Main Studio and Public Inspection File of Broadcast Stations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-138, RM-8855, 8856, 8857, 8858, 8872]

Main Studio and Public Inspection File of Broadcast Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'' or

``NPRM''), the Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendment of

its rules governing main studio and local public inspection file

requirements for broadcast licensees. The Commission seeks comment on

its proposals to relax the standard governing the location of the main

studio and to allow the local public inspection file to be located at

the broadcast station's main studio, wherever located. Comment is also

sought regarding proposals to streamline the contents of the public

inspection file. For additional information, see Supplementary

Information.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 8, 1997, and reply

comments on or before September 8, 1997. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due August

8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments

on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to

Judy Boley, Federal Communications

[[Page 32062]]

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554, or via

the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, 202) 418-2130. For additional information concerning the

information collections contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at

202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-138, adopted May 22,

1997, and released May 28, 1997. The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Main Studio and

Public File

1. As part of our continuing effort to ensure that our rules serve

the public interest without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens, we

here consider relaxation of our broadcast main studio and local public

inspection file rules. The main studio rule generally requires each AM

radio, FM radio, and television broadcast station to maintain its main

studio within its principal community signal contour. The local public

inspection file rules require broadcast stations to maintain a number

of records in a file that is accessible to the public. Our current

rules require that this file be located at the station's main studio

where the studio is situated in the station's community of license, or,

if the main studio is outside the community of license, at any

accessible place (such as a public registry for documents or an

attorney's office) in the station's community of license. Both rules

seek to ensure that members of the local community have reasonable

access to station management and information about the station. This

enables the residents of the community to monitor a station's public

interest performance, and encourages a continuing dialogue between the

station and its community.

2. We have received a number of petitions for rule making regarding

these rules. None of these petitions questions the underlying purposes

served by the rules. Rather, they seek to relax various aspects of the

rules in a manner they believe will lessen regulatory burdens on

licensees without any detriment to the public interest. We placed these

petitions on public notice, and received several comments and reply

comments that generally supported the petitioners' proposals. We

believe a number of these proposals may be in the public interest in

that they would provide broadcast licensees additional flexibility in

complying with the main studio and public inspection file rules, while

at the same time ensuring that the rules continue to facilitate

interaction between licensees and their local communities. This

document seeks comment on the various issues raised by these proposals.

We also take this opportunity to seek comment on various ways to update

and clarify our local public inspection file rules.

3. Main Studio Location. Prior to our most recent amendment of the

rule, broadcasters were required to maintain their main studios in

their community of license. In 1987, we relaxed the rule to permit a

station to locate its main studio outside its community of license

provided it is within its principal community contour. In doing so, we

noted that the role of the main studio in the production of programming

had diminished over the years, that community residents often

communicate with stations by telephone or mail rather than visiting the

studio, and that the growth of modern highways and mass transit systems

had reduced travel times. We further observed that the revised rule

would allow broadcasters to obtain certain efficiencies, such as

colocating a station's studio at its transmitter site or moving the

studio to lower cost areas. These factors persuaded us that relaxing

the rule would provide broadcasters greater flexibility while at the

same time ensuring that their main studios continued to be reasonably

accessible to the communities they serve.

4. Apex Associates and others filed a petition for rule making that

proposes a further relaxation of the rule. It requests the Commission

to amend the rule to provide that ``every AM, FM and TV station shall

maintain a main studio which is so situated as to be reasonably

accessible to residents of the station's community of license.'' The

petition also proposes that the definition of ``reasonably accessible''

be left within the discretion of each licensee, or in the alternative,

that this term be defined as ``within 30 minutes normal driving time''

from the community of license. All commenters support the proposed

amendment to the rules.

