-B. The revised section V-B would require 
applicants to certify compliance with our technical rules for routine 
and non-waiver issues. The technical data required for engineering 
review would be organized in such a manner as to facilitate electronic 
entry and processing of data.

C. Enforcement

    22. The Commission's proposals would significantly streamline the 
amount of information that applicants must furnish to the Commission. 
Consequently, the Commission would rely more heavily on certifications 
by applicants that they comply with the applicable rules. These 
proposals do not signify any lessening of the Commission's expectation 
that licensees conduct themselves as public trustees. Current 
enforcement measures applied by the Commission range from admonitions 
to forfeitures to conducting hearings to determine whether to revoke or 
deny renewal of a broadcaster's license. The Commission invites comment 
as to whether our existing enforcement measures and policies remain 
sufficient.
    23. If the proposed revisions to the Commission's application forms 
and processing procedures are adopted, the Commission intends to have a 
formal program of random audits to ensure that licensees continue to 
comply with our rules and we intend to rely heavily on such audits. The 
Commission invites comments to how it should implement such audits and 
whether such audits are sufficient means of ensuring continued licensee 
compliance with our rules and policies. If not, the Commission invites 
comment as to what additional measures, if any, it should adopt.

D. Modifying Construction Permit Extension Procedures

    24. For new or modified facilities, the Commission issues a 
construction permit for either 24 months (for full power TV) or 18 
months (for AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV 
translator, TV booster, FM translator, FM booster, broadcast auxiliary, 
or Instructional TV Fixed station (``ITFS'')). Within the specified 
time frame, a permittee must complete construction and file an 
application for a license to cover. Additional time may be granted only 
if the licensee or permittee can demonstrate one of the following three 
conditions, the so-called ``one-in-three'' showing: (1) construction is 
complete and testing is underway looking toward the prompt filing of a 
license application; (2) substantial progress has been made; or (3) no 
progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control of the 
permittee but the permittee has taken all possible steps to 
expeditiously resolve the problem and proceed with construction.
    25. While many permittees are now able to complete construction 
within the initial construction period afforded under the current 
rules, a significant number of permittees do not succeed in 
constructing their proposed facilities prior to permit expiration. As a 
result, the staff receives large numbers of extension applications, 
creating a tremendous burden on staff resources. Therefore, the 
Commission proposes to: (1) issue all construction permits for a 
uniform three-year term; (2) extend permits only in circumstances where 
the permit itself is the subject of administrative or judicial appeal 
or where construction delays have been caused by an ``act of God;'' (3) 
eliminate the current practice of providing extra time for construction 
after a permit has been the subject of a modification or an assignment 
or transfer of control; and (4) make construction permits subject to 
automatic forfeiture upon expiration. Additionally, the Commission 
proposes to apply these rules to any construction permit that is within 
its initial construction period at the time these rules are adopted.
    26. The Commission invites comment on the need for, and relative 
merits of, a uniform period and seeks comment as to whether a three 
year term is appropriate. The Commission solicits comments on typical 
construction time lines and problems, particularly where commenters 
support alternative permit time frames. It also seeks comment as to 
whether the proposed longer construction period would remove an 
incentive for prompt construction by permittees who are capable of 
completing construction much earlier than the proposed three-year 
deadline. Commenters are specifically asked to comment on the extent to 
which construction permit applicants are unprepared and unwilling to 
proceed promptly with construction when they apply, but rather are 
applying to warehouse spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether we should impose a shorter construction period, e.g., one year, 
for construction permits for minor modifications to licensed 
facilities. The Commission does not propose to apply the three-year 
construction period to the digital television (``DTV'') facilities 
constructed by initial DTV licensees, which are on their own 
construction schedule.13 However, in its Memorandum Opinion 
and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order the 
Commission established special construction rules for new NTSC 
permittees whose applications remained pending on April 3, 
1997.14 This limited class of permittees, which are not 
eligible for an initial DTV paired license, may construct either an 
analog or a digital station. These permittees also must complete 
construction with the ``traditional'' two-year construction period 
applied to NTSC stations, 15 and, if they initially 
construct analog facilities, may convert to DTV by the 2006 deadline. 
If the proposed three-year construction period is adopted, the 
Commission proposes to increase to three years the initial period 
afforded these NTSC permittees to construct either analog or digital 
facilities. The Commission does not propose a change in the 2006 
deadline for converting to DTV. The Commission invites comment as to 
whether the two-year period for this group of NTSC permittees should be 
extended to three years if we adopt the three-year proposal discussed 
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26996 (May 16, 1997) on 
reconsideration, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998). See also Sixth Report 
and Order 62 FR 26684 (May 14, 1997), on reconsideration, 63 FR 
13546 (March 20, 1998).
    \14\ Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the 
Fifth Report and Order, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998).
    \15\ Id. para. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrict Extensions to Circumstances Where Delays Are Beyond the 
Permittee's Control
    27. The Commission also proposes to strictly limit the 
circumstances that would qualify for an extension under

