[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56974-56978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27638]
[[Page 56974]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, FCC 99-267]
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media
Applications, Rules, and Processes
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addresses thirty-eight petitions for
reconsideration. The document grants in part several petitions,
clarifies certain rules adopted in the Report and Order (hereafter the
``Streamlining Order'') in this proceeding, and denies other petitions
in whole or in part. Petitioners had not provided grounds for
reconsidering or reversing any policies adopted in the Streamlining
Order. Nevertheless, several petitioners pointed out specific
circumstances in which the Commission could exempt permittees from
strict compliance with the rules while ensuring that the policy
underlying the rule remained intact. It also eliminates the requirement
that applications, amendments, and other requests for Commission action
contain an original signature, and it revises the criteria for
evaluating ``minor change'' applications in the FM broadcasting
service. These actions will further the Streamlining Order's stated
goals of making the Commission's broadcast licensing procedures more
efficient and eliminating unwarranted regulatory burdens on Commission
broadcast regulatees.
DATES: Effective December 21, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Wagner, (202) 418-2700, Audio
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order (``MO&O''), adopted September 29, 1999;
released October 6, 1999. The full text of the Commission's MO&O is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Dockets Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington
D.C 20554. The complete text of this MO&O may also be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
(202) 857-3500, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order
Introduction and Background
1. On November 26, 1998, the Commission released its Report and
Order in MM Docket Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998), 63
FR 70039. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission significantly
modified its broadcast application and licensing procedures to make
them more efficient and eliminate unwarranted regulatory burdens.
Specifically, in the Streamlining Order, the Commission (1) Adopted an
electronic filing mandate for key Mass Media Bureau broadcast
application and reporting forms, establishing a ``phase-in'' period of
six months between the date that the pertinent form becomes available
for filing electronically and the date that electronic filing would
become mandatory; (2) substantially revised key forms to replace many
narrative exhibits with ``yes'' or ``no'' certifications, supplemented
with detailed instructions and worksheets; (3) adopted a system of
random audits to ensure the integrity of our application process, as
well as compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's
Rules, under the streamlined application procedures; (4) extended the
construction period for all broadcast stations to three years (from 18
months for radio stations and 24 months for television stations) and
provided for automatic forfeiture of the permit if a station is not
operational with an application for covering license on file by the end
of that period; (5) adopted a formal system by which the construction
period would be ``tolled'' in the event that (a) An ``act of God''
interfered with construction efforts, or (b) a permit itself was the
subject of administrative or judicial review; (6) eliminated the
restriction on payment allowable for the sale of an unbuilt
construction permit; (7) eliminated the requirement that broadcast
station ownership reports be filed every year on the date of the
station's license renewal and substituted a requirement that the report
be filed only every two years; and (8) modified the ownership report
form to require the provision of information on the racial and gender
identity of broadcast licensees/principals.
2. Thirty-eight parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the
Streamlining Order. The issues raised, and the Commission's resolution
of each issue, are summarized below.
Discussion
Worksheets
3. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission stated that it would
assist applicants in completing the new certification-based forms by
providing detailed worksheets and instructions. The Commission also
determined that it would not require applicants to retain worksheets,
place them in the station public files, or file them with the
Commission.
4. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected arguments by the Federal
Communications Bar Association that the filing and retention of
worksheets would constitute a minimal burden on the applicant and would
ensure the integrity of the application process. The Commission stated
that the worksheets were designed ``to provide guidance'' and that it
would be contrary to the purpose of the streamlining proceeding to
treat the worksheets as part of the application. Additionally, the
Commission stated that the certification requirement, buttressed by the
formal audit program and the agency's authority to request additional
information from applicants as necessary, will be sufficient to ensure
the integrity of the application process.
Contour Maps
5. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission required the
submission with the application of the coverage contour overlap map
upon which the applicant relied in certifying its compliance with the
local radio ownership rules. In response to Petitioner David Tillotson,
the Commission carved a limited exception to this requirement: when the
acquisition will result in same-service overlap of stations licensed to
the same community (and no other station outside the community of
license is involved), an applicant will be permitted to certify
compliance with the local radio ownership rules simply by showing that
there are greater than the requisite number of stations licensed to
that community.
Enforcement and Audits
6. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission adopted a system of
random audits to prevent abuse of its licensing process. Pursuant to
this system, up to five percent of all broadcast applications would be
subject to heightened scrutiny prior to grant, typically during the
petition to deny period, and subject up to five percent of
[[Page 56975]]
all applications to a formal audit after grant.
7. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected the contention of
petitioner Tillotson that audits must be conducted prior to grant or,
in any event, prior to the date on which grant of an application
becomes final. According to the petitioner, lending institutions and
investors will be reluctant to advance funds based upon a qualified
opinion letter from counsel regarding finality disclosing that a
granted application may still be subject to an audit. The Commission
held that the post-grant audit program does not alter the concept of a
grant's ``finality,'' as the agency has the authority under 47 U.S.C.
312(a)(7) to revoke a construction permit or license at any time after
grant. The adoption of a post-grant audit program therefore will not
make permit grants any less ``final'' than under existing law.
Collection of Information on Minority and Female Ownership
8. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission adopted a proposal to
revise its Annual Ownership Report, to be submitted on FCC Form 323, to
collect race and gender information about the attributable owners of
broadcast licenses. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected the argument
by the National Association of Broadcasters that the requirement
imposes a ``significant burden'' on broadcasters and duplicates
information already collected by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (``NTIA''). The Commission held that the
collection of race and gender data is consistent with its statutory
mandate to ``promote the policies and purposes of [the Communications
Act] favoring diversity of media voices'' and to promote the public
policy of ``disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
including * * * businesses owned by members of minority groups and
women.'' Collection of this data will make it easier for the Commission
to monitor the success of these policies.