5. Discussion. The Apex petition presents several legitimate

reasons for considering relaxation of the main studio rule. As an

initial matter, the parties have pointed out that the current rule may

be imposing undue burdens on licensees. There is a longstanding

Congressional and Commission policy in favor of reducing regulatory

burdens consistent with the public interest wherever appropriate. We

also believe a review of the rule is particularly warranted in light of

the recent changes in the local radio ownership rules. In 1987, the

last time the main studio rule was revised, the maximum number of radio

stations that a single licensee could own in a market was two: one AM

and one FM. Subsequently, the Commission amended the local radio

ownership rules to permit ownership of up to three commercial radio

stations, no more than two in the same service, in radio markets with

14 or fewer radio stations, provided that the owned stations, if other

than a single AM and FM combination, represented less than 50 percent

of the stations in the market; in markets with 15 or more commercial

radio stations, the rules permitted ownership of up to two AM and two

FM commercial radio stations if the combined audience share of the

commonly owned stations did not exceed 25 percent in the market. In

February 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996),

which further relaxed the local radio ownership limits. In the largest

markets, for example, a single entity can now own up to eight

commercial radio stations. A licensee owning two or more stations in

the same area may find it most efficient to operate these stations from

a centrally located studio/business office, yet the main studio rule

would require it to maintain a separate main studio for one or more of

its commonly-owned stations if they do not place a principal community

contour signal over the central studio/office. As the Apex petition

points out, this can impose substantial burdens on the licensee,

depriving it of savings that could be put to more productive use for

the benefit of the community served by the station. These burdens are

also arguably inconsistent with the economies of scale that can be

achieved through common ownership of stations that Congress implicitly

found to be in the public interest in relaxing the local radio

ownership rules in the 1996 Act.

6. We also believe that review of the main studio rule is warranted

because it may place disproportionate burdens on owners of smaller

stations. The principal community contour of a broadcast station--the

determinant of the main studio's location--varies greatly depending on

a station's channel

[[Page 32063]]

or class. High power stations, which have principal community contours

as great as 70 or 80 miles in diameter, consequently have greater

flexibility in locating their main studios under the rule than low

power stations, which can have principal community contours as small as

20 miles in diameter. While the current rule serves to ensure that the

main studio is located in the primary reception area of the station,

the petitioners and commenting parties have raised concerns about the

differential treatment between small and larger stations that call for

a review of the rule's use of a principal community contour standard.

7. We further note that, as some of the petitioners and commenters

maintain, it is possible for a main studio to be outside the station's

principal community contour and yet still be reasonably accessible to

the community of license. For example, a location outside the principal

community contour may be convenient to community residents because of

its proximity to particular commuting patterns, access to public

transportation or major highways, or the availability of ample public

parking. The current rule may be too limited to take into account these

possibilities. Conversely, many locations within a principal community

contour may be difficult or relatively inconvenient to get to.

8. Given the above factors, we generally propose to relax the main

studio rule and replace the community contour standard with a new

standard that gives licensees additional flexibility yet continues to

ensure that the main studio is reasonably accessible to a station's

community of license. We seek comment on this general proposal and its

potential impact on the public interest. We particularly invite comment

on the manner in which we should determine whether a station's main

studio is reasonably accessible to the residents of its community of

license.

9. The Apex petition argues that the revised rule should simply

require the main studio be ``reasonably accessible to residents of the

station's community of license,'' leaving it to the discretion of each

licensee to define what reasonable is in the first instance. As an

alternative, the Apex Petition argues that ``reasonably accessible''

should be defined as ``within 30 minutes normal driving time'' from the

community of license. While we seek comment on these options, we are

not inclined to adopt them given their lack of clarity. While relaxing

the rule, they would appear to create a significant amount of

uncertainty for the public and licensees regarding the appropriate

location of a station's main studio. Such a vague rule could make it

difficult for licensees to determine whether a chosen site complies

with the rule, and could generate numerous disputes which would have to

be resolved by the Commission on an individual basis, which would be

administratively inefficient.

10. Another option would involve retaining the principal community

contour standard and adopting a waiver policy that would allow a

station to locate its main studio outside the contour in specified

circumstances. Such a policy would permit the Commission to examine on

a case-by-case basis commuting patterns, population densities, local

transportation and highway systems, and other factors unique to each

community. We are disinclined, however, to pursue this approach. It too

would create considerable uncertainty and would impose substantial

administrative burdens on both licensees and the Commission. We also

note that our rules currently permit a licensee to seek a waiver of the

Commission's main studio location requirement.

