STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART
Re: Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public 
Interest Obligations and Extension of the Filing Requirement for Children’s Television 
Programming Report (FCC Form 398), MB Docket Nos. 00-168 and 00-44
Today, I enthusiastically vote in support of vacating the 2007 Order that required television 
broadcasters to post their public inspection files on the Internet and adopted the so-called “Enhanced 
Disclosure Form” to replace the quarterly issues/programs list.  In 2007, I cast the sole dissent against the 
imposition of this form.  At the time, I cautioned that our action was treading towards reinstating an 
ascertainment regime discarded by the Commission in 1984.  Such action risked infringing upon the First 
Amendment rights of broadcasters.  
Moreover, this form was burdensome, excessively regulatory and – to quote the FCC’s 
Information Needs of Communities report – “overly complex.”  It is not surprising that the form was 
challenged before the Commission, the courts, and even the Office of Management and Budget where the 
information collection was questioned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Although our action today 
concludes this regulatory chapter, it appears to be only temporary as this order contains a further notice of 
proposed rule making that could result in additional burdens on television broadcasters.  Furthermore, 
recently placed on circulation here at the Commission is a notice of inquiry that initiates a separate 
proceeding to create a replacement standardized form and reporting requirements – but more about that 
another day.  
In the further notice, the Commission asks additional questions about placing the public file 
online.  As was the case in 2007, I remain supportive of making “the public inspection file more 
accessible and more useful, thus improving communications between broadcasters and their local 
communities.”  Here, the Commission tentatively concludes that public inspection files should be 
centrally located on the FCC website.  Hopefully, this proposal would reduce costs and burdens on 
broadcasters – a concern that was voiced by many – by placing the onus of creating and hosting the 
website on the Commission.  But I will be attentive to a record that indicates otherwise.
We also ask for comment about the proposal that the political file should be posted online and 
that updates should be made “immediately absent unusual circumstances.”  Previously, the Commission 
decided to exempt the political file from the online requirement concluding that “the burden of placing 
this material on the Internet outweighs the benefits.”  Now, the Commission asserts that most political 
advertising transactions are electronic, so online availability may be less burdensome than previously 
thought.  I look forward to hearing from stakeholders regarding the possible ramifications of an online 
political file. 
Although the majority of the questions in the further notice are meant to elicit comment on 
moving the public file online, others serve as a means to expand the required disclosures made by 
broadcasters.  I have significant concerns about the substance of some of these questions and the possible 
direction in which the Commission could be headed.  We propose that broadcasters upload a list of all on-
air sponsorship identification announcements and seek comment regarding whether “sharing agreements” 
– including those not currently required to be reported under our rules – should be included in the online 
public file.  Such sweeping requirements may overly burden the broadcaster without sufficient 
corresponding benefits to the local citizens served by the station.  Further, I wonder whether history is 
doomed to repeat itself.  Are we once again heading down a path towards needlessly burdensome rules, 
regulatory overreach, Paperwork Reduction Act challenges and unconstitutional intrusions?  Stay tuned.  
2
Despite the serious reservations I may have, it is important to develop a full record and allow 
public comment prior to forming conclusions and implementing any regulations.  In this vein, I would 
like to thank the Chairman for seeking specific comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals 
contained in the further notice.  I hope that participants will provide us with the information and data 
needed to balance the public interest in ready access to information with the costs and legalities of such 
disclosure.  As always, I will keep an open mind and look forward to learning from all interested parties.  
For these reasons, I support this order and further notice, but concur on the questions expanding the scope 
of the materials required to be contained in the public inspection file.  Many thanks to the Media Bureau 
for its work on this order and further notice.