Standardizing Program Reporting Requirements for Broadcast Licensees, 77999-78007 [2011-31972]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
and responsibilities in the event the
condition of a System bank fell below
certain financial thresholds. As part of
the original MAA, System banks and the
Funding Corporation agreed to periodic
reviews of the terms of the MAA to
consider whether any amendments were
appropriate.
The proposed Second Restated MAA
retains the same general framework and
most of the provisions of the Restated
and Amended MAA, updated as
necessary.
Having given the public notice and
the opportunity to comment, the FCA
Board hereby approves the Draft Second
Restated MAA pursuant to sections
4.2(c), 4.2(d) and 4.9(b)(2) of the Farm
Credit Act of 1971, as amended. The
FCA’s approval of the Draft Second
Restated MAA is conditioned on the
board of directors of each bank and the
Funding Corporation approving the
Draft Second Restated MAA. Neither the
Draft Second Restated MAA, when it
becomes effective, nor FCA approval of
it shall in any way restrict or qualify the
authority of the FCA or the FCSIC to
exercise any of the powers, rights, or
duties granted by law to the FCA or the
FCSIC. Finally, the FCA retains the right
to modify or revoke its approval of the
Draft Second Restated MAA at any time.
Dated: December 9, 2011.
Dale L. Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–32136 Filed 12–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 11–189; FCC 11–169]
Standardizing Program Reporting
Requirements for Broadcast Licensees
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document seeks
comment on a proposal to replace the
issues/programs list that television
stations must place in their public file
with a streamlined, standardized
disclosure form that will be available to
the public online. The FCC’s goal is to
make it easier for the public to learn
about how television stations serve their
communities, and to make broadcasters
more accountable to the public, by
requiring stations to provide easily
accessible programming information in
a standardized format. This
standardized disclosure will also assist
the FCC and researchers to study and
analyze how broadcasters respond to the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
needs and interests of their
communities of license. The FCC seeks
to address many of the shortcomings
that have been attributed to the form
adopted in the 2007 Enhanced
Disclosure Report and Order, which we
have vacated in a separate Order on
Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
DATES: Comments are due January 17,
2012 and reply comments are due
January 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 11–189, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly Saurer, Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418–7283, or Kim
Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418–2154.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77999
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands
or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes
must be disposed of before entering the
building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
Below is a synopsis of the
Commission’s Notice of Inquiry in MB
Docket No. 11–189, adopted November
11, 2011 and released November 14,
2011.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), we
seek comment on a proposal to replace
the issues/programs list that television
stations have been required to place in
their public files for decades with a
streamlined, standardized disclosure
form that will be available to the public
online. Our goal is to make it easier for
members of the public to learn about
how television stations serve their
communities, and to make broadcasters
more accountable to the public, by
requiring stations to provide easily
accessible programming information in
a standardized format. This
standardized disclosure will also assist
the Commission and researchers to
study and analyze how broadcasters
respond to the needs and interests of
their communities of license. We seek to
address many of the shortcomings that
have been attributed to the form
adopted in the 2007 Enhanced
Disclosure Report and Order, 73 FR
13452, March 13, 2008, which we have
vacated in a separate Order on
Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in MB
Docket No. 00–168, FCC 11–162, rel.
Oct. 27, 2011. While we have vacated
the 2007 Report and Order, we continue
to believe that the creation and
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
78000
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
implementation of a standardized form
is beneficial and worthy of pursuing. In
this NOI, we propose to require
broadcasters to report on their
programming using a sample-based
methodology, and we also seek
comment on a more limited number of
reporting categories. We propose to
limit this disclosure form requirement
to television licensees at this time.
2. In the Enhanced Disclosure
FNPRM, we seek comment on a
proposal to make television
broadcasters’ public inspection files
accessible online, in a new database to
be hosted by the Commission. Our
objective in this NOI is to develop a
standardized form that will be included
in the new online public file. We note
that we are addressing only the
standardized form requirement in this
NOI. Due to the complexity of the issues
surrounding the standardized form, we
have opened this new docket to address
these issues specifically. The existing
Enhanced Disclosure docket, MM
docket number 00–168, will now be
dedicated to addressing the proposed
online public file requirement. Given
the value of the comments previously
filed in that proceeding regarding the
standardized form issues, however, we
will incorporate that record into this
proceeding. We ask commenters to file
their comments regarding the online
public file requirement in response to
the Enhanced Disclosure FNPRM,
docket 00–168, and comments regarding
the standardized form in this docket.
We remain committed to the
implementation of a standardized form,
and seek to do so expeditiously. We
seek comments in this proceeding that
will assist us in crafting a form that is
beneficial and workable for those using
and drafting the forms.
II. Background
3. One of a television broadcaster’s
fundamental public interest obligations
is to air programming responsive to the
needs and interests of its community of
license. In 1984, the Commission
adopted the current issues/programs list
requirement, which requires a station to
place in its public inspection file ‘‘every
three months a list of programs that
have provided the station’s most
significant treatment of community
issues during the preceding three month
period.’’ This issues/programs list must
include a brief narrative describing what
issues were given significant treatment
and the programming that provided this
treatment, together with the time, date,
duration, and title of each program in
which the issue was treated. In adopting
the issues/programs list requirement for
television stations, the Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
expected the list to be ‘‘[t]he most
significant source of issue-responsive
information under the new regulatory
scheme.’’ Moreover, the list was
intended to be a significant source of
information for any initial investigation
by the public or the Commission when
renewal of the station’s license was at
issue. In 1998, the Advisory Committee
on Public Interest Obligations of Digital
Television Broadcasters issued its Final
Report. The Advisory Committee Report
determined that ‘‘[e]ffective selfregulation by the broadcast industry in
the public interest requires the
availability to the public of adequate
information about what a local
broadcaster is doing.’’ The Committee
recommended that the currently
required lists of issue-responsive
programming and children’s
programming be augmented by
including more information about
stations’ public interest programs and
activities, and it put forward a sample
standardized form that could be used to
that end.
4. In 2000, the Commission issued the
Enhanced Disclosure Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 65 FR 62683, October 19,
2000, which grew out of a prior Notice
of Inquiry, 65 FR 4211, January 26,
2000, exploring the public interest
obligations of broadcast television
stations as they transitioned to digital.
The Commission tentatively proposed to
require television stations to use a
standardized form to report on how they
serve the public interest. In making this
proposal, the Commission noted the
difficulties that members of the public
had encountered in accessing
programming information under the
existing issues/programs list
requirement, given the lack of a
standardized reporting mechanism. The
Commission suggested that the use of a
standardized disclosure form would
facilitate access to the issues/program
information and would make
broadcasters more accountable to the
public. It also observed that a
standardized form would benefit the
public by reducing the time needed to
locate information and by providing the
public with a better mechanism for
reviewing broadcaster public interest
programming and activities.
5. In 2007, the Commission adopted a
Report and Order in the Enhanced
Disclosure proceeding requiring
television broadcasters to replace their
issues/programs lists with Standardized
Television Disclosure Form 355 and to
post the completed forms online. The
Commission found that uniform and
consistent programming lists would
allow the public more effectively to
compare the efforts of various stations,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and assess the programming aired. The
Commission anticipated that the online
posting of such forms would give rise to
a more active dialogue between
licensees and their audiences, which in
turn would lead to more programs that
are responsive to issues important to
local communities. The Commission
determined that standardized disclosure
would also provide useful information
for assessing the effectiveness of current
Commission policies. The 2007
standardized disclosure form, Form 355,
required each station to submit a
comprehensive list of any programs or
program segments it aired every quarter
that fell into specific categories. The
categories included: National news,
local news, local civic affairs, local
electoral affairs, independently
produced programming, local
programming, public service
announcements, paid public service
announcements, programming that
meets the needs of underserved
communities, religious programming,
efforts undertaken to determine the
programming needs of the community,
service for persons with disabilities, and
current emergency information. The
Commission found that the benefits
derived from public disclosure of such
a comprehensive list of programming
outweighed the burden that the
requirement placed on broadcasters.
6. Following the release of the Report
and Order, several industry petitioners
raised a number of issues regarding the
standardized form, generally contending
that it was vague, overly complex, and
burdensome. Public interest advocates
also filed petitions for reconsideration,
arguing that the standardized form
should be designed to facilitate the
downloading and aggregation of data for
researchers. They also asked the
Commission to conduct periodic audits
of data accuracy to ensure the removal
of incorrect data, reassess whether the
system is providing information in a
useful format, and seek ongoing input
from researchers on its staff and outside
the Commission to ensure that the
system is implemented in a useful and
user-friendly manner. In addition, five
parties sought court review of the
Report and Order, and the cases were
consolidated in the United States Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The DC
Circuit granted a petition to hold the
court proceeding in abeyance while the
Commission reviewed the petitions for
reconsideration. Challenging the 2007
rules in a third forum, several parties
opposed the information collection
contained in the Report and Order at the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
Act. Because the Commission
determined that it would need to revise
the rules on reconsideration, it did not
transmit the information collection and
form to OMB, and therefore the rules
and form have never gone into effect.
7. In June 2011, a working group
including Commission staff, scholars
and consultants released ‘‘The
Information Needs of Communities’’
(INC Report), a comprehensive report on
the current state of the media landscape.
The INC Report discussed both the need
to empower citizens to ensure that
broadcasters serve their communities in
exchange for the use of public spectrum,
and also the need to remove
unnecessary burdens on broadcasters
who aim to serve their communities.
The INC Report provided several
recommendations relevant to this
proceeding, including replacing the
enhanced disclosure standardized form
adopted in 2007 with a streamlined,
Web-based form through which
broadcasters could provide
programming information based on a
composite or sample period.
8. In a separate Order on
Reconsideration and FNPRM, we
vacated the form adopted in the Report
and Order. We determined that we
should reexamine the determinations
made in the Report and Order in light
of the arguments raised in the petitions
for reconsideration and given that the
record upon which those rules were
adopted does not reflect the rapid
technological advances that have
occurred since the proceeding was
commenced in 2000. We now seek to
address many of the criticisms directed
at the standardized form adopted in the
Report and Order.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Discussion
A. Standardized Form
9. In the Report and Order, the
Commission sought to address the
systemic problem that the public lacked
access to consistent and uniform
information about television
broadcasters’ programming, as
identified in the Advisory Committee
Report and the record of the proceeding.
We remain dedicated to addressing this
problem. Nonetheless, the
reconsideration petitions we received
from broadcasters and public interest
advocates and the responses thereto
have persuaded us to reexamine the
balance the Commission struck in 2007
between public access to programming
information and the burden providing
such information imposes on
broadcasters. Although we have vacated
the 2007 Report and Order and
dismissed the petitions for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
reconsideration of that order, we believe
that some of the proposals developed in
the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding are
worth further consideration. In addition,
to the extent that the arguments made in
the petitions for reconsideration are
relevant and can inform this new NOI,
we discuss them below. We also seek
comment on INC Report proposals and
other proposals to ensure that the public
has standardized information about how
broadcasters are serving their
communities, while also avoiding
placing unnecessary burdens on
broadcasters.