11. We consequently favor a generally applicable rule that measures

``reasonable accessibility'' in a manner that can be clearly and easily

understood and applied. One way this could be accomplished is to

require that the main studio be located within the principal community

contour of any station licensed to the community of license in

question. This would provide a clear, easy-to-apply rule, eliminate the

differential treatment in the current rule between low and high power

stations, and give many stations a larger area within which to choose a

studio location. For example, in a community with a licensed Class A FM

station and a licensed Class C FM station, either station could locate

its main studio anywhere within the latter station's principal

community contour, which generally has a radius of over 42 miles. We

question, however, whether this would provide for a studio location far

from the listeners of smaller stations. Accordingly, we seek comment on

whether this approach provides sufficient flexibility to licensees

while continuing to ensure that their main studios are reasonably

accessible to the communities they serve.

12. We also seek comment on using a straight mileage standard

rather than relying on a measurement based on signal contours. In

particular, the rule could be revised to require a station to locate

its main studio within a radius of a set number of miles from a common

reference point in the station's community of license, such as the

community's city-center coordinates. Is this approach preferable to the

use of signal contour standards? If the Commission adopts this

approach, what mileage standard would be an appropriate measure of

reasonable accessibility? Another option would combine the above two

approaches: A station could choose to locate its main studio anywhere

in the principal community contour of any station licensed to the same

community, or within a set distance from the community center,

whichever provides greater flexibility. Still another alternative would

permit an entity that owns multiple stations in a market to co-locate

the main studio for these stations at any one of the commonly owned

stations, provided each of the stations is located in the same local

market and that the main studio was within some set distance from the

community center.

13. We invite comment on these various approaches and any other

proposals that commenters believe will serve the public interest by

minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring that residents

of a local community have reasonable access to the broadcast stations

licensed to serve them. We emphasize that in proposing modifications to

our main studio rule we in no way seek to alter the obligation of each

broadcast licensee to serve the needs and interests of its community.

As the Commission has long recognized, this is a bedrock obligation of

every broadcast licensee. Rather, we propose to relax the main studio

rule in a manner consistent with this obligation.

14. Local Public Inspection File Location. The Commission requires

a broadcast station to maintain its local public inspection file at its

main studio in its community of license or at any accessible place in

the community of license (e.g., an attorney's office or local public

library) if the station's main studio is located outside the community.

As with the main studio rule, reasonable access to the public

inspection file facilitates monitoring of a station's operations and

public interest performance by the public and encourages a community

dialogue with local stations. This in turn helps ensure that stations

are responsive to the needs and interests of their local communities.

15. Several parties have filed their petitions for rule making

requesting that the Commission amend the public inspection file rule to

provide that the public file be maintained at the main studio, wherever

located. These parties state that the main studio is the most

[[Page 32064]]

logical and likely location that members of the public would seek to

find a station's public file. They also state that experience under the

current rule has shown that files maintained outside the main studio

are subject to mishandling, loss of documents, and destruction because

the files are not under the daily supervision of the licensee. In

addition, they claim that because so few members of the public actually

seek access to the off-premises public file, the expense involved in

maintaining that file often is not offset by any benefit to the public.

16. Another party, Salem Communications Corp., proposes a different

approach regarding the location of the public inspection file. It

proposes that the Commission require any licensee who elects to locate

its public file at its main studio outside its community of license to

also accommodate the public in one of the three following ways: (1)

Provide free transportation to the main studio; (2) deliver the public

file to a location specified by the requestor; or (3) provide specified

documents by mail.

17. Discussion. We propose to amend our rules to permit both

commercial and noncommercial stations to locate their local public

inspection files at their main studios, wherever located. Coupled with

our proposal above regarding the location of the main studio, this

would place the public file at the same ``reasonably accessible''

location as the main studio, which would not necessarily be in the

community of license. We also seek comment on reasonably accessible

locations for the public file of an applicant for a new station or

change of community. We propose that such a party maintain its file in

the proposed community of license or at its proposed main studio.

18. We recognize that in amending the main studio rule in 1987 the

Commission determined that the public inspection file should be

maintained in a station's community of license in order to assure

meaningful public participation in our licensing process. The

petitioners, however, have pointed to a number of public interest

reasons in favor of permitting licensees to locate their public

inspection files at their main studios, even when these are outside the

station's community of license. Allowing this flexibility will reduce

regulatory burdens on licensees while at the same time ensuring, as

with our proposed amendment to the main studio rule, that the public

file is reasonably accessible to residents of the local community, and

could well increase the convenience to the public in some cases.

Reasonable accessibility of the main studio and the public file has

been our benchmark for facilitating public involvement at the station.

