Before the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C.

______) Notice of Public Information Collection ) Requirement Submitted to OMB for ) Review and Approval ) OMB Control No. 3060-0466 ______)

To: Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget [email protected] cc: [email protected]

COMMENTS OF THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

The Walt Disney Company (“TWDC”), by its attorneys, files these comments on

behalf of the ABC Owned Television Stations1 and The ABC Television Network in

response to the notice of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or

“Commission”) seeking comment on the information collection requirement imposed by

the FCC’s actions in the above-captioned proceeding.2 These comments support and

incorporate by reference the comments filed in response to the PRA Notice by the

National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”). As demonstrated herein and in the NAB

Comments, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) cannot approve the

1 TWDC is the ultimate corporate parent of the licensees of the following ten commercial television stations (collectively, the “ABC Owned Television Stations”): WABC-TV, New York, New York; KABC-TV, Los Angeles, California; WLS-TV, Chicago, Illinois; WPVI-TV, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; KGO-TV, San Francisco, California; KTRK-TV, Houston, Texas; KFSN-TV, Fresno, California; WTVD(TV), Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; WJRT-TV, Flint, Michigan; and WTVG(TV), Toledo, Ohio. 2 See Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested, 73 Fed. Reg. 38211 (July 3, 2008) (“PRA Notice”).

1 proposed information collection as compliant with the standards established by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).3

The proposed information collection relates to a rule adopted by the FCC in its

Enhanced Disclosure Order pursuant to which a television station is required twice a day,

including once between 6 and 11 pm, to extend its on-air station identification announcements to include statements that its public file is available for inspection at the station’s main studio and on its website (“Public File Location Rule” or “Rule”).4

Although the Public File Location Rule may not appear onerous on its face, its

cumulative impact is significant because each of the twice daily announcements

regarding the public file might require as much as 15 seconds or more – a total of 30

seconds or more that would have to be taken out of the station’s programming or

commercial time, every day.5

More fundamentally, the Public File Location Rule is intricately tied to the other,

very burdensome information collections adopted in the Enhanced Disclosure Order,

which require that broadcasters (a) prepare, on a quarterly basis, a new Standardized

3 See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506(c)(3). 4 See Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, 23 FCC Rcd 1274 (2008) (“Enhanced Disclosure Order”). 5 Indeed, the rule is not clear on its face as to what level of detail the station would be required to provide, including, notably, whether the announcement must include the street address of the main studio and the URL of the website or if the announcement simply must state generally that the public file is available at the station’s main studio and website. For this and other reasons discussed below, the rule is ambiguous and thus cannot satisfy the requirements under the PRA.

2 Television Disclosure Form (“Form 355”) and place such form in their public files and

(b) post the contents of their stations’ public inspection files on the Internet.6

The onerous rules adopted in the Enhanced Disclosure Order have not yet been submitted to the OMB for review. Indeed, several parties have filed comments explaining that the FCC has grossly underestimated the burdens imposed by these rules, which effectively reverse nearly 25 years of consistent Commission policy. Nevertheless, the PRA Notice seeks comment on the Public File Location Rule, a rule whose primary purpose is tied to the rule established by the Enhanced Disclosure Order requiring that a station inform the public that its public file is available on the Internet.

As the NAB explains, reviewing the Public File Location Rule separate and apart from the information collections imposed by the rules adopted in the Enhanced

Disclosure Order is not logical. The Public File Location Rule simply does not have any utility unless the rule requiring that a station’s public file be posted to the Internet ultimately takes effect. This rule, along with the requirement governing the use of Form

355, are subject to numerous legal challenges in the courts and at the Commission, such that it is not clear that any of the rules adopted in the Enhanced Disclosure Order will ever take effect. Thus, the NAB correctly observes that “as a matter of procedure and administrative efficiency, it makes no sense for OMB to proceed with review of [the

Public File Location Rule] on a stand-alone basis.”7

6 See Enhanced Disclosure Order at para. 1. 7 NAB Comments, at 5.

3 Even if OMB were to determine it appropriate to review the Public File Location

Rule at this time, it should nevertheless conclude that the Commission has failed to

satisfy the standards under the PRA for information collections. The NAB demonstrates in its comments in the instant proceeding that the Rule:

• does not reduce the burden on broadcast licensees “to the extent practicable and appropriate”8 because its purpose is to promote the requirement that licensees post their public files on the Internet, a requirement that the NAB and others have shown will impose significant burdens on television broadcasters;

• is neither “written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology” nor “understandable to those who are to respond”9 because the Public File Location Rule does not reflect accurately the FCC’s rule that (a) certain licensees may not be required to post their public files to the Internet; (b) broadcast licensees also have the option to post their public files on their state broadcaster association’s website; and (c) stations are not required to place their public files on the Internet in their entirety but rather can link to the FCC’s website in certain instances; and

• lacks significant practical utility10 because viewers already have access to the information that would be available online and publicized via the Public File Location Rule.

In short, because the Public File Location Rule is intricately tied to the other rules adopted in the Enhanced Disclosure Order, OMB should not consider the proposed information collections imposed by the rules separately. Indeed, as demonstrated herein and in the NAB Comments, the Public File Location Rule is highly burdensome,

8 See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(C). 9 See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(D). 10 See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(A)-(B).

4