1998 Biennial Regulatory ReviewStreamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

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

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media

Applications, Rules, and Processes

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to streamline broadcast application

and licensing procedures and reduce licensee administrative and filing

requirements. The Commission also proposes to eliminate rules and

procedures that no longer advance key objectives. In addition, the

Commission seeks comment on whether to mandate electronic filing for

certain broadcast application and reporting forms. By these proposals,

the Commission seeks

[[Page 19227]]

to preserve the public's ability to participate fully in the FCC

broadcast licensing process, reduce unwarranted applicant and licensee

burdens, and realize benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's electronic

filing initiative. This NPRM contains proposed or modified information

collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),

Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on

the proposed or modified information collections contained in this

proceeding.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 16, 1998. Reply

comments are due July 16, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding,

interested parties must file an original plus six copies of all

comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If parties filing

comments want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of the

comments, the parties must file an original plus eleven copies. Written

comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before June 16, 1998. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed

and/or modified information collections on or before June 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections

contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20554, or via Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB

Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503

or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services

Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2780; James J. Brown, Video

Services Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-1600; or Mania K.

Baghdadi, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2130.

For additional information concerning the information collections

contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214, or via the

Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 98-43 and FCC No. 98-57,

adopted April 2, 1998 and released April 3, 1998. The complete text of

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection and

copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554 and may also be purchased

from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857-3800 (phone), (202) 857-3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. These proposals are designed to reduce filing burdens and

increase the efficiency of the Mass Media Bureau application

processing. They recognize that this approach is feasible only if the

Commission retains the capacity to verify compliance with our rules and

the accuracy of application information through audits and inquiries.

Therefore, these proposals include the establishment of a formal system

of random audits along with the Commission's commitment to sanction

applicants that do not meet their obligations of full disclosure and

complete candor. We have tentatively identified certain policies that

either consume significant staff resources or create burdens that may

no longer be warranted. Accordingly, we propose to eliminate: payment

restrictions on the sale of unbuilt stations, the requirement to submit

contracts with assignment and transfer applications, and several rules

that add unwarranted filing burdens on commercial new station and

facility change applicants. We consider relaxing and conforming

ownership report filing requirements for commercial and noncommercial

stations. This proceeding also proposes fundamental changes in our

construction permit extension procedures. These changes would reduce

the need for repetitive extension filings. The Commission seeks

comments on procedures we can adopt, consistent with statutory

restrictions, to expedite the processing of pro forma assignment and

transfer applications. Finally, we invite comment on other measures

which may advance our streamlining goals.

II. Issue Analysis

A. Electronic Filing of Applications

2. The Mass Media Bureau is currently working on facilitating

electronic filing for 15 key broadcasting application and reporting

forms.1 The Commission invites comment on whether electronic

filing of these applications should be mandatory or permissive, and, if

mandatory, whether this requirement should be phased in. If

electronically filed applications are made available on the Internet,

interested parties could examine them at home, at the office, or

perhaps at the public library. The Commission invites comment on these

tentative views. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether

FCC Form 398, the Children's Programming Report, be filed

electronically. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as

well as on any legal, technical, or other issues raised by mandatory

electronic filing.

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

\1\ The Mass Media Bureau is developing electronic versions of

the following 15 forms: FCC Forms 301, 302-AM, 302-FM, 302-TV, 307,

314, 315, 316, 340, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, and 5072. We also

propose to require the electronic filing of Form 398, which already

is available in electronic form.

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

3. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should create

exemptions to mandatory filing for small businesses or other qualifying

entities, and what the criteria or waiver standards should be. In

addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether there should be a

transition period for mandatory filing and if so, should this period be

based on whether the filer is a small entity? Should the phase-in be

done on a form by form basis, and what phase in dates should be used?

The Commission also seeks comment on whether voluntary electronic

filing could or should be encouraged during the transition period. To

spur electronic filing, the Commission requests comments on possible

measures such as higher filing fees for paper filers. However, the

Commission notes its lack of statutory authority to structure filing

fees based on whether a filing is submitted in paper or electronic

form. If Mass Media Bureau electronic filing is phased in, should

parties also be required to submit traditional paper copies of any

electronic filings during the transition? Would such a requirement be

consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, increase

administrative burdens, processing, or discourage electronic filing?

4. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act (``DCIA''),

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public

Law 104-34, Chapter 10, 110 Stat 1321, 1321-1358 (1996), the Commission

is required to monitor and provide information about its regulatees to

the U.S. Treasury. The statute includes a requirement that the

Commission collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers

[[Page 19228]]

(TIN), and share them with the U.S. Treasury. Individuals use their

Social Security Number as their TIN.2 Employers use their

Employer Identification Number (``EIN'') as their TIN.

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

\2\ Therefore, for the purposes of this NPRM, the term

``Taxpayer Identification Number'' shall mean ``Social Security

Number'' for individuals.

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

5. The Commission invites comment on using TINs in a manner

analogous to their proposed use in the Wireless Bureau's Universal

Licensing System. We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs

would satisfy the requirements of the DCIA, and whether it would

provide a unique identifier for parties filing broadcast applications

that would ensure that the system functions properly. The Commission

would take steps to prevent misuse of TINs. Alternatively, we seek

comment on using the Bureau's unique database generated identifiers

that would be assigned to filers based on the date of filing and a

three-character alphanumeric sequence. Finally, a Privacy Act

submission would be published in the Federal Register to obtain the

requisite public and congressional comment and Office of Management and

Budget (``OMB'') approval prior to implementation of the electronic

filing system.

