[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77999-78007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31972]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 11-189; FCC 11-169]


Standardizing Program Reporting Requirements for Broadcast 
Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on a proposal to replace the 
issues/programs list that television stations must place in their 
public file with a streamlined, standardized disclosure form that will 
be available to the public online. The FCC's goal is to make it easier 
for the public to learn about how television stations serve their 
communities, and to make broadcasters more accountable to the public, 
by requiring stations to provide easily accessible programming 
information in a standardized format. This standardized disclosure will 
also assist the FCC and researchers to study and analyze how 
broadcasters respond to the needs and interests of their communities of 
license. The FCC seeks to address many of the shortcomings that have 
been attributed to the form adopted in the 2007 Enhanced Disclosure 
Report and Order, which we have vacated in a separate Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

DATES: Comments are due January 17, 2012 and reply comments are due 
January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 11-189, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Saurer, Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-7283, or Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-2154.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the 
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (tty).
    Below is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry in MB 
Docket No. 11-189, adopted November 11, 2011 and released November 14, 
2011.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), we seek comment on a proposal 
to replace the issues/programs list that television stations have been 
required to place in their public files for decades with a streamlined, 
standardized disclosure form that will be available to the public 
online. Our goal is to make it easier for members of the public to 
learn about how television stations serve their communities, and to 
make broadcasters more accountable to the public, by requiring stations 
to provide easily accessible programming information in a standardized 
format. This standardized disclosure will also assist the Commission 
and researchers to study and analyze how broadcasters respond to the 
needs and interests of their communities of license. We seek to address 
many of the shortcomings that have been attributed to the form adopted 
in the 2007 Enhanced Disclosure Report and Order, 73 FR 13452, March 
13, 2008, which we have vacated in a separate Order on Reconsideration 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in MB Docket No. 00-
168, FCC 11-162, rel. Oct. 27, 2011. While we have vacated the 2007 
Report and Order, we continue to believe that the creation and

[[Page 78000]]

implementation of a standardized form is beneficial and worthy of 
pursuing. In this NOI, we propose to require broadcasters to report on 
their programming using a sample-based methodology, and we also seek 
comment on a more limited number of reporting categories. We propose to 
limit this disclosure form requirement to television licensees at this 
time.
    2. In the Enhanced Disclosure FNPRM, we seek comment on a proposal 
to make television broadcasters' public inspection files accessible 
online, in a new database to be hosted by the Commission. Our objective 
in this NOI is to develop a standardized form that will be included in 
the new online public file. We note that we are addressing only the 
standardized form requirement in this NOI. Due to the complexity of the 
issues surrounding the standardized form, we have opened this new 
docket to address these issues specifically. The existing Enhanced 
Disclosure docket, MM docket number 00-168, will now be dedicated to 
addressing the proposed online public file requirement. Given the value 
of the comments previously filed in that proceeding regarding the 
standardized form issues, however, we will incorporate that record into 
this proceeding. We ask commenters to file their comments regarding the 
online public file requirement in response to the Enhanced Disclosure 
FNPRM, docket 00-168, and comments regarding the standardized form in 
this docket. We remain committed to the implementation of a 
standardized form, and seek to do so expeditiously. We seek comments in 
this proceeding that will assist us in crafting a form that is 
beneficial and workable for those using and drafting the forms.

