FCC Proposal on Paper Contracts Should Also Change Online File Rules, Say ACA, Interest Groups
The FCC shouldn’t eliminate requirements that broadcasters send hard copies of contract documents to the agency without also requiring that all such documents be posted in broadcasters’ online public files, commented the American Cable Association and said interest groups including…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America and Media Alliance. The comments in docket 18-4 responded to an NPRM (see Notebook at end of [Ref:1801300026]). The NPRM proposed allowing broadcasters to provide in their online public files lists of some contract documents that could be made available on request. ACA and the interest groups said that’s insufficient for documents on ownership. Eliminating the contract rule “without making certain corresponding changes to the public file rules will result in less transparency" on broadcasters’ ownership-related contracts, ACA said. The FCC should require copies of all such documents to be included in broadcaster public files within 30 days of their execution, the interest group filing said. ACA and the groups said broadcasters could redact sensitive data in such filings, but the FCC should allow only data that's confidential or proprietary to be redacted. The agency should allow interested parties to oppose specific redactions, ACA said. The only other comment, from America’s Public Television Stations, CPB and PBS, supported the FCC proposal: “Elimination of the paper copy filing requirement will reduce regulatory burdens on broadcasters (and save paper) without impact on the FCC’s or the public’s ability to review such documents.”