10. We continue to believe that the
use of a standardized disclosure form
will facilitate access to information on
how licensees are serving the public
interest and will allow the public to
play a more active role in helping a
station meet its obligation to provide
programming that addresses the
community’s needs and interests. The
issues/programs list required under the
current rules, while providing some
information to the public and
establishing a record of some of a
station’s community-oriented
programming, suffers from several
drawbacks, including a lack of
uniformity and consistency in the way
broadcasters maintain the lists. This
makes effective access to the program
information and assessment of a
broadcaster’s program performance
extremely difficult. A standardized
disclosure form could address these
concerns, and in view of advances in
technology and the revisions to the form
we discuss here, should not impose
unwarranted burdens of broadcasters. A
standardized disclosure form will make
broadcasters more accountable to the
public, and improving broadcaster
accountability to the public will
minimize the need for government
involvement in monitoring how
broadcasters comply with their public
interest obligations. A standardized
disclosure will significantly reduce the
time needed to locate information
sought by the public and will provide
the public with a better mechanism for
reviewing a broadcaster’s public interest
programming and activities. Placing the
new standardized form online, instead
of merely on paper in the broadcasters’
offices, will make it far easier for the
public to review the information. We
seek comment on these tentative
findings.
11. We disagree with the
reconsideration petitioners in the 2007
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding who
argue that there is no need for the
Commission to adopt a standardized
form. The record in the Enhanced
Disclosure docket, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78001
incorporated in this proceeding,
demonstrates that ‘‘[t]he lack of
uniformity and consistency of the
issues/program lists make it difficult to
discern both how much and what types
of public interest programming a
broadcaster provided,’’ which makes
any ‘‘overall assessment or comparison
between broadcasters virtually
impossible.’’ Commenters in the
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding
identified the benefits of a standardized
form, including enhanced access to
information on the extent to which
broadcasters are meeting their public
interest obligations, ease of use by the
public and broadcasters alike, and the
promotion of a dialog between stations
and the public they serve. Moreover, the
Report and Order noted that the record
of the Localism proceeding—especially
that portion amassed during a series of
public hearings conducted across the
country—suggested that there may be a
communications breakdown between
licensees and their communities
concerning the breadth of their efforts to
air programming that serves their
licensed communities’ local needs and
interests. Written comments submitted
in the Localism docket and testimony
received during several localism field
hearings indicated that many members
of the public are not fully aware of the
community-responsive programming
that their local stations air. The Report
and Order noted that affording the
public improved access to information
about a station’s programming through
the use of a standardized disclosure
form would foster a better
understanding of stations’ localism
efforts within their communities. The
Report and Order also noted that by
enhancing a dialogue with viewers as a
result of improved public access to such
information, the standardized disclosure
form could assist the Commission in
determining whether the licensees are
serving the public interest. Finally, the
Report and Order further noted that the
standardized disclosure form would
provide information that will be useful
to the Commission and the public in
assessing the effectiveness of current
Commission policies governing
television broadcasting. We agree with
the Commission’s prior findings
regarding the benefits of a standardized
form. We note that technological
advances have made it possible for the
public to review data much more easily
via the Internet, but we believe the
efficacy of such disclosures is much
greater when the information is offered
in a standardized format. We seek
comment on these findings.
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
78002
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12. We have seen no evidence that
broadcasters have attempted to change
their issues/programs reporting to
become more consistent or uniform
since the Commission launched this
proceeding in 2000. In fact, the recently
released INC Report discusses
consistency and uniformity problems
similar to those identified in the
Commission’s prior proceeding, and
supports the continuing need for a
standardized form. We continue to
believe that a standardized form is
necessary and should replace the
current issues/programs list. We seek
comment on this tentative finding.
13. We are persuaded by petitioners
in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding
who argued that Form 355 as adopted in
the Report and Order was overly
burdensome. We propose changes to
that form, as discussed below, to
substantially reduce the burden it
imposes on broadcasters. These changes
include adopting a sample approach to
reporting and streamlining the
information that must be included in
the form. We welcome any other
proposals that will lead to effective
disclosure by broadcasters of the ways
in which they serve the public.
1. Reporting Period
14. Form 355 as adopted in the Report
and Order required television
broadcasters to report quarterly on every
relevant program or program segment
aired for each program category listed in
the Form. We agree with the
reconsideration petitioners who argued
that requiring reporting on all
programming in those categories would
be unduly burdensome.
15. Some petitioners asserted that the
Commission could lessen the burden on
licensees while providing adequate
disclosure of licensees’ public interest
programming by restricting reporting to
one week per quarter. As noted, the INC
Report similarly recommends that the
Commission consider requiring
information drawn from only a sample
or composite week of programming on
a quarterly basis, rather than requiring
a comprehensive listing of all relevant
programs throughout the year. A
constructed or composite week is a
sampling method in which individual
days are selected at random by the
Commission to construct a week that
contains different days of the week from
different weeks of the quarter. First, a
Sunday is randomly selected from all
possible Sundays in the quarter. Then,
a Monday is selected in the same way,
and so on. The Commission has used a
composite week reporting approach in
the past. In the 1970s, the Commission
authorized the staff to act, through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
delegated authority, on applications for
renewal of radio and television stations
that aired specified amounts of certain
programming. Failure to satisfy the
guidelines, based on a composite
broadcast week analysis, resulted in the
referral of a licensee’s renewal
application to the full Commission for
its consideration.
16. We believe that a sample approach
to reporting would provide sufficient
information to the public, without
unduly burdening broadcasters, and
seek comment on this approach. How
could a composite week or weeks be
structured for reportable programming?
For example, how many days of
programming should be included in the
reporting requirement for each quarter?
We seek comment on how to implement
a random selection. Are there are certain
distortions to the average programming
day, such as sweeps week, that should
be excluded? Alternatively, would it be
less burdensome for broadcasters to
compile information for one or more full
weeks during the quarter? What would
be the advantages and disadvantages of
each approach?
17. In a recent ex parte in the
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding, the
Public Interest, Public Airwaves
Coalition (PIPAC) proposes that
broadcasters be required to submit data
for two constructed or composite weeks
per quarter that are selected by the
Commission. Under PIPAC’s proposal,
broadcasters would be obligated to
report on programming categories aired
during the randomly selected days
comprising the two constructed weeks
per quarter. PIPAC attaches a statement
from a coalition of academics with
expertise in media sampling that says
that a constructed week, if implemented
properly, has methodological validity
for academic research and would
provide a snapshot of programming for
the public. We seek comment on this
proposal. In particular, is two
constructed weeks the appropriate time
period over which to collect
programming information? Would one
week provide the public and research
community with a sufficient sampling
period, while lessening the burdens
placed on broadcasters that have to
compile this information? How should
we balance the burdens on broadcasters
against the need for a methodologically
valid approach that will accurately
reflect the reportable programming that
broadcasters provide to their
community of license? If any period less
than two weeks is too little time to be
valid or accurate, would that undermine
the purpose of the reporting
requirement?
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18. Notice. If we decide to take a
composite approach or to select a
particular week or weeks for reporting
purposes, we will need to determine
how and when to notify broadcasters
which days are included, and whether
such notice should be provided before
or after the selected date. We seek
comment on how and when to provide
such notice. If we adopt a composite
week or weeks approach, should the
Commission inform the broadcasters
that a date has been selected to be part
of a composite week on the following
day? Alternatively, should the
Commission release the reporting dates
at the end of the quarter, or would this
needlessly require broadcasters to retain
programming information for every day
in the quarter? How long do licensees
retain tapes or other records of their
programming in the ordinary course of
business? Would it be preferable to
announce on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis what reporting dates were selected
for those weeks? Alternatively, if the
Commission were to select a particular
week or weeks for reporting, should it
be announced at the end of the quarter
or immediately after the selected week
or weeks? We seek comment on these
and other implementation issues and
concerns.
19. In petitions for reconsideration of
the Report and Order, industry
petitioners proposed that the
Commission notify stations a few days
before the selected reporting dates in
order to provide sufficient notice about
when broadcasters should start logging
the information needed to complete the
form. In contrast, PIPAC recommends
that broadcasters not be given advance
notice of the reporting dates to prevent
broadcasters from changing their
programming and thereby ‘‘gaming the
system.’’ PIPAC recommends that the
Commission select the relevant
reporting dates at the beginning of the
quarter and then announce each
reporting date the morning after the
selected day. They argue that, because
most broadcasters maintain a tape of
their programming for a short time after
broadcast, immediate notification of a
reporting date should offer ample notice
without giving advance warning that
would taint the quality of the sample.
We seek comment on these approaches
or recommended alternatives.
20. Exceptions to composite reporting.
We seek comment on whether adopting
a composite approach will adequately
capture performance for all categories of
reportable programming that should be
included on the standardized form, or
whether there should be certain
categories of programming subject to a
more comprehensive reporting
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
requirement. For example, in their
recent ex parte proposing a composite
week, PIPAC argues that local electoral
affairs programming is important public
interest programming and is critical to
an informed citizenry. PIPAC suggests
that broadcasters be required to disclose
all local electoral affairs programming,
defined as discussed below, when the
lowest unit charge rules are in effect,
i.e., 45 days before a primary election
and 60 days before a general election.
PIPAC argues that the composite week
mechanism, while otherwise sufficient,
may not adequately capture local
electoral issue coverage, as election
timing may not coincide with the
randomly selected reporting dates. We
seek comment on this proposal,
including projected burdens on
broadcasters. If commenters believe this
proposal to be overly burdensome, what
alternatives would adequately reflect
the extent of broadcasters’ local
electoral affairs programming? We seek
to ensure that broadcasters are credited
with their provision of this important
public interest programming. For
example, would reporting for some
shorter period of time preceding an
election be sufficient? Should the
Commission consider any other
exceptions to a composite week
reporting schedule? Are there other
categories of programming that should
be subject to an enhanced reporting
requirement?
21. Program and segment reporting.
We seek comment on whether reporting
should be done on a program or
program segment basis. Form 355
required reporting on all programs or
program segments aired during the
quarter for each programming category
listed. We seek comment on what level
of reporting is most useful, and whether
the benefits of the more granular
program segment reporting outweigh the
burdens it places on broadcasters. What
level of reporting granularity is
necessary to provide meaningful
information to the public and the
research community? Do broadcasters
currently retain their programming
information in a manner that would
enable reporting on a program segment
basis, or would new programming
retention techniques be required? For
example, do broadcasters retain
information about the length of each
program segment within each news
program, i.e. the length of each story?
How should the term ‘‘program
segment’’ be defined for purposes of the
reporting requirement? PIPAC asserts
that each of the reporting categories
should be reportable by program
segment. They assert that information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
will be more useful if it is reported on
a more granular level. They assert that
this level of specificity is necessary for
local news reporting, since some stories
reported on the local news are more
national in character, and would not fit
in the local news reporting category, as
it does not pertain to the local
community of license. We seek
comment on these assertions.