B. Streamlining Application Processing

6. The current versions of most Mass Media Bureau forms rely to a

significant extent on open-ended narrative exhibits and document

submissions. Accordingly, the Commission believes it is necessary to

undertake a thorough review of its broadcast forms and to reconsider

both the information that is collected and the form in which it is

submitted. Thus, the Commission considers changes to the license and

permit assignment and transfer forms--Forms 314, 315 and 316; the new

commercial station/technical modification form--Form 301; the

construction permit extension form--Form 307; and the annual ownership

report for commercial stations--Form 323. For Forms 314, 315, 316, and

301, the Commission has recasted as many questions as possible into an

electronic ``filing friendly'' format, replacing required exhibits with

certifications and ``yes/no'' questions. We tentatively conclude that

the broadcast application forms should restrict the use of exhibits to

waiver requests or where additional information is necessary to support

application elements potentially inconsistent with precedent or

processing standards. At the same time the Commission proposes to

reduce the amount of information applicants are now required to file.

For Forms 307 and 323, we propose to restructure filing requirements

altogether.

7. As part of this process the Commission is making revisions to

the instructions to the Mass Media Bureau application forms and adding

worksheets, where applicable, to help clarify Commission processing

standards and rule interpretations. The Commission's goal is to provide

applicants with sufficient guidance to intelligently certify compliance

with our rules and policies. The expanded application form instructions

are viewed as crucial to this process and therefore, the Commission

proposes to require each applicant to certify that it has read the

instructions and disclosed fully in exhibits all matters about which

there is any question regarding full compliance with the standards and

criteria set forth in the instructions. The Commission invites comment

on this proposal, and on whether it should require licensees to retain

worksheets to assist the Commission in its compliance efforts, or

alternatively, whether licensees should be required to place worksheets

in their public inspection files. We also propose to narrow or

eliminate application questions of marginal importance and believe

these changes will not undermine the Commission's ability to make

informed public interest determinations.

8. The Commission also proposes to eliminate or relax a number of

technical and non-technical rules and filing requirements. If adopted,

these changes would both reduce applicant filing burdens and streamline

our processing of sales, new station, and facility modification

applications.

Assignment and Transfer Applications: Forms 314 and 315

9. The Commission proposes substantial revisions to the sales

application forms (FCC Forms 314 and 315), including eliminating the

rule that restricts payments upon assignment or transfer of unbuilt

stations, and the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as

part of the assignment or transfer application. In addition, the

Commission proposes other changes that are not subject to the

rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act

3 and therefore may be implemented without notice and

comment. Nonetheless, the Commission discusses these changes here.

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

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

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

Rule Changes

10. Payment Restrictions on the Sale of Unbuilt Stations. Section

73.3597(c) of the Commission's rules restricts payments upon assignment

or transfer of an unbuilt station to reimbursement of a seller's

expenses (``no profit'' rule).4 In addition, Sec. 73.3597(d)

provides that where the seller retains an interest in an unbuilt

station, the Commission must consider whether the transaction involves

actual or potential gain to the seller over and above reimbursement of

expenses.5 In such cases, Commission rules provide that the

assignment or transfer application must be designated for hearing

unless the transferor or assignor has obligated itself to provide the

station with a capital contribution proportionate to the transferor's

or assignor's equity share in the station for the one-year period

commencing with program tests.6

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

\4\ 47 CFR 73.3597(c).

\5\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(1).

\6\ 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(2).

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

11. The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``no profit'' rule. We

believe that there is no statutory proscription against the for-profit

sale of construction permits for unbuilt broadcast stations. With the

initiation of competitive bidding for broadcast spectrum in situations

where mutually exclusive applications are filed, the winning bidder's

payment of fair market value for a construction permit combined with a

restricted construction permit extension policy proposed infra will

promote the prompt construction of broadcast facilities.7

Thus, we tentatively conclude that we should follow the same

construction permit sale policy which is followed in other services

subject to auction procedures.8 Recognizing that auctions

may not be used to award construction permits in every context, for

example, non-commercial station construction permits or where there are

no competing commercial stations, the Commission seeks comment on

whether the fact that a construction permit may not be issued through

auction should cause us to retain the ``no profit'' rule in such

situations. Commenters are invited to discuss the benefits and

drawbacks of applying the ``no profit'' rule in cases where no auction

takes place.

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

\7\ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications

Act--Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional

Television Fixed Service Licenses, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62

FR 65392 (December 12, 1997) (``Auction NPRM'').

\8\ See e.g., 47 CFR 24.839.

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

12. The Commission tentatively concludes that reimbursement

restrictions should also be eliminated

[[Page 19229]]

for outstanding construction permits. We tentatively conclude that we

also should permit the for-profit sale of these construction permits,

which to a certain extent have already been subject to private

competitive forces. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

13. If the current ``no profit'' rule were retained, the Commission

proposes allowing permittees to certify compliance with the rule by

answering a series of ``yes/no'' questions. The Commission would

continue to have the authority to request an itemized accounting of

expenses on a case-by-case basis where disclosures in an application

raise issues or concerns.9 The Commission seeks comment on

the appropriateness of allowing permittees to certify compliance, and

particularly on our proposal to allow a seller to certify that it will

not be reimbursed for more than its out-of-pocket expenses. The

Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be sufficient to

require sellers to place copies of all expense documentation in a

station's public file if the no-profit rule is retained.

