Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-62
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONERMIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Revisions to Public Inspection File Requirements – Broadcaster Correspondence File and Cable 
Principal Headend Location, MB Docket No. 16-161.
In 1973, a gallon of gas was just under 40 cents, the Oakland Athletics won the World 
Series, and Bonanza, which in the early years, starred one of my favorite small screen 
personalities, Pernell Roberts, would end its 14 season run with 431 episodes. 1973 also marked 
the year, the Commission first required commercial radio and television broadcasters to retain 
letters received from the public, in a public inspection file.
Yes, the world looked very different then, and while not always a justification for 
changing Commission’s rules, a look at the facts suggest that it is time for us to reassess whether 
the requirement that commercial broadcast stations, retain copies of letters and emails from the 
public, as part of their public inspection file.
An individual seeking to provide their local broadcaster with written feedback some 40 
years ago, basically had one option: to submit a letter in paper form. Today, we can avail 
ourselves of several platforms, and a social media post on a broadcaster’s page can be far more 
impactful than a letter or an e-mail sent directly to a television or radio station’s office. 
I remain a firm believer in the power of transparency and disclosure, which is why I have 
supported recent Commission actions to move the vast majority of the public inspection file 
online. This makes information more accessible to the general public.  At the same time, I am 
cognizant of the regulatory burdens and the potential privacy concerns associated with posting 
individual letters and emails online. Today’s NPRM, seeks to balance these interests and 
recognizes that members of the public will continue to have multiple means of communicating 
their comments or concerns, including direct contact with the FCC as part of a station’s license 
renewal application process. Any renewal challenges made by the public will continue to be 
available in a station’s online file as well as in the Commission’s licensing databases.
Similarly, as the Commission reassesses its requirement to maintain a broadcaster 
correspondence file, I agree that it now makes sense to look at eliminating principal headend 
information from a cable operator’s public inspection file. When was the last time you overheard 
two friends talking about the location of their cable operator’s headend? Unless these individuals 
work in the communications industries or are incredibly bored, it is unlikely that such a 
conversation takes place with any regularity. But it is also important to note that for those entities 
with a legitimate need for headend location information, the NPRM commits to adopting a 
means for ensuring that this remains available to them. 
I would like to thank the Media Bureau for their work on this item as well as their 
continued focus on finding ways to reduce regulatory burdens without diminishing the public’s 
right to access valuable station information.