2. Reporting Categories
22. In the 2000 NPRM, we tentatively
concluded that the standardized form
should require reporting on specified
categories of programming, noting that
specified categories were necessary
because the current issues/programs
lists permit such an assortment of
information that the public may have
difficulty determining the extent to
which the station is serving the public
interest. The Commission specifically
noted the categories of programs
proposed by the Presidential Advisory
Committee on the Public Interest
Obligations of Digital Broadcasters,
which they recommended to augment
and standardize the reporting about
stations’ public interest programs and
activities. The Committee proposed to
include the following categories: Local
and national news programming, local
and national public affairs
programming, programming that meets
the needs of underserved communities,
programming that contributes to
political discourse, other local
programming that is not otherwise
addressed in the form, and public
service announcements. In response to
the NPRM, PIPAC submitted a proposed
standardized form suggesting use of the
following categories: Local civic
programming, local electoral affairs
programming, public service
announcements, paid public service
announcements, independently
produced programming, local
programming, underserved
communities, and religious
programming. Definitions were
included with each of these categories.
The Commission included the
categories and definitions proposed by
PIPAC in Form 355.
23. We disagree with the Enhanced
Disclosure reconsideration petitioners
who argue that the standardized
reporting categories impose de facto
quantitative programming requirements
or pressure stations to ensure carriage of
some amount of programming that falls
within government-preferred categories.
We stress that, as the Commission noted
in the Report and Order, the
standardized form does not require
broadcasters to air any particular
category of programming or mix of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78003
programming types. Nor do we
contemplate imposing any such
requirements. This will be merely a
replacement reporting requirement,
which the Commission has authority to
impose, and we believe it will have the
important benefit of arming consumers
with accurate information on which to
base their viewing decisions. We seek
comment on these tentative findings.
24. Several petitions for
reconsideration raised issues about the
particular reporting categories adopted
in the Report and Order, arguing that
they were confusing, burdensome, and
unworkable. We have vacated Form 355
as adopted, and agree that it would be
useful to take a fresh look at the
categories and definitions that should be
included on the form. We want to
ensure that the form collects
information that is relevant to the
public’s and our analysis of stations’
service to their communities. In
addition, it is essential to our goal of
ensuring the availability of uniform and
consistent data that broadcasters be able
easily to categorize programming for
inclusion on the form.
25. PIPAC has recently proposed a
new sample form, which is available at
https://www.savethenews.org/sampleform. We are beginning anew our
attempt to create a standardized form,
including which programming
categories to consider. However, in
order to guide the discussion in this
proceeding, we address below the
categories now proposed by PIPAC and
seek comment on their proposed form.
Are there any categories identified on
the newly proposed form that are
unnecessary or could otherwise be
deleted? What, if any, additional
categories should be included? We note
that in response to the 2000 NPRM, the
Commission received very little
comment on specific programming
categories; rather, most commenters
focused on the merits, or lack thereof, of
requiring a standardized form. We urge
commenters to provide specific
suggestions about the newly proposed
reporting categories so that we can
include those most relevant and useful
for broadcasters and the public alike.
26. We recognize that some programs
or program segments could be included
in multiple categories. We propose that
a program or segment be includable in
only one category. This will both ease
the reporting burdens and will ensure
that any quantitative analyses accurately
reflect the amount of time devoted to
public interest programming. We seek
comment on whether further
clarification would be needed among
the categories discussed below, and any
other proposed categories, to guide
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
78004
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
broadcasters in categorizing their
programming and/or whether other
reporting categories should be adopted
with additional instructions.
27. Local News. We seek comment on
reporting requirements for news. PIPAC
proposes that we include a local news
category. In the Report and Order,
Questions 2(a), (b) and (c) of Form 355
required reporting with respect to
national news, local news produced by
the station, and local news produced by
an entity other than the station; all
categories were described as including
national and local programs or segments
that include significant treatment of
community issues. In a petition for
reconsideration, Joint Broadcasters
raised concerns that the definition of
‘‘news’’ is vague because newscasts and
other programs, such as nationally
syndicated talk shows, often include
significant treatment of community
issues. PIPAC recommends streamlining
the news reporting requirement to just
local news, and provides the following
definition: ‘‘Programming that is locally
produced and reports on issues about,
or pertaining to, a licensee’s local
community of license.’’ We seek
comment on this proposed category and
proposed definition. Does this
definition resolve the concern expressed
by Joint Broadcasters? Is it an otherwise
workable definition? What constitutes
an ‘‘issue’’ in this definition? Would a
program about an issue not specific to
a community but of interest to the
community be covered by this
definition as long as it was locally
produced? Are there alternative
definitions of local news that we should
consider?
28. Local Civic/Governmental Affairs.
We seek comment on reporting
requirements for civic and governmental
affairs. PIPAC proposes a local civic/
government affairs reporting category. In
the Report and Order, Question 2(d) of
Form 355 required reporting with
respect to local civic affairs. PIPAC
proposes retaining that category and
provides the following definition, which
is largely taken from the Form 355 local
civic affairs definition: ‘‘Broadcasts of
interviews with or statements by elected
or appointed officials and relevant
policy experts on issues of importance
to the community, government
meetings, legislative sessions,
conferences featuring elected officials,
and substantive discussions of civic
issues of interest to local communities
or groups.’’ We seek comment on this
proposed category and definition. Is this
definition, or any portion of it, overly
vague? What types of programming
would qualify as ‘‘substantive
discussions of civic issues of interest to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
local communities or groups’’? Are there
alternative definitions of local civic/
governmental affairs programming that
we should consider?
29. Local Electoral Affairs. We seek
comment on reporting requirements for
electoral affairs. PIPAC also proposes a
local electoral affairs category. In the
Report and Order, Question 2(e) of Form
355 required reporting with respect to
local electoral affairs. PIPAC proposes
retaining that category and provides the
following definition, which is largely
taken from the Form 355 local electoral
affairs definition: ‘‘Local electoral affairs
programming consists of candidatecentered discourse focusing on the
local, state and United States
Congressional races for offices to be
elected by a constituency within the
licensee’s broadcast area. Local electoral
affairs programming includes broadcasts
of candidate debates, interviews, or
statements, as well as substantive
discussions of ballot measures that will
be put before the voters in a forthcoming
election.’’ We seek comment on this
proposed category and definition. Is this
definition, or any portion of it, overly
vague? If so, how should the definition
be refined? Are there alternative
definitions of local electoral affairs
programming that we should consider?
30. Closed Captioning and Video
Description. We seek comment on
reporting requirements regarding
services provided to the disability
community. On Form 355, as adopted in
the Report and Order, Question 4
required reporting the number of hours
of programming provided with closed
captioning and video description.
Reconsideration petitioners asserted
that reporting on closed captioning
provides little public benefit, and that
any benefit is outweighed by the recordkeeping burden imposed on
broadcasters. Petitioners also argued
that the requirement contravened the
Commission’s prior stance that such
reporting is both unnecessarily
burdensome and administratively
cumbersome. Petitioners argued that,
because the Commission provided no
reason for changing its position on
closed captioning reporting, the
requirement was arbitrary and
capricious. They also argued that it was
inappropriate to ask about video
description, since at the time the
Commission did not require that it be
provided. Campaign Legal Center et al.
argued that this reporting is necessary to
ensure station compliance with the
Commission’s closed captioning
requirements, and to assist the disability
community in finding stations that offer
video description service.
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hard of Hearing (‘‘TDI’’) argued that the
closed captioning reporting requirement
should be maintained, stressing the
importance of reporting to the millions
of Americans who rely on closed
captioning and have difficulty finding
such programming. TDI also noted that
the only current enforcement
mechanism for ensuring closedcaptioning is based on consumer
reporting and consumer-derived
complaints, and that a lack of
benchmark reporting has seriously
hampered the effectiveness of the
captioning rules and compliance
monitoring.
31. PIPAC now proposes streamlining
these reporting requirements. As to
closed captioning, PIPAC proposes that
broadcasters be required to disclose
whether the reported programming on
the form is closed captioned, and if so,
the type of captioning, such as off-line,
live, or electronic ‘‘newsroom
technique,’’ which commonly follows
teleprompter scripts. It also proposes
that broadcasters report on all
programming that is exempt from closed
captioning, providing the date, time and
length of the program (excluding
commercials), and the reason for the
exemption. We note that Commission
regulations require all programming—
with few exceptions—to be closed
captioned as of January 1, 2010, and
therefore expect the latter reporting
requirement would presumably not be
unduly burdensome. We seek comment
on these proposals.
32. PIPAC also recommends
implementing reporting requirements
regarding video description, once the
new rules mandated by the
Communications and Video
Accessibility Act go into effect. We note
that the Commission recently adopted
such rules, requiring the provision of 50
hours per calendar quarter of videodescribed prime time and/or children’s
programming by full-power affiliates of
the top four national networks located
in the top 25 television markets,
beginning July 2012. We seek comment
on whether and to what extent
broadcasters should be required to
report on their video description
offerings and, if so, how such a
reporting requirement should be framed
and implemented, given the limited
nature of this programming requirement
and the need for viewers to have access
to information about which programs
are video described. Should
broadcasters be required to report all of
their video description offerings?
33. Emergency Accessibility
Complaints. We seek comment on
reporting requirements regarding
emergency accessibility. Question 5 of
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Form 355, as adopted in the Report and
Order, required reporting with respect
to all emergency information and
whether that information was available
to persons with disabilities. PIPAC now
proposes that broadcasters report only
the number of complaints that a station
receives alleging that its emergency
programming was not accessible to
people with disabilities. PIPAC claims
that such reporting will be less
burdensome than the requirements in
Form 355 but will assist the public and
the Commission in determining the
extent to which broadcasters are
transmitting emergency information in a
way that can be understood by people
with disabilities, as required. We
recognize that the fact that a consumer
has complained to a station does not
necessarily mean that a licensee has
violated a rule, but, as noted by PIPAC,
a large number of reported complaints
may indicate a compliance issue. We
seek comment on this proposal, as well
as other alternatives.
3. NCE Exemption
34. The reporting requirements
adopted in the Report and Order
applied to both commercial and noncommercial broadcasters. In a petition
for reconsideration, the Association of
Public Television Stations and the
Public Broadcasting Service were joined
by noncommercial educational (NCE)
licensees (collectively NCEs) in arguing
that they should be exempted from the
standardized disclosure requirement, so
they would not need to divert scarce
resources from their core public service
activities. They argued that Form 355
failed to differentiate between the
programming and practices of
commercial and noncommercial
television stations. NCEs asserted that
the Commission has previously
recognized the special status of these
stations’ noncommercial programming
and exempted them from meeting
certain requirements, such as the
quarterly children’s program reporting
requirement. Public television licensees
argued that exempting NCEs from
reporting requirements is appropriate
given their ‘‘long history of providing
vast amounts of programming that is
responsive to issues of importance to
their local communities.’’
