19226 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(4) Prevention program data set forth

in § 68.170(b), (d), (e)(1), (f) through (k);

(5) Prevention program data set forth

in § 68.175(b), (d), (e)(1), (f) through (p);

(6) Emergency response program data

set forth in § 68.180.

(c) Notwithstanding the procedures

specified in 40 CFR part 2, to assert a

claim that one or more data elements are

entitled to protection as confidential

business information, the owner or

operator shall submit to EPA the

following:

(1) An unsanitized (unredacted) paper

copy of the RMP that clearly identifies

each data element that is being claimed

as confidential business information;

(2) A sanitized (redacted) copy of the

RMP that shall be identical to the

unsanitized copy of the RMP except that

the submitter shall replace each data

element, except chemical identity,

claimed as confidential business

information with the notation ‘‘CBI’’ or

a blank field. For chemical identities

claimed as CBI, the submitter shall

substitute a generic category or class

name; and

(3) At the time of submission of the

RMP, a sanitized and unsanitized

document substantiating each claim of

confidential business information.

8. Section 68.152 is proposed to be

added to read as follows:

§ 68.152 Substantiating claims of

confidential business information.

(a) Claims of confidential business

information must be substantiated by

providing documentation that

demonstrates that the information meets

the substantive criteria set forth in 40

CFR 2.301.

(b) The submitter may claim as

confidential information submitted as

part of the substantiation. To claim

materials as confidential, the submitter

shall clearly designate those portions of

the substantiation to be claimed as

confidential by marking them as

confidential business information.

Information not so marked will be

treated as public and may be disclosed

without notice to the submitter.

(c) The owner, operator, or senior

official with management responsibility

shall sign a certification that the signer

has personally examined the

information submitted and that based

on inquiry of the persons who compiled

the information, the information is true,

accurate, and complete, and that those

portions of substantiation claimed as

confidential business information

would, if disclosed, reveal trade secrets

or other confidential business

information.

9. Section 68.160 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(7), and (b)(12) to read as follows:

§ 68.160 Registration.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Stationary source name, street,

city, county, state, zip code, latitude and

longitude, method for obtaining latitude

and longitude, and description of

location that latitude and longitude

represent;

* * * * *

(7) For each covered process, the

name and CAS number of each

regulated substance held above the

threshold quantity in the process, the

maximum quantity of each regulated

substance or mixture in the process (in

pounds) to two significant digits, the

NAICS code of the process, and the

Program level of the process;

* * * * *

(12) If the stationary source has a CAA

Title V operating permit, the permit

number; and

* * * * *

10. Section 68.165 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 68.165 Offsite consequence analysis.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall

submit the following data:

(1) Chemical name;

(2) Percentage weight of the chemical

in a mixture (toxics only);

(3) Physical state (toxics only);

(4) Basis of results (give model name);

(5) Scenario (explosion, fire, toxic gas

release, or liquid spill and evaporation);

(6) Quantity released in pounds;

(7) Release rate;

(8) Release duration;

(9) Wind speed and atmospheric

stability class (toxics only);

(10) Topography (toxics only);

(11) Distance to endpoint;

(12) Public and environmental

receptors within the distance;

(13) Passive mitigation considered;

and

(14) Active mitigation considered.

11. Section 68.170 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.

(a) For each part of a Program 2

process for which a separate hazard

review was conducted, the owner or

operator shall provide in the RMP the

information indicated in paragraphs (b)

through (k) of this section.

(b) The NAICS code for the part of the

process.

* * * * *

12. Section 68.175 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) to read as follows:

§ 68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.

(a) For each part of a Program 3

process for which a separate process

hazard analysis was conducted, the

owner or operator shall provide in the

RMP the information indicated in

paragraphs (b) through (p) of this

section.

(b) The NAICS code for the part of the

process.

* * * * *

13. Section 68.180 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 68.180 Emergency response program.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall

provide the name and telephone

number of the local agency with which

emergency response activities or the

emergency response plan is

coordinated.

* * * * *

14. Section 68.210 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 68.210 Availability of information to the

public.

(a) The RMP required under subpart

G of this part shall be available to the

public except as provided in §§ 68.150

through 68.152 and 40 CFR part 2.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–10145 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98–43; FCC 98–57]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Streamlining of Mass Media

Applications, Rules, and Processes

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to

streamline broadcast application and

licensing procedures and reduce

licensee administrative and filing

requirements. The Commission also

proposes to eliminate rules and

procedures that no longer advance key

objectives. In addition, the Commission

seeks comment on whether to mandate

electronic filing for certain broadcast

application and reporting forms. By

these proposals, the Commission seeks
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19227

1The Mass Media Bureau is developing electronic

versions of the following 15 forms: FCC Forms 301,

302–AM, 302–FM, 302–TV, 307, 314, 315, 316, 340,

345, 346, 347, 349, 350, and 5072. We also propose

to require the electronic filing of Form 398, which

already is available in electronic form.

to preserve the public’s ability to

participate fully in the FCC broadcast

licensing process, reduce unwarranted

applicant and licensee burdens, and

realize benefits of the Mass Media

Bureau’s electronic filing initiative. This

NPRM contains proposed or modified

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed or modified information

collections contained in this

proceeding.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 16, 1998. Reply comments

are due July 16, 1998. To file formally

in this proceeding, interested parties

must file an original plus six copies of

all comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. If parties filing

comments want each Commissioner to

receive a personal copy of the

comments, the parties must file an

original plus eleven copies. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before June 16, 1998.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified

information collections on or before

June 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20554, or via Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725–

17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20503 or via the Internet to

fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services Division,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2780;

James J. Brown, Video Services

Division, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418–

1600; or Mania K. Baghdadi, Policy and

Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau

(202) 418–2130. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this NPRM

contact Judy Boley at (202) 418–0214, or

via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket

No. 98–43 and FCC No. 98–57, adopted

April 2, 1998 and released April 3,

1998. The complete text of this Notice

of Proposed Rule Making is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20554 and may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857–3800 (phone), (202)

857–3805 (facsimile), 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. These proposals are designed to

reduce filing burdens and increase the

efficiency of the Mass Media Bureau

application processing. They recognize

that this approach is feasible only if the

Commission retains the capacity to

verify compliance with our rules and

the accuracy of application information

through audits and inquiries. Therefore,

these proposals include the

establishment of a formal system of

random audits along with the

Commission’s commitment to sanction

applicants that do not meet their

obligations of full disclosure and

complete candor. We have tentatively

identified certain policies that either

consume significant staff resources or

create burdens that may no longer be

warranted. Accordingly, we propose to

eliminate: payment restrictions on the

sale of unbuilt stations, the requirement

to submit contracts with assignment and

transfer applications, and several rules

that add unwarranted filing burdens on

commercial new station and facility

change applicants. We consider relaxing

and conforming ownership report filing

requirements for commercial and

noncommercial stations. This

proceeding also proposes fundamental

changes in our construction permit

extension procedures. These changes

would reduce the need for repetitive

extension filings. The Commission seeks

comments on procedures we can adopt,

consistent with statutory restrictions, to

expedite the processing of pro forma

assignment and transfer applications.