II. Background

    3. One of a television broadcaster's fundamental public interest 
obligations is to air programming responsive to the needs and interests 
of its community of license. In 1984, the Commission adopted the 
current issues/programs list requirement, which requires a station to 
place in its 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 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 the list 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 or the 
Commission when renewal of the station's license was at issue. In 1998, 
the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital 
Television Broadcasters issued its Final Report. The Advisory Committee 
Report determined that ``[e]ffective self-regulation by the broadcast 
industry in the public interest requires the availability to the public 
of adequate information about what a local broadcaster is doing.'' The 
Committee recommended that the currently required lists of issue-
responsive programming and children's programming be augmented by 
including more information about stations' public interest programs and 
activities, and it put forward a sample standardized form that could be 
used to that end.
    4. In 2000, the Commission issued the Enhanced Disclosure Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 62683, October 19, 2000, which grew out of a 
prior Notice of Inquiry, 65 FR 4211, January 26, 2000, exploring the 
public interest obligations of broadcast television stations as they 
transitioned to digital. The Commission tentatively proposed to require 
television stations to use a standardized form to report on how they 
serve the public interest. In making this proposal, the Commission 
noted the difficulties that members of the public had encountered in 
accessing programming information under the existing issues/programs 
list requirement, given the lack of a standardized reporting mechanism. 
The Commission suggested that the use of a standardized disclosure form 
would facilitate access to the issues/program information and would 
make broadcasters more accountable to the public. It also observed that 
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.
    5. In 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the 
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding requiring television broadcasters to 
replace their issues/programs lists with Standardized Television 
Disclosure Form 355 and to post the completed forms online. The 
Commission found that uniform and consistent programming lists would 
allow the public more effectively to compare the efforts of various 
stations, and assess the programming aired. The Commission anticipated 
that the online posting of such forms would give rise to a more active 
dialogue between licensees and their audiences, which in turn would 
lead to more programs that are responsive to issues important to local 
communities. The Commission determined that standardized disclosure 
would also provide useful information for assessing the effectiveness 
of current Commission policies. The 2007 standardized disclosure form, 
Form 355, required each station to submit a comprehensive list of any 
programs or program segments it aired every quarter that fell into 
specific categories. The categories included: National news, local 
news, local civic affairs, local electoral affairs, independently 
produced programming, local programming, public service announcements, 
paid public service announcements, programming that meets the needs of 
underserved communities, religious programming, efforts undertaken to 
determine the programming needs of the community, service for persons 
with disabilities, and current emergency information. The Commission 
found that the benefits derived from public disclosure of such a 
comprehensive list of programming outweighed the burden that the 
requirement placed on broadcasters.
    6. Following the release of the Report and Order, several industry 
petitioners raised a number of issues regarding the standardized form, 
generally contending that it was vague, overly complex, and burdensome. 
Public interest advocates also filed petitions for reconsideration, 
arguing that the standardized form should be designed to facilitate the 
downloading and aggregation of data for researchers. They also asked 
the Commission to conduct periodic audits of data accuracy to ensure 
the removal of incorrect data, reassess whether the system is providing 
information in a useful format, and seek ongoing input from researchers 
on its staff and outside the Commission to ensure that the system is 
implemented in a useful and user-friendly manner. In addition, five 
parties sought court review of the Report and Order, and the cases were 
consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. 
The DC Circuit granted a petition to hold the court proceeding in 
abeyance while the Commission reviewed the petitions for 
reconsideration. Challenging the 2007 rules in a third forum, several 
parties opposed the information collection contained in the Report and 
Order at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 
Reduction

[[Page 78001]]

Act. Because the Commission determined that it would need to revise the 
rules on reconsideration, it did not transmit the information 
collection and form to OMB, and therefore the rules and form have never 
gone into effect.
    7. In June 2011, a working group including Commission staff, 
scholars and consultants released ``The Information Needs of 
Communities'' (INC Report), a comprehensive report on the current state 
of the media landscape. The INC Report discussed both the need to 
empower citizens to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities in 
exchange for the use of public spectrum, and also the need to remove 
unnecessary burdens on broadcasters who aim to serve their communities. 
The INC Report provided several recommendations relevant to this 
proceeding, including replacing the enhanced disclosure standardized 
form adopted in 2007 with a streamlined, Web-based form through which 