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

\9\ See 47 CFR 1.17.

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

Requirement To Submit Contracts With Assignment and Transfer

Applications

14. The current sales forms, FCC Forms 314, 315 and 316, require

that the seller submit a copy of the contract and/or agreement for the

assignment or transfer of the station, or if the agreement has not been

reduced to writing, a written description of the complete oral

agreement. In addition, Sec. 73.3613(b) of the Commission's rules

requires that licensees and permittees file with the Commission any

documents relating to the present or future ownership or control of the

licensee or permittee within thirty days of execution. The Commission

proposes to eliminate the requirement that such contracts and/or

agreements be filed as part of assignment or transfer applications as

well as the portion of Sec. 73.3613(b) that requires that such

agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of

execution. In lieu of this requirement, the Commission proposes to

require applicants to carefully and thoroughly review their sales and

organizational documents against the detailed standards set forth in

the instructions to Forms 314 and 315. We also propose to expand

application instructions to cover both the sales and loan agreements

and also issues relating to non-party investor influence over the

assignee or transferee. Applicants would be required to disclose fully

any sales, financing or investor information where the transaction or

the assignee entity does not conform fully to the standards set forth

in the instructions. However, copies of agreements may be requested on

a case-by-case basis where disclosures made in an application raise

issues or concerns. The Commission seeks comment on whether the

proposed application procedures and certifications would suffice

instead of the requirement that applicants file the sales agreements

with their applications. In particular, the Commission requests comment

on whether the proposed instruction materials and related

certifications would suffice instead of individualized review of

agreements and contracts where complex transactions are involved.

Finally, comment is sought on whether these procedures are sufficient

to discharge our obligation under Sec. 310(d) of the Act to grant only

those applications that serve the public interest, convenience and

necessity.

15. If the Commission eliminates the requirement that applicants

file sales agreements with their applications and the rule requiring

that such agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of

execution, it proposes to require that applicants place all such

agreements in the station's public inspection file and to modify our

public inspection file rule accordingly. The Commission seeks comment

on the impact of ending the practice of having sales agreements

available for inspection in the Commission's Washington, D.C. public

reference room.

Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap Maps

16. With regard to radio applicants, the Commission proposes to

reduce administrative burdens on broadcasters and at the same time

streamline the staff review process by eliminating the requirement that

applicants submit contour overlap maps to demonstrate compliance with

our local radio ownership rules. The Commission proposes reliance on

applicant certifications in place of contour maps. An applicant would

be in a position to make this local radio ownership certification only

after completing a worksheet. To the extent a proposed transaction

would involve more than one ``market,'' as that term is defined in

Sec. 73.3555(a)(4)(ii), applicants would be required to complete the

worksheet with regard to each such market. The Commission seeks comment

on this proposal, and whether our elimination of the requirement that

applicants submit contour overlap maps will detrimentally affect the

public's ability to access the information necessary to monitor station

sales and thereby undermine the opportunity for meaningful public

participation under Sec. 309(d) of the Act.10 The Commission

seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to place a copy

of the contour overlap map in the station's public inspection file. The

Commission also seeks comment on whether applicants should be exempt

from the public file requirement in those situations in which

compliance is obvious, e.g., where a certification is premised on the

fact there are forty-five or more stations in a major market. The

Commission seeks comment on whether applicants should be required to

prepare a map solely for placement in the station's public inspection

file in such circumstances.

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

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

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

Other Revisions

17. Certain proposed revisions to the sales forms (FCC Forms 314

and 315) do not require changes in our rules. These changes are

intended to maximize the advantages of electronic filing and processing

and eliminate burdensome disclosure requirements. These proposed form

changes are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice

and comment rulemaking requirements.11 Nevertheless,

interested parties are urged to review the draft forms carefully so

that meaningful comments may be submitted regarding the proposed

revisions in the forms.

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

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

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

New Commercial Station and Facility Change Applications: Form 301 Rule

Revisions

18. Section 73.316(c). The Commission proposes to modify

Sec. 73.316(c) to shift the filing requirements now codified in

subsections (1)-(2) and (4)-(7) from the construction permit phase to

the license phase of the FM authorization process.12

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

\12\ See 47 CFR 73.316(c).

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

19. Section 73.1030(a). The Commission seeks comment on its

proposal to modify Sec. 73.1030(a) by eliminating the requirement that

applicants indicate in their applications the date of radio astronomy

observatory notification.

20. Section 73.1675(a). The Commission seeks comment on its

proposal to modify this rule to eliminate the map requirement for

auxiliary facilities for the FM and TV broadcast services. Although the

Commission believes that the rationale for eliminating the

Sec. 73.1675(a) map requirement is equally applicable to the

[[Page 19230]]

FM and TV broadcast services, it proposes to retain the map requirement

for AM auxiliary facility permit applications.