We also believe that it would serve the public interest to provide

stations greater flexibility in locating the public inspection file and

main studio given the increased number of same-market, multiple-station

owners under the new radio ownership rules. As described in our

discussion of the main studio rule, this is consistent with the

relaxation of these rules because it allows stations to avail

themselves of economies of scale and allows them to channel their

resources in ways that would better serve the public. In addition, it

would appear that the main studio is the most logical and likely place

for the public to expect to find a station's public inspection file,

given that it will typically be listed in the local telephone

directory. Furthermore, we believe the public would be better served if

the file is maintained and stored under the direct control of the

station. Not only would there be greater assurance that the file is

kept up-to-date and in proper order, but also the public would be able

to request assistance in researching the public file if necessary.

19. We invite comment on our proposal to permit licensees to locate

their local public inspection file at their main studio, even when the

main studio is outside the station's community of license. We

particularly seek comment on whether this will ensure that the public

file continues to be reasonably accessible to a station's local

community. We also ask broadcasters to describe specifically the

efficiencies that can be achieved in providing greater flexibility

under the rule, and how these efficiencies can benefit the public.

Parties are invited to comment on the proposals advanced by Salem

Communications Corp. to ensure public access, as described above, and

any other such alternatives regarding the accessibility and location of

the public inspection file that they believe would serve the public

interest.

20. Public Inspection File Contents. We also take this opportunity

to seek comment on updating our requirements regarding the materials

that a station must place in its public inspection file. As stated

above, the public file contains information that facilitates meaningful

public participation in monitoring licensee compliance with public

interest obligations. The requirements regarding the contents of the

public file for noncommercial educational stations are similar to those

that apply to commercial stations, although there is some variation.

Currently, the public inspection file for both commercial and

noncommercial stations must contain general information pertaining to

the station, such as certain applications and related materials the

station may have filed with the FCC, ownership reports, employment

reports, and a list of programs aired by the station during the

previous three months that provided its most significant treatment of

community issues (the ``issues/programs list''). Broadcast licensees

must also maintain a separate file concerning broadcasts by political

candidates. In addition, all commercial broadcast television licensees

must maintain a public file containing information regarding the

educational and informational children's programming they air pursuant

to the Children's Television Act of 1990. The Commission recently

revised these children's television public file requirements in its

children's television proceeding.

21. We propose to amend our rules to eliminate or revise certain

aspects of the local public inspection file rules that are out-of-date

or that require clarification. In particular, we plan to revise the

rules as follows:

(a) We propose to delete the requirement that licensees maintain in

their public file the 1974 manual entitled ``The Public and

Broadcasting.'' This manual is long out-of-date.

(b) We will delete the reference in Sec. 73.3526(a)(11) of our

rules regarding the maintenance of reports that were required under our

financial interest and syndication rules, which have been repealed.

(c) We will correct the cross-reference in the local public

inspection file rules to the rule section governing a licensee's

political file.

(d) We plan to delete the note set forth under Secs. 73.3526(a)(1)

and 73.3527(a)(1) of our rules. This note provides that certain

applications filed on or before May 13, 1965--the date of a previous

FCC Report and Order regarding the local public inspection file rules--

need not be placed in the station's public file. This exemption is no

longer needed given that, even without the exemption, the retention

periods for maintaining such applications have long since expired.

We seek comment on these proposals and any other similar revisions

that would serve to update or clarify the public inspection file rules.

For instance, are there certain applications covered by the existing

rule that no longer need to be maintained in the public file?

22. We also consider here a proposal to revise our requirements

regarding the responsibility for maintaining public

[[Page 32065]]

file materials when a station's license is assigned to a new owner. The

rules provide that after the Commission approves an application for

assignment of license and the transaction has been consummated, the

assignee is responsible for ensuring that the public file contain all

the documents previously required to be maintained in the file by the

assignor. A petition for rule making filed by David Tillotson requests

that the Commission amend the public file rule to delete this

requirement. Tillotson maintains the proposed change is warranted

because the public file need only contain information concerning the

current licensee or permittee. According to Tillotson, the public has

no practical use for information regarding the ownership, programming

and EEO practices of a station's prior licensees, and therefore a new

licensee should not be required to bear the burden of reconstructing

the prior licensee's public file. As to this type of licensee-specific

information, we believe there is merit to these arguments, and invite

comment on amending our rules to relieve license assignees of this

burden. We note, however, that there may be information in the public

file relevant to a station's facilities (e.g., engineering material in

a modification application filed by the assignor) that is not licensee-

specific and therefore should be maintained by the assignee. We seek

comment on this issue.