broadcasters could provide programming information based on a composite 
or sample period.
    8. In a separate Order on Reconsideration and FNPRM, we vacated the 
form adopted in the Report and Order. We determined that we should 
reexamine the determinations made in the Report and Order in light of 
the arguments raised in the petitions for reconsideration and given 
that the record upon which those rules were adopted does not reflect 
the rapid technological advances that have occurred since the 
proceeding was commenced in 2000. We now seek to address many of the 
criticisms directed at the standardized form adopted in the Report and 
Order.

III. Discussion

A. Standardized Form

    9. In the Report and Order, the Commission sought to address the 
systemic problem that the public lacked access to consistent and 
uniform information about television broadcasters' programming, as 
identified in the Advisory Committee Report and the record of the 
proceeding. We remain dedicated to addressing this problem. 
Nonetheless, the reconsideration petitions we received from 
broadcasters and public interest advocates and the responses thereto 
have persuaded us to reexamine the balance the Commission struck in 
2007 between public access to programming information and the burden 
providing such information imposes on broadcasters. Although we have 
vacated the 2007 Report and Order and dismissed the petitions for 
reconsideration of that order, we believe that some of the proposals 
developed in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding are worth further 
consideration. In addition, to the extent that the arguments made in 
the petitions for reconsideration are relevant and can inform this new 
NOI, we discuss them below. We also seek comment on INC Report 
proposals and other proposals to ensure that the public has 
standardized information about how broadcasters are serving their 
communities, while also avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on 
broadcasters.
    10. We continue to believe that the use of a standardized 
disclosure form will facilitate access to information on how licensees 
are serving the public interest and will allow the public to play a 
more active role in helping a station meet its obligation to provide 
programming that addresses the community's needs and interests. The 
issues/programs list required under the current rules, while providing 
some information to the public and establishing a record of some of a 
station's community-oriented programming, suffers from several 
drawbacks, including a lack of uniformity and consistency in the way 
broadcasters maintain the lists. This makes effective access to the 
program information and assessment of a broadcaster's program 
performance extremely difficult. A standardized disclosure form could 
address these concerns, and in view of advances in technology and the 
revisions to the form we discuss here, should not impose unwarranted 
burdens of broadcasters. A standardized disclosure form will make 
broadcasters more accountable to the public, and improving broadcaster 
accountability to the public will minimize the need for government 
involvement in monitoring how broadcasters comply with their public 
interest obligations. A standardized disclosure will significantly 
reduce the time needed to locate information sought by the public and 
will provide the public with a better mechanism for reviewing a 
broadcaster's public interest programming and activities. Placing the 
new standardized form online, instead of merely on paper in the 
broadcasters' offices, will make it far easier for the public to review 
the information. We seek comment on these tentative findings.
    11. We disagree with the reconsideration petitioners in the 2007 
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding who argue that there is no need for the 
Commission to adopt a standardized form. The record in the Enhanced 
Disclosure docket, which is incorporated in this proceeding, 
demonstrates 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.'' Commenters in the Enhanced Disclosure 
proceeding identified the benefits of a standardized form, including 
enhanced access to information on the 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. Moreover, the Report and Order noted that 
the record of the Localism proceeding--especially that portion amassed 
during a series of public hearings conducted across the country--
suggested that there may be a communications breakdown between 
licensees and their communities concerning the breadth of their efforts 
to air programming that serves their licensed communities' local needs 
and interests. Written comments submitted in the Localism docket and 
testimony received during several localism field hearings indicated 
that many members of the public are not fully aware of the community-
responsive programming that their local stations air. The Report and 
Order noted that affording the public improved access to information 
about a station's programming through the use of a standardized 
disclosure form would foster a better understanding of stations' 
localism efforts within their communities. The Report and Order also 
noted that by enhancing a dialogue with viewers as a result of improved 
public access to such information, the standardized disclosure form 
could assist the Commission in determining whether the licensees are 
serving the public interest. Finally, the Report and Order further 
noted that the standardized disclosure form would provide information 
that will be useful to the Commission and the public in assessing the 
effectiveness of current Commission policies governing television 
broadcasting. We agree with the Commission's prior findings regarding 
the benefits of a standardized form. We note that technological 
advances have made it possible for the public to review data much more 
easily via the Internet, but we believe the efficacy of such 
disclosures is much greater when the information is offered in a 
standardized format. We seek comment on these findings.