Finally, we invite comment on other

measures which may advance our

streamlining goals.

II. Issue Analysis

A. Electronic Filing of Applications

2. The Mass Media Bureau is

currently working on facilitating

electronic filing for 15 key broadcasting

application and reporting forms.1 The

Commission invites comment on

whether electronic filing of these

applications should be mandatory or

permissive, and, if mandatory, whether

this requirement should be phased in. If

electronically filed applications are

made available on the Internet,

interested parties could examine them

at home, at the office, or perhaps at the

public library. The Commission invites

comment on these tentative views.

Additionally, the Commission seeks

comment on whether FCC Form 398, the

Children’s Programming Report, be filed

electronically. The Commission seeks

comment on these proposals, as well as

on any legal, technical, or other issues

raised by mandatory electronic filing.

3. The Commission seeks comment on

whether it should create exemptions to

mandatory filing for small businesses or

other qualifying entities, and what the

criteria or waiver standards should be.

In addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether there should be a

transition period for mandatory filing

and if so, should this period be based on

whether the filer is a small entity?

Should the phase-in be done on a form

by form basis, and what phase in dates

should be used? The Commission also

seeks comment on whether voluntary

electronic filing could or should be

encouraged during the transition period.

To spur electronic filing, the

Commission requests comments on

possible measures such as higher filing

fees for paper filers. However, the

Commission notes its lack of statutory

authority to structure filing fees based

on whether a filing is submitted in

paper or electronic form. If Mass Media

Bureau electronic filing is phased in,

should parties also be required to

submit traditional paper copies of any

electronic filings during the transition?

Would such a requirement be consistent

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, increase administrative burdens,

processing, or discourage electronic

filing?

4. Pursuant to the Debt Collection

Improvement Act (‘‘DCIA’’), Omnibus

Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law

104–34, Chapter 10, 110 Stat 1321,

1321–1358 (1996), the Commission is

required to monitor and provide

information about its regulatees to the

U.S. Treasury. The statute includes a

requirement that the Commission

collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers
19228 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2Therefore, for the purposes of this NPRM, the

term ‘‘Taxpayer Identification Number’’ shall mean

‘‘Social Security Number’’ for individuals. 3See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).

4 47 CFR 73.3597(c).

5 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(1).

6 47 CFR 73.3597(d)(2).

7See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the

Communications Act—Competitive Bidding for

Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television

Fixed Service Licenses, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 62 FR 65392 (December 12, 1997)

(‘‘Auction NPRM’’).

8See e.g., 47 CFR 24.839.

(TIN), and share them with the U.S.

Treasury. Individuals use their Social

Security Number as their TIN.2

Employers use their Employer

Identification Number (‘‘EIN’’) as their

TIN.

5. The Commission invites comment

on using TINs in a manner analogous to

their proposed use in the Wireless

Bureau’s Universal Licensing System.

We seek comment on whether requiring

the use of TINs would satisfy the

requirements of the DCIA, and whether

it would provide a unique identifier for

parties filing broadcast applications that

would ensure that the system functions

properly. The Commission would take

steps to prevent misuse of TINs.

Alternatively, we seek comment on

using the Bureau’s unique database

generated identifiers that would be

assigned to filers based on the date of

filing and a three-character

alphanumeric sequence. Finally, a

Privacy Act submission would be

published in the Federal Register to

obtain the requisite public and

congressional comment and Office of

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’)

approval prior to implementation of the

electronic filing system.

B. Streamlining Application Processing

6. The current versions of most Mass

Media Bureau forms rely to a significant

extent on open-ended narrative exhibits

and document submissions.

Accordingly, the Commission believes it

is necessary to undertake a thorough

review of its broadcast forms and to

reconsider both the information that is

collected and the form in which it is

submitted. Thus, the Commission

considers changes to the license and

permit assignment and transfer forms—

Forms 314, 315 and 316; the new

commercial station/technical

modification form—Form 301; the

construction permit extension form—

Form 307; and the annual ownership

report for commercial stations—Form

323. For Forms 314, 315, 316, and 301,

the Commission has recasted as many

questions as possible into an electronic

‘‘filing friendly’’ format, replacing

required exhibits with certifications and

‘‘yes/no’’ questions. We tentatively

conclude that the broadcast application

forms should restrict the use of exhibits

to waiver requests or where additional

information is necessary to support

application elements potentially

inconsistent with precedent or

processing standards. At the same time

the Commission proposes to reduce the

amount of information applicants are

now required to file. For Forms 307 and

323, we propose to restructure filing

requirements altogether.

7. As part of this process the

Commission is making revisions to the

instructions to the Mass Media Bureau

application forms and adding

worksheets, where applicable, to help

clarify Commission processing

standards and rule interpretations. The

Commission’s goal is to provide

applicants with sufficient guidance to

intelligently certify compliance with our

rules and policies. The expanded

application form instructions are

viewed as crucial to this process and

therefore, the Commission proposes to

require each applicant to certify that it

has read the instructions and disclosed

fully in exhibits all matters about which

there is any question regarding full

compliance with the standards and

criteria set forth in the instructions. The

Commission invites comment on this

proposal, and on whether it should

require licensees to retain worksheets to

assist the Commission in its compliance

efforts, or alternatively, whether

licensees should be required to place

worksheets in their public inspection

files. We also propose to narrow or

eliminate application questions of

marginal importance and believe these

changes will not undermine the

Commission’s ability to make informed

public interest determinations.

8. The Commission also proposes to

eliminate or relax a number of technical

and non-technical rules and filing

requirements. If adopted, these changes

would both reduce applicant filing

burdens and streamline our processing

of sales, new station, and facility

modification applications.

Assignment and Transfer Applications:

Forms 314 and 315

9. The Commission proposes

substantial revisions to the sales

application forms (FCC Forms 314 and

315), including eliminating the rule that

restricts payments upon assignment or

transfer of unbuilt stations, and the

requirement that applicants file sales

agreements as part of the assignment or

transfer application. In addition, the

Commission proposes other changes

that are not subject to the rulemaking

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act 3 and therefore may be

implemented without notice and

comment. Nonetheless, the Commission

discusses these changes here.