[[Page 19231]]

the ``circumstances beyond control'' criterion. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it can limit the tolling of the 
construction period to when the grant of a construction permit is the 
subject of administrative or judicial appeals or when construction has 
been delayed by an ``act of God.'' The Commission proposes to define 
``acts of God'' very narrowly in terms of natural disasters (e.g., 
floods, tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes) and even then to only 
toll the construction period for the length of time which a diligent 
permittee would need to recover from the effects of the event, up to a 
maximum of one year. It also proposes to require strict documentation 
of a permittee's efforts to build subsequent to such events. Commenters 
are requested to address both the legal and economic consequences of 
this proposal and to suggest a mechanism by which a permittee would 
inform the Commission of natural disasters which have delayed 
construction and request the tolling of a construction period. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether this proposed rule change would be 
consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. Finally, it sees comment as to 
whether difficulties in obtaining local zoning authorization are 
sufficiently beyond the permittee's control to warrant treatment 
similar to that of delays caused by administrative and judicial review. 
The Commission's tentative conclusion is that zoning delays can be 
overcome and construction can be completed within the proposed three-
year construction period if a permittee pursues the zoning process 
diligently.
Eliminate Post-Modification and Post-Assignment Extensions
    28. When a permittee for a new facility files an application to 
modify its construction permit, or an application to assign or transfer 
control of its construction permit in the second half of the 
construction permit's initially authorized period, the Commission 
currently requires a ``one-in-three'' showing and, upon grant, the 
permittee, in most instances, is provided additional time to complete 
construction. The Commission proposes to eliminate both the restriction 
on second-half construction period modifications and assignments and 
the extended construction periods provided under our rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether elimination of automatic extensions 
when unbuilt stations have been modified, assigned, or transferred is 
consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. In addition, we propose to 
eliminate the requirement that permittees that modify unbuilt stations 
certify that construction will commence immediately upon grant. 
16 We also propose to eliminate the analogous certification 
requirement for assignees and transferees.17 The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(b).
    \17\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatic Forfeiture of Expired Construction Permits
    29. While Sec. 319(b) of the Act provides for the automatic 
forfeiture of an expired construction permit (unless the Commission 
authorizes additional time or the delay was caused by circumstances 
outside the permittee's control), the Commission's practice has been to 
take an affirmative action cancelling a construction permit before it 
is forfeited. In an effort to streamline this process, the Commission 
proposes to make a construction permit subject to automatic forfeiture, 
without further Commission action, upon expiration of the proposed 
three-year construction period. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
an automatic cancellation policy for expired construction permits 
should be adopted and its tentative conclusion that such a procedure 
would be consistent with the Act's automatic forfeiture provision.
Application of New Rules to Outstanding Permits
    30. Finally, the Commission proposes that the rules regarding 
construction permits, and extensions thereof, adopted in this 
rulemaking proceeding be applied to any construction permit that is 
currently in its initial construction period (i.e., the first 24 months 
for a full power TV facilities permit and the first 18 months for an 
AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV translator, TV 
booster, FM translator, FM booster, or broadcast auxiliary permit). The 
Commission invites comment on whether to extend the proposed extension 
policy to outstanding permits, whether implementation would cause 
unjustifiable hardship to permittees, and whether this approach would 
result in a disservice to the public. The Commission believes, however, 
that it would be administratively unworkable to apply the proposed 
rules to construction permits that are already beyond their initial 
construction periods (whether through extension, assignment, transfer 
of control, or modification). Because many of these permits have 
already been afforded a construction period close to (or, in many 
instances, in excess of) the three-year term proposed in this Notice, 
the Commission proposes to continue to apply the rules as they exist 
today to permits outside their initial periods. The Commission invites 
comment on the tentative conclusion that it is more appropriate to 
continue to apply its current rules to construction permits that are 
beyond their initial periods.

