[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25590-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11425]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 17-106; FCC 17-59]


Elimination of Main Studio Rule

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to eliminate its 
rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to 
maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license. The 
Commission tentatively finds that the main studio rule is now outdated 
and unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations. The Commission 
also proposes to eliminate existing requirements associated with the 
main studio rule, including the requirement that the main studio must 
have full-time management and staff present during normal business 
hours, and that it must have program origination capability.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 3, 2017; reply comments are 
due on or before July 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 17-106, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: 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.
     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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, [email protected], of the Policy 
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-59, adopted and released on May 18, 
2017. The full text is available for public inspection and copying 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at 
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 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. Alternative 
formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large 
print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to 
[email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to 
eliminate the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) rule that 
requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a 
main studio located in or near its community of license.\1\ When the 
rule was conceived almost eighty years ago, local access to the main 
studio was designed to facilitate input from community members as well 
as the station's participation in community activities. Today, however, 
widespread availability of electronic communication enables stations to 
participate in their

[[Page 25591]]

communities of license, and members of the community to contact 
broadcast radio and television stations, without the physical presence 
of a local broadcast studio. In addition, because the Commission has 
adopted online public inspection file requirements for AM, FM, and 
television broadcast stations, community members no longer will need to 
visit a station's main studio to access its public inspection file. 
Television broadcasters completed their transition to the online public 
file in 2014, and radio broadcasters will complete their transition by 
March 1, 2018.\2\ Given these changes, in this proceeding we 
tentatively find that the main studio rule is now outdated and 
unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations and propose to 
eliminate it. We also propose to eliminate existing requirements 
associated with our main studio rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR 73.1125(a) through (d).
    \2\ As of June 24, 2016, commercial broadcast radio stations in 
the top 50 Nielsen Audio radio markets with five or more full-time 
employees were required to place new public and political file 
documents in the online file on a going-forward basis. By December 
24, 2016, these entities were required to upload their existing 
public file documents to the online file, with the exception of 
existing political file material. As of March 1, 2018, all 
noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast radio stations, commercial 
broadcast radio stations in the top 50 Nielsen Audio radio markets 
with fewer than five full-time employees, and commercial broadcast 
radio stations in markets below the top 50 or outside all markets 
must have placed all existing public file material in the online 
public file, with the exception of existing political file material, 
and must begin placing all new public and political file material in 
the online file on a going-forward basis.
    \3\ The associated requirements include the requirement that the 
main studio must have full-time management and staff present during 
normal business hours, and that it must have program origination 
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. We propose to eliminate our rule requiring each AM, FM,\4\ and 
television broadcast station to maintain a local main studio.\5\ We 
also propose to eliminate the associated staffing and program 
origination capability requirements that apply to main studios. We 
tentatively conclude that technological innovations have rendered a 
local studio unnecessary as a means for viewers and listeners to 
communicate with or access their local stations and to carry out the 
other traditional functions that they have served. In particular, it 
appears that a local main studio with staffing sufficient to 
accommodate visits from community members no longer will be justified 
once broadcasters fully transition to online public inspection files. 
We invite comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although LPFM stations have no main studio requirement, 
points are awarded under the service's comparative selection 