Rule Changes

10. Payment Restrictions on the Sale

of Unbuilt Stations. Section 73.3597(c)

of the Commission’s rules restricts

payments upon assignment or transfer

of an unbuilt station to reimbursement

of a seller’s expenses (‘‘no profit’’ rule).4

In addition, § 73.3597(d) provides that

where the seller retains an interest in an

unbuilt station, the Commission must

consider whether the transaction

involves actual or potential gain to the

seller over and above reimbursement of

expenses.5 In such cases, Commission

rules provide that the assignment or

transfer application must be designated

for hearing unless the transferor or

assignor has obligated itself to provide

the station with a capital contribution

proportionate to the transferor’s or

assignor’s equity share in the station for

the one-year period commencing with

program tests.6

11. The Commission proposes to

eliminate the ‘‘no profit’’ rule. We

believe that there is no statutory

proscription against the for-profit sale of

construction permits for unbuilt

broadcast stations. With the initiation of

competitive bidding for broadcast

spectrum in situations where mutually

exclusive applications are filed, the

winning bidder’s payment of fair market

value for a construction permit

combined with a restricted construction

permit extension policy proposed infra

will promote the prompt construction of

broadcast facilities.7 Thus, we

tentatively conclude that we should

follow the same construction permit

sale policy which is followed in other

services subject to auction procedures.8

Recognizing that auctions may not be

used to award construction permits in

every context, for example, noncommercial station construction permits

or where there are no competing

commercial stations, the Commission

seeks comment on whether the fact that

a construction permit may not be issued

through auction should cause us to

retain the ‘‘no profit’’ rule in such

situations. Commenters are invited to

discuss the benefits and drawbacks of

applying the ‘‘no profit’’ rule in cases

where no auction takes place.

12. The Commission tentatively

concludes that reimbursement

restrictions should also be eliminated
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19229

9See 47 CFR 1.17.

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

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

12See 47 CFR 73.316(c).

for outstanding construction permits.

We tentatively conclude that we also

should permit the for-profit sale of these

construction permits, which to a certain

extent have already been subject to

private competitive forces. We seek

comment on these tentative

conclusions.

13. If the current ‘‘no profit’’ rule were

retained, the Commission proposes

allowing permittees to certify

compliance with the rule by answering

a series of ‘‘yes/no’’ questions. The

Commission would continue to have the

authority to request an itemized

accounting of expenses on a case-bycase basis where disclosures in an

application raise issues or concerns.9

The Commission seeks comment on the

appropriateness of allowing permittees

to certify compliance, and particularly

on our proposal to allow a seller to

certify that it will not be reimbursed for

more than its out-of-pocket expenses.

The Commission also seeks comment on

whether it would be sufficient to require

sellers to place copies of all expense

documentation in a station’s public file

if the no-profit rule is retained.

Requirement To Submit Contracts With

Assignment and Transfer Applications

14. The current sales forms, FCC

Forms 314, 315 and 316, require that the

seller submit a copy of the contract and/

or agreement for the assignment or

transfer of the station, or if the

agreement has not been reduced to

writing, a written description of the

complete oral agreement. In addition,

§ 73.3613(b) of the Commission’s rules

requires that licensees and permittees

file with the Commission any

documents relating to the present or

future ownership or control of the

licensee or permittee within thirty days

of execution. The Commission proposes

to eliminate the requirement that such

contracts and/or agreements be filed as

part of assignment or transfer

applications as well as the portion of

§ 73.3613(b) that requires that such

agreements be filed with the

Commission within thirty days of

execution. In lieu of this requirement,

the Commission proposes to require

applicants to carefully and thoroughly

review their sales and organizational

documents against the detailed

standards set forth in the instructions to

Forms 314 and 315. We also propose to

expand application instructions to cover

both the sales and loan agreements and

also issues relating to non-party investor

influence over the assignee or

transferee. Applicants would be

required to disclose fully any sales,

financing or investor information where

the transaction or the assignee entity

does not conform fully to the standards

set forth in the instructions. However,

copies of agreements may be requested

on a case-by-case basis where

disclosures made in an application raise

issues or concerns. The Commission

seeks comment on whether the

proposed application procedures and

certifications would suffice instead of

the requirement that applicants file the

sales agreements with their

applications. In particular, the

Commission requests comment on

whether the proposed instruction

materials and related certifications

would suffice instead of individualized

review of agreements and contracts

where complex transactions are

involved. Finally, comment is sought on

whether these procedures are sufficient

to discharge our obligation under

§ 310(d) of the Act to grant only those

applications that serve the public

interest, convenience and necessity.

15. If the Commission eliminates the

requirement that applicants file sales

agreements with their applications and

the rule requiring that such agreements

be filed with the Commission within

thirty days of execution, it proposes to

require that applicants place all such

agreements in the station’s public

inspection file and to modify our public

inspection file rule accordingly. The

Commission seeks comment on the

impact of ending the practice of having

sales agreements available for

inspection in the Commission’s

Washington, D.C. public reference room.

Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap

Maps

16. With regard to radio applicants,

the Commission proposes to reduce

administrative burdens on broadcasters

and at the same time streamline the staff

review process by eliminating the

requirement that applicants submit

contour overlap maps to demonstrate

compliance with our local radio

ownership rules. The Commission

proposes reliance on applicant

certifications in place of contour maps.

An applicant would be in a position to

make this local radio ownership

certification only after completing a

worksheet. To the extent a proposed

transaction would involve more than

one ‘‘market,’’ as that term is defined in

§ 73.3555(a)(4)(ii), applicants would be

required to complete the worksheet with

regard to each such market. The

Commission seeks comment on this

proposal, and whether our elimination

of the requirement that applicants

submit contour overlap maps will

detrimentally affect the public’s ability

to access the information necessary to

monitor station sales and thereby

undermine the opportunity for

meaningful public participation under

§ 309(d) of the Act.10 The Commission

seeks comment on whether applicants

should be required to place a copy of

the contour overlap map in the station’s

public inspection file. The Commission

also seeks comment on whether

applicants should be exempt from the

public file requirement in those

situations in which compliance is

obvious, e.g., where a certification is

premised on the fact there are forty-five

or more stations in a major market. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

applicants should be required to prepare

a map solely for placement in the

station’s public inspection file in such

circumstances.

Other Revisions

17. Certain proposed revisions to the

sales forms (FCC Forms 314 and 315) do

not require changes in our rules. These

changes are intended to maximize the

advantages of electronic filing and

processing and eliminate burdensome

disclosure requirements. These

proposed form changes are not subject

to the Administrative Procedure Act’s

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements.11 Nevertheless, interested

parties are urged to review the draft

forms carefully so that meaningful

comments may be submitted regarding

the proposed revisions in the forms.