[[Page 78002]]

    12. We have seen no evidence that broadcasters have attempted to 
change their issues/programs reporting to become more consistent or 
uniform since the Commission launched this proceeding in 2000. In fact, 
the recently released INC Report discusses consistency and uniformity 
problems similar to those identified in the Commission's prior 
proceeding, and supports the continuing need for a standardized form. 
We continue to believe that a standardized form is necessary and should 
replace the current issues/programs list. We seek comment on this 
tentative finding.
    13. We are persuaded by petitioners in the Enhanced Disclosure 
proceeding who argued that Form 355 as adopted in the Report and Order 
was overly burdensome. We propose changes to that form, as discussed 
below, to substantially reduce the burden it imposes on broadcasters. 
These changes include adopting a sample approach to reporting and 
streamlining the information that must be included in the form. We 
welcome any other proposals that will lead to effective disclosure by 
broadcasters of the ways in which they serve the public.
1. Reporting Period
    14. Form 355 as adopted in the Report and Order required television 
broadcasters to report quarterly on every relevant program or program 
segment aired for each program category listed in the Form. We agree 
with the reconsideration petitioners who argued that requiring 
reporting on all programming in those categories would be unduly 
burdensome.
    15. Some petitioners asserted that the Commission could lessen the 
burden on licensees while providing adequate disclosure of licensees' 
public interest programming by restricting reporting to one week per 
quarter. As noted, the INC Report similarly recommends that the 
Commission consider requiring information drawn from only a sample or 
composite week of programming on a quarterly basis, rather than 
requiring a comprehensive listing of all relevant programs throughout 
the year. A constructed or composite week is a sampling method in which 
individual days are selected at random by the Commission to construct a 
week that contains different days of the week from different weeks of 
the quarter. First, a Sunday is randomly selected from all possible 
Sundays in the quarter. Then, a Monday is selected in the same way, and 
so on. The Commission has used a composite week reporting approach in 
the past. In the 1970s, the Commission authorized the staff to act, 
through delegated authority, on applications for renewal of radio and 
television stations that aired specified amounts of certain 
programming. Failure to satisfy the guidelines, based on a composite 
broadcast week analysis, resulted in the referral of a licensee's 
renewal application to the full Commission for its consideration.
    16. We believe that a sample approach to reporting would provide 
sufficient information to the public, without unduly burdening 
broadcasters, and seek comment on this approach. How could a composite 
week or weeks be structured for reportable programming? For example, 
how many days of programming should be included in the reporting 
requirement for each quarter? We seek comment on how to implement a 
random selection. Are there are certain distortions to the average 
programming day, such as sweeps week, that should be excluded? 
Alternatively, would it be less burdensome for broadcasters to compile 
information for one or more full weeks during the quarter? What would 
be the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
    17. In a recent ex parte in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding, the 
Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition (PIPAC) proposes that 
broadcasters be required to submit data for two constructed or 
composite weeks per quarter that are selected by the Commission. Under 
PIPAC's proposal, broadcasters would be obligated to report on 
programming categories aired during the randomly selected days 
comprising the two constructed weeks per quarter. PIPAC attaches a 
statement from a coalition of academics with expertise in media 
sampling that says that a constructed week, if implemented properly, 
has methodological validity for academic research and would provide a 
snapshot of programming for the public. We seek comment on this 
proposal. In particular, is two constructed weeks the appropriate time 
period over which to collect programming information? Would one week 
provide the public and research community with a sufficient sampling 
period, while lessening the burdens placed on broadcasters that have to 
compile this information? How should we balance the burdens on 
broadcasters against the need for a methodologically valid approach 
that will accurately reflect the reportable programming that 
broadcasters provide to their community of license? If any period less 
than two weeks is too little time to be valid or accurate, would that 
undermine the purpose of the reporting requirement?
    18. Notice. If we decide to take a composite approach or to select 
a particular week or weeks for reporting purposes, we will need to 
determine how and when to notify broadcasters which days are included, 
and whether such notice should be provided before or after the selected 
date. We seek comment on how and when to provide such notice. If we 
adopt a composite week or weeks approach, should the Commission inform 
the broadcasters that a date has been selected to be part of a 
composite week on the following day? Alternatively, should the 
Commission release the reporting dates at the end of the quarter, or 
would this needlessly require broadcasters to retain programming 
information for every day in the quarter? How long do licensees retain 
tapes or other records of their programming in the ordinary course of 
business? Would it be preferable to announce on a weekly or bi-weekly 
basis what reporting dates were selected for those weeks? 
Alternatively, if the Commission were to select a particular week or 
weeks for reporting, should it be announced at the end of the quarter 
or immediately after the selected week or weeks? We seek comment on 
these and other implementation issues and concerns.
    19. In petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order, 
industry petitioners proposed that the Commission notify stations a few 
days before the selected reporting dates in order to provide sufficient 
notice about when broadcasters should start logging the information 
needed to complete the form. In contrast, PIPAC recommends that 
broadcasters not be given advance notice of the reporting dates to 
prevent broadcasters from changing their programming and thereby 
``gaming the system.'' PIPAC recommends that the Commission select the 
relevant reporting dates at the beginning of the quarter and then 
announce each reporting date the morning after the selected day. They 
argue that, because most broadcasters maintain a tape of their 
programming for a short time after broadcast, immediate notification of 
a reporting date should offer ample notice without giving advance 
warning that would taint the quality of the sample. We seek comment on 
these approaches or recommended alternatives.
    20. Exceptions to composite reporting. We seek comment on whether 
adopting a composite approach will adequately capture performance for 
all categories of reportable programming that should be included on the 
standardized form, or whether there should be certain categories of 
programming subject to a more comprehensive reporting