23. Finally, we propose to clarify the general requirement in

Sec. 73.1202(a) of our rules that all written comments and suggestions

received from the public by licensees of commercial AM, FM, and TV

broadcast stations regarding operation of their station shall be

maintained in the local public inspection file. We wish to clarify that

such written comments and suggestions include electronic mail messages

transmitted via the internet to stations that are capable of receiving

them. Internet ``email'' is now commonly used by many members of the

public and is increasing in popularity. Stations may print out a hard

copy of such an internet message and place it in their public file.

Parties are invited to comment on this proposed clarification.

24. Retention Periods. We also take this opportunity to review the

retention periods for the materials in a licensee's local public

inspection file as well as its political file. These retention periods,

set forth in Secs. 73.3526(e) and 73.3527(e) of the rules, vary

depending on the type of record involved, as the following illustrative

list indicates:

(a) Political file materials, which are kept in a separate file,

must be retained for two years.

(b) With respect to commercial broadcast stations, letters received

from members of the public must be retained for three years.

(c) A licensee's issues/programs list must be retained for the term

of the station's license, which the current rule states as five years

for television licensees and seven years for radio licensees. This

provision predates our recent decision extending both television and

radio broadcast license terms to eight years.

(d) A television licensee's documentation of its performance under

the Children's Television Act of 1990 must be retained for the term of

a station's license, which the current rule states as five years.

Again, this provision predates the recent extension of license terms to

eight years.

(e) The various applications a station must place in its public

file generally must be retained by a permittee or a licensee for a

period beginning with the date that they are tendered for filing and

ending with the expiration of one license term (five years for

television licensees or seven years for radio licensees) or until the

grant of the first renewal application of the television or radio

broadcast license in question, whichever is later.

25. We wish to ensure that our public file retention period

requirements provide clear guidance to licensees and the public,

facilitate meaningful public participation in monitoring licensee

compliance with our rules and policies, and minimize unnecessary

paperwork burdens on broadcasters. At a minimum, we propose to revise

any public file retention periods that are tied to the broadcast

license term (e.g., the issues/programs list) to reflect the new

license term of eight years. This is consistent with the rule's purpose

in providing the public access to information that is relevant to a

station's performance throughout its license term, facilitating

monitoring of licensee performance by interested parties as well as

their participation in the license renewal process. In addition, we

propose to amend the rules to reflect that all documents that are

required to be retained for the license term be retained not only for

the eight-year license term, but also until the grant of the renewal

application is no longer subject to appeal either at the FCC or in the

courts. This will ensure that the public has access to pertinent

information regarding the licensee's performance during the pendency of

its renewal application. We invite comment on this issue.

26. We also seek comment on whether any of our public file

retention periods can be shortened to reduce regulatory burdens

consistent with the public interest. In particular, our current rules

generally require a licensee to retain certain applications filed with

the FCC until the expiration of one license term or until grant of the

first renewal application of the television or radio broadcast license

in question. The applications subject to this retention period include,

for example, license assignment and transfer applications and

applications for major facility modifications. We question the need to

require licensees to retain these materials for this period of time,

and propose that they retain such applications only during the period

in which they are pending before the FCC or the courts. This would

appear to be the period of time that they would have particular

relevance to the public. We also note that other public file materials

may provide an alternative source for the information contained in

these applications; the ownership reports, for example, provide

information about a licensee's ownership structure that can be found in

an assignment or transfer application. We seek comment on this

proposal. Are there some applications or parts of applications that

should be kept for a longer period? For example, some applications

contain an exhibit in support of a rule waiver and the Commission has

granted the waiver based, in part, on the applicant's public interest

representation. How long should the new owner be required to retain

such an application or the waiver exhibit in its public file?

27. We seek comment on other ways to clarify and streamline our

retention period requirements. What are the appropriate retention

periods for a licensee's annual employment reports and annual ownership

reports? Should we modify the requirement that commercial stations

retain letters from the public for three years? We particularly seek

comment on the appropriate retention period for letters from the public

regarding violent programming given the new statutory requirement that

licensees summarize such letters in their renewal applications.