The Commission believes that adoption of these changes would not

jeopardize the technical integrity of the broadcast services or the

consistent enforcement of our core rules and policies. The Commission

seeks comments on these modifications, and request additional

suggestions to eliminate or streamline reporting and filing

requirements which relate to Form 301 filings.

Form Revisions

21. The Commission also proposes to reorganize and streamline FCC

Form 301. It proposes to conform Forms 301, 314 and 315 non-technical

questions where regulatory concerns are identical. In addition, the

Commission proposes to reorganize the FM technical data section of the

application, section V-B. The revised section V-B would require

applicants to certify compliance with our technical rules for routine

and non-waiver issues. The technical data required for engineering

review would be organized in such a manner as to facilitate electronic

entry and processing of data.

C. Enforcement

22. The Commission's proposals would significantly streamline the

amount of information that applicants must furnish to the Commission.

Consequently, the Commission would rely more heavily on certifications

by applicants that they comply with the applicable rules. These

proposals do not signify any lessening of the Commission's expectation

that licensees conduct themselves as public trustees. Current

enforcement measures applied by the Commission range from admonitions

to forfeitures to conducting hearings to determine whether to revoke or

deny renewal of a broadcaster's license. The Commission invites comment

as to whether our existing enforcement measures and policies remain

sufficient.

23. If the proposed revisions to the Commission's application forms

and processing procedures are adopted, the Commission intends to have a

formal program of random audits to ensure that licensees continue to

comply with our rules and we intend to rely heavily on such audits. The

Commission invites comments to how it should implement such audits and

whether such audits are sufficient means of ensuring continued licensee

compliance with our rules and policies. If not, the Commission invites

comment as to what additional measures, if any, it should adopt.

D. Modifying Construction Permit Extension Procedures

24. For new or modified facilities, the Commission issues a

construction permit for either 24 months (for full power TV) or 18

months (for AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV

translator, TV booster, FM translator, FM booster, broadcast auxiliary,

or Instructional TV Fixed station (``ITFS'')). Within the specified

time frame, a permittee must complete construction and file an

application for a license to cover. Additional time may be granted only

if the licensee or permittee can demonstrate one of the following three

conditions, the so-called ``one-in-three'' showing: (1) construction is

complete and testing is underway looking toward the prompt filing of a

license application; (2) substantial progress has been made; or (3) no

progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control of the

permittee but the permittee has taken all possible steps to

expeditiously resolve the problem and proceed with construction.

25. While many permittees are now able to complete construction

within the initial construction period afforded under the current

rules, a significant number of permittees do not succeed in

constructing their proposed facilities prior to permit expiration. As a

result, the staff receives large numbers of extension applications,

creating a tremendous burden on staff resources. Therefore, the

Commission proposes to: (1) issue all construction permits for a

uniform three-year term; (2) extend permits only in circumstances where

the permit itself is the subject of administrative or judicial appeal

or where construction delays have been caused by an ``act of God;'' (3)

eliminate the current practice of providing extra time for construction

after a permit has been the subject of a modification or an assignment

or transfer of control; and (4) make construction permits subject to

automatic forfeiture upon expiration. Additionally, the Commission

proposes to apply these rules to any construction permit that is within

its initial construction period at the time these rules are adopted.

26. The Commission invites comment on the need for, and relative

merits of, a uniform period and seeks comment as to whether a three

year term is appropriate. The Commission solicits comments on typical

construction time lines and problems, particularly where commenters

support alternative permit time frames. It also seeks comment as to

whether the proposed longer construction period would remove an

incentive for prompt construction by permittees who are capable of

completing construction much earlier than the proposed three-year

deadline. Commenters are specifically asked to comment on the extent to

which construction permit applicants are unprepared and unwilling to

proceed promptly with construction when they apply, but rather are

applying to warehouse spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on

whether we should impose a shorter construction period, e.g., one year,

for construction permits for minor modifications to licensed

facilities. The Commission does not propose to apply the three-year

construction period to the digital television (``DTV'') facilities

constructed by initial DTV licensees, which are on their own

construction schedule.13 However, in its Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order the

Commission established special construction rules for new NTSC

permittees whose applications remained pending on April 3,

1997.14 This limited class of permittees, which are not

eligible for an initial DTV paired license, may construct either an

analog or a digital station. These permittees also must complete

construction with the ``traditional'' two-year construction period

applied to NTSC stations, 15 and, if they initially

construct analog facilities, may convert to DTV by the 2006 deadline.

If the proposed three-year construction period is adopted, the

Commission proposes to increase to three years the initial period

afforded these NTSC permittees to construct either analog or digital

facilities. The Commission does not propose a change in the 2006

deadline for converting to DTV. The Commission invites comment as to

whether the two-year period for this group of NTSC permittees should be

extended to three years if we adopt the three-year proposal discussed

herein.

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

\13\ See Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26996 (May 16, 1997) on

reconsideration, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998). See also Sixth Report

and Order 62 FR 26684 (May 14, 1997), on reconsideration, 63 FR

13546 (March 20, 1998).

\14\ Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the

Fifth Report and Order, 63 FR 15774 (April 1, 1998).

\15\ Id. para. 11.