35. We appreciate that NCE licensees
have limited resources and that their
mix of programming may in some
instances be more heavily weighted
toward the categories of interest in this
proceeding than is the programming on
some commercial stations. But the goals
underlying this proceeding—facilitating
access to information on how licensees
are serving the public interest and local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
communities, making broadcasters more
accountable to the public, and providing
the public with a better mechanism for
reviewing a broadcaster’s public interest
programming and activities—apply
equally to commercial and noncommercial licensees. In order to
standardize the review of television
broadcast public interest programming
and activities, we believe it is important
to include all television broadcasters.
We believe that much of the concern
expressed by the NCE community will
be allayed by our proposals only to
require reporting on a sample basis, and
to otherwise streamline the form. We
seek comment on whether these
measures are sufficient, or whether
there are other ways to address NCE
licensees’ concerns.
4. Other Reporting Issues
36. General information. We also seek
comment on the general information
stations should be required to supply on
the form. For instance, PIPAC proposes
to streamline the Form 355 to require
the following information: Call sign,
channel number, facility ID, community
of license, city, state, zip code, legal
name of licensee, link to online public
file, network affiliation, Nielsen DMA,
commercial/NCE status, contact name
and phone, and links to the most recent
ownership reports and quarterly
children’s programming reports. We
seek comment on this proposal and on
whether it is over or under inclusive. In
addition, if the Commission determines
in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding
to host the online public file, will it be
unnecessary to include links to the most
recent ownership and children’s
television reports, since that
information will be centrally available
in the same location as the standardized
form? Should we also require that
stations provide their main studio
address on the form? Is there any other
general station information that should
be included or excluded on the form?
37. Required information for each
program and/or segment reported. We
seek comment on the level of detail that
should be required for each program or
program segment that is reported. For
each entry, PIPAC asserts that
broadcasters should disclose:
Programming/segment title or topic;
date/time aired; whether it aired on a
primary or multicast channel; whether
the material is first-run programming or
previously aired on this or another
station; the approximate length of the
segment excluding interstitial
commercials; whether the material
reported, or any portion of it, is subject
to the disclosure requirements of the
Commission’s sponsorship
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78005
identification rules, and if so, the
sponsoring entity; and whether the
material reported, or any portion of it,
is the product of a local marketing
agreement, local news service, or shared
service agreement, or any other
contractual arrangement or agreement
between the licensee and another
broadcast station or daily newspaper
located within the licensee’s designated
market area, and if so the relevant
agreement in the licensee’s online
public file. We seek comment on these
proposed reporting elements, including
proposed definitions for the agreements
and contractual arrangements that are
requested for identification. We seek
comment in particular on the benefits of
providing any specific piece of
information per segment, as weighed
against the burdens imposed on
broadcasters by the requirement. Are
any of these requirements overly broad?
If so, can they be further defined or
described to narrow the scope of the
information required? Should any
additional information be required, for
example, a brief description of the
program or programming segment and
the issue it addresses?
38. Additional reporting. In addition
to reporting on the categories discussed
above, should broadcasters also have the
option of disclosing other types of
programming they provide to serve the
needs and interests of their
communities, if they wish to do so?
Would an optional reporting
opportunity provide useful information
to the public and the Commission?
Would an opportunity to include such
information allow broadcasters to
showcase their programming, or would
the option merely increase the reporting
burden? If an optional reporting
requirement were adopted, would
broadcasters find a drop-down menu
with optional categories to be a useful
reporting format?
39. PIPAC asserts that an optional
reporting opportunity would allow
broadcasters to showcase community
reporting that does not fall into the
specified categories. They assert that
any voluntary information should be
prominently labeled and that the
reporting form should include a
disclaimer proclaiming that the absence
of voluntary information does not mean
that a broadcaster is not providing such
services. They recommend the following
optional categories: National news,
international news, public service
announcements (both paid and unpaid),
religious programming, emergency
programming, and any other category of
programming that a broadcaster believes
serves their public interest obligation.
We seek comment on this proposal and
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
78006
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
any others. Are the optional categories
useful, or should the list be
supplemented or reduced? We also seek
comment on definitions of the optional
categories listed above as well as any
others proposed by commenters.
40. Comments category. We seek
comment on whether we should include
a ‘‘comments’’ category, which would
allow a licensee to highlight information
that it believes is important, but is not
included in the reporting categories. A
‘‘comments’’ category could provide
licensees with space to discuss any
mitigating factors or other information
relevant to the information provided in
the form. For example, a station that
was off the air due to severe weather or
technical issues on a day selected for
reporting may wish to note that on its
form. This category could also provide
licensees with space to discuss any
additional efforts they have made to
serve their communities. We seek
comment on this proposal. Would a
comments category preclude the need
for the type of optional reporting
categories discussed above?
5. Data Format
41. The INC Report suggests that
ensuring that as much data as possible
is in a standardized, machine-readable
format could enhance the usefulness
and accessibility of such data. It
recommends that ‘‘online disclosure
should be done according to the
principles advocated by experts on
transparency: In standardized, machine
readable and structured formats.’’ The
INC Report generally notes that
information collected by the
government should be in formats ‘‘that
make it easy for programmers to create
new applications that can present the
data in more useful formats, or combine
one agency’s information with another,’’
and that ‘‘data releases should include
an Application Programming Interface
(API) that allows the data to be shared
easily with other computers and
applications.’’ PIPAC supports the INC
Report suggestions, asserting that ‘‘an
online reporting mechanism that is part
of a searchable, integrated database
would not only reduce the burden of
submitting this information, it would
also provide communities and
researchers with better access to it.’’
PIPAC notes that such a database would
allow the public and researchers to
download the data in raw form in its
entirety to compare stations’
performances or perform other analyses.
It also asserts that such a database
should be connected electronically with
the ownership data the Commission
already collects, thus reducing further
the broadcaster filing burden.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
42. We agree that the new
standardized disclosure form should be
submitted as machine-processable in a
standardized, machine-readable format
that will be searchable so that the
material can be easily analyzed. Such a
format would help us accomplish the
accessibility and accountability goals for
which the form will be created. As
recommended in the National
Broadband Plan, we believe that as a
government agency we should make
information available in a machinereadable or otherwise accessible format
where possible. We seek
recommendations on how to implement
this goal.
B. Radio
43. Given the Enhanced Disclosure
NOI’s genesis in the DTV transition, the
Report and Order was limited to
reporting by television stations. The
Commission later sought comment on
implementing a standardized form
requirement for analog and digital radio
stations in the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Digital
Audio Broadcasting proceeding. We
believe that we should eventually
require radio licensees to replace their
issues/programs lists with a
standardized form as well. We also
believe, however, that there may be
benefits to requiring television licensees
to implement enhanced disclosure
requirements first. Television stations
have been significantly more involved
in considering these issues, from the
Enhanced Disclosure NOI in 1999
through the 2007 Report and Order.
Further, it may ease the initial
implementation of a standardized form
if we begin the process with the much
smaller number of television licensees.
Finally, we foresee that there may be
some radio-specific concerns that we
will need to address prior to adopting
disclosure requirements for radio
stations.
IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis
44. In proposing rules to ensure that
the public has adequate access to
information about how broadcasters are
serving their communities, we intend to
look at the many factors involved in an
effective disclosure form in order to
ensure that the form serves its intended
purpose without posing an undue
burden on industry. There are two key
criteria for the success of such an
approach.
45. First, acknowledging the potential
difficulty of quantifying benefits and
burdens, we need to determine whether
a disclosure form will significantly
benefit the public and, in fact, clarify
important issues for them. Second, we
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
seek to maximize the benefits to the
public while limiting as much as
possible the burden of compliance on
broadcasters. These costs and benefits
can have many dimensions, some which
may not be easy to quantify, including
cost implications for industry, public
interest benefits to viewers, and other
less tangible benefits.
46. To address the first criterion, we
seek comment on the best ways to
ensure that the form discussed in this
NOI will actually benefit the public. We
seek comment on the extent to which
the Commission and members of the
public may be expected to utilize the
additional information compiled in the
form. Further, we seek comment on any
considerations regarding the form that
would increase the number of people
who will benefit from such rules, and
the nature of these benefits. In
particular, we seek comment on the best
ways to ensure that information is more
readily accessible to the public. We seek
information on whether, and to what
extent, the accessibility of a
standardized form is greater than an
online issues/programs list. While we
believe that a standardized form will
increase the accessibility of information
about how television stations serve their
communities, we seek further
suggestions for increasing accessibility.
47. To address the second criterion,
we seek comment on the nature and
magnitude of the costs and benefits of
the new proposals on broadcasters. We
recognize that these may vary by
broadcaster, and seek comment on
possible differential impacts, including
size and type of broadcaster. We seek
specific information about whether,
how, and by how much broadcasters
may be impacted differently in terms of
the costs and benefits of our proposed
rules. In response to the Report and
Order several reconsideration
petitioners argued that compliance
would be overly burdensome and costly.
To what extent will the new proposal to
streamline the form and seek sample
data impose less or more of a cost than
the cost projections related to Form 355?
Will the elimination of the issues/
programs list and replacement with a
streamlined disclosure online system
reduce or increase burdens on
broadcasters? Are there ways to further
decrease costs of a standardized
reporting form?
48. To the extent possible, we request
comment that will enable us to weigh
the costs and benefits associated with
these proposed disclosure rules. We
request that commenters provide
specific data and information, such as
actual or estimated dollar figures for
each specific cost or benefit addressed,
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2011 / Notices
including a description of how the data
or information was calculated or
obtained and any supporting
documentation or other evidentiary
support. We understand that it may be
difficult to place a dollar figure on the
benefits of a standardized form, but seek
input on the benefits of such a form. We
also seek information regarding the
burden of compiling the issues/
programs list and to what extent the
standardized form would either reduce
or increase the burden on broadcasters.
All comments will be considered and
given appropriate weight. Vague or
unsupported assertions regarding costs
or benefits generally can be expected to
receive less weight and be less
persuasive than more specific and
supported statements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–31972 Filed 12–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Ocean Transportation Intermediary
License; Applicants
Notice is hereby given that the
following applicants have filed with the
Federal Maritime Commission an
application for a license as a NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier
(NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder
(OFF)—Ocean Transportation
Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section
19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as
amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46
CFR 515). Notice is also hereby given of
the filing of applications to amend an
existing OTI license or the Qualifying
Individual (QI) for a license.
Interested persons may contact the
Office of Transportation Intermediaries,
Federal Maritime Commission,
Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at
(202) 523–5843 or by email at
OTI@fmc.gov.
Aieca International Logistics Corp
(OFF), 5583 NW 72 Avenue, Miami,
FL 33166, Officer: Humberto E.