procedures to those applicants that pledge to locally originate at 
least eight hours of programming per day and to maintain a main 
studio with local origination capability.
    \5\ We note that on April 19, 2017, Garvey Schubert Barer's 
(GSB) Media, Telecom and Technology group filed a petition asking 
the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to repeal its main studio 
rule. Because our proposals effectively satisfy GSB's request, we 
dismiss GSB's rulemaking petition as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. We also seek comment on the costs that AM, FM, and television 
broadcast stations face in complying with the current main studio rule 
and associated requirements. How significant are these costs, 
particularly for small stations? Would eliminating the main studio 
rule, as well as the associated staffing and program origination 
capability requirements, enable broadcasters to allocate greater 
resources to programming and other matters? Would eliminating the rule 
make it more efficient for co-owned or jointly operated broadcast 
stations to co-locate their offices, rather than operating a main 
studio in or near each station's community of license? We invite 
comment on these and other efficiencies that could be achieved by 
eliminating the main studio rule. Are there any particular issues we 
should be aware of with regard to eliminating the main studio rule for 
non-commercial broadcast stations?
    4. How frequently do stations receive in-person visits from members 
of the community, and are those visits to request access to hard copy 
public inspection files or for other purposes? To what extent do people 
contact stations by telephone, by mail, or online, rather than through 
in-person visits? Have technological advances, including widespread 
access to the Internet, mobile telephones, email, and social media, 
obviated the need to accommodate in-person visits from community 
members? If we eliminate the main studio rule, would competitive market 
conditions ensure that stations will continue to keep apprised of 
significant local needs and issues? Would eliminating the main studio 
rule impact a station's ability to communicate time-sensitive or 
emergency information to the public? If the existence of a local main 
studio no longer plays a significant role in ensuring that broadcast 
stations serve their local communities, then eliminating the main 
studio requirement likely will not significantly impact the requirement 
that the Commission ``make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, 
hours of operation, and of power among the several States and 
communities as to provide for a fair, efficient, and equitable 
distribution of radio service to each of the same.'' \6\ We seek 
comment on whether the current main studio rules and related 
requirements are necessary to implement section 307(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Relatedly, we ask commenters to 
describe any remaining benefits of the main studio requirements and the 
associated staffing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 47 U.S.C. 307(b). We do not herein propose any modifications 
to the existing requirements pertaining to submission of quarterly 
issues/programs lists and requirements pertaining to a station's 
coverage of the community served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Although the Commission eliminated its program origination 
requirement in 1987, it subsequently clarified that stations must 
nonetheless ``equip the main studio with production and transmission 
facilities that meet applicable standards [and] maintain continuous 
program transmission capability . . . [to] allow broadcasters to 
continue, at their option, and as the marketplace demands, to produce 
local programs at the studio.'' We invite comment on the continued 
relevance of the program origination capability requirement that 
currently applies to main studios. What function does it serve today? 
To what extent do stations produce local programming at their main 
studios? If we eliminate the main studio rule, should we maintain the 
program origination capability requirement, and, if so, how? Would 
program origination, to the extent it happens today, occur anyway 
absent any capability requirement as stations seek to continue to meet 
viewers' and listeners' interests?
    6. We propose to retain section 73.1125(e) of our rules, which 
requires ``[e]ach AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station [to] 
maintain a local telephone number in its community of license or a 
toll-free number.'' We invite comment on this proposal. Would retention 
of this requirement help ensure that members of the community continue 
to have access to their local broadcast stations, for example, to share 
concerns or seek information, if the current main studio requirements 
are eliminated? Stations currently are required to post their telephone 
numbers in their online public files. If we eliminate the main studio 
rule, should we encourage stations to also publicize their phone 
numbers in additional ways, such as on their Web sites? Should we 
require the telephone number to be staffed during normal business hours 
so that community members may seek assistance during that time? Or, 
should we require the telephone number to be staffed at all times in 
which the AM, FM, or Class A