New Commercial Station and Facility

Change Applications: Form 301 Rule

Revisions

18. Section 73.316(c). The

Commission proposes to modify

§ 73.316(c) to shift the filing

requirements now codified in

subsections (1)–(2) and (4)–(7) from the

construction permit phase to the license

phase of the FM authorization process.12

19. Section 73.1030(a). The

Commission seeks comment on its

proposal to modify § 73.1030(a) by

eliminating the requirement that

applicants indicate in their applications

the date of radio astronomy observatory

notification.

20. Section 73.1675(a). The

Commission seeks comment on its

proposal to modify this rule to eliminate

the map requirement for auxiliary

facilities for the FM and TV broadcast

services. Although the Commission

believes that the rationale for

eliminating the § 73.1675(a) map

requirement is equally applicable to the
19230 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

13See Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26996 (May

16, 1997) on reconsideration, 63 FR 15774 (April 1,

1998). See also Sixth Report and Order 62 FR 26684

(May 14, 1997), on reconsideration, 63 FR 13546

(March 20, 1998).

14 Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order, 63

FR 15774 (April 1, 1998).

15 Id. para. 11.

FM and TV broadcast services, it

proposes to retain the map requirement

for AM auxiliary facility permit

applications.

The Commission believes that

adoption of these changes would not

jeopardize the technical integrity of the

broadcast services or the consistent

enforcement of our core rules and

policies. The Commission seeks

comments on these modifications, and

request additional suggestions to

eliminate or streamline reporting and

filing requirements which relate to Form

301 filings.

Form Revisions

21. The Commission also proposes to

reorganize and streamline FCC Form

301. It proposes to conform Forms 301,

314 and 315 non-technical questions

where regulatory concerns are identical.

In addition, the Commission proposes to

reorganize the FM technical data section

of the application, section V–B. The

revised section V–B would require

applicants to certify compliance with

our technical rules for routine and nonwaiver issues. The technical data

required for engineering review would

be organized in such a manner as to

facilitate electronic entry and processing

of data.

C. Enforcement

22. The Commission’s proposals

would significantly streamline the

amount of information that applicants

must furnish to the Commission.

Consequently, the Commission would

rely more heavily on certifications by

applicants that they comply with the

applicable rules. These proposals do not

signify any lessening of the

Commission’s expectation that licensees

conduct themselves as public trustees.

Current enforcement measures applied

by the Commission range from

admonitions to forfeitures to conducting

hearings to determine whether to revoke

or deny renewal of a broadcaster’s

license. The Commission invites

comment as to whether our existing

enforcement measures and policies

remain sufficient.

23. If the proposed revisions to the

Commission’s application forms and

processing procedures are adopted, the

Commission intends to have a formal

program of random audits to ensure that

licensees continue to comply with our

rules and we intend to rely heavily on

such audits. The Commission invites

comments to how it should implement

such audits and whether such audits are

sufficient means of ensuring continued

licensee compliance with our rules and

policies. If not, the Commission invites

comment as to what additional

measures, if any, it should adopt.

D. Modifying Construction Permit

Extension Procedures

24. For new or modified facilities, the

Commission issues a construction

permit for either 24 months (for full

power TV) or 18 months (for AM, FM,

International Broadcast, low power TV,

TV translator, TV booster, FM translator,

FM booster, broadcast auxiliary, or

Instructional TV Fixed station

(‘‘ITFS’’)). Within the specified time

frame, a permittee must complete

construction and file an application for

a license to cover. Additional time may

be granted only if the licensee or

permittee can demonstrate one of the

following three conditions, the so-called

‘‘one-in-three’’ showing: (1)

construction is complete and testing is

underway looking toward the prompt

filing of a license application; (2)

substantial progress has been made; or

(3) no progress has been made for

reasons clearly beyond the control of the

permittee but the permittee has taken all

possible steps to expeditiously resolve

the problem and proceed with

construction.

25. While many permittees are now

able to complete construction within the

initial construction period afforded

under the current rules, a significant

number of permittees do not succeed in

constructing their proposed facilities

prior to permit expiration. As a result,

the staff receives large numbers of

extension applications, creating a

tremendous burden on staff resources.

Therefore, the Commission proposes to:

(1) issue all construction permits for a

uniform three-year term; (2) extend

permits only in circumstances where

the permit itself is the subject of

administrative or judicial appeal or

where construction delays have been

caused by an ‘‘act of God;’’ (3) eliminate

the current practice of providing extra

time for construction after a permit has

been the subject of a modification or an

assignment or transfer of control; and (4)

make construction permits subject to

automatic forfeiture upon expiration.

Additionally, the Commission proposes

to apply these rules to any construction

permit that is within its initial

construction period at the time these

rules are adopted.

26. The Commission invites comment

on the need for, and relative merits of,

a uniform period and seeks comment as

to whether a three year term is

appropriate. The Commission solicits

comments on typical construction time

lines and problems, particularly where

commenters support alternative permit

time frames. It also seeks comment as to

whether the proposed longer

construction period would remove an

incentive for prompt construction by

permittees who are capable of

completing construction much earlier

than the proposed three-year deadline.

Commenters are specifically asked to

comment on the extent to which

construction permit applicants are

unprepared and unwilling to proceed

promptly with construction when they

apply, but rather are applying to

warehouse spectrum. The Commission

also seeks comment on whether we

should impose a shorter construction

period, e.g., one year, for construction

permits for minor modifications to

licensed facilities. The Commission

does not propose to apply the three-year

construction period to the digital

television (‘‘DTV’’) facilities constructed

by initial DTV licensees, which are on

their own construction schedule.13

However, in its Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration of the

Fifth Report and Order the Commission

established special construction rules

for new NTSC permittees whose

applications remained pending on April

3, 1997.14 This limited class of

permittees, which are not eligible for an

initial DTV paired license, may

construct either an analog or a digital

station. These permittees also must

complete construction with the

‘‘traditional’’ two-year construction

period applied to NTSC stations, 15 and,

if they initially construct analog

facilities, may convert to DTV by the

2006 deadline. If the proposed threeyear construction period is adopted, the

Commission proposes to increase to

three years the initial period afforded

these NTSC permittees to construct

either analog or digital facilities. The

Commission does not propose a change

in the 2006 deadline for converting to

DTV. The Commission invites comment

as to whether the two-year period for

this group of NTSC permittees should

be extended to three years if we adopt

the three-year proposal discussed

herein.

Restrict Extensions to Circumstances

Where Delays Are Beyond the

Permittee’s Control

27. The Commission also proposes to

strictly limit the circumstances that

would qualify for an extension under
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19231

16See 47 CFR 73.3535(b).

17See 47 CFR 73.3535(a). 18See 47 CFR 73.3615(f).

the ‘‘circumstances beyond control’’

criterion. Specifically, the Commission

seeks comment on whether it can limit

the tolling of the construction period to

when the grant of a construction permit

is the subject of administrative or

judicial appeals or when construction

has been delayed by an ‘‘act of God.’’