E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments and Transfers

    31. Approximately 35 percent of radio and television assignment and 
transfer applications propose pro forma transactions and are filed on 
FCC Form 316. Applications are typically processed and disposed of 
within 10 working days. For certain pro forma transfers and 
assignments, which do not affect actual control of the licensee or 
permittee and which are routinely granted by the Commission, 
broadcasters have questioned whether they should be required to file an 
application and wait for a grant. The Commission invites commenters to 
identify any specific situations or transactions negatively impacted by 
the Mass Media Bureau's current rate of disposal. Some types of pro 
forma assignments or transfers may be suited for streamlined 
procedures. For example: (1) court-ordered transfers to a bankruptcy 
trustee; (2) certain corporate reorganizations (such as a change in an 
intermediate wholly-owned subsidiary); (3) reorganization by a 
corporate licensee in another state where no other changes are made; 
(4) involuntary assignment or transfer of control of license or 
construction permit due to death or legal disability of the individual 
permittee or licensee; and (5) assignment of less than a controlling 
interest in a partnership. The Commission invites comment on whether 
these and/or other categories of pro forma transfers and assignments 
should be subjected to a streamlined procedure and whether this may be 
done while complying with Sec. 310(d).
    32. Under such a streamlined procedure certain assignments and 
transfers, as listed above, could be carried out by licensees or 
permittees, subject only to a requirement that the Commission be 
notified of the assignment or transfer within a certain period 
thereafter (say 30 days) and the requirement that an Ownership Report 
Form be filed within 30 days after the assignment or 
transfer.18 Would Sec. 310(d) permit adoption of such a 
notification procedure? In the context of Cable Television Relay 
Service (``CARS''), we have streamlined transfers by providing

[[Page 19232]]

that prior Commission consent is not required for assignments or 
transfers of control ``in cases where the change in ownership does not 
affect the identity or controlling interest of the 
licensee.''19 The Commission invites comment as to whether 
this precedent is applicable to broadcast transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 47 CFR 73.3615(f).
    \19\ 47 CFR 78.35(c); Report and Order, 50 FR 23417 (June 4, 
1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The Commission also invites comment on the procedures that 
should be followed for notifications of transactions that are 
determined to fall outside the scope of per se grantable applications. 
Commenters should also consider the procedures the Commission should 
adopt in response to notifications for transactions that the Commission 
concludes are both voluntary and involve a substantial change in 
ownership or control, and thus are subject to the public notice and 
petition to deny provisions of Sec. 309(d). Finally, the Commission 
invites comment on the sanctions that should be imposed for such 
erroneous notifications.
    34. The Commission also uses ``short form'' procedures in 
connection with tender offers and proxy contests to acquire control of 
entities that hold Commission licenses.20 We question 
whether the streamlining options considered in this Notice should apply 
to our tender offer and proxy contest processing policies. Accordingly, 
we seek comment on our tentative conclusion that the proposed 
streamlining procedures should not be extended to cover the processing 
of ``short form'' applications relating to tender offers and proxy 
contests for control of Commission licensees. Assuming that a 
notification procedure could be adopted consistent with Sec. 310(d), 
are there benefits to obtaining prior consent to such transactions that 
would be lost if the Commission adopts a notification requirement? 
Should the Commission require that a notification and Ownership Report 
both be filed with the Commission or, in the alternative, would an 
Ownership Report be sufficient in this regard? Is the thirty-day period 
an appropriate time limit for the notification requirement? Should the 
Commission require that a notification letter be filed, or should the 
Commission adopt a new notification form for this purpose? If the 
Commission requires that a notification letter or form be filed, what 
information should be required to be filed in the letter? Finally, 
should the Commission place such notifications on public notice to 
permit the public an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the 
application of the ``blanket'' consent to a particular transaction? 
Alternatively, would a requirement that the notification be placed in 
the station's public file be sufficient in this regard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See generally Tender Offers and Proxy Contests, 59 Rad. 
Reg. 1536 (1986), appeal dismissed sub nom. Office of Communication 
of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 826 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir. 
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. As an alternative to a notification procedure, the Commission 
could keep the current application process but, in the case of certain 
specified pro forma assignments and transfers, permit applicants to 
proceed, at their own risk, to consummate the transfer or assignment if 
Commission action denying the application is not taken within a set 
short period after the application is filed. The Commission invites 
comment as to whether this alternative would be consistent with 
Sec. 310(d). The Commission would, in the event that this proposal is 
adopted, retain the authority to deny the assignment or transfer even 
after such a consummation and require that the transaction be unwound. 
Thus, the Commission believes its authority under section 310 of the 
Act would be retained.
    36. Assuming such an alternative procedure is consistent with 
Sec. 310(d), the Commission invites comment as to the appropriate time 
period for Commission action, e.g., ten business days. Further, the 
Commission invites comment as to whether such a proposal would 
significantly and meaningfully reduce regulatory burdens and provide 
adequate relief. The Commission notes its concern that it may be 
difficult to unwind sales transactions after they have occurred. It 
invites comment as to whether this is a significant negative factor 
that should be considered or whether it should rely on applicants to 
make a reasoned judgment as to whether they should assume the risk that 
a transaction consummated prior to FCC consent must be subsequently 
unwound. The Commission notes that this proposal would apply only to 
narrow categories of pro forma transfers and assignments, as specified 
above, where Commission consent is routinely granted. The Commission 
invites comment on all aspects of this proposal.