[[Page 78003]]

requirement. For example, in their recent ex parte proposing a 
composite week, PIPAC argues that local electoral affairs programming 
is important public interest programming and is critical to an informed 
citizenry. PIPAC suggests that broadcasters be required to disclose all 
local electoral affairs programming, defined as discussed below, when 
the lowest unit charge rules are in effect, i.e., 45 days before a 
primary election and 60 days before a general election. PIPAC argues 
that the composite week mechanism, while otherwise sufficient, may not 
adequately capture local electoral issue coverage, as election timing 
may not coincide with the randomly selected reporting dates. We seek 
comment on this proposal, including projected burdens on broadcasters. 
If commenters believe this proposal to be overly burdensome, what 
alternatives would adequately reflect the extent of broadcasters' local 
electoral affairs programming? We seek to ensure that broadcasters are 
credited with their provision of this important public interest 
programming. For example, would reporting for some shorter period of 
time preceding an election be sufficient? Should the Commission 
consider any other exceptions to a composite week reporting schedule? 
Are there other categories of programming that should be subject to an 
enhanced reporting requirement?
    21. Program and segment reporting. We seek comment on whether 
reporting should be done on a program or program segment basis. Form 
355 required reporting on all programs or program segments aired during 
the quarter for each programming category listed. We seek comment on 
what level of reporting is most useful, and whether the benefits of the 
more granular program segment reporting outweigh the burdens it places 
on broadcasters. What level of reporting granularity is necessary to 
provide meaningful information to the public and the research 
community? Do broadcasters currently retain their programming 
information in a manner that would enable reporting on a program 
segment basis, or would new programming retention techniques be 
required? For example, do broadcasters retain information about the 
length of each program segment within each news program, i.e. the 
length of each story? How should the term ``program segment'' be 
defined for purposes of the reporting requirement? PIPAC asserts that 
each of the reporting categories should be reportable by program 
segment. They assert that information will be more useful if it is 
reported on a more granular level. They assert that this level of 
specificity is necessary for local news reporting, since some stories 
reported on the local news are more national in character, and would 
not fit in the local news reporting category, as it does not pertain to 
the local community of license. We seek comment on these assertions.
2. Reporting Categories
    22. In the 2000 NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the 
standardized form should require reporting on specified categories of 
programming, noting that specified categories were necessary because 
the current issues/programs lists permit such an assortment of 
information that the public may have difficulty determining the extent 
to which the station is serving the public interest. The Commission 
specifically noted the categories of programs proposed by the 
Presidential Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of 
Digital Broadcasters, which they recommended to augment and standardize 
the reporting about stations' public interest programs and activities. 
The Committee proposed to include the following categories: Local and 
national news programming, 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 
public service announcements. In response to the NPRM, PIPAC 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, independently produced programming, local programming, 
underserved communities, and religious programming. Definitions were 
included with each of these categories. The Commission included the 
categories and definitions proposed by PIPAC in Form 355.
    23. We disagree with the Enhanced Disclosure reconsideration 
petitioners who argue that the standardized reporting categories impose 
de facto quantitative programming requirements or pressure stations to 
ensure carriage of some amount of programming that falls within 
government-preferred categories. We stress that, as the Commission 
noted in the Report and Order, the standardized form does not require 
broadcasters to air any particular category of programming or mix of 
programming types. Nor do we contemplate imposing any such 
requirements. This will be merely a replacement reporting requirement, 
which the Commission has authority to impose, and we believe it will 
have the important benefit of arming consumers with accurate 
information on which to base their viewing decisions. We seek comment 
on these tentative findings.
    24. Several petitions for reconsideration raised issues about the 
particular reporting categories adopted in the Report and Order, 
arguing that they were confusing, burdensome, and unworkable. We have 
vacated Form 355 as adopted, and agree that it would be useful to take 
a fresh look at the categories and definitions that should be included 
on the form. We want to ensure that the form collects information that 
is relevant to the public's and our analysis of stations' service to 
their communities. In addition, it is essential to our goal of ensuring 
the availability of uniform and consistent data that broadcasters be 
able easily to categorize programming for inclusion on the form.
    25. PIPAC has recently proposed a new sample form, which is 
available at http://www.savethenews.org/sample-form. We are beginning 
anew our attempt to create a standardized form, including which 
programming categories to consider. However, in order to guide the 
discussion in this proceeding, we address below the categories now 
proposed by PIPAC and seek comment on their proposed form. Are there 
any categories identified on the newly proposed form that are 
unnecessary or could otherwise be deleted? What, if any, additional 
categories should be included? We note that in response to the 2000 
NPRM, the Commission received very little comment on specific 
programming categories; rather, most commenters focused on the merits, 
or lack thereof, of requiring a standardized form. We urge commenters 
to provide specific suggestions about the newly proposed reporting 
categories so that we can include those most relevant and useful for 
broadcasters and the public alike.
    26. We recognize that some programs or program segments could be 
included in multiple categories. We propose that a program or segment 
be includable in only one category. This will both ease the reporting 
burdens and will ensure that any quantitative analyses accurately 
reflect the amount of time devoted to public interest programming. We 
seek comment on whether further clarification would be needed among the 
categories discussed below, and any other proposed categories, to guide

[[Page 78004]]

