[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 50 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13452-13463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5052]


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

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, [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]. For additional information on this proceeding, 
contact Holly Saurer of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-
7283, or via e-mail at [email protected].

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