[[Page 25592]]

TV station is on the air? Alternatively, is a staffed telephone number 
requirement unnecessary so long as station staff regularly retrieves 
and responds promptly to voicemail messages from the public left at 
that telephone number? If community members must leave a voicemail 
message in order to reach a local broadcast station, will this impede 
the station's ability to relay time-sensitive emergency information to 
the public? Should we instead require each station to designate a point 
of contact to respond to communications from the public? We invite 
comment on these alternatives and any other approaches we should 
consider to ensure that members of the public can easily contact 
station representatives and receive timely responses. Should 
broadcasters establish processes to ensure their ability to receive 
time-sensitive or emergency information during non-business hours?
    7. To the extent that stations are no longer required to have a 
local main studio, we seek comment on how we should ensure that 
community members have access to a station's public file. In this 
regard, we note that television stations already have fully 
transitioned their public file materials to the online public file as 
have some radio stations. We recognize that under current rules, some 
stations may continue maintaining public inspection files locally, and 
not online, even after the applicable compliance deadline. In addition, 
certain existing political materials that are part of the public 
inspection file may remain in the local public inspection file, rather 
than the online public inspection file, until the station is no longer 
required to retain the materials in question. If all or a portion of a 
station's public inspection file is not available via the online public 
file, we invite comment on how best to ensure that community members 
have access to the relevant materials in the absence of a local main 
studio. For example, should we require the station to provide community 
members with access to its local public inspection file at another 
location in the community of license, such as a local library or 
another station's main studio? \7\ Commenters advocating that approach 
should explain how stations would notify community members of the 
location of their public inspection file. Alternatively, should we 
eliminate the main studio rule only for stations that have fully 
transitioned all public file material to the online public file, 
including existing political file materials? \8\ Would it be reasonable 
to permit a station to eliminate its local main studio if it has 
transitioned all of its public file materials to the online public file 
except for its political file materials for which it has a two-year 
retention period? We seek comment on the pros and cons of these various 
approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Applicants without a main studio currently have a similar 
requirement. See 47 CFR 73.3526(b)(1) (``. . . 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.'').
    \8\ For example, because television stations without waivers, 
and some radio stations, have fully transitioned all public file 
material to the online public file, they could eliminate their main 
studio upon the effective date of an order in this docket, if any, 
eliminating the main studio rule; whereas, radio stations that have 
not yet complied with the online public file requirements would not 
be able to take advantage of this potential rule change until they 
too had fully transitioned, if we only eliminate the main studio 
requirement for stations that have fully transitioned to an online 
public file. A station has ``fully transitioned,'' and thus could 
eliminate the main studio under this approach, only if all existing 
political file material was either voluntarily transitioned to the 
online public file, or, in the case of television stations, is older 
than the two year retention period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In addition to the proposed revisions to section 73.1125 of the 
Commission's rules, we propose to eliminate other Commission rules that 
currently reference section 73.1125. Specifically, if we eliminate the 
main studio rule, we also will need to delete sections 73.3538(b)(2) 
(informal application to relocate main studio), 73.1690(c)(8)(ii) 
(location of FM studio within station principal community contour), and 
73.1690(d)(1) (permissive change in studio location) of the 
Commission's rules, all of which are premised on the existing main 
studio rule.\9\ We invite comment on this proposal. Are any other rule 
changes needed to conform to the proposed elimination of the main 
studio rule and associated requirements, including with respect to any 
rules that reference ``studio'' or ``main studio'' instead of section 
73.1125? \10\ For example, Class A stations are required to broadcast 
an average of at least three hours per week of ``locally produced 
programming'' each quarter. The Commission's rules define ``locally 
produced programming'' as programming ``(1) Produced within the 
predicted Grade B contour . . . ; (2) Produced within the predicted DTV 
noise-limited contour . . . ; or (3) Programming produced at the 
station's main studio.'' If the main studio rule and associated 
location restrictions are eliminated, how does that impact the third 
option? Could a Class A station locate a ``main studio'' at a distance 
outside its contour and still qualify as having ``locally produced 
programming''? We seek comment on how to address this issue. Should we 
eliminate the main studio option from this rule? If so, how should we 
address Class A stations with main studios currently located outside 
the applicable contour? Is there some other relevant requirement we can 
substitute, to the extent necessary to meet our statutory requirements 
for Class A stations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In preparing this NPRM, we determined that section 
73.1690(d)(2) of our rules references section 73.1410 of our rules, 
which has been deleted, and we thus propose to delete that outdated 
reference.
    \10\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 73.3526(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(2), 
(e)(4); Id. 73.3527(b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), (c)(2), (e)(3); Id. 
73.3544(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. We also invite comment on any other issues related to our 
proposals in this proceeding. What impact would elimination of the main 
studio rule and the associated staffing and program origination 
requirements have on other Commission proceedings? \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, in certain cases Commission staff has assessed 
if one station is exercising de facto control over another by 
considering, among other things, compliance with the main studio 
minimum staffing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Finally, we invite comment on any alternate proposals we should 
consider, rather than completely eliminating the main studio rule and 
associated requirements. For example, should we only eliminate the rule 
for a certain subset of stations, such as those that are located in 
small and mid-sized markets or those that have fewer than a certain 
number of employees? Commenters advocating this approach should explain 
with specificity how we should define those stations that will be 
permitted to eliminate their main studio. We have proposed to eliminate 
the main studio rule and the associated requirements for all AM, FM, 
and television broadcast stations. Is there any reason to distinguish 
between our treatment of AM, FM, and television broadcast stations in 
this context? We also invite comment on alternative ways we can reduce 
main studio-related burdens on broadcast stations.
    11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In