F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting Requirements

    37. The Commission proposes to reduce the frequency with which 
Ownership Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and 
noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast stations must be 
filed with the Commission. Currently, most licensees of commercial 
broadcast stations are required to file Ownership Reports annually. 
This proposal would relax this requirement so that such licensees would 
have to file Ownership Reports when they file their stations' license 
renewal applications and four years thereafter, at the mid-point of 
their scheduled license term. In addition, the Commission proposes to 
formalize the Commission's current practice of requesting an Ownership 
Report within 30 days of an approved assignment or transfer by amending 
Sec. 73.3615 of the Commission's Rules to specifically require that 
every commercial and noncommercial educational licensee or permittee 
file an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 or 323-E within 30 of days of 
consummation of an approved license assignment or transfer of control. 
In the event the Commission adopts a notification procedure for certain 
pro forma assignments and transfers, the Commission proposes to require 
the filing of an Ownership Report within thirty days of the 
consummation of those transactions. Comment on all aspects of these 
proposals is invited. We also seek comment on whether it should adopt 
the same proposed relaxed ownership reporting requirements for 
noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast station licensees and 
permittees.
    38. The Commission invites comment on its tentative conclusion that 
the proposed relaxation in ownership reporting would ease paperwork 
burdens on licensees and permittees without impairing the public's 
ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station owners. The 
Commission also tentatively concludes the proposal would not adversely 
affect its ability to monitor ownership of commercial and noncommercial 
educational broadcast stations and compliance with the Commission's 
multiple ownership limitations and the alien ownership and prior 
consent provisions of Sec. 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended. We also invite comment as to whether our proposals would 
hinder members of the public and other broadcasters in obtaining 
necessary ownership information and monitoring ownership changes.
    39. The current ownership reporting requirements are stricter for 
noncommercial stations than for commercial stations. The Commission 
proposes, therefore, to conform Form 323-E and Form 323 reporting 
requirements. We seek comment on whether eliminating the 30-day 
supplemental reporting requirement, coupled with the addition of a 
regular four-year filing requirement, would

[[Page 19233]]

result in an overall reduction of the burden on noncommercial 
educational licensees.
    40. The Commission invites comment as to whether a two-year or 
other reporting interval would be more appropriate or beneficial. In 
this regard, commenters contending that a four-year reporting 
requirement would be detrimental to the public's or the Commission's 
ability to monitor adequately significant changes in the ownership of 
broadcast stations should provide specific examples and arguments to 
substantiate their position.
Ordering Clauses
    41. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 
308, 309, and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
    42. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this 
Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

III. Administrative Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Notice proposes rule and procedural revisions which may 
contain an information collection requirement. As part of our 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general 
public and OMB to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collection contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments 
are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the 
Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy 
of any comments on the information collections contained herein should 
be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 
234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--
17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

B. Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under 
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte 
presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with 
Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when 
presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum 
summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of 
the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. 
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. 
Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set 
forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (``IRFA'') is contained in the Attachment. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act,21 the Commission has prepared an 
IRFA of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written public comments 
are requested on the IRFA. The Commission asks a number of questions in 
its IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the industries 
covered by this Notice. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in 
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice and 
must have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

    \21\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 
(1981), as amended.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Attachment

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(``RFA''),22 the Commission has prepared this present 
Initial Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the 
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, 
the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 194-12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (``CWAA''). Title II of the 
CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (``SBREFA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

    With this Notice, the Commission commences a proceeding to 
review its broadcast applications and related rules. The 
Commission's goals are to streamline its procedures, speed 
introduction of new and expanded services to the public, reduce 
administrative burdens on regulatees, increase public access to 
information about the Bureau's actions and processing activities, 
and maximize efficiency in the use of Commission resources, while 
maintaining the technical integrity of broadcast services, fostering 
the Commission's goals of competition and diversity, continuing 
enforcement of the Commission's core rules and policies, and 
permitting members of the public a continued opportunity to monitor 
station performance. This review is taken in conjunction with the 
Commission's 1998 biennial regulatory review. Although Congress did 
not mandate this area of review, the Commission nonetheless 
undertakes it to assure that its rules and processes are no more 
regulatory than necessary to achieve Commission goals.

B. Legal Basis

    Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found 
in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 308, 309, 
and 310.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, 
small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 
601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small 
business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small 
business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA''). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions 
of such term which are appropriate to the

[[Page 19234]]

activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.'' 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ While we tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of 
``small business'' greatly overstates the number of radio and 
television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not 
suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the proposals on 
small television and radio stations, for purposes of this Notice, we 
utilize the SBA's definition in determining the number of small 
businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we reserve 
the right to adopt a more suitable definition of ``small business'' 
as applied to radio and television broadcast stations or other 
entities subject to the proposed rules in this Notice and to 
consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are 
radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in 
the future. See Report and Order, 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996) 
(Children's Television Programming), citing 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules and policies will apply to television 
broadcasting licensees, radio broadcasting licensees and potential 
licensees of either service. The Small Business Administration 
defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than 
$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.24 
Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, 
except cable and other pay television services.25 
Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, 
and other television stations.26 Also included are 
establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and 
which produce taped television program materials.27 
Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped 
television program materials are classified under another SIC 
number.28 There were 1,509 television stations operating 
in the nation in 1992.29 That number has remained fairly 
constant as indicated by the approximately 1,569 operating 
television broadcasting stations in the nation as of January 31, 
1998.30 For 1992,31 the number of television 
stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 
establishments.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996).
    \25\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, 
Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series 
UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).
    \26\ Id. See Executive Office of the President, Office of 
Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual 
(1987), at 283.
    \27\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, 
Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series 
UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).
    \28\ Id. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production); 
SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services 
(producers of live radio and television programs)).
    \29\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and 
Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, note 33, supra, Appendix A-9.
    \30\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January 
31, 1998.
    \31\ Census for Communications' establishments are performed 
every five years ending with a ``2'' or ``7''. See Economics and 
Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, supra.
    \32\ The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number 
of small business establishments because the relevant Census 
categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No 
category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate 
as it is possible to calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Small Business Administration defines a radio 
broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in annual 
receipts as a small business.33 A radio broadcasting 
station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural 
programs by radio to the public.34 Included in this 
industry are commercial religious, educational, and other radio 
stations.35 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily 
are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program 
materials are similarly included.36 However, radio 
stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged 
in producing radio program material are classified under another SIC 
number.37 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent 
(5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 
million in revenue in 1992.38 Official Commission records 
indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 
1992.39 As of January 31, 1998, official Commission 
records indicate that 12,241 radio stations were operating, of which 
7,488 were FM stations.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4832.
    \34\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, supra, Appendix A-9.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same 
facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM 
combination counts as one establishment.
    \39\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.
    \40\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January 
31, 1998.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the proposed rules will affect many of the approximately 
1,569 television stations, approximately 1,208 of which are 
considered small businesses.41 Additionally, the proposed 
rules will affect some of the 12,241 radio stations, approximately 
11,751 of which are small businesses.42 These estimates 
may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures 
on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from 
non-television or non-radio affiliated companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at 
less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 1998 total of 
1569 TV stations to arrive at 1,208 stations categorized as small 
businesses.
    \42\ We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with 
less than $5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to 
the 12,241 individual station count to arrive at 11,751 individual 
stations as small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to owners of operating radio and television 
stations, any entity who seeks or desires to obtain a television or 
radio broadcast license may be affected by the proposals contained 
in this item. The number of entities that may seek to obtain a 
television or radio broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment 
as to such number.