Espinoza, President/Secretary/
Treasurer, (Qualifying Individual),
Application Type: New OFF License.
Boacon Synergy Inc (OFF), 3523
Steeplechase Lane, #2A, Loveland,
OH 45140, Officers: Benjamin Afolabi,
President/Treasurer, (Qualifying
Individual), Beatrice O. Afolabi,
Secretary, Application Type: New
OFF License.
Eastern Express Cargo Inc. dba Eastern
Express (OFF), 10717 Camino Ruiz,
#119, San Diego, CA 92126, Officers:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Dec 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
Alex O. De Guzman, President,
(Qualifying Individual), Ehmee O. De
Guzman, Secretary/CFO, Application
Type: New OFF License.
E.M. Global Cargo, Inc (NVO & OFF),
4980 NW 11th Avenue, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33334, Officer:
Eugenio J. Martinez, President/
Secretary/Treasurer/VP, (Qualifying
Individual), Application Type: New
NVO & OFF License.
Fil Lines USA Inc. (NVO), One
Woodbridge Center, Suite 255,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095, Officers:
Ramesh Krishnan, Director/President/
Treasurer, (Qualifying Individual),
Martin Huen, Vice President,
Application Type: QI Change.
Friendship Logistics LLC (OFF), 7823
New London Drive, Springfield, VA
22153, Officers: Feras Hindi, Member,
(Qualifying Individual), Ruba Hindi,
Member, Application Type: New OFF
License.
Kemka USA Limited Liability Company
(NVO & OFF), 421 Lucy Court, South
Plainfield, NJ 07080, Officer: Hsiang
(Rita) Y. Hsiao, Member, (Qualifying
Individual), Application Type: Add
OFF Service.
Lynx Global Corp. (NVO & OFF), 2000
NW 62nd Avenue, Building 711,
Miami, FL 33122, Officers: Eugenio J.
Clur, Director, (Qualifying
Individual), Alfonso Rey, Owner,
Application Type: New NVO & OFF
License.
Markland Investments, Inc. (OFF), 4517
Fulton Industrial Blvd., Atlanta, GA
30336, Officer: Mark Asare, President,
(Qualifying Individual), Application
Type: New OFF License.
Midas International Investments LLC
dba Midas Express, Shipping and
Freight (NVO), 142223 Cherry Lane
Court, Laurel, MD 20707, Officer:
Ademola Oreagba, President,
(Qualifying Individual), Application
Type: New NVO License.
One Shipping, Inc. (NVO & OFF), 6703
N. Cicero Avenue, Lincolnwood, IL
60712, Officer: Steven Chong,
President/Secretary, (Qualifying
Individual), Application Type: New
NVO & OFF License.
Sealand Freight LLC (NVO), 3925
Galveston Road, Houston, TX 77017,
Officers: Walid M. Hattab, Chief
Executive Member, (Qualifying
Individual), Ola M. Ghunmat,
Member, Application Type: New NVO
License.
78007
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Ocean Transportation Intermediary
License; Revocation
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice that the following
Ocean Transportation Intermediary
license has been revoked pursuant to
section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984
(46 U.S.C. chapter 409) and the
regulations of the Commission
pertaining to the licensing of Ocean
Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR
part 515, effective on the corresponding
date shown below:
License Number: 018407N.
Name: Pacific Atlantic Lines, Inc.
Address: 2629 Townsgate Road, Suite
225, Thousand Oaks, CA 91361.
Date Revoked: November 19, 2011.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and
Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2011–32111 Filed 12–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT
INVESTMENT BOARD
Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting
11 a.m. (Eastern Time),
December 19, 2011.
PLACE: 4th Floor Conference Room,
1250 H Street NW., Washington, DC
20005.
STATUS: Parts will be open to the public
and parts will be closed to the public .
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
TIME AND DATE:
Parts Open to the Public
1. Approval of the minutes of the
November 30, 2011 Board Member
Meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by
the Executive Director:
a. Monthly Participant Activity
Report.
b. Monthly Investment Performance
Review.
c. Legislative Report.
3. 2012 Board Meeting Calendar.
Parts Closed to the Public
4. Procurement.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of
External Affairs, (202) 942–1640.
Dated: December 9, 2011.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
Dated: December 13, 2011.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–32110 Filed 12–14–11; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 2011–32236 Filed 12–13–11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
BILLING CODE 6760–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77999-78007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31972]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 11-189; FCC 11-169]
Standardizing Program Reporting Requirements for Broadcast
Licensees
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on a proposal to replace the
issues/programs list that television stations must place in their
public file with a streamlined, standardized disclosure form that will
be available to the public online. The FCC's goal is to make it easier
for the public to learn about how television stations serve their
communities, and to make broadcasters more accountable to the public,
by requiring stations to provide easily accessible programming
information in a standardized format. This standardized disclosure will
also assist the FCC and researchers to study and analyze how
broadcasters respond to the needs and interests of their communities of
license. The FCC seeks to address many of the shortcomings that have
been attributed to the form adopted in the 2007 Enhanced Disclosure
Report and Order, which we have vacated in a separate Order on
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
DATES: Comments are due January 17, 2012 and reply comments are due
January 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 11-189,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Saurer, Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-7283, or Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-2154.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202)
418-0432 (tty).
Below is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry in MB
Docket No. 11-189, adopted November 11, 2011 and released November 14,
2011.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), we seek comment on a proposal
to replace the issues/programs list that television stations have been
required to place in their public files for decades with a streamlined,
standardized disclosure form that will be available to the public
online. Our goal is to make it easier for members of the public to
learn about how television stations serve their communities, and to
make broadcasters more accountable to the public, by requiring stations
to provide easily accessible programming information in a standardized
format. This standardized disclosure will also assist the Commission
and researchers to study and analyze how broadcasters respond to the
needs and interests of their communities of license. We seek to address
many of the shortcomings that have been attributed to the form adopted
in the 2007 Enhanced Disclosure Report and Order, 73 FR 13452, March
13, 2008, which we have vacated in a separate Order on Reconsideration
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in MB Docket No. 00-
168, FCC 11-162, rel. Oct. 27, 2011. While we have vacated the 2007
Report and Order, we continue to believe that the creation and
[[Page 78000]]
implementation of a standardized form is beneficial and worthy of
pursuing. In this NOI, we propose to require broadcasters to report on
their programming using a sample-based methodology, and we also seek
comment on a more limited number of reporting categories. We propose to
limit this disclosure form requirement to television licensees at this
time.
2. In the Enhanced Disclosure FNPRM, we seek comment on a proposal
to make television broadcasters' public inspection files accessible
online, in a new database to be hosted by the Commission. Our objective
in this NOI is to develop a standardized form that will be included in
the new online public file. We note that we are addressing only the
standardized form requirement in this NOI. Due to the complexity of the
issues surrounding the standardized form, we have opened this new
docket to address these issues specifically. The existing Enhanced
Disclosure docket, MM docket number 00-168, will now be dedicated to
addressing the proposed online public file requirement. Given the value
of the comments previously filed in that proceeding regarding the
standardized form issues, however, we will incorporate that record into
this proceeding. We ask commenters to file their comments regarding the
online public file requirement in response to the Enhanced Disclosure
FNPRM, docket 00-168, and comments regarding the standardized form in
this docket. We remain committed to the implementation of a
standardized form, and seek to do so expeditiously. We seek comments in
this proceeding that will assist us in crafting a form that is
beneficial and workable for those using and drafting the forms.
II. Background
3. One of a television broadcaster's fundamental public interest
obligations is to air programming responsive to the needs and interests
of its community of license. In 1984, the Commission adopted the
current issues/programs list requirement, which requires a station to
place in its public inspection file ``every three months a list of
programs that have provided the station's most significant treatment of
community issues during the preceding three month period.'' This
issues/programs list must include a brief narrative describing what
issues were given significant treatment and the programming that
provided this treatment, together with the time, date, duration, and
title of each program in which the issue was treated. In adopting the
issues/programs list requirement for television stations, the
Commission expected the list to be ``[t]he most significant source of
issue-responsive information under the new regulatory scheme.''
Moreover, the list was intended to be a significant source of
information for any initial investigation by the public or the
Commission when renewal of the station's license was at issue. In 1998,
the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital
Television Broadcasters issued its Final Report. The Advisory Committee
Report determined that ``[e]ffective self-regulation by the broadcast
industry in the public interest requires the availability to the public
of adequate information about what a local broadcaster is doing.'' The
Committee recommended that the currently required lists of issue-
responsive programming and children's programming be augmented by
including more information about stations' public interest programs and
activities, and it put forward a sample standardized form that could be
used to that end.
4. In 2000, the Commission issued the Enhanced Disclosure Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 62683, October 19, 2000, which grew out of a
prior Notice of Inquiry, 65 FR 4211, January 26, 2000, exploring the
public interest obligations of broadcast television stations as they
transitioned to digital. The Commission tentatively proposed to require
television stations to use a standardized form to report on how they
serve the public interest. In making this proposal, the Commission
noted the difficulties that members of the public had encountered in
accessing programming information under the existing issues/programs
list requirement, given the lack of a standardized reporting mechanism.
The Commission suggested that the use of a standardized disclosure form
would facilitate access to the issues/program information and would
make broadcasters more accountable to the public. It also observed that
a standardized form would benefit the public by reducing the time
needed to locate information and by providing the public with a better
mechanism for reviewing broadcaster public interest programming and
activities.
5. In 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding requiring television broadcasters to
replace their issues/programs lists with Standardized Television
Disclosure Form 355 and to post the completed forms online. The
Commission found that uniform and consistent programming lists would
allow the public more effectively to compare the efforts of various
stations, and assess the programming aired. The Commission anticipated
that the online posting of such forms would give rise to a more active
dialogue between licensees and their audiences, which in turn would
lead to more programs that are responsive to issues important to local
communities. The Commission determined that standardized disclosure
would also provide useful information for assessing the effectiveness
of current Commission policies. The 2007 standardized disclosure form,
Form 355, required each station to submit a comprehensive list of any
programs or program segments it aired every quarter that fell into
specific categories. The categories included: National news, local
news, local civic affairs, local electoral affairs, independently
produced programming, local programming, public service announcements,
paid public service announcements, programming that meets the needs of
underserved communities, religious programming, efforts undertaken to
determine the programming needs of the community, service for persons
with disabilities, and current emergency information. The Commission
found that the benefits derived from public disclosure of such a
comprehensive list of programming outweighed the burden that the
requirement placed on broadcasters.
6. Following the release of the Report and Order, several industry
petitioners raised a number of issues regarding the standardized form,
generally contending that it was vague, overly complex, and burdensome.
