munications Commission rules and regulations have, in too many instances, placed unnecessary and unduly burdensome requirements on the small broadcaster.

At the present time, every broadcaster in the country must meet the same filing requirements. This means that the small broadcaster in Elko, Nev., with perhaps two or three employees, must provide the same voluminous reports as the largest station in New York City, with a staff of several hundred.

The evidence indicates that the Commission's failure to distinguish between small stations and large stations is forcing small broadcasters out of business because of this excessively unfair paperwork problem.

As Senator McIntyre has noted, nearly one-third of the Nation's 4,176 radio stations lost money during 1971 while 40 percent of the small market television stations reported losses for the same year.

Frankly, I can see no justification for placing the same Government reporting and other requirements on all broadcasters, and I am hopeful this resolution will provide greater support and stimulus for the FCC to correct this situation.

This is just one example of the problems confronting the same broadcaster which this resolution directs the FCC to consider. We are also seeking to simplify the fairness doctrine procedures and to shorten the license renewal forms for small market broadcasters.

These steps will enable small broadcasters to do a better job of serving their audience. And they will also give the small broadcaster a chance to make his station a more productive business operation.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution so that the small broadcasters of America can be freed from the hardships of these oppressive and unfair requirements which are doing a disservice not only to them, but to the public as well.

opportunity to appear today to discuss the subject of government

required paperwork, particularly as it applies to small radio broad

business, I might add. The same principle applies, and the same fundamental questions must be asked: namely, what purpose does this or that piece of paper accomplish? And, is it a legitimate purpose?

Last April, we set about in earnest to do something about the

problem.

We announced a study of all our rules and regulations pertaining to broadcast stations to determine if our regulatory authority is being exercised in a meaningful and pragmatic manner consistent with the public interest.

To this end, each rule pertaining to the Radio and Television Broadcast Services will be analyzed to determine its current validity and whether it should be continued, modified or deleted. Additionally, new rules may be proposed which more accurately reflect the present state of the broadcast art.

I suspect there was probably good reason for all of our rules at the time they were adopted. But broadcast communications have been marked by rapid advances in recent years and a number of our rules have become dated if not obsolete. We probably should have undertaken this study earlier but, very candidly, we have had to allocate our limited resources to keeping pace with the major decisions required to permit a dynamic collection of communication industries to grow, consistent with public demand. Just within the past year this has included major proceedings dealing with domestic satellites, cable television, and AT&T rate investigation, to name just a few.

The Broadcast Bureau of the Commission has been charged with the overall responsibility of our re-regulation program. The Bureau has assigned three persons to work full-time on the project and form the nucleus of our Re-regulation Task Force. The Field Engineering Bureau and the Office of General Counsel have also contributed to our effort, and I have appointed Commissioner Wiley to supervise the entire operation.

-

The April Public Notice inaugurating our study invited broadcast stations, interested organizations and individuals to submit their suggestions. At first, the ideas came in rather slowly perhaps because some broadcasters preferred to maintain a low profile where the Commission was concerned. After further encouragement from members of the Commission and other interested parties, the industry began to

recognize the sincerity of our commitment and the responses started

to come in. We have now received more than 600 letters.

These comments

and suggestions have been most helpful. All have been carefully reviewed. Many of the suggestions have been followed in the two Orders adopted so far in this re-regulation undertaking.

The first of these re-regulation Orders was adopted by the Commission on November 2, 1972. The Order noted that "many of the rules are a carry over from the early days of radio and television"; that "technological advancements have produced more sophisticated and reliable equipment"; and that "programming and management experience has led to increased maturity in operation." "Thus", the Order stated, "the Commission has determined that certain rules are no longer required in their present form and should be relaxed or deleted without further delay."

the first Order

involved such things as requiring less frequent

meter readings and inspections of transmitting equipment. Such changes permit better use of station personnel with less frequent interruption of other duties and result in less paper work.

We found that certain contracts required to be filed were not really necessary in carrying out the Commission's duties and that there were practically no requests from the public to review them. We, therefore, deleted the requirement that they be filed.

Our first Order permitted the combining of the operating log and maintenance log under certain conditions. It provided greater flexi

bility in the time of making station identification announcements and reduced the total number required. An incidental result of such a change is a reduction in those log entries explaining deviations from scheduled announcement times. We also decided that the legal requirement of consent to rebroadcast the signals of another station could be handled by written consent kept at the station. Previously, notification to the Commission, and its approval in certain instances were required. With the release of that Order, we emphasized that this was simply an initial action in this overall review of our broadcast rules and that we expect the entire project to take about two years. This first Order was followed by a Second on December 20, 1972, easing or eliminating some 69 rules in 15 subject areas involving station reporting, record keeping, and operating requirements. Just one of those changes, for example, deleted seven specific instances in which notification to our District offices was previously required.

For those of you interested in additional details, I have made available to the Committee the text of both Orders, and summaries are attached to my statement.

In this connection, let me say that the number of forms required to be filed by stations can well be exaggerated. filings, such as a request for change in station facilities or an

Leaving out special

application required for a station being sold, a typical AM radio