The Commission proposes to define

‘‘acts of God’’ very narrowly in terms of

natural disasters (e.g., floods, tornados,

hurricanes, and earthquakes) and even

then to only toll the construction period

for the length of time which a diligent

permittee would need to recover from

the effects of the event, up to a

maximum of one year. It also proposes

to require strict documentation of a

permittee’s efforts to build subsequent

to such events. Commenters are

requested to address both the legal and

economic consequences of this proposal

and to suggest a mechanism by which

a permittee would inform the

Commission of natural disasters which

have delayed construction and request

the tolling of a construction period. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

this proposed rule change would be

consistent with § 319(b) of the Act.

Finally, it sees comment as to whether

difficulties in obtaining local zoning

authorization are sufficiently beyond

the permittee’s control to warrant

treatment similar to that of delays

caused by administrative and judicial

review. The Commission’s tentative

conclusion is that zoning delays can be

overcome and construction can be

completed within the proposed threeyear construction period if a permittee

pursues the zoning process diligently.

Eliminate Post-Modification and PostAssignment Extensions

28. When a permittee for a new

facility files an application to modify its

construction permit, or an application to

assign or transfer control of its

construction permit in the second half

of the construction permit’s initially

authorized period, the Commission

currently requires a ‘‘one-in-three’’

showing and, upon grant, the permittee,

in most instances, is provided

additional time to complete

construction. The Commission proposes

to eliminate both the restriction on

second-half construction period

modifications and assignments and the

extended construction periods provided

under our rules. The Commission seeks

comment on whether elimination of

automatic extensions when unbuilt

stations have been modified, assigned,

or transferred is consistent with § 319(b)

of the Act. In addition, we propose to

eliminate the requirement that

permittees that modify unbuilt stations

certify that construction will commence

immediately upon grant. 16 We also

propose to eliminate the analogous

certification requirement for assignees

and transferees.17 The Commission

seeks comment on these proposals.

Automatic Forfeiture of Expired

Construction Permits

29. While § 319(b) of the Act provides

for the automatic forfeiture of an

expired construction permit (unless the

Commission authorizes additional time

or the delay was caused by

circumstances outside the permittee’s

control), the Commission’s practice has

been to take an affirmative action

cancelling a construction permit before

it is forfeited. In an effort to streamline

this process, the Commission proposes

to make a construction permit subject to

automatic forfeiture, without further

Commission action, upon expiration of

the proposed three-year construction

period. The Commission seeks comment

on whether an automatic cancellation

policy for expired construction permits

should be adopted and its tentative

conclusion that such a procedure would

be consistent with the Act’s automatic

forfeiture provision.

Application of New Rules to

Outstanding Permits

30. Finally, the Commission proposes

that the rules regarding construction

permits, and extensions thereof,

adopted in this rulemaking proceeding

be applied to any construction permit

that is currently in its initial

construction period (i.e., the first 24

months for a full power TV facilities

permit and the first 18 months for an

AM, FM, International Broadcast, low

power TV, TV translator, TV booster,

FM translator, FM booster, or broadcast

auxiliary permit). The Commission

invites comment on whether to extend

the proposed extension policy to

outstanding permits, whether

implementation would cause

unjustifiable hardship to permittees,

and whether this approach would result

in a disservice to the public. The

Commission believes, however, that it

would be administratively unworkable

to apply the proposed rules to

construction permits that are already

beyond their initial construction periods

(whether through extension,

assignment, transfer of control, or

modification). Because many of these

permits have already been afforded a

construction period close to (or, in

many instances, in excess of) the threeyear term proposed in this Notice, the

Commission proposes to continue to

apply the rules as they exist today to

permits outside their initial periods.

The Commission invites comment on

the tentative conclusion that it is more

appropriate to continue to apply its

current rules to construction permits

that are beyond their initial periods.

E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments

and Transfers

31. Approximately 35 percent of radio

and television assignment and transfer

applications propose pro forma

transactions and are filed on FCC Form

316. Applications are typically

processed and disposed of within 10

working days. For certain pro forma

transfers and assignments, which do not

affect actual control of the licensee or

permittee and which are routinely

granted by the Commission,

broadcasters have questioned whether

they should be required to file an

application and wait for a grant. The

Commission invites commenters to

identify any specific situations or

transactions negatively impacted by the

Mass Media Bureau’s current rate of

disposal. Some types of pro forma

assignments or transfers may be suited

for streamlined procedures. For

example: (1) court-ordered transfers to a

bankruptcy trustee; (2) certain corporate

reorganizations (such as a change in an

intermediate wholly-owned subsidiary);

(3) reorganization by a corporate

licensee in another state where no other

changes are made; (4) involuntary

assignment or transfer of control of

license or construction permit due to

death or legal disability of the

individual permittee or licensee; and (5)

assignment of less than a controlling

interest in a partnership. The

Commission invites comment on

whether these and/or other categories of

pro forma transfers and assignments

should be subjected to a streamlined

procedure and whether this may be

done while complying with § 310(d).

32. Under such a streamlined

procedure certain assignments and

transfers, as listed above, could be

carried out by licensees or permittees,

subject only to a requirement that the

Commission be notified of the

assignment or transfer within a certain

period thereafter (say 30 days) and the

requirement that an Ownership Report

Form be filed within 30 days after the

assignment or transfer.18 Would § 310(d)

permit adoption of such a notification

procedure? In the context of Cable

Television Relay Service (‘‘CARS’’), we

have streamlined transfers by providing
19232 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

19 47 CFR 78.35(c); Report and Order, 50 FR

23417 (June 4, 1985).

20See generally Tender Offers and Proxy

Contests, 59 Rad. Reg. 1536 (1986), appeal

dismissed sub nom. Office of Communication of the

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

Cir. 1987).

that prior Commission consent is not

required for assignments or transfers of

control ‘‘in cases where the change in

ownership does not affect the identity or

controlling interest of the licensee.’’19

The Commission invites comment as to

whether this precedent is applicable to

broadcast transfers.

33. The Commission also invites

comment on the procedures that should

be followed for notifications of

transactions that are determined to fall

outside the scope of per se grantable

applications. Commenters should also

consider the procedures the

Commission should adopt in response

to notifications for transactions that the

Commission concludes are both

voluntary and involve a substantial

change in ownership or control, and

thus are subject to the public notice and

petition to deny provisions of § 309(d).

Finally, the Commission invites

comment on the sanctions that should

be imposed for such erroneous

notifications.

34. The Commission also uses ‘‘short

form’’ procedures in connection with

tender offers and proxy contests to

acquire control of entities that hold

Commission licenses.20 We question

whether the streamlining options

considered in this Notice should apply

to our tender offer and proxy contest

processing policies. Accordingly, we

seek comment on our tentative

conclusion that the proposed

streamlining procedures should not be

extended to cover the processing of

‘‘short form’’ applications relating to

tender offers and proxy contests for

control of Commission licensees.