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

Restrict Extensions to Circumstances Where Delays Are Beyond the

Permittee's Control

27. The Commission also proposes to strictly limit the

circumstances that would qualify for an extension under

[[Page 19231]]

the ``circumstances beyond control'' criterion. Specifically, the

Commission seeks comment on whether it can limit the tolling of the

construction period to when the grant of a construction permit is the

subject of administrative or judicial appeals or when construction has

been delayed by an ``act of God.'' The Commission proposes to define

``acts of God'' very narrowly in terms of natural disasters (e.g.,

floods, tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes) and even then to only

toll the construction period for the length of time which a diligent

permittee would need to recover from the effects of the event, up to a

maximum of one year. It also proposes to require strict documentation

of a permittee's efforts to build subsequent to such events. Commenters

are requested to address both the legal and economic consequences of

this proposal and to suggest a mechanism by which a permittee would

inform the Commission of natural disasters which have delayed

construction and request the tolling of a construction period. The

Commission seeks comment on whether this proposed rule change would be

consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. Finally, it sees comment as to

whether difficulties in obtaining local zoning authorization are

sufficiently beyond the permittee's control to warrant treatment

similar to that of delays caused by administrative and judicial review.

The Commission's tentative conclusion is that zoning delays can be

overcome and construction can be completed within the proposed three-

year construction period if a permittee pursues the zoning process

diligently.

Eliminate Post-Modification and Post-Assignment Extensions

28. When a permittee for a new facility files an application to

modify its construction permit, or an application to assign or transfer

control of its construction permit in the second half of the

construction permit's initially authorized period, the Commission

currently requires a ``one-in-three'' showing and, upon grant, the

permittee, in most instances, is provided additional time to complete

construction. The Commission proposes to eliminate both the restriction

on second-half construction period modifications and assignments and

the extended construction periods provided under our rules. The

Commission seeks comment on whether elimination of automatic extensions

when unbuilt stations have been modified, assigned, or transferred is

consistent with Sec. 319(b) of the Act. In addition, we propose to

eliminate the requirement that permittees that modify unbuilt stations

certify that construction will commence immediately upon grant.

16 We also propose to eliminate the analogous certification

requirement for assignees and transferees.17 The Commission

seeks comment on these proposals.

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

\16\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(b).

\17\ See 47 CFR 73.3535(a).

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

Automatic Forfeiture of Expired Construction Permits

29. While Sec. 319(b) of the Act provides for the automatic

forfeiture of an expired construction permit (unless the Commission

authorizes additional time or the delay was caused by circumstances

outside the permittee's control), the Commission's practice has been to

take an affirmative action cancelling a construction permit before it

is forfeited. In an effort to streamline this process, the Commission

proposes to make a construction permit subject to automatic forfeiture,

without further Commission action, upon expiration of the proposed

three-year construction period. The Commission seeks comment on whether

an automatic cancellation policy for expired construction permits

should be adopted and its tentative conclusion that such a procedure

would be consistent with the Act's automatic forfeiture provision.

Application of New Rules to Outstanding Permits

30. Finally, the Commission proposes that the rules regarding

construction permits, and extensions thereof, adopted in this

rulemaking proceeding be applied to any construction permit that is

currently in its initial construction period (i.e., the first 24 months

for a full power TV facilities permit and the first 18 months for an

AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV translator, TV

booster, FM translator, FM booster, or broadcast auxiliary permit). The

Commission invites comment on whether to extend the proposed extension

policy to outstanding permits, whether implementation would cause

unjustifiable hardship to permittees, and whether this approach would

result in a disservice to the public. The Commission believes, however,

that it would be administratively unworkable to apply the proposed

rules to construction permits that are already beyond their initial

construction periods (whether through extension, assignment, transfer

of control, or modification). Because many of these permits have

already been afforded a construction period close to (or, in many

instances, in excess of) the three-year term proposed in this Notice,

the Commission proposes to continue to apply the rules as they exist

today to permits outside their initial periods. The Commission invites

comment on the tentative conclusion that it is more appropriate to

continue to apply its current rules to construction permits that are

beyond their initial periods.

E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments and Transfers

31. Approximately 35 percent of radio and television assignment and

transfer applications propose pro forma transactions and are filed on

FCC Form 316. Applications are typically processed and disposed of

within 10 working days. For certain pro forma transfers and

assignments, which do not affect actual control of the licensee or

permittee and which are routinely granted by the Commission,

broadcasters have questioned whether they should be required to file an

application and wait for a grant. The Commission invites commenters to

identify any specific situations or transactions negatively impacted by

the Mass Media Bureau's current rate of disposal. Some types of pro

forma assignments or transfers may be suited for streamlined

procedures. For example: (1) court-ordered transfers to a bankruptcy

trustee; (2) certain corporate reorganizations (such as a change in an

intermediate wholly-owned subsidiary); (3) reorganization by a

corporate licensee in another state where no other changes are made;

(4) involuntary assignment or transfer of control of license or

construction permit due to death or legal disability of the individual

permittee or licensee; and (5) assignment of less than a controlling

interest in a partnership. The Commission invites comment on whether

these and/or other categories of pro forma transfers and assignments

should be subjected to a streamlined procedure and whether this may be

done while complying with Sec. 310(d).