broadcasters in categorizing their programming and/or whether other 
reporting categories should be adopted with additional instructions.
    27. Local News. We seek comment on reporting requirements for news. 
PIPAC proposes that we include a local news category. In the Report and 
Order, Questions 2(a), (b) and (c) of Form 355 required reporting with 
respect to national news, local news produced by the station, and local 
news produced by an entity other than the station; all categories were 
described as including national and local programs or segments that 
include significant treatment of community issues. In a petition for 
reconsideration, Joint Broadcasters raised concerns that the definition 
of ``news'' is vague because newscasts and other programs, such as 
nationally syndicated talk shows, often include significant treatment 
of community issues. PIPAC recommends streamlining the news reporting 
requirement to just local news, and provides the following definition: 
``Programming that is locally produced and reports on issues about, or 
pertaining to, a licensee's local community of license.'' We seek 
comment on this proposed category and proposed definition. Does this 
definition resolve the concern expressed by Joint Broadcasters? Is it 
an otherwise workable definition? What constitutes an ``issue'' in this 
definition? Would a program about an issue not specific to a community 
but of interest to the community be covered by this definition as long 
as it was locally produced? Are there alternative definitions of local 
news that we should consider?
    28. Local Civic/Governmental Affairs. We seek comment on reporting 
requirements for civic and governmental affairs. PIPAC proposes a local 
civic/government affairs reporting category. In the Report and Order, 
Question 2(d) of Form 355 required reporting with respect to local 
civic affairs. PIPAC proposes retaining that category and provides the 
following definition, which is largely taken from the Form 355 local 
civic affairs definition: ``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 
discussions of civic issues of interest to local communities or 
groups.'' We seek comment on this proposed category and definition. Is 
this definition, or any portion of it, overly vague? What types of 
programming would qualify as ``substantive discussions of civic issues 
of interest to local communities or groups''? Are there alternative 
definitions of local civic/governmental affairs programming that we 
should consider?
    29. Local Electoral Affairs. We seek comment on reporting 
requirements for electoral affairs. PIPAC also proposes a local 
electoral affairs category. In the Report and Order, Question 2(e) of 
Form 355 required reporting with respect to local electoral affairs. 
PIPAC proposes retaining that category and provides the following 
definition, which is largely taken from the Form 355 local electoral 
affairs definition: ``Local electoral affairs programming consists of 
candidate-centered discourse focusing on the local, state and United 
States Congressional races for offices to be elected by a constituency 
within the licensee's broadcast area. Local electoral affairs 
programming includes broadcasts of candidate debates, interviews, or 
statements, as well as substantive discussions of ballot measures that 
will be put before the voters in a forthcoming election.'' We seek 
comment on this proposed category and definition. Is this definition, 
or any portion of it, overly vague? If so, how should the definition be 
refined? Are there alternative definitions of local electoral affairs 
programming that we should consider?
    30. Closed Captioning and Video Description. We seek comment on 
reporting requirements regarding services provided to the disability 
community. On Form 355, as adopted in the Report and Order, Question 4 
required reporting the number of hours of programming provided with 
closed captioning and video description. Reconsideration petitioners 
asserted that reporting on closed captioning provides little public 
benefit, and that any benefit is outweighed by the record-keeping 
burden imposed on broadcasters. Petitioners also argued that the 
requirement contravened the Commission's prior stance that such 
reporting is both unnecessarily burdensome and administratively 
cumbersome. Petitioners argued that, because the Commission provided no 
reason for changing its position on closed captioning reporting, the 
requirement was arbitrary and capricious. They also argued that it was 
inappropriate to ask about video description, since at the time the 
Commission did not require that it be provided. Campaign Legal Center 
et al. argued that this reporting is necessary to ensure station 
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning requirements, and to 
assist the disability community in finding stations that offer video 
description service. Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing (``TDI'') argued that the closed captioning reporting 
requirement should be maintained, stressing the importance of reporting 
to the millions of Americans who rely on closed captioning and have 
difficulty finding such programming. TDI also noted that the only 
current enforcement mechanism for ensuring closed-captioning is based 
on consumer reporting and consumer-derived complaints, and that a lack 
of benchmark reporting has seriously hampered the effectiveness of the 
captioning rules and compliance monitoring.
    31. PIPAC now proposes streamlining these reporting requirements. 
As to closed captioning, PIPAC proposes that broadcasters be required 
to disclose whether the reported programming on the form is closed 
captioned, and if so, the type of captioning, such as off-line, live, 
or electronic ``newsroom technique,'' which commonly follows 
teleprompter scripts. It also proposes that broadcasters report on all 
programming that is exempt from closed captioning, providing the date, 
time and length of the program (excluding commercials), and the reason 
for the exemption. We note that Commission regulations require all 
programming--with few exceptions--to be closed captioned as of January 
1, 2010, and therefore expect the latter reporting requirement would 
presumably not be unduly burdensome. We seek comment on these 
proposals.
    32. PIPAC also recommends implementing reporting requirements 
regarding video description, once the new rules mandated by the 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act go into effect. We note that 
the Commission recently adopted such rules, requiring the provision of 
50 hours per calendar quarter of video-described prime time and/or 
children's programming by full-power affiliates of the top four 
national networks located in the top 25 television markets, beginning 
July 2012. We seek comment on whether and to what extent broadcasters 
should be required to report on their video description offerings and, 
if so, how such a reporting requirement should be framed and 
implemented, given the limited nature of this programming requirement 
and the need for viewers to have access to information about which 
programs are video described. Should broadcasters be required to report 
all of their video description offerings?
    33. Emergency Accessibility Complaints. We seek comment on 
reporting requirements regarding emergency accessibility. Question 5 of

[[Page 78005]]