Assuming that a notification procedure

could be adopted consistent with

§ 310(d), are there benefits to obtaining

prior consent to such transactions that

would be lost if the Commission adopts

a notification requirement? Should the

Commission require that a notification

and Ownership Report both be filed

with the Commission or, in the

alternative, would an Ownership Report

be sufficient in this regard? Is the thirtyday period an appropriate time limit for

the notification requirement? Should

the Commission require that a

notification letter be filed, or should the

Commission adopt a new notification

form for this purpose? If the

Commission requires that a notification

letter or form be filed, what information

should be required to be filed in the

letter? Finally, should the Commission

place such notifications on public

notice to permit the public an

opportunity to seek reconsideration of

the application of the ‘‘blanket’’ consent

to a particular transaction?

Alternatively, would a requirement that

the notification be placed in the

station’s public file be sufficient in this

regard?

35. As an alternative to a notification

procedure, the Commission could keep

the current application process but, in

the case of certain specified pro forma

assignments and transfers, permit

applicants to proceed, at their own risk,

to consummate the transfer or

assignment if Commission action

denying the application is not taken

within a set short period after the

application is filed. The Commission

invites comment as to whether this

alternative would be consistent with

§ 310(d). The Commission would, in the

event that this proposal is adopted,

retain the authority to deny the

assignment or transfer even after such a

consummation and require that the

transaction be unwound. Thus, the

Commission believes its authority under

section 310 of the Act would be

retained.

36. Assuming such an alternative

procedure is consistent with § 310(d),

the Commission invites comment as to

the appropriate time period for

Commission action, e.g., ten business

days. Further, the Commission invites

comment as to whether such a proposal

would significantly and meaningfully

reduce regulatory burdens and provide

adequate relief. The Commission notes

its concern that it may be difficult to

unwind sales transactions after they

have occurred. It invites comment as to

whether this is a significant negative

factor that should be considered or

whether it should rely on applicants to

make a reasoned judgment as to whether

they should assume the risk that a

transaction consummated prior to FCC

consent must be subsequently

unwound. The Commission notes that

this proposal would apply only to

narrow categories of pro forma transfers

and assignments, as specified above,

where Commission consent is routinely

granted. The Commission invites

comment on all aspects of this proposal.

F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting

Requirements

37. The Commission proposes to

reduce the frequency with which

Ownership Reports (FCC Forms 323 and

323–E) for commercial and

noncommercial educational AM, FM

and TV broadcast stations must be filed

with the Commission. Currently, most

licensees of commercial broadcast

stations are required to file Ownership

Reports annually. This proposal would

relax this requirement so that such

licensees would have to file Ownership

Reports when they file their stations’

license renewal applications and four

years thereafter, at the mid-point of their

scheduled license term. In addition, the

Commission proposes to formalize the

Commission’s current practice of

requesting an Ownership Report within

30 days of an approved assignment or

transfer by amending § 73.3615 of the

Commission’s Rules to specifically

require that every commercial and

noncommercial educational licensee or

permittee file an Ownership Report on

FCC Form 323 or 323–E within 30 of

days of consummation of an approved

license assignment or transfer of control.

In the event the Commission adopts a

notification procedure for certain pro

forma assignments and transfers, the

Commission proposes to require the

filing of an Ownership Report within

thirty days of the consummation of

those transactions. Comment on all

aspects of these proposals is invited. We

also seek comment on whether it should

adopt the same proposed relaxed

ownership reporting requirements for

noncommercial educational AM, FM

and TV broadcast station licensees and

permittees.

38. The Commission invites comment

on its tentative conclusion that the

proposed relaxation in ownership

reporting would ease paperwork

burdens on licensees and permittees

without impairing the public’s ability to

ascertain the identities of broadcast

station owners. The Commission also

tentatively concludes the proposal

would not adversely affect its ability to

monitor ownership of commercial and

noncommercial educational broadcast

stations and compliance with the

Commission’s multiple ownership

limitations and the alien ownership and

prior consent provisions of § 310 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. We also invite comment as to

whether our proposals would hinder

members of the public and other

broadcasters in obtaining necessary

ownership information and monitoring

ownership changes.

39. The current ownership reporting

requirements are stricter for

noncommercial stations than for

commercial stations. The Commission

proposes, therefore, to conform Form

323–E and Form 323 reporting

requirements. We seek comment on

whether eliminating the 30-day

supplemental reporting requirement,

coupled with the addition of a regular

four-year filing requirement, would
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19233

21Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq. (1981), as amended.

22See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601

et. seq., has been amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law

194–12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (‘‘CWAA’’). Title II of

the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’).

result in an overall reduction of the

burden on noncommercial educational

licensees.

40. The Commission invites comment

as to whether a two-year or other

reporting interval would be more

appropriate or beneficial. In this regard,

commenters contending that a four-year

reporting requirement would be

detrimental to the public’s or the

Commission’s ability to monitor

adequately significant changes in the

ownership of broadcast stations should

provide specific examples and

arguments to substantiate their position.

Ordering Clauses

41. Accordingly, it is ordered, that

pursuant to the authority contained in

Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,

308, 309, and 310, this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making is adopted.

42. It is further ordered, that the

Commission’s Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, shall

send a copy of this Notice, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

III. Administrative Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 Analysis

This Notice proposes rule and

procedural revisions which may contain

an information collection requirement.

As part of our continuing effort to

reduce paperwork burdens, we invite

the general public and OMB to take this

opportunity to comment on the

information collection contained in this

Notice, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. Public and agency comments are

due at the same time as other comments

on this Notice; OMB comments are due

60 days from the date of publication of

this Notice in the Federal Register.

Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

B. Ex Parte Rules

This proceeding will be treated as a

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding

subject to the ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’

requirements under § 1.1206(b) of the

rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex

parte presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in § 1.1206(b).

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

With respect to this Notice, an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) is contained in the

Attachment. As required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act,21 the

Commission has prepared an IRFA of

the expected significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Notice.

Written public comments are requested

on the IRFA. The Commission asks a

number of questions in its IRFA

regarding the prevalence of small

businesses in the industries covered by

this Notice. Comments on the IRFA

must be filed in accordance with the

same filing deadlines as comments on

the Notice and must have a distinct

heading designating them as responses

to the IRFA.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Attachment

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (‘‘RFA’’),22 the Commission has prepared

this present Initial Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies and

rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (‘‘Notice’’). Written public

comments are requested on this IRA.

Comments must be identified as responses to

the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines

for comments of the Notice. The Commission

will send a copy of the Notice, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration. See 5

U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Notice and

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register. See id.

A. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed

Rules

With this Notice, the Commission

commences a proceeding to review its

broadcast applications and related rules. The

Commission’s goals are to streamline its

procedures, speed introduction of new and

expanded services to the public, reduce

administrative burdens on regulatees,

increase public access to information about

the Bureau’s actions and processing

activities, and maximize efficiency in the use

of Commission resources, while maintaining

the technical integrity of broadcast services,

fostering the Commission’s goals of

competition and diversity, continuing

enforcement of the Commission’s core rules

and policies, and permitting members of the

public a continued opportunity to monitor

station performance. This review is taken in

conjunction with the Commission’s 1998

biennial regulatory review. Although

Congress did not mandate this area of review,

the Commission nonetheless undertakes it to

assure that its rules and processes are no

more regulatory than necessary to achieve

Commission goals.

B. Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in this

Notice may be found in sections 4(i), 4(j),

303, 308, 309, and 310 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 308, 309, and

310.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed

Rules Will Apply

Under the RFA, small entities may include

small organizations, small businesses, and

small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.

601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally

defines the term ‘‘small business’’ as having

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small

business concern’’ under the Small Business

Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business concern

is one which: (1) is independently owned

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

of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional

criteria established by the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

601(3), the statutory definition of a small

business applies ‘‘unless an agency after

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of

the SBA and after opportunity for public

comment, establishes one or more definitions

of such term which are appropriate to the
19234 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

23While we tentatively believe that the SBA’s

definition of ‘‘small business’’ greatly overstates the

number of radio and television broadcast stations

that are small businesses and is not suitable for

purposes of determining the impact of the proposals

on small television and radio stations, for purposes

of this Notice, we utilize the SBA’s definition in

determining the number of small businesses to

which the proposed rules would apply, but we

reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition

of ‘‘small business’’ as applied to radio and

television broadcast stations or other entities

subject to the proposed rules in this Notice and to

consider further the issue of the number of small

entities that are radio and television broadcasters or

other small media entities in the future. See Report

and Order, 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996)

(Children’s Television Programming), citing 5

U.S.C. 601(3).

24 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC)

4833 (1996).

25Economics and Statistics Administration,

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

1992 Census of Transportation, Communications

and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series

UC92–S–1, Appendix A–9 (1995).

26 Id. See Executive Office of the President, Office

of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial

Classification Manual (1987), at 283.

27Economics and Statistics Administration,

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

1992 Census of Transportation, Communications

and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series

UC92–S–1, Appendix A–9 (1995).

28 Id. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape

Production); SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and

Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (producers of

live radio and television programs)).

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

Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of

Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, note 33,

supra, Appendix A–9.

30FCC News Release ‘‘Broadcast Station Totals as

of January 31, 1998.

31Census for Communications’ establishments are

performed every five years ending with a ‘‘2’’ or

‘‘7’’. See Economics and Statistics Administration,

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

supra.

32The amount of $10 million was used to

estimate the number of small business

establishments because the relevant Census

categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at

$10,000,000. No category for $10.5 million existed.

Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to

calculate with the available information.

33 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4832.

34Economics and Statistics Administration,

Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

supra, Appendix A–9.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38The Census Bureau counts radio stations

located at the same facility as one establishment.

Therefore, each co-located AM/FM combination

counts as one establishment.

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

40FCC News Release ‘‘Broadcast Station Totals as

of January 31, 1998.’’

41We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations

operating at less than $10 million for 1992 and

apply it to the 1998 total of 1569 TV stations to

arrive at 1,208 stations categorized as small

businesses.

42We use the 96% figure of radio station

establishments with less than $5 million revenue

from the Census data and apply it to the 12,241

individual station count to arrive at 11,751

individual stations as small businesses.

activities of the agency and publishes such

definition(s) in the Federal Register.’’ 23

The proposed rules and policies will apply

to television broadcasting licensees, radio

broadcasting licensees and potential

licensees of either service. The Small

Business Administration defines a television

broadcasting station that has no more than

$10.5 million in annual receipts as a small

business.24 Television broadcasting stations

consist of establishments primarily engaged

in broadcasting visual programs by television

to the public, except cable and other pay

television services.25 Included in this

industry are commercial, religious,

educational, and other television stations.26

Also included are establishments primarily

engaged in television broadcasting and which

produce taped television program

materials.27 Separate establishments

primarily engaged in producing taped

television program materials are classified

under another SIC number.28 There were

1,509 television stations operating in the

nation in 1992.29 That number has remained

fairly constant as indicated by the

approximately 1,569 operating television

broadcasting stations in the nation as of

January 31, 1998.30 For 1992,31 the number of

television stations that produced less than

$10.0 million in revenue was 1,155

establishments.32

Additionally, the Small Business

Administration defines a radio broadcasting

station that has no more than $5 million in

annual receipts as a small business.33 A radio

broadcasting station is an establishment

primarily engaged in broadcasting aural

programs by radio to the public.34 Included

in this industry are commercial religious,

educational, and other radio stations.35 Radio

broadcasting stations which primarily are

engaged in radio broadcasting and which

produce radio program materials are

similarly included.36 However, radio stations

which are separate establishments and are

primarily engaged in producing radio

program material are classified under another

SIC number.37 The 1992 Census indicates

that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station

establishments produced less than $5 million

in revenue in 1992.38 Official Commission

records indicate that 11,334 individual radio

stations were operating in 1992.39 As of

January 31, 1998, official Commission

records indicate that 12,241 radio stations

were operating, of which 7,488 were FM

stations.40

Thus, the proposed rules will affect many

of the approximately 1,569 television

stations, approximately 1,208 of which are

considered small businesses.41 Additionally,

the proposed rules will affect some of the

12,241 radio stations, approximately 11,751

of which are small businesses.42 These

estimates may overstate the number of small

entities since the revenue figures on which

they are based do not include or aggregate

revenues from non-television or non-radio

affiliated companies.

In addition to owners of operating radio

and television stations, any entity who seeks

or desires to obtain a television or radio

broadcast license may be affected by the

proposals contained in this item. The number

of entities that may seek to obtain a television

or radio broadcast license is unknown. We

invite comment as to such number.

D. Description of Projected Recording,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

The measures proposed in this Notice

would reduce the reporting required of

prospective and current applicants,

permittees and licensees. All proposals aim

to reduce the overall administrative burden

upon both the public and the Commission.

We propose to make the electronic filing of

many broadcast related applications

mandatory and seek comment as to whether

to do so on a phased-in basis. We note that

such a phased-in procedure has been used

elsewhere to benefit small businesses. For

example, the SEC incorporated its mandatory

filing rules in stages. While most companies

were phased into the electronic filing system

in 1993, small businesses were not

completely phased in until May 1996. We

believe that electronic filing could, among

other things, speed the processing of

applications, save Commission resources,

and make filing easier for regulatees by

informing them of certain errors in their

applications before they are actually sent.