32. Under such a streamlined procedure certain assignments and

transfers, as listed above, could be carried out by licensees or

permittees, subject only to a requirement that the Commission be

notified of the assignment or transfer within a certain period

thereafter (say 30 days) and the requirement that an Ownership Report

Form be filed within 30 days after the assignment or

transfer.18 Would Sec. 310(d) permit adoption of such a

notification procedure? In the context of Cable Television Relay

Service (``CARS''), we have streamlined transfers by providing

[[Page 19232]]

that prior Commission consent is not required for assignments or

transfers of control ``in cases where the change in ownership does not

affect the identity or controlling interest of the

licensee.''19 The Commission invites comment as to whether

this precedent is applicable to broadcast transfers.

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

\18\ See 47 CFR 73.3615(f).

\19\ 47 CFR 78.35(c); Report and Order, 50 FR 23417 (June 4,

1985).

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

33. The Commission also invites comment on the procedures that

should be followed for notifications of transactions that are

determined to fall outside the scope of per se grantable applications.

Commenters should also consider the procedures the Commission should

adopt in response to notifications for transactions that the Commission

concludes are both voluntary and involve a substantial change in

ownership or control, and thus are subject to the public notice and

petition to deny provisions of Sec. 309(d). Finally, the Commission

invites comment on the sanctions that should be imposed for such

erroneous notifications.

34. The Commission also uses ``short form'' procedures in

connection with tender offers and proxy contests to acquire control of

entities that hold Commission licenses.20 We question

whether the streamlining options considered in this Notice should apply

to our tender offer and proxy contest processing policies. Accordingly,

we seek comment on our tentative conclusion that the proposed

streamlining procedures should not be extended to cover the processing

of ``short form'' applications relating to tender offers and proxy

contests for control of Commission licensees. Assuming that a

notification procedure could be adopted consistent with Sec. 310(d),

are there benefits to obtaining prior consent to such transactions that

would be lost if the Commission adopts a notification requirement?

Should the Commission require that a notification and Ownership Report

both be filed with the Commission or, in the alternative, would an

Ownership Report be sufficient in this regard? Is the thirty-day period

an appropriate time limit for the notification requirement? Should the

Commission require that a notification letter be filed, or should the

Commission adopt a new notification form for this purpose? If the

Commission requires that a notification letter or form be filed, what

information should be required to be filed in the letter? Finally,

should the Commission place such notifications on public notice to

permit the public an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the

application of the ``blanket'' consent to a particular transaction?

Alternatively, would a requirement that the notification be placed in

the station's public file be sufficient in this regard?

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

\20\ See generally Tender Offers and Proxy Contests, 59 Rad.

Reg. 1536 (1986), appeal dismissed sub nom. Office of Communication

of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 826 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir.

1987).

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

35. As an alternative to a notification procedure, the Commission

could keep the current application process but, in the case of certain

specified pro forma assignments and transfers, permit applicants to

proceed, at their own risk, to consummate the transfer or assignment if

Commission action denying the application is not taken within a set

short period after the application is filed. The Commission invites

comment as to whether this alternative would be consistent with

Sec. 310(d). The Commission would, in the event that this proposal is

adopted, retain the authority to deny the assignment or transfer even

after such a consummation and require that the transaction be unwound.

Thus, the Commission believes its authority under section 310 of the

Act would be retained.

36. Assuming such an alternative procedure is consistent with

Sec. 310(d), the Commission invites comment as to the appropriate time

period for Commission action, e.g., ten business days. Further, the

Commission invites comment as to whether such a proposal would

significantly and meaningfully reduce regulatory burdens and provide

adequate relief. The Commission notes its concern that it may be

difficult to unwind sales transactions after they have occurred. It

invites comment as to whether this is a significant negative factor

that should be considered or whether it should rely on applicants to

make a reasoned judgment as to whether they should assume the risk that

a transaction consummated prior to FCC consent must be subsequently

unwound. The Commission notes that this proposal would apply only to

narrow categories of pro forma transfers and assignments, as specified

above, where Commission consent is routinely granted. The Commission

invites comment on all aspects of this proposal.

F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting Requirements

37. The Commission proposes to reduce the frequency with which

Ownership Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and

noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast stations must be

filed with the Commission. Currently, most licensees of commercial

broadcast stations are required to file Ownership Reports annually.

This proposal would relax this requirement so that such licensees would

have to file Ownership Reports when they file their stations' license

renewal applications and four years thereafter, at the mid-point of

their scheduled license term. In addition, the Commission proposes to

formalize the Commission's current practice of requesting an Ownership

Report within 30 days of an approved assignment or transfer by amending

Sec. 73.3615 of the Commission's Rules to specifically require that

every commercial and noncommercial educational licensee or permittee

file an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 or 323-E within 30 of days of

consummation of an approved license assignment or transfer of control.

In the event the Commission adopts a notification procedure for certain

pro forma assignments and transfers, the Commission proposes to require

the filing of an Ownership Report within thirty days of the

consummation of those transactions. Comment on all aspects of these

proposals is invited. We also seek comment on whether it should adopt

the same proposed relaxed ownership reporting requirements for

noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast station licensees and

permittees.

38. The Commission invites comment on its tentative conclusion that

the proposed relaxation in ownership reporting would ease paperwork

burdens on licensees and permittees without impairing the public's

ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station owners. The

Commission also tentatively concludes the proposal would not adversely

affect its ability to monitor ownership of commercial and noncommercial

educational broadcast stations and compliance with the Commission's

multiple ownership limitations and the alien ownership and prior

consent provisions of Sec. 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. We also invite comment as to whether our proposals would

hinder members of the public and other broadcasters in obtaining

necessary ownership information and monitoring ownership changes.