Form 355, as adopted in the Report and Order, required reporting with 
respect to all emergency information and whether that information was 
available to persons with disabilities. PIPAC now proposes that 
broadcasters report only the number of complaints that a station 
receives alleging that its emergency programming was not accessible to 
people with disabilities. PIPAC claims that such reporting will be less 
burdensome than the requirements in Form 355 but will assist the public 
and the Commission in determining the extent to which broadcasters are 
transmitting emergency information in a way that can be understood by 
people with disabilities, as required. We recognize that the fact that 
a consumer has complained to a station does not necessarily mean that a 
licensee has violated a rule, but, as noted by PIPAC, a large number of 
reported complaints may indicate a compliance issue. We seek comment on 
this proposal, as well as other alternatives.
3. NCE Exemption
    34. The reporting requirements adopted in the Report and Order 
applied to both commercial and non-commercial broadcasters. In a 
petition for reconsideration, the Association of Public Television 
Stations and the Public Broadcasting Service were joined by 
noncommercial educational (NCE) licensees (collectively NCEs) in 
arguing that they should be exempted from the standardized disclosure 
requirement, so they would not need to divert scarce resources from 
their core public service activities. They argued that Form 355 failed 
to differentiate between the programming and practices of commercial 
and noncommercial television stations. NCEs asserted that the 
Commission has previously recognized the special status of these 
stations' noncommercial programming and exempted them from meeting 
certain requirements, such as the quarterly children's program 
reporting requirement. Public television licensees argued that 
exempting NCEs from reporting requirements is appropriate given their 
``long history of providing vast amounts of programming that is 
responsive to issues of importance to their local communities.''
    35. We appreciate that NCE licensees have limited resources and 
that their mix of programming may in some instances be more heavily 
weighted toward the categories of interest in this proceeding than is 
the programming on some commercial stations. But the goals underlying 
this proceeding--facilitating access to information on how licensees 
are serving the public interest and local communities, making 
broadcasters more accountable to the public, and providing the public 
with a better mechanism for reviewing a broadcaster's public interest 
programming and activities--apply equally to commercial and non-
commercial licensees. In order to standardize the review of television 
broadcast public interest programming and activities, we believe it is 
important to include all television broadcasters. We believe that much 
of the concern expressed by the NCE community will be allayed by our 
proposals only to require reporting on a sample basis, and to otherwise 
streamline the form. We seek comment on whether these measures are 
sufficient, or whether there are other ways to address NCE licensees' 
concerns.
4. Other Reporting Issues
    36. General information. We also seek comment on the general 
information stations should be required to supply on the form. For 
instance, PIPAC proposes to streamline the Form 355 to require the 
following information: Call sign, channel number, facility ID, 
community of license, city, state, zip code, legal name of licensee, 
link to online public file, network affiliation, Nielsen DMA, 
commercial/NCE status, contact name and phone, and links to the most 
recent ownership reports and quarterly children's programming reports. 
We seek comment on this proposal and on whether it is over or under 
inclusive. In addition, if the Commission determines in the Enhanced 
Disclosure proceeding to host the online public file, will it be 
unnecessary to include links to the most recent ownership and 
children's television reports, since that information will be centrally 
available in the same location as the standardized form? Should we also 
require that stations provide their main studio address on the form? Is 
there any other general station information that should be included or 
excluded on the form?
    37. Required information for each program and/or segment reported. 
We seek comment on the level of detail that should be required for each 
program or program segment that is reported. For each entry, PIPAC 
asserts that broadcasters should disclose: Programming/segment title or 
topic; date/time aired; whether it aired on a primary or multicast 
channel; whether the material is first-run programming or previously 
aired on this or another station; the approximate length of the segment 
excluding interstitial commercials; whether the material reported, or 
any portion of it, is subject to the disclosure requirements of the 
Commission's sponsorship identification rules, and if so, the 
sponsoring entity; and whether the material reported, or any portion of 
it, is the product of a local marketing agreement, local news service, 
or shared service agreement, or any other contractual arrangement or 
agreement between the licensee and another broadcast station or daily 
newspaper located within the licensee's designated market area, and if 
so the relevant agreement in the licensee's online public file. We seek 
comment on these proposed reporting elements, including proposed 
definitions for the agreements and contractual arrangements that are 
requested for identification. We seek comment in particular on the 
benefits of providing any specific piece of information per segment, as 
weighed against the burdens imposed on broadcasters by the requirement. 
Are any of these requirements overly broad? If so, can they be further 
defined or described to narrow the scope of the information required? 
Should any additional information be required, for example, a brief 
description of the program or programming segment and the issue it 
addresses?
    38. Additional reporting. In addition to reporting on the 
categories discussed above, should broadcasters also have the option of 
disclosing other types of programming they provide to serve the needs 
and interests of their communities, if they wish to do so? Would an 
optional reporting opportunity provide useful information to the public 
and the Commission? Would an opportunity to include such information 
allow broadcasters to showcase their programming, or would the option 
merely increase the reporting burden? If an optional reporting 
requirement were adopted, would broadcasters find a drop-down menu with 
optional categories to be a useful reporting format?
    39. PIPAC asserts that an optional reporting opportunity would 
allow broadcasters to showcase community reporting that does not fall 
into the specified categories. They assert that any voluntary 
information should be prominently labeled and that the reporting form 
should include a disclaimer proclaiming that the absence of voluntary 
information does not mean that a broadcaster is not providing such 
services. They recommend the following optional categories: National 
news, international news, public service announcements (both paid and 
unpaid), religious programming, emergency programming, and any other 
category of programming that a broadcaster believes serves their public 
interest obligation. We seek comment on this proposal and

[[Page 78006]]