[[Page 25593]]

summary, the NPRM proposes to eliminate the rule that requires each AM, 
FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located 
in or near its community of license.\12\ The NPRM also proposes to 
eliminate existing requirements associated with our main studio rule, 
including the requirement that the main studio must have full-time 
management and staff present during normal business hours, and that it 
must have program origination capability. The proposed action is 
authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307(b), and 336(f) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 
303, 307(b), 336(f). The types of small entities that may be affected 
by the proposals contained in the NPRM fall within the following 
categories: Television Broadcasting, Radio Broadcasting. The projected 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are: (1) A 
proposal to eliminate the rule requiring each AM, FM, and television 
broadcast station to maintain a local main studio; and (2) a proposal 
to eliminate the associated staffing and program origination capability 
requirements that apply to main studios. There is no overlap with other 
regulations or laws. The Commission invites comment on alternative ways 
it can reduce main studio-related burdens on small entities, including 
whether a requirement that the local telephone number for a main studio 
be staffed during normal business hours is unnecessary so long as 
station staff regularly retrieves and responds promptly to voicemail 
messages from the public left at that telephone number, or whether the 
Commission instead should require each station to designate a point of 
contact to respond to communication from the public; whether instead of 
eliminating the main studio rule entirely, the Commission could only 
eliminate the rule for a certain subset of stations, such as those that 
are located in small and mid-sized markets or those that have fewer 
than a certain number of employees; and whether to adopt an alternate 
approach pursuant to which, if the Commission does not eliminate the 
main studio rule entirely, it could eliminate the rule only for 
stations that have fully transitioned their public file materials to 
the online public file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 47 CFR 73.1125(a) through (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. This document does not contain any proposed new information 
collection requirements. It does, however, contain proposals to delete 
rules that contain information collection requirements. The Commission, 
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites 
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
comment on the information collection requirements that would be 
impacted by the proposals contained in this document, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
through 3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.''
    13. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    14. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 
4(j), 303, 307(b), and 336(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307(b), 336(f).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.

0
2. Revise Sec.  73.1125 to read as follows:


Sec.  73.1125  Station telephone number.

    Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station shall maintain a 
local telephone number in its community of license or a toll-free 
number.

0
3. In Sec.  73.1690, revise paragraphs (c)(8) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.1690  Modification of transmission systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) FM commercial stations and FM noncommercial educational 
stations may decrease ERP on a modification of license application 
provided that exhibits are included to demonstrate that all five of the 
following requirements are met:
    (i) Commercial FM stations must continue to provide a 70 dBu 
principal community contour over the community of license, as required 
by Sec.  73.315(a). Noncommercial educational FM stations must continue 
to provide a 60 dBu contour over at least a portion of the community of 
license. The 60 and 70 dBu contours must be predicted by use of the 
standard contour prediction method in Sec.  73.313(b), (c), and (d).
    (ii) For commercial FM stations only, there is no change in the 
authorized station class as defined in Sec.  73.211.
    (iii) For commercial FM stations only, the power decrease is not 
necessary to achieve compliance with the multiple ownership rule, Sec.  
73.3555.
    (iv) Commercial FM stations, noncommercial educational FM stations

[[Page 25594]]

on Channels 221 through 300, and noncommercial educational FM stations 
on Channels 200 through 220 which are located in excess of the 
distances in Table A of Sec.  73.525 with respect to a Channel 6 TV 
station, may not use this rule to decrease the horizontally polarized 
ERP below the value of the vertically polarized ERP.
    (v) Noncommercial educational FM stations on Channels 201 through 
220 which are within the Table A distance separations of Sec.  73.525, 
or Class D stations on Channel 200, may not use the license 
modification process to eliminate an authorized horizontally polarized 
component in favor of vertically polarized-only operation. In addition, 
noncommercial educational stations operating on Channels 201 through 
220, or Class D stations on Channel 200, which employ separate 
horizontally and vertically polarized antennas mounted at different 
heights, may not use the license modification process to increase or 
decrease either the horizontal ERP or vertical ERP without a 
construction permit.
* * * * *
    (d) The following changes may be made without authorization from 
the FCC, however informal notification of the changes must be made 
according to the rule sections specified:
    (1) Commencement of remote control operation pursuant to Sec.  
73.1400.
    (2) Modification of an AM directional antenna sampling system. See 
Sec.  73.68.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  73.3538, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.3538  Application to make changes in an existing station.

* * * * *
    (b) An informal application filed in accordance with Sec.  73.3511 
is to be used to obtain authority to modify or discontinue the 
obstruction marking or lighting of the antenna supporting structure 
where that specified on the station authorization either differs from 
that specified in 47 CFR part 17, or is not appropriate for other 
reasons.

[FR Doc. 2017-11425 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P