Public interest advocates also filed petitions for reconsideration,
arguing that the standardized form should be designed to facilitate the
downloading and aggregation of data for researchers. They also asked
the Commission to conduct periodic audits of data accuracy to ensure
the removal of incorrect data, reassess whether the system is providing
information in a useful format, and seek ongoing input from researchers
on its staff and outside the Commission to ensure that the system is
implemented in a useful and user-friendly manner. In addition, five
parties sought court review of the Report and Order, and the cases were
consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
The DC Circuit granted a petition to hold the court proceeding in
abeyance while the Commission reviewed the petitions for
reconsideration. Challenging the 2007 rules in a third forum, several
parties opposed the information collection contained in the Report and
Order at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction
[[Page 78001]]
Act. Because the Commission determined that it would need to revise the
rules on reconsideration, it did not transmit the information
collection and form to OMB, and therefore the rules and form have never
gone into effect.
7. In June 2011, a working group including Commission staff,
scholars and consultants released ``The Information Needs of
Communities'' (INC Report), a comprehensive report on the current state
of the media landscape. The INC Report discussed both the need to
empower citizens to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities in
exchange for the use of public spectrum, and also the need to remove
unnecessary burdens on broadcasters who aim to serve their communities.
The INC Report provided several recommendations relevant to this
proceeding, including replacing the enhanced disclosure standardized
form adopted in 2007 with a streamlined, Web-based form through which
broadcasters could provide programming information based on a composite
or sample period.
8. In a separate Order on Reconsideration and FNPRM, we vacated the
form adopted in the Report and Order. We determined that we should
reexamine the determinations made in the Report and Order in light of
the arguments raised in the petitions for reconsideration and given
that the record upon which those rules were adopted does not reflect
the rapid technological advances that have occurred since the
proceeding was commenced in 2000. We now seek to address many of the
criticisms directed at the standardized form adopted in the Report and
Order.
III. Discussion
A. Standardized Form
9. In the Report and Order, the Commission sought to address the
systemic problem that the public lacked access to consistent and
uniform information about television broadcasters' programming, as
identified in the Advisory Committee Report and the record of the
proceeding. We remain dedicated to addressing this problem.
Nonetheless, the reconsideration petitions we received from
broadcasters and public interest advocates and the responses thereto
have persuaded us to reexamine the balance the Commission struck in
2007 between public access to programming information and the burden
providing such information imposes on broadcasters. Although we have
vacated the 2007 Report and Order and dismissed the petitions for
reconsideration of that order, we believe that some of the proposals
developed in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding are worth further
consideration. In addition, to the extent that the arguments made in
the petitions for reconsideration are relevant and can inform this new
NOI, we discuss them below. We also seek comment on INC Report
proposals and other proposals to ensure that the public has
standardized information about how broadcasters are serving their
communities, while also avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on
broadcasters.
10. We continue to believe that the use of a standardized
disclosure form will facilitate access to information on how licensees
are serving the public interest and will allow the public to play a
more active role in helping a station meet its obligation to provide
programming that addresses the community's needs and interests. The
issues/programs list required under the current rules, while providing
some information to the public and establishing a record of some of a
station's community-oriented programming, suffers from several
drawbacks, including a lack of uniformity and consistency in the way
broadcasters maintain the lists. This makes effective access to the
program information and assessment of a broadcaster's program
performance extremely difficult. A standardized disclosure form could
address these concerns, and in view of advances in technology and the
revisions to the form we discuss here, should not impose unwarranted
burdens of broadcasters. A standardized disclosure form will make
broadcasters more accountable to the public, and improving broadcaster
accountability to the public will minimize the need for government
involvement in monitoring how broadcasters comply with their public
interest obligations. A standardized disclosure will significantly
reduce the time needed to locate information sought by the public and
will provide the public with a better mechanism for reviewing a
broadcaster's public interest programming and activities. Placing the
new standardized form online, instead of merely on paper in the
broadcasters' offices, will make it far easier for the public to review
the information. We seek comment on these tentative findings.
11. We disagree with the reconsideration petitioners in the 2007
Enhanced Disclosure proceeding who argue that there is no need for the
Commission to adopt a standardized form. The record in the Enhanced
Disclosure docket, which is incorporated in this proceeding,
demonstrates that ``[t]he lack of uniformity and consistency of the
issues/program lists make it difficult to discern both how much and
what types of public interest programming a broadcaster provided,''
which makes any ``overall assessment or comparison between broadcasters
virtually impossible.'' Commenters in the Enhanced Disclosure
proceeding identified the benefits of a standardized form, including
enhanced access to information on the extent to which broadcasters are
meeting their public interest obligations, ease of use by the public
and broadcasters alike, and the promotion of a dialog between stations
and the public they serve. Moreover, the Report and Order noted that
the record of the Localism proceeding--especially that portion amassed
during a series of public hearings conducted across the country--
suggested that there may be a communications breakdown between
licensees and their communities concerning the breadth of their efforts
to air programming that serves their licensed communities' local needs
and interests. Written comments submitted in the Localism docket and
testimony received during several localism field hearings indicated
that many members of the public are not fully aware of the community-
responsive programming that their local stations air. The Report and
Order noted that affording the public improved access to information
about a station's programming through the use of a standardized
disclosure form would foster a better understanding of stations'
localism efforts within their communities. The Report and Order also
noted that by enhancing a dialogue with viewers as a result of improved
public access to such information, the standardized disclosure form
could assist the Commission in determining whether the licensees are
serving the public interest. Finally, the Report and Order further
noted that the standardized disclosure form would provide information
that will be useful to the Commission and the public in assessing the
effectiveness of current Commission policies governing television
broadcasting. We agree with the Commission's prior findings regarding
the benefits of a standardized form. We note that technological
advances have made it possible for the public to review data much more
easily via the Internet, but we believe the efficacy of such
disclosures is much greater when the information is offered in a
standardized format. We seek comment on these findings.
[[Page 78002]]
12. We have seen no evidence that broadcasters have attempted to
change their issues/programs reporting to become more consistent or
uniform since the Commission launched this proceeding in 2000. In fact,
the recently released INC Report discusses consistency and uniformity
problems similar to those identified in the Commission's prior
proceeding, and supports the continuing need for a standardized form.
We continue to believe that a standardized form is necessary and should
replace the current issues/programs list. We seek comment on this
tentative finding.
13. We are persuaded by petitioners in the Enhanced Disclosure
proceeding who argued that Form 355 as adopted in the Report and Order
was overly burdensome. We propose changes to that form, as discussed
below, to substantially reduce the burden it imposes on broadcasters.
These changes include adopting a sample approach to reporting and
streamlining the information that must be included in the form. We
welcome any other proposals that will lead to effective disclosure by
broadcasters of the ways in which they serve the public.
1. Reporting Period
14. Form 355 as adopted in the Report and Order required television
broadcasters to report quarterly on every relevant program or program
segment aired for each program category listed in the Form. We agree
with the reconsideration petitioners who argued that requiring
reporting on all programming in those categories would be unduly
burdensome.
15. Some petitioners asserted that the Commission could lessen the
burden on licensees while providing adequate disclosure of licensees'
public interest programming by restricting reporting to one week per
quarter. As noted, the INC Report similarly recommends that the
Commission consider requiring information drawn from only a sample or
composite week of programming on a quarterly basis, rather than
requiring a comprehensive listing of all relevant programs throughout
the year. A constructed or composite week is a sampling method in which
individual days are selected at random by the Commission to construct a
week that contains different days of the week from different weeks of
the quarter. First, a Sunday is randomly selected from all possible
Sundays in the quarter. Then, a Monday is selected in the same way, and
so on. The Commission has used a composite week reporting approach in
the past. In the 1970s, the Commission authorized the staff to act,
through delegated authority, on applications for renewal of radio and
television stations that aired specified amounts of certain
programming. Failure to satisfy the guidelines, based on a composite
broadcast week analysis, resulted in the referral of a licensee's
renewal application to the full Commission for its consideration.
16. We believe that a sample approach to reporting would provide
sufficient information to the public, without unduly burdening
broadcasters, and seek comment on this approach. How could a composite
week or weeks be structured for reportable programming? For example,
how many days of programming should be included in the reporting
requirement for each quarter? We seek comment on how to implement a
random selection. Are there are certain distortions to the average
programming day, such as sweeps week, that should be excluded?
Alternatively, would it be less burdensome for broadcasters to compile
information for one or more full weeks during the quarter? What would
be the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
17. In a recent ex parte in the Enhanced Disclosure proceeding, the
Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition (PIPAC) proposes that
broadcasters be required to submit data for two constructed or
composite weeks per quarter that are selected by the Commission. Under
PIPAC's proposal, broadcasters would be obligated to report on
programming categories aired during the randomly selected days
comprising the two constructed weeks per quarter. PIPAC attaches a
statement from a coalition of academics with expertise in media
sampling that says that a constructed week, if implemented properly,
has methodological validity for academic research and would provide a
snapshot of programming for the public. We seek comment on this
proposal. In particular, is two constructed weeks the appropriate time
period over which to collect programming information? Would one week
provide the public and research community with a sufficient sampling
period, while lessening the burdens placed on broadcasters that have to
compile this information? How should we balance the burdens on
broadcasters against the need for a methodologically valid approach
that will accurately reflect the reportable programming that
broadcasters provide to their community of license? If any period less
than two weeks is too little time to be valid or accurate, would that
undermine the purpose of the reporting requirement?
18. Notice. If we decide to take a composite approach or to select
a particular week or weeks for reporting purposes, we will need to
determine how and when to notify broadcasters which days are included,
and whether such notice should be provided before or after the selected
date. We seek comment on how and when to provide such notice. If we
adopt a composite week or weeks approach, should the Commission inform
the broadcasters that a date has been selected to be part of a
composite week on the following day? Alternatively, should the
Commission release the reporting dates at the end of the quarter, or
would this needlessly require broadcasters to retain programming
information for every day in the quarter? How long do licensees retain
tapes or other records of their programming in the ordinary course of
business? Would it be preferable to announce on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis what reporting dates were selected for those weeks?
Alternatively, if the Commission were to select a particular week or
weeks for reporting, should it be announced at the end of the quarter
or immediately after the selected week or weeks? We seek comment on
these and other implementation issues and concerns.
19. In petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order,
industry petitioners proposed that the Commission notify stations a few
days before the selected reporting dates in order to provide sufficient
notice about when broadcasters should start logging the information
needed to complete the form. In contrast, PIPAC recommends that
broadcasters not be given advance notice of the reporting dates to
prevent broadcasters from changing their programming and thereby
``gaming the system.'' PIPAC recommends that the Commission select the
relevant reporting dates at the beginning of the quarter and then
announce each reporting date the morning after the selected day. They
argue that, because most broadcasters maintain a tape of their
programming for a short time after broadcast, immediate notification of
a reporting date should offer ample notice without giving advance
warning that would taint the quality of the sample. We seek comment on
these approaches or recommended alternatives.