any others. Are the optional categories useful, or should the list be 
supplemented or reduced? We also seek comment on definitions of the 
optional categories listed above as well as any others proposed by 
commenters.
    40. Comments category. We seek comment on whether we should include 
a ``comments'' category, which would allow a licensee to highlight 
information that it believes is important, but is not included in the 
reporting categories. A ``comments'' category could provide licensees 
with space to discuss any mitigating factors or other information 
relevant to the information provided in the form. For example, a 
station that was off the air due to severe weather or technical issues 
on a day selected for reporting may wish to note that on its form. This 
category could also provide licensees with space to discuss any 
additional efforts they have made to serve their communities. We seek 
comment on this proposal. Would a comments category preclude the need 
for the type of optional reporting categories discussed above?
5. Data Format
    41. The INC Report suggests that ensuring that as much data as 
possible is in a standardized, machine-readable format could enhance 
the usefulness and accessibility of such data. It recommends that 
``online disclosure should be done according to the principles 
advocated by experts on transparency: In standardized, machine readable 
and structured formats.'' The INC Report generally notes that 
information collected by the government should be in formats ``that 
make it easy for programmers to create new applications that can 
present the data in more useful formats, or combine one agency's 
information with another,'' and that ``data releases should include an 
Application Programming Interface (API) that allows the data to be 
shared easily with other computers and applications.'' PIPAC supports 
the INC Report suggestions, asserting that ``an online reporting 
mechanism that is part of a searchable, integrated database would not 
only reduce the burden of submitting this information, it would also 
provide communities and researchers with better access to it.'' PIPAC 
notes that such a database would allow the public and researchers to 
download the data in raw form in its entirety to compare stations' 
performances or perform other analyses. It also asserts that such a 
database should be connected electronically with the ownership data the 
Commission already collects, thus reducing further the broadcaster 
filing burden.
    42. We agree that the new standardized disclosure form should be 
submitted as machine-processable in a standardized, machine-readable 
format that will be searchable so that the material can be easily 
analyzed. Such a format would help us accomplish the accessibility and 
accountability goals for which the form will be created. As recommended 
in the National Broadband Plan, we believe that as a government agency 
we should make information available in a machine-readable or otherwise 
accessible format where possible. We seek recommendations on how to 
implement this goal.

B. Radio

    43. Given the Enhanced Disclosure NOI's genesis in the DTV 
transition, the Report and Order was limited to reporting by television 
stations. The Commission later sought comment on implementing a 
standardized form requirement for analog and digital radio stations in 
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Digital Audio 
Broadcasting proceeding. We believe that we should eventually require 
radio licensees to replace their issues/programs lists with a 
standardized form as well. We also believe, however, that there may be 
benefits to requiring television licensees to implement enhanced 
disclosure requirements first. Television stations have been 
significantly more involved in considering these issues, from the 
Enhanced Disclosure NOI in 1999 through the 2007 Report and Order. 
Further, it may ease the initial implementation of a standardized form 
if we begin the process with the much smaller number of television 
licensees. Finally, we foresee that there may be some radio-specific 
concerns that we will need to address prior to adopting disclosure 
requirements for radio stations.

IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis

    44. In proposing rules to ensure that the public has adequate 
access to information about how broadcasters are serving their 
communities, we intend to look at the many factors involved in an 
effective disclosure form in order to ensure that the form serves its 
intended purpose without posing an undue burden on industry. There are 
two key criteria for the success of such an approach.
    45. First, acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying 
benefits and burdens, we need to determine whether a disclosure form 
will significantly benefit the public and, in fact, clarify important 
issues for them. Second, we seek to maximize the benefits to the public 
while limiting as much as possible the burden of compliance on 
broadcasters. These costs and benefits can have many dimensions, some 
which may not be easy to quantify, including cost implications for 
industry, public interest benefits to viewers, and other less tangible 
benefits.
    46. To address the first criterion, we seek comment on the best 
ways to ensure that the form discussed in this NOI will actually 
benefit the public. We seek comment on the extent to which the 
Commission and members of the public may be expected to utilize the 
additional information compiled in the form. Further, we seek comment 
on any considerations regarding the form that would increase the number 
of people who will benefit from such rules, and the nature of these 
benefits. In particular, we seek comment on the best ways to ensure 
that information is more readily accessible to the public. We seek 
information on whether, and to what extent, the accessibility of a 
standardized form is greater than an online issues/programs list. While 
we believe that a standardized form will increase the accessibility of 
information about how television stations serve their communities, we 
seek further suggestions for increasing accessibility.
    47. To address the second criterion, we seek comment on the nature 
and magnitude of the costs and benefits of the new proposals on 
broadcasters. We recognize that these may vary by broadcaster, and seek 
comment on possible differential impacts, including size and type of 
broadcaster. We seek specific information about whether, how, and by 
how much broadcasters may be impacted differently in terms of the costs 
and benefits of our proposed rules. In response to the Report and Order 
several reconsideration petitioners argued that compliance would be 
overly burdensome and costly. To what extent will the new proposal to 
streamline the form and seek sample data impose less or more of a cost 
than the cost projections related to Form 355? Will the elimination of 
the issues/programs list and replacement with a streamlined disclosure 
online system reduce or increase burdens on broadcasters? Are there 
ways to further decrease costs of a standardized reporting form?
    48. To the extent possible, we request comment that will enable us 
to weigh the costs and benefits associated with these proposed 
disclosure rules. We request that commenters provide specific data and 
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each 
specific cost or benefit addressed,

[[Page 78007]]

including a description of how the data or information was calculated 
or obtained and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary 
support. We understand that it may be difficult to place a dollar 
figure on the benefits of a standardized form, but seek input on the 
benefits of such a form. We also seek information regarding the burden 
of compiling the issues/programs list and to what extent the 
standardized form would either reduce or increase the burden on 
broadcasters. All comments will be considered and given appropriate 
weight. Vague or unsupported assertions regarding costs or benefits 
generally can be expected to receive less weight and be less persuasive 
than more specific and supported statements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31972 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P