The full benefits of electronic filing and

processing would not be realized simply by

concerting the current version of each form

into an electronic format. We have therefore

concluded that it is necessary to undertake a

thorough review of broadcast forms and to

reconsider both the information that is

collected and the form in which it is

submitted. Accordingly, we propose to delete

or narrow overly burdensome questions and

to rely more on applicant certifications. If

adopted, these changes would both reduce

applicant filing burdens and streamline our

processing of sales, new station, and facility

modification applications. We also

tentatively propose to eliminate the rule

restricting payments upon assignment or

transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we

tentatively propose to eliminate the

requirement that applicants file sales

agreements as part of the assignment or

transfer application, and that such

agreements be filed with the Commission

within thirty days of execution. Instead, we

propose that such agreements would have to

be placed in the station’s public inspection

file and the current permittee or licensee

would be required to certify to such

placement. In addition, we propose to make

revisions to the sales forms that are intended

to maximize the advantages of electronic

filing and processing.

We further propose to reduce the frequency

with which Ownership Reports (FCC Forms

323 and 323–E) for commercial and

noncommercial educational AM, FM, and TV

broadcast stations must be filed with the

Commission. We tentatively believe that this

proposal would ease the paperwork burden

on licensees and permittees without

impairing the public’s ability to ascertain the

identities of broadcast station owners.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Significant Alternatives Considered

This Notice solicits comment on a variety

of alternatives discussed herein. These
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19235

alternatives are intended to streamline our

rules and procedures. Our goals are to reduce

applicant and licensee burdens, realize fully

the benefits of the Mass Media Bureau’s

current electronic filing initiative, and

preserve the public’s ability to participate

fully in our broadcast licensing processes.

These proposals are designed to reduce filing

burdens and increase the efficiency of

application processing. Any significant

alternatives presented in the comments will

be considered.

F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or

Conflict with the Proposed Rules

The initiatives and proposed rules raised

in this proceeding do not overlap, duplicate

or conflict with any other rules.

It is further ordered, that the Commission’s

Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations

Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice,

including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration. A

copy of this IRFA will also be published in

the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains either a proposed or

modified information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the

general public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

information collections contained in this

NPRM, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104–

13. Public and agency comments are due at

the same time as other comments on this

NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from

date of publication of this NPRM in the

Federal Register. Comments should address:

(a) whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility; (b)

the accuracy of the Commission’s burden

estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information on

the respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or other

forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: None.

Title: NPRM—Streamlining of Mass Media

Applications, Rules and Processes.

Form Nos.: FCC 301 (3060–0027), FCC

302–AM (3060–0627), FCC 302–FM (3060–

0506), FCC 302–TV (3060–0029), FCC 307

(3060–0407), FCC 314 (3060–0031), FCC 315

(3060–0032), FCC 316 (3060–0009), FCC 340

(3060–0034), FCC 345 (3060–0075), FCC 346

(3060–0016), FCC 347 (3060–0017), FCC 349

(3060–0405), FCC 350 (3060–0404), FCC 398

(3060–0754), FCC 5072 (change of address

form), FCC 323 (3060–0010)/FCC 323–E

(3060–0084)

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 13,767 (this

number includes respondents for all forms

listed above).

Estimated Time Per Response: Varies from

2.5 hours to 1,016 hours (this represents the

lowest burden/highest burden forms).

Frequency of Response: Reporting

requirement, on occasion.

Estimated Cost to Respondent: $65,898,600

(this number represents a total of all

information collections involved).

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 174,082

hours (this number represents a total of all

information collections).

Needs and Uses: With this NPRM, the

Commission seeks comment on streamlining

broadcast applications and licensing

procedures, reducing administrative and

filing requirements and eliminating rules and

procedures that no longer advance key

regulatory objectives. The Commission also

seeks comment on whether to mandate

electronic filing for broadcast application and

reporting forms.

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

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 644

[Docket No. 980413091–8091–01; I.D.

030998B]

RIN 0648–AK90

Options for Implementing Vessel

Monitoring Systems Requirements for

Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS is requesting

comments on options for implementing

a recommendation of the International

Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), requiring each

member country with vessels greater

than 24 meters (78.74 ft) in overall

length and fishing for ICCAT species on

the high seas outside the fisheries

jurisdiction (Exclusive Economic Zone,

EEZ) of that country, to adopt a pilot

program for a satellite-based vessel

monitoring system (VMS). The 3-year

ICCAT-recommended VMS pilot

program is to be implemented effective

January 1, 1999.

DATES: Written comments on this ANPR

must be received on or before June 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Rebecca Lent, Chief,

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Buck Sutter, 813–570–5447; fax: 813–

570–5364; or Jill Stevenson, 301–713–

2347; fax: 301–713–1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

At the 1997 annual meeting held in

Madrid, Spain, ICCAT adopted a

recommendation that each member

country institute a VMS pilot project for

vessels greater than 24 meters (78.74 ft)

in total length fishing on the high seas

outside the EEZ of a member country.

The ICCAT recommendation calls for

each member country to require the

installation of a VMS unit on 10 percent

of the vessels or on 10 qualified vessels,

whichever is greater, that target fisheries

under ICCAT jurisdiction. In order for

the United States to meet ICCAT

obligations, 10 U.S. vessels must be

equipped with operational VMS units

by January 1, 1999.

The Secretary of Commerce has the

responsibility, under the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et

seq.), to implement ICCAT

recommendations. Fisheries that are

affected by the ICCAT recommendation

include those that target Atlantic

swordfish and Atlantic tuna (Atlantic

albacore, bluefin, bigeye, skipjack and

yellowfin tunas) in waters outside the

U.S. EEZ. NMFS is developing a

program to implement the ICCAT

recommendation and is seeking public

comments before proceeding with

program development and

implementation by January 1, 1999. A

draft plan of the U.S. program must be

provided to ICCAT by June 1, 1998.

The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is

managed under the Fishery

Management Plan for Atlantic

Swordfish and its implementing

regulations at 50 CFR part 630, under

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and ATCA.

The Atlantic tunas fishery is managed

under the authority of ATCA and

regulations at 50 CFR part 285.

Commercial vessels of the United States

fishing in the Atlantic Ocean must

obtain federal fisheries permits to land

swordfish and tunas (50 CFR 630.4 and

50 CFR 285.21, respectively). In

addition, under the High Seas Fishing

Compliance Act (HSFCA) of 1995 and

its implementing regulations (50 CFR

part 300), U.S. vessels fishing beyond

the EEZ are required to obtain a HSFCA

permit and comply with applicable

requirements, including reporting.

The ICCAT VMS pilot program

applies only to vessels larger than 24