28. An Electronic Public File Option. We recognize that many

stations are equipped with computers and make information available to

the public on their own World Wide Web home pages on the internet. We

encourage stations to do so, as it facilitates a dialogue between

licensees and their

[[Page 32066]]

communities that can lead to better service to the public. Indeed, in

our recently completed children's television proceeding we encouraged

stations to post their Children's Educational Programming Reports on

their Web sites. We wish to explore other ways in which information now

maintained in the local public inspection file could be made available

to the internet.

29. We realize, of course, that many Americans and broadcast

stations do not have internet access or even computers. There may be

options, however, that would allow stations to take advantage of this

new technology in ways that reduce paperwork burdens while at the same

time provide the public greater access to information about the

station. For example, we seek comment on giving stations the option of

maintaining all or part of the public inspection file in a computer

database rather than in paper files. For example, commercial television

licensees will soon be able to complete their Children's Television

Programming Reports directly on their computers and then file them

electronically with the FCC. A station that chooses to do so could also

maintain these Reports in a computer file at its station rather than

placing them in its ``paper'' public inspection file as it is presently

required to do every quarter. The station that chooses this option

would be required to make a computer terminal available to members of

the public interested in reviewing the station's ``electronic'' public

file, and also, as set forth under the current rules, would be required

to provide paper copies of such public file materials on request. We

would also encourage such stations to post their ``electronic'' public

files on any World Wide Web sites they maintain. We seek comment on

this option as well as other means of using computer technology to

provide access to public inspection file materials.

30. In this document we review various aspects of our main studio

and local public inspection file rules. In doing so, we seek to

minimize regulatory burdens and facilitate meaningful interaction

between broadcast stations and the communities they serve. We have

traditionally relied on this interaction as a primary means of ensuring

that broadcasters are responsive to the needs and interests of their

communities.

31. Authority. This document is issued pursuant to authority

contained in Secs. 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303, 307.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information

collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same

time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due August 11,

1997. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of

the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents, including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: New Collection (will modify four existing

collections: 3060-0171, Sec. 73.1125-Station main studio location;

3060-0214, Sec. 73.3526-Local Public Inspection File of Commercial

Stations; 3060-0215, Sec. 73.3527-Local Public Inspection File of

Noncommercial Educational Stations; and 3060-0211, Sec. 73.1943-

Political File.

Title: Review of the Commission's Rules regarding the main studio

and local public inspection files of broadcast television and radio

stations.

Form No.: None

Type of Review: New collection

Respondents: Licensees/permittees of broadcast stations

Number of Respondents, Estimated Time Per Response, Total Annual

Burden: Section 73.1125 requires the filing of an estimated 135

notifications per year with an average burden of 0.5 hours per request.

Section 73.3526 requires an estimated 10,262 commercial radio stations

to maintain a public inspection file. The average burden on a

commercial radio licensee/permittee is 2 hours per week (104 hours per

year) to maintain a public inspection file. We also estimate that 1,187

commercial television stations will be required to maintain a public

inspection file. The average burden on a commercial television

licensee/permittee is 2.5 hours per week (130 hours per year) to

maintain a public inspection file. These estimates for Sec. 73.3526

contain only the burden associated with the public inspection file.

Section 73.3527 requires an estimated 2,214 noncommercial educational

radio and television stations to maintain a public inspection file. The

average burden on such a licensee/permittee is 2 hours per week (104

hours per year) to maintain a public inspection file. This estimate for

Sec. 73.3527 contains only the burden associated with the public

inspection file. With respect to Sec. 73.1943, we estimate that 25

political broadcasts per station (13,664 stations) will be made and a

record kept with an average burden of 0.25 hours per request. The total

annual burden for these collections is 1,537,282 hours. These figures

are contingent on any decision reached upon adoption of a Report and

Order.

Needs and Uses: The main studio and public file rules seek to

ensure that members of the local community have access to the broadcast

stations that are obligated under the FCC's rules to serve them. This

rule making proceeding seeks to relieve undue regulatory burdens while

retaining basic obligations of broadcast licensees to serve their

communities of license.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,

see 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting, Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-15389 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P