D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    The measures proposed in this Notice would reduce the reporting 
required of prospective and current applicants, permittees and 
licensees. All proposals aim to reduce the overall administrative 
burden upon both the public and the Commission. We propose to make 
the electronic filing of many broadcast related applications 
mandatory and seek comment as to whether to do so on a phased-in 
basis. We note that such a phased-in procedure has been used 
elsewhere to benefit small businesses. For example, the SEC 
incorporated its mandatory filing rules in stages. While most 
companies were phased into the electronic filing system in 1993, 
small businesses were not completely phased in until May 1996. We 
believe that electronic filing could, among other things, speed the 
processing of applications, save Commission resources, and make 
filing easier for regulatees by informing them of certain errors in 
their applications before they are actually sent.
    The full benefits of electronic filing and processing would not 
be realized simply by concerting the current version of each form 
into an electronic format. We have therefore concluded that it is 
necessary to undertake a thorough review of broadcast forms and to 
reconsider both the information that is collected and the form in 
which it is submitted. Accordingly, we propose to delete or narrow 
overly burdensome questions and to rely more on applicant 
certifications. If adopted, these changes would both reduce 
applicant filing burdens and streamline our processing of sales, new 
station, and facility modification applications. We also tentatively 
propose to eliminate the rule restricting payments upon assignment 
or transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we tentatively propose to 
eliminate the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as 
part of the assignment or transfer application, and that such 
agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of 
execution. Instead, we propose that such agreements would have to be 
placed in the station's public inspection file and the current 
permittee or licensee would be required to certify to such 
placement. In addition, we propose to make revisions to the sales 
forms that are intended to maximize the advantages of electronic 
filing and processing.
    We further propose to reduce the frequency with which Ownership 
Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and noncommercial 
educational AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations must be filed with the 
Commission. We tentatively believe that this proposal would ease the 
paperwork burden on licensees and permittees without impairing the 
public's ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station 
owners.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    This Notice solicits comment on a variety of alternatives 
discussed herein. These

[[Page 19235]]

alternatives are intended to streamline our rules and procedures. 
Our goals are to reduce applicant and licensee burdens, realize 
fully the benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's current electronic 
filing initiative, and preserve the public's ability to participate 
fully in our broadcast licensing processes. These proposals are 
designed to reduce filing burdens and increase the efficiency of 
application processing. Any significant alternatives presented in 
the comments will be considered.

F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules

    The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do 
not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.
    It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 
A copy of this IRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; 
OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM 
in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether 
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 
the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Title: NPRM--Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and 
Processes.
    Form Nos.: FCC 301 (3060-0027), FCC 302-AM (3060-0627), FCC 302-
FM (3060-0506), FCC 302-TV (3060-0029), FCC 307 (3060-0407), FCC 314 
(3060-0031), FCC 315 (3060-0032), FCC 316 (3060-0009), FCC 340 
(3060-0034), FCC 345 (3060-0075), FCC 346 (3060-0016), FCC 347 
(3060-0017), FCC 349 (3060-0405), FCC 350 (3060-0404), FCC 398 
(3060-0754), FCC 5072 (change of address form), FCC 323 (3060-0010)/
FCC 323-E (3060-0084)
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 13,767 (this number includes respondents 
for all forms listed above).
    Estimated Time Per Response: Varies from 2.5 hours to 1,016 
hours (this represents the lowest burden/highest burden forms).
    Frequency of Response: Reporting requirement, on occasion.
    Estimated Cost to Respondent: $65,898,600 (this number 
represents a total of all information collections involved).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 174,082 hours (this number 
represents a total of all information collections).
    Needs and Uses: With this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on 
streamlining broadcast applications and licensing procedures, 
reducing administrative and filing requirements and eliminating 
rules and procedures that no longer advance key regulatory 
objectives. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to mandate 
electronic filing for broadcast application and reporting forms.

[FR Doc. 98-10309 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P