by Harold Hallikainen
San Luis Obispo, CA - On May 28, 1997, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making [MM Docket No. 97- 138, This proposed rule making deals with a rule that, in some form, has existed since 1939 and is based Section 9 of the Radio Act of 1927, which provided for the "fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio services." Congress was concerned about the large number of stations in the immediate vicinity of large cities limiting the possibility of local radio service in smaller cities (see remarks of Representative White, 67 Cong Rec 5479(1926)).
Currently, radio and television stations are required to have a main studio located within the station's principal community contour, defined as the 5 mV/m contour for AM stations and the 70 dBu contour for FM stations. [47 CFR 73.1125] Further, stations are currently required to keep a Public Inspection File available within the city of license. [47 CFR 73.3526(d)].
Apex Associates, and others, have filed a petition with the FCC seeking to modify the main studio rule to allow the main studio to be at any location which the licensee deems "reasonably accessible" to its community of license. Other petitions request that the rules be modified to allow the Public Inspection File be located at the main studio, wherever it is located. Finally, one other petition suggested modifying the rules requiring a station buyer to be responsible for documents in the Public Inspection File that were to be maintained by the seller.
In paragraph 8 of the NPRM, the FCC points out that since the main studio rule was last revised in 1987, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which substantially increased the number of stations one licensee may own in a "market." For example, in a market with 45 or more commercial stations, a single licensee may own up to 8 commercial stations (not more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM)). The FCC recognizes that a single licensee may own several stations in a single market yet there could be no area where all stations are within the principal community contour. This unnecessarily (according to the petitioners) requires the licensee to have multiple studios within the market. It is argued that the substantial expense of maintaining these studios provides little, if any, public benefit. These expenses "deprive it [the licensee] of savings that could be put to more productive use for the benefit of the community served by the station." It is interesting to note that almost any time a change that would save a licensee money is proposed, those savings would go to better service to the community. Is this indeed the case?
In paragraph 9 of the NPRM, the FCC states that the main studio rule may place additional burden on smaller stations due to the smaller area in which they are allowed to place their main studio (due to the smaller coverage area). High power stations may have a principal community contour with 70 or 80 miles in diameter, while lower power stations may have a contour only 20 miles in diameter.
In paragraph 10, the FCC points out that a location outside the principal community contour may be easier for the public to access than some points within the principal community contour due to the transportation infrastructure (commuting patterns, access to public transportation, major highways, public parking and maybe even bike lanes).
With this reasoning in mind, Apex proposed the studio be located where reasonably accessible (as defined by the licnesee), or "within 30 minutes normal driving time." The FCC did not favor this approach due to its uncertainty.
Another approach would be to keep the existing contour requirement with the Commission adopting a waiver policy that would take accessibility of a proposed studio location into consideration. Again, due to uncertainty and the paperwork load on the FCC staff, this approach is not favored.
Finally, the FCC proposes a few definitive methods for determining an acceptable main studio location. The first approach would be to use the principal community contour of any station licensed to the community in question. This would eliminate the apparent disparity between large and small stations, as far as main studio location is concerned. A second approach would allow the main studio to be anywhere within a certain radius of a common reference point within the community of license. These methods could be combined to allow, for example, a main studio location within the specified radius or within the principal community contour of any station licensed to the community, whichever provides greater flexibility. These approaches may, however, place the main studio in an area where the station has few, if any, listeners, since it may be substantially outside the principal community contour of the particular station. I can imagine a class A (or maybe even a class D) station located far from the community of license, but within the contour of a 50 KW directional AM station with substantial antenna gain and on a low frequency.
The FCC also wants the Public Inspection File to be accessible to the public, yet has already established a different level of accessibility. Currently, the file must be located within the community of license unless another location was authorized prior to July 16, 1987. The petitioners propose that the rules be modified to allow the public inspection file be located at the main studio, wherever located. One petitioner offered increased public access to files at main studios outside the community of license by providing free transportation to the main studio, deliver the file to a location specified by the requestor, or by providing the specified documents by mail. The Commission seems to accept the idea that if indeed the main studio is publicly accessible, then a public inspection file located at that studio is also publicly accessible.
In addition, the FCC realizes the rules regarding the contents of the Public Inspection File are out of date. They propose removing the requirement that the file include the 1974 manual entitled "The Public and Broadcasting." They point out that the manual is long out of date. They would also update references to rules that have been deleted.
As one petitioner pointed out, information on a former licensee (such as ownership, programming, and EEO information) has little relevance to a new licensee and should not need to be in the Public Inspection File. The FCC tends to agree with the exception that non-owner-specific information (for example engineering information on a station's facilities) would continue to be relevant.
The FCC wishes to recognize email as "written comment and suggestions" which would have to be maintained in the Public Inspection File.
The Commission also seeks comment on the retention period of various documents in the file. In general, they suggest, documents should be available to the public for as long as they are useful to the public. For many documents, this is currently the term of the station license. Various options are proposed, including the period of time applications are pending before the FCC or courts. If an action is no longer pending, must a licensee continue to make the documentation available to the public?
Finally, the Commission is also considering allowing the Public Inspection File to be maintained in electronic form instead of on paper. This is similar to the old program log rules which allowed logs to be microfilmed as long as a microfilm reader was available. Here, should a station decide to put its documents in electronic form, a computer terminal would have to be available for public use. In addition, stations would have to print documents on paper in response to public requests. The FCC would "encourage" stations to place their public inspection files on the World Wide Web.
Comments on this NPRM [MM Docket No. 97-138] are due August 8, 1997. Reply comments are due September 8, 1997.
Next month, we'll take a detailed look at the history of the main studio rule. How did it get there? Is it still needed? Make sure you get a copy of the NPRM and file your well reasoned comments. 'til next month, stay tuned!
Harold Hallikainen is president of Hallikainen & Friends, a firm specializing in electronic design and technical writing. He is also an avid contra dancer. He can be reached at +1 805 541 0201 (voice/fax), harold@hallikainen.com (email), and http://hallikainen.com (World Wide Web).