20. Exceptions to composite reporting. We seek comment on whether
adopting a composite approach will adequately capture performance for
all categories of reportable programming that should be included on the
standardized form, or whether there should be certain categories of
programming subject to a more comprehensive reporting
[[Page 78003]]
requirement. For example, in their recent ex parte proposing a
composite week, PIPAC argues that local electoral affairs programming
is important public interest programming and is critical to an informed
citizenry. PIPAC suggests that broadcasters be required to disclose all
local electoral affairs programming, defined as discussed below, when
the lowest unit charge rules are in effect, i.e., 45 days before a
primary election and 60 days before a general election. PIPAC argues
that the composite week mechanism, while otherwise sufficient, may not
adequately capture local electoral issue coverage, as election timing
may not coincide with the randomly selected reporting dates. We seek
comment on this proposal, including projected burdens on broadcasters.
If commenters believe this proposal to be overly burdensome, what
alternatives would adequately reflect the extent of broadcasters' local
electoral affairs programming? We seek to ensure that broadcasters are
credited with their provision of this important public interest
programming. For example, would reporting for some shorter period of
time preceding an election be sufficient? Should the Commission
consider any other exceptions to a composite week reporting schedule?
Are there other categories of programming that should be subject to an
enhanced reporting requirement?
21. Program and segment reporting. We seek comment on whether
reporting should be done on a program or program segment basis. Form
355 required reporting on all programs or program segments aired during
the quarter for each programming category listed. We seek comment on
what level of reporting is most useful, and whether the benefits of the
more granular program segment reporting outweigh the burdens it places
on broadcasters. What level of reporting granularity is necessary to
provide meaningful information to the public and the research
community? Do broadcasters currently retain their programming
information in a manner that would enable reporting on a program
segment basis, or would new programming retention techniques be
required? For example, do broadcasters retain information about the
length of each program segment within each news program, i.e. the
length of each story? How should the term ``program segment'' be
defined for purposes of the reporting requirement? PIPAC asserts that
each of the reporting categories should be reportable by program
segment. They assert that information will be more useful if it is
reported on a more granular level. They assert that this level of
specificity is necessary for local news reporting, since some stories
reported on the local news are more national in character, and would
not fit in the local news reporting category, as it does not pertain to
the local community of license. We seek comment on these assertions.
2. Reporting Categories
22. In the 2000 NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the
standardized form should require reporting on specified categories of
programming, noting that specified categories were necessary because
the current issues/programs lists permit such an assortment of
information that the public may have difficulty determining the extent
to which the station is serving the public interest. The Commission
specifically noted the categories of programs proposed by the
Presidential Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of
Digital Broadcasters, which they recommended to augment and standardize
the reporting about stations' public interest programs and activities.
The Committee proposed to include the following categories: Local and
national news programming, local and national public affairs
programming, programming that meets the needs of underserved
communities, programming that contributes to political discourse, other
local programming that is not otherwise addressed in the form, and
public service announcements. In response to the NPRM, PIPAC submitted
a proposed standardized form suggesting use of the following
categories: Local civic programming, local electoral affairs
programming, public service announcements, paid public service
announcements, independently produced programming, local programming,
underserved communities, and religious programming. Definitions were
included with each of these categories. The Commission included the
categories and definitions proposed by PIPAC in Form 355.
23. We disagree with the Enhanced Disclosure reconsideration
petitioners who argue that the standardized reporting categories impose
de facto quantitative programming requirements or pressure stations to
ensure carriage of some amount of programming that falls within
government-preferred categories. We stress that, as the Commission
noted in the Report and Order, the standardized form does not require
broadcasters to air any particular category of programming or mix of
programming types. Nor do we contemplate imposing any such
requirements. This will be merely a replacement reporting requirement,
which the Commission has authority to impose, and we believe it will
have the important benefit of arming consumers with accurate
information on which to base their viewing decisions. We seek comment
on these tentative findings.
24. Several petitions for reconsideration raised issues about the
particular reporting categories adopted in the Report and Order,
arguing that they were confusing, burdensome, and unworkable. We have
vacated Form 355 as adopted, and agree that it would be useful to take
a fresh look at the categories and definitions that should be included
on the form. We want to ensure that the form collects information that
is relevant to the public's and our analysis of stations' service to
their communities. In addition, it is essential to our goal of ensuring
the availability of uniform and consistent data that broadcasters be
able easily to categorize programming for inclusion on the form.
25. PIPAC has recently proposed a new sample form, which is
available at https://www.savethenews.org/sample-form. We are beginning
anew our attempt to create a standardized form, including which
programming categories to consider. However, in order to guide the
discussion in this proceeding, we address below the categories now
proposed by PIPAC and seek comment on their proposed form. Are there
any categories identified on the newly proposed form that are
unnecessary or could otherwise be deleted? What, if any, additional
categories should be included? We note that in response to the 2000
NPRM, the Commission received very little comment on specific
programming categories; rather, most commenters focused on the merits,
or lack thereof, of requiring a standardized form. We urge commenters
to provide specific suggestions about the newly proposed reporting
categories so that we can include those most relevant and useful for
broadcasters and the public alike.
26. We recognize that some programs or program segments could be
included in multiple categories. We propose that a program or segment
be includable in only one category. This will both ease the reporting
burdens and will ensure that any quantitative analyses accurately
reflect the amount of time devoted to public interest programming. We
seek comment on whether further clarification would be needed among the
categories discussed below, and any other proposed categories, to guide
[[Page 78004]]
broadcasters in categorizing their programming and/or whether other
reporting categories should be adopted with additional instructions.
27. Local News. We seek comment on reporting requirements for news.
PIPAC proposes that we include a local news category. In the Report and
Order, Questions 2(a), (b) and (c) of Form 355 required reporting with
respect to national news, local news produced by the station, and local
news produced by an entity other than the station; all categories were
described as including national and local programs or segments that
include significant treatment of community issues. In a petition for
reconsideration, Joint Broadcasters raised concerns that the definition
of ``news'' is vague because newscasts and other programs, such as
nationally syndicated talk shows, often include significant treatment
of community issues. PIPAC recommends streamlining the news reporting
requirement to just local news, and provides the following definition:
``Programming that is locally produced and reports on issues about, or
pertaining to, a licensee's local community of license.'' We seek
comment on this proposed category and proposed definition. Does this
definition resolve the concern expressed by Joint Broadcasters? Is it
an otherwise workable definition? What constitutes an ``issue'' in this
definition? Would a program about an issue not specific to a community
but of interest to the community be covered by this definition as long
as it was locally produced? Are there alternative definitions of local
news that we should consider?
28. Local Civic/Governmental Affairs. We seek comment on reporting
requirements for civic and governmental affairs. PIPAC proposes a local
civic/government affairs reporting category. In the Report and Order,
Question 2(d) of Form 355 required reporting with respect to local
civic affairs. PIPAC proposes retaining that category and provides the
following definition, which is largely taken from the Form 355 local
civic affairs definition: ``Broadcasts of interviews with or statements
by elected or appointed officials and relevant policy experts on issues
of importance to the community, government meetings, legislative
sessions, conferences featuring elected officials, and substantive
discussions of civic issues of interest to local communities or
groups.'' We seek comment on this proposed category and definition. Is
this definition, or any portion of it, overly vague? What types of
programming would qualify as ``substantive discussions of civic issues
of interest to local communities or groups''? Are there alternative
definitions of local civic/governmental affairs programming that we
should consider?
29. Local Electoral Affairs. We seek comment on reporting
requirements for electoral affairs. PIPAC also proposes a local
electoral affairs category. In the Report and Order, Question 2(e) of
Form 355 required reporting with respect to local electoral affairs.
PIPAC proposes retaining that category and provides the following
definition, which is largely taken from the Form 355 local electoral
affairs definition: ``Local electoral affairs programming consists of
candidate-centered discourse focusing on the local, state and United
States Congressional races for offices to be elected by a constituency
within the licensee's broadcast area. Local electoral affairs
programming includes broadcasts of candidate debates, interviews, or
statements, as well as substantive discussions of ballot measures that
will be put before the voters in a forthcoming election.'' We seek
comment on this proposed category and definition. Is this definition,
or any portion of it, overly vague? If so, how should the definition be
refined? Are there alternative definitions of local electoral affairs
programming that we should consider?
30. Closed Captioning and Video Description. We seek comment on
reporting requirements regarding services provided to the disability
community. On Form 355, as adopted in the Report and Order, Question 4
required reporting the number of hours of programming provided with
closed captioning and video description. Reconsideration petitioners
asserted that reporting on closed captioning provides little public
benefit, and that any benefit is outweighed by the record-keeping
burden imposed on broadcasters. Petitioners also argued that the
requirement contravened the Commission's prior stance that such
reporting is both unnecessarily burdensome and administratively
cumbersome. Petitioners argued that, because the Commission provided no
reason for changing its position on closed captioning reporting, the
requirement was arbitrary and capricious. They also argued that it was
inappropriate to ask about video description, since at the time the
Commission did not require that it be provided. Campaign Legal Center
et al. argued that this reporting is necessary to ensure station
compliance with the Commission's closed captioning requirements, and to
assist the disability community in finding stations that offer video
description service. Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing (``TDI'') argued that the closed captioning reporting
requirement should be maintained, stressing the importance of reporting
to the millions of Americans who rely on closed captioning and have
difficulty finding such programming. TDI also noted that the only
current enforcement mechanism for ensuring closed-captioning is based
on consumer reporting and consumer-derived complaints, and that a lack
of benchmark reporting has seriously hampered the effectiveness of the
captioning rules and compliance monitoring.
31. PIPAC now proposes streamlining these reporting requirements.
As to closed captioning, PIPAC proposes that broadcasters be required
to disclose whether the reported programming on the form is closed
captioned, and if so, the type of captioning, such as off-line, live,
or electronic ``newsroom technique,'' which commonly follows
teleprompter scripts. It also proposes that broadcasters report on all
programming that is exempt from closed captioning, providing the date,
time and length of the program (excluding commercials), and the reason
for the exemption. We note that Commission regulations require all
programming--with few exceptions--to be closed captioned as of January
1, 2010, and therefore expect the latter reporting requirement would
presumably not be unduly burdensome. We seek comment on these
proposals.
32. PIPAC also recommends implementing reporting requirements
regarding video description, once the new rules mandated by the
Communications and Video Accessibility Act go into effect. We note that
the Commission recently adopted such rules, requiring the provision of
50 hours per calendar quarter of video-described prime time and/or
children's programming by full-power affiliates of the top four
national networks located in the top 25 television markets, beginning
July 2012. We seek comment on whether and to what extent broadcasters
should be required to report on their video description offerings and,
if so, how such a reporting requirement should be framed and
implemented, given the limited nature of this programming requirement
and the need for viewers to have access to information about which
programs are video described. Should broadcasters be required to report
all of their video description offerings?