39. The current ownership reporting requirements are stricter for

noncommercial stations than for commercial stations. The Commission

proposes, therefore, to conform Form 323-E and Form 323 reporting

requirements. We seek comment on whether eliminating the 30-day

supplemental reporting requirement, coupled with the addition of a

regular four-year filing requirement, would

[[Page 19233]]

result in an overall reduction of the burden on noncommercial

educational licensees.

40. The Commission invites comment as to whether a two-year or

other reporting interval would be more appropriate or beneficial. In

this regard, commenters contending that a four-year reporting

requirement would be detrimental to the public's or the Commission's

ability to monitor adequately significant changes in the ownership of

broadcast stations should provide specific examples and arguments to

substantiate their position.

Ordering Clauses

41. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority

contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,

308, 309, and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.

42. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this

Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

III. Administrative Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This Notice proposes rule and procedural revisions which may

contain an information collection requirement. As part of our

continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general

public and OMB to take this opportunity to comment on the information

collection contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments

are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments

are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the

Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission, including whether the information

shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

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

the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or other forms of information

technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy

of any comments on the information collections contained herein should

be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to

[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--

17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to

[email protected].

B. Ex Parte Rules

This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''

proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under

Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons

making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum

summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of

the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.

More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments

presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised.

Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set

forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (``IRFA'') is contained in the Attachment. As required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act,21 the Commission has prepared an

IRFA of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by

the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA. The Commission asks a number of questions in

its IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the industries

covered by this Notice. Comments on the IRFA must be filed in

accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice and

must have a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

\21\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(1981), as amended.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Attachment

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(``RFA''),22 the Commission has prepared this present

Initial Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant

economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed

in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''). Written public

comments are requested on this IRA. Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition,

the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the

Federal Register. See id.

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

\22\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has

been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996,

Public Law 194-12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (``CWAA''). Title II of the

CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (``SBREFA'').

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

A. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

With this Notice, the Commission commences a proceeding to

review its broadcast applications and related rules. The

Commission's goals are to streamline its procedures, speed

introduction of new and expanded services to the public, reduce

administrative burdens on regulatees, increase public access to

information about the Bureau's actions and processing activities,

and maximize efficiency in the use of Commission resources, while

maintaining the technical integrity of broadcast services, fostering

the Commission's goals of competition and diversity, continuing

enforcement of the Commission's core rules and policies, and

permitting members of the public a continued opportunity to monitor

station performance. This review is taken in conjunction with the

Commission's 1998 biennial regulatory review. Although Congress did

not mandate this area of review, the Commission nonetheless

undertakes it to assure that its rules and processes are no more

regulatory than necessary to achieve Commission goals.

B. Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found

in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 308, 309,

and 310.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to

Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations,

small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.

601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small

business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business

concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small

business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)

satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business

Administration (``SBA''). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory

definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency after

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions

of such term which are appropriate to the

[[Page 19234]]

activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the

Federal Register.'' 23

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

\23\ While we tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of

``small business'' greatly overstates the number of radio and

television broadcast stations that are small businesses and is not

suitable for purposes of determining the impact of the proposals on

small television and radio stations, for purposes of this Notice, we

utilize the SBA's definition in determining the number of small

businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we reserve

the right to adopt a more suitable definition of ``small business''

as applied to radio and television broadcast stations or other

entities subject to the proposed rules in this Notice and to

consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are

radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in

the future. See Report and Order, 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996)

(Children's Television Programming), citing 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

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

The proposed rules and policies will apply to television

broadcasting licensees, radio broadcasting licensees and potential

licensees of either service. The Small Business Administration

defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than

$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.24

Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily

engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public,

except cable and other pay television services.25

Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,

and other television stations.26 Also included are

establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and

which produce taped television program materials.27

Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped

television program materials are classified under another SIC

number.28 There were 1,509 television stations operating

in the nation in 1992.29 That number has remained fairly

constant as indicated by the approximately 1,569 operating

television broadcasting stations in the nation as of January 31,

1998.30 For 1992,31 the number of television

stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155

establishments.32

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

\24\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996).

\25\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series

UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).

\26\ Id. See Executive Office of the President, Office of

Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual

(1987), at 283.

\27\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series

UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).

\28\ Id. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production);

SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services

(producers of live radio and television programs)).

\29\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and

Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, note 33, supra, Appendix A-9.

\30\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January

31, 1998.

\31\ Census for Communications' establishments are performed

every five years ending with a ``2'' or ``7''. See Economics and

Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, supra.

\32\ The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number

of small business establishments because the relevant Census

categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No

category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate

as it is possible to calculate with the available information.

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

Additionally, the Small Business Administration defines a radio

broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in annual

receipts as a small business.33 A radio broadcasting

station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural

programs by radio to the public.34 Included in this

industry are commercial religious, educational, and other radio

stations.35 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily

are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program

materials are similarly included.36 However, radio

stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged

in producing radio program material are classified under another SIC

number.37 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent

(5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5

million in revenue in 1992.38 Official Commission records

indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in

1992.39 As of January 31, 1998, official Commission

records indicate that 12,241 radio stations were operating, of which

7,488 were FM stations.40

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

\33\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4832.