33. Emergency Accessibility Complaints. We seek comment on
reporting requirements regarding emergency accessibility. Question 5 of
[[Page 78005]]
Form 355, as adopted in the Report and Order, required reporting with
respect to all emergency information and whether that information was
available to persons with disabilities. PIPAC now proposes that
broadcasters report only the number of complaints that a station
receives alleging that its emergency programming was not accessible to
people with disabilities. PIPAC claims that such reporting will be less
burdensome than the requirements in Form 355 but will assist the public
and the Commission in determining the extent to which broadcasters are
transmitting emergency information in a way that can be understood by
people with disabilities, as required. We recognize that the fact that
a consumer has complained to a station does not necessarily mean that a
licensee has violated a rule, but, as noted by PIPAC, a large number of
reported complaints may indicate a compliance issue. We seek comment on
this proposal, as well as other alternatives.
3. NCE Exemption
34. The reporting requirements adopted in the Report and Order
applied to both commercial and non-commercial broadcasters. In a
petition for reconsideration, the Association of Public Television
Stations and the Public Broadcasting Service were joined by
noncommercial educational (NCE) licensees (collectively NCEs) in
arguing that they should be exempted from the standardized disclosure
requirement, so they would not need to divert scarce resources from
their core public service activities. They argued that Form 355 failed
to differentiate between the programming and practices of commercial
and noncommercial television stations. NCEs asserted that the
Commission has previously recognized the special status of these
stations' noncommercial programming and exempted them from meeting
certain requirements, such as the quarterly children's program
reporting requirement. Public television licensees argued that
exempting NCEs from reporting requirements is appropriate given their
``long history of providing vast amounts of programming that is
responsive to issues of importance to their local communities.''
35. We appreciate that NCE licensees have limited resources and
that their mix of programming may in some instances be more heavily
weighted toward the categories of interest in this proceeding than is
the programming on some commercial stations. But the goals underlying
this proceeding--facilitating access to information on how licensees
are serving the public interest and local communities, making
broadcasters more accountable to the public, and providing the public
with a better mechanism for reviewing a broadcaster's public interest
programming and activities--apply equally to commercial and non-
commercial licensees. In order to standardize the review of television
broadcast public interest programming and activities, we believe it is
important to include all television broadcasters. We believe that much
of the concern expressed by the NCE community will be allayed by our
proposals only to require reporting on a sample basis, and to otherwise
streamline the form. We seek comment on whether these measures are
sufficient, or whether there are other ways to address NCE licensees'
concerns.
4. Other Reporting Issues
36. General information. We also seek comment on the general
information stations should be required to supply on the form. For
instance, PIPAC proposes to streamline the Form 355 to require the
following information: Call sign, channel number, facility ID,
community of license, city, state, zip code, legal name of licensee,
link to online public file, network affiliation, Nielsen DMA,
commercial/NCE status, contact name and phone, and links to the most
recent ownership reports and quarterly children's programming reports.
We seek comment on this proposal and on whether it is over or under
inclusive. In addition, if the Commission determines in the Enhanced
Disclosure proceeding to host the online public file, will it be
unnecessary to include links to the most recent ownership and
children's television reports, since that information will be centrally
available in the same location as the standardized form? Should we also
require that stations provide their main studio address on the form? Is
there any other general station information that should be included or
excluded on the form?
37. Required information for each program and/or segment reported.
We seek comment on the level of detail that should be required for each
program or program segment that is reported. For each entry, PIPAC
asserts that broadcasters should disclose: Programming/segment title or
topic; date/time aired; whether it aired on a primary or multicast
channel; whether the material is first-run programming or previously
aired on this or another station; the approximate length of the segment
excluding interstitial commercials; whether the material reported, or
any portion of it, is subject to the disclosure requirements of the
Commission's sponsorship identification rules, and if so, the
sponsoring entity; and whether the material reported, or any portion of
it, is the product of a local marketing agreement, local news service,
or shared service agreement, or any other contractual arrangement or
agreement between the licensee and another broadcast station or daily
newspaper located within the licensee's designated market area, and if
so the relevant agreement in the licensee's online public file. We seek
comment on these proposed reporting elements, including proposed
definitions for the agreements and contractual arrangements that are
requested for identification. We seek comment in particular on the
benefits of providing any specific piece of information per segment, as
weighed against the burdens imposed on broadcasters by the requirement.
Are any of these requirements overly broad? If so, can they be further
defined or described to narrow the scope of the information required?
Should any additional information be required, for example, a brief
description of the program or programming segment and the issue it
addresses?
38. Additional reporting. In addition to reporting on the
categories discussed above, should broadcasters also have the option of
disclosing other types of programming they provide to serve the needs
and interests of their communities, if they wish to do so? Would an
optional reporting opportunity provide useful information to the public
and the Commission? Would an opportunity to include such information
allow broadcasters to showcase their programming, or would the option
merely increase the reporting burden? If an optional reporting
requirement were adopted, would broadcasters find a drop-down menu with
optional categories to be a useful reporting format?
39. PIPAC asserts that an optional reporting opportunity would
allow broadcasters to showcase community reporting that does not fall
into the specified categories. They assert that any voluntary
information should be prominently labeled and that the reporting form
should include a disclaimer proclaiming that the absence of voluntary
information does not mean that a broadcaster is not providing such
services. They recommend the following optional categories: National
news, international news, public service announcements (both paid and
unpaid), religious programming, emergency programming, and any other
category of programming that a broadcaster believes serves their public
interest obligation. We seek comment on this proposal and
[[Page 78006]]
any others. Are the optional categories useful, or should the list be
supplemented or reduced? We also seek comment on definitions of the
optional categories listed above as well as any others proposed by
commenters.
40. Comments category. We seek comment on whether we should include
a ``comments'' category, which would allow a licensee to highlight
information that it believes is important, but is not included in the
reporting categories. A ``comments'' category could provide licensees
with space to discuss any mitigating factors or other information
relevant to the information provided in the form. For example, a
station that was off the air due to severe weather or technical issues
on a day selected for reporting may wish to note that on its form. This
category could also provide licensees with space to discuss any
additional efforts they have made to serve their communities. We seek
comment on this proposal. Would a comments category preclude the need
for the type of optional reporting categories discussed above?
5. Data Format
41. The INC Report suggests that ensuring that as much data as
possible is in a standardized, machine-readable format could enhance
the usefulness and accessibility of such data. It recommends that
``online disclosure should be done according to the principles
advocated by experts on transparency: In standardized, machine readable
and structured formats.'' The INC Report generally notes that
information collected by the government should be in formats ``that
make it easy for programmers to create new applications that can
present the data in more useful formats, or combine one agency's
information with another,'' and that ``data releases should include an
Application Programming Interface (API) that allows the data to be
shared easily with other computers and applications.'' PIPAC supports
the INC Report suggestions, asserting that ``an online reporting
mechanism that is part of a searchable, integrated database would not
only reduce the burden of submitting this information, it would also
provide communities and researchers with better access to it.'' PIPAC
notes that such a database would allow the public and researchers to
download the data in raw form in its entirety to compare stations'
performances or perform other analyses. It also asserts that such a
database should be connected electronically with the ownership data the
Commission already collects, thus reducing further the broadcaster
filing burden.
42. We agree that the new standardized disclosure form should be
submitted as machine-processable in a standardized, machine-readable
format that will be searchable so that the material can be easily
analyzed. Such a format would help us accomplish the accessibility and
accountability goals for which the form will be created. As recommended
in the National Broadband Plan, we believe that as a government agency
we should make information available in a machine-readable or otherwise
accessible format where possible. We seek recommendations on how to
implement this goal.
B. Radio
43. Given the Enhanced Disclosure NOI's genesis in the DTV
transition, the Report and Order was limited to reporting by television
stations. The Commission later sought comment on implementing a
standardized form requirement for analog and digital radio stations in
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Digital Audio
Broadcasting proceeding. We believe that we should eventually require
radio licensees to replace their issues/programs lists with a
standardized form as well. We also believe, however, that there may be
benefits to requiring television licensees to implement enhanced
disclosure requirements first. Television stations have been
significantly more involved in considering these issues, from the
Enhanced Disclosure NOI in 1999 through the 2007 Report and Order.
Further, it may ease the initial implementation of a standardized form
if we begin the process with the much smaller number of television
licensees. Finally, we foresee that there may be some radio-specific
concerns that we will need to address prior to adopting disclosure
requirements for radio stations.
IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis
44. In proposing rules to ensure that the public has adequate
access to information about how broadcasters are serving their
communities, we intend to look at the many factors involved in an
effective disclosure form in order to ensure that the form serves its
intended purpose without posing an undue burden on industry. There are
two key criteria for the success of such an approach.
45. First, acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying
benefits and burdens, we need to determine whether a disclosure form
will significantly benefit the public and, in fact, clarify important
issues for them. Second, we seek to maximize the benefits to the public
while limiting as much as possible the burden of compliance on
broadcasters. These costs and benefits can have many dimensions, some
which may not be easy to quantify, including cost implications for
industry, public interest benefits to viewers, and other less tangible
benefits.
46. To address the first criterion, we seek comment on the best
ways to ensure that the form discussed in this NOI will actually
benefit the public. We seek comment on the extent to which the
Commission and members of the public may be expected to utilize the
additional information compiled in the form. Further, we seek comment
on any considerations regarding the form that would increase the number
of people who will benefit from such rules, and the nature of these
benefits. In particular, we seek comment on the best ways to ensure
that information is more readily accessible to the public. We seek
information on whether, and to what extent, the accessibility of a
standardized form is greater than an online issues/programs list. While
we believe that a standardized form will increase the accessibility of
information about how television stations serve their communities, we
seek further suggestions for increasing accessibility.
47. To address the second criterion, we seek comment on the nature
and magnitude of the costs and benefits of the new proposals on
broadcasters. We recognize that these may vary by broadcaster, and seek
comment on possible differential impacts, including size and type of
broadcaster. We seek specific information about whether, how, and by
how much broadcasters may be impacted differently in terms of the costs
and benefits of our proposed rules. In response to the Report and Order
several reconsideration petitioners argued that compliance would be
overly burdensome and costly. To what extent will the new proposal to
streamline the form and seek sample data impose less or more of a cost
than the cost projections related to Form 355? Will the elimination of
the issues/programs list and replacement with a streamlined disclosure
online system reduce or increase burdens on broadcasters? Are there
ways to further decrease costs of a standardized reporting form?
48. To the extent possible, we request comment that will enable us
to weigh the costs and benefits associated with these proposed
disclosure rules. We request that commenters provide specific data and
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each
specific cost or benefit addressed,
[[Page 78007]]
including a description of how the data or information was calculated
or obtained and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary
support. We understand that it may be difficult to place a dollar
figure on the benefits of a standardized form, but seek input on the
benefits of such a form. We also seek information regarding the burden
of compiling the issues/programs list and to what extent the
standardized form would either reduce or increase the burden on
broadcasters. All comments will be considered and given appropriate
weight. Vague or unsupported assertions regarding costs or benefits
generally can be expected to receive less weight and be less persuasive
than more specific and supported statements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31972 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P