\34\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,

U.S. Department of Commerce, supra, Appendix A-9.

\35\ Id.

\36\ Id.

\37\ Id.

\38\ The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same

facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM

combination counts as one establishment.

\39\ FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.

\40\ FCC News Release ``Broadcast Station Totals as of January

31, 1998.''

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

Thus, the proposed rules will affect many of the approximately

1,569 television stations, approximately 1,208 of which are

considered small businesses.41 Additionally, the proposed

rules will affect some of the 12,241 radio stations, approximately

11,751 of which are small businesses.42 These estimates

may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures

on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from

non-television or non-radio affiliated companies.

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

\41\ We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at

less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 1998 total of

1569 TV stations to arrive at 1,208 stations categorized as small

businesses.

\42\ We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with

less than $5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to

the 12,241 individual station count to arrive at 11,751 individual

stations as small businesses.

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

In addition to owners of operating radio and television

stations, any entity who seeks or desires to obtain a television or

radio broadcast license may be affected by the proposals contained

in this item. The number of entities that may seek to obtain a

television or radio broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment

as to such number.

D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements

The measures proposed in this Notice would reduce the reporting

required of prospective and current applicants, permittees and

licensees. All proposals aim to reduce the overall administrative

burden upon both the public and the Commission. We propose to make

the electronic filing of many broadcast related applications

mandatory and seek comment as to whether to do so on a phased-in

basis. We note that such a phased-in procedure has been used

elsewhere to benefit small businesses. For example, the SEC

incorporated its mandatory filing rules in stages. While most

companies were phased into the electronic filing system in 1993,

small businesses were not completely phased in until May 1996. We

believe that electronic filing could, among other things, speed the

processing of applications, save Commission resources, and make

filing easier for regulatees by informing them of certain errors in

their applications before they are actually sent.

The full benefits of electronic filing and processing would not

be realized simply by concerting the current version of each form

into an electronic format. We have therefore concluded that it is

necessary to undertake a thorough review of broadcast forms and to

reconsider both the information that is collected and the form in

which it is submitted. Accordingly, we propose to delete or narrow

overly burdensome questions and to rely more on applicant

certifications. If adopted, these changes would both reduce

applicant filing burdens and streamline our processing of sales, new

station, and facility modification applications. We also tentatively

propose to eliminate the rule restricting payments upon assignment

or transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we tentatively propose to

eliminate the requirement that applicants file sales agreements as

part of the assignment or transfer application, and that such

agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of

execution. Instead, we propose that such agreements would have to be

placed in the station's public inspection file and the current

permittee or licensee would be required to certify to such

placement. In addition, we propose to make revisions to the sales

forms that are intended to maximize the advantages of electronic

filing and processing.

We further propose to reduce the frequency with which Ownership

Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and noncommercial

educational AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations must be filed with the

Commission. We tentatively believe that this proposal would ease the

paperwork burden on licensees and permittees without impairing the

public's ability to ascertain the identities of broadcast station

owners.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

This Notice solicits comment on a variety of alternatives

discussed herein. These

[[Page 19235]]

alternatives are intended to streamline our rules and procedures.

Our goals are to reduce applicant and licensee burdens, realize

fully the benefits of the Mass Media Bureau's current electronic

filing initiative, and preserve the public's ability to participate

fully in our broadcast licensing processes. These proposals are

designed to reduce filing burdens and increase the efficiency of

application processing. Any significant alternatives presented in

the comments will be considered.

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

Proposed Rules

The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do

not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.

It is further ordered, that the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this

Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

A copy of this IRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information

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

reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office

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

collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM;

OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM

in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the

proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether

the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: None.

Title: NPRM--Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and

Processes.

Form Nos.: FCC 301 (3060-0027), FCC 302-AM (3060-0627), FCC 302-

FM (3060-0506), FCC 302-TV (3060-0029), FCC 307 (3060-0407), FCC 314

(3060-0031), FCC 315 (3060-0032), FCC 316 (3060-0009), FCC 340

(3060-0034), FCC 345 (3060-0075), FCC 346 (3060-0016), FCC 347

(3060-0017), FCC 349 (3060-0405), FCC 350 (3060-0404), FCC 398

(3060-0754), FCC 5072 (change of address form), FCC 323 (3060-0010)/

FCC 323-E (3060-0084)

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit

institutions.

Number of Respondents: 13,767 (this number includes respondents

for all forms listed above).

Estimated Time Per Response: Varies from 2.5 hours to 1,016

hours (this represents the lowest burden/highest burden forms).

Frequency of Response: Reporting requirement, on occasion.

Estimated Cost to Respondent: $65,898,600 (this number

represents a total of all information collections involved).

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 174,082 hours (this number

represents a total of all information collections).

Needs and Uses: With this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on

streamlining broadcast applications and licensing procedures,

reducing administrative and filing requirements and eliminating

rules and procedures that no longer advance key regulatory

objectives. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to mandate

electronic filing for broadcast application and reporting forms.

[FR Doc. 98-10309 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P