9. Additionally, the Commission held that the requirement will not
unduly burden broadcasters, because it will not require broadcasters to
obtain information from anyone whose interests are not currently
reportable. Finally on this issue, the Commission found that the NTIA's
race and gender collection methodology does not include information on
women and does not ensure that the NTIA report includes a complete
listing of all stations owned by minorities; NTIA data is therefore an
inadequate substitute for the data to be collected by the Commission.
Revised Construction Periods
10. In order to reduce the time spent in applicant preparation and
staff study of extension applications, the Commission determined in the
Streamlining Order to: (1) Apply a uniform three-year term to all
construction permits; (2) exclude from the calculation of this term
those periods during which the permit itself was the subject of
administrative or judicial review or where construction delays were
caused by an ``act of God,'' i.e., ``toll'' the construction period for
these events; (3) eliminate the practice of providing extra time for
construction after a permit has been modified or assigned/transferred;
and (4) make construction permits subject to automatic forfeiture upon
expiration. Petitioners challenged the scope of application of the new
rules and the tolling provisions of the new rules.
11. The Commission rejected the challenges and affirmed the
Streamlining Order's application of the revised construction period
rules to all outstanding permits. First, the Commission held that the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, 13 FCC Rcd 11,349
(1998), 63 FR 19926 (April 17, 1998), let interested commenters know
that their interests were likely to be affected by the proceeding, and
it fairly apprised interested parties of the subjects and issues of the
rule making. The Streamlining Order did not ``reach back'' into past
construction periods and change the legal consequences of actions taken
those periods. Since permittees or licensees have no proprietary
interest in their authorizations, permit forfeiture resulting from
application of the rules cannot constitute an unconstitutional
government ``taking'' so long as notice requirements were met when the
rules were adopted. Nonetheless, the MO&O provides relief for a group
of permittees holding valid permits on the effective date of the
Streamlining Order, including permittees whose authorizations have
expired but for which the forfeiture is not administratively ``final.''
Specifically, it establishes for those permittees a revised automatic
forfeiture date of one year from the effective date of the MO&O.
12. Additionally, the Commission held that the ``tolling''
provisions adopted in the Streamlining Order strike the proper balance
between the fundamental public interest in expediting new broadcast
service and the recognition that there are some legitimate obstacles
that may prevent construction. By adding one full year to all full-
service television broadcast permits and one and one-half years to all
other broadcast permits, the Commission has built in a ``cushion'' of
additional time sufficient for diligent permittees to complete
construction unless faced with insurmountable circumstances.
13. The Commission specifically rejected the contention of several
petitioners that local zoning matters should constitute a circumstance
beyond the permittee's control such that the ``tolling'' provisions
should be invoked; it held that zoning delays often stem from
misjudgments by permittees in specifying transmitter sites and that
diligent permittees can overcome zoning obstacles given the increased
construction period now allotted. It did, however expand the tolling
provision to include certain circumstances raised by petitioners, i.e.:
(1) When there is the failure of a Commission-imposed condition
precedent to commencement of operation (such as where a broadcaster
ordered to change frequencies to accommodate another has not done so in
a timely manner), and (2) in certain limited circumstances involving
low power television stations, due to the unique nature of this
secondary service and the impact of the transition to digital
television on that service.
14. The Commission also clarified the notification procedures to be
utilized by permittees seeking to have their construction periods
``tolled.'' Apart from the information required by the Streamlining
Order for tolling notifications (date/circumstances of the tolling
event, station call sign, frequency, community of license, and
construction permit application file number), the tolling notification
should contain the following information: (1) The grant date and
original expiration date of the construction permit; (2) a brief
description of the tolling event; (3) a specific reference to
Sec. 73.3598 of the Commission's rules, the Streamlining Order, or the
MO&O demonstrating that the circumstances qualify as an approved
tolling event; (4) the date(s) during which the tolling impediment
prevented construction; and (5) if possible at the time of
notification, the permittee's calculation of the revised permit
expiration date.
FM Minor Change Tenderability Criteria
15. Prior to the institution of the competitive bidding procedures
for broadcast facilities, applications for facilities in the non-
reserved FM band
[[Page 56976]]
would be acceptable for filing only if they met a two-tiered minimum
filing requirement. First, the application had to include six essential
elements: (1) The applicant's name and address; (2) the applicant's
original signature; (3) the applicant's principal community; (4) the
specified channel or frequency; (5) the class of station proposed; and
(6) the transmitter site coordinates. Additionally, the applicant could
omit no more than three of the ``second tier'' items specified in
Appendix C to the Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91-347, 7 FCC Rcd
5074 (1992), 57 FR 34,872 (August 7, 1992). In order to facilitate the
auction process, the Commission abolished the two-tier system for all
full-service FM applications for new facilities and major changes in
the First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-
52, and GEN Docket No. 90-264, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 (1998), 63 FR 48615
(September 30, 1998). Subsequently, in the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in this proceeding, the Commission concluded that the rationale
underlying the auction-related processing rule change applied only to
new and major change applications. However, in light of the revisions
to the application forms and processing procedures proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission invited comment on
whether or not it should modify the ``tenderability'' and two-tier
standards for minor change FM applications.
16. The Commission received no comments on this issue, and it did
not address the matter in the Streamlining Order. In the MO&O,
therefore, the Commission clarified and modified the two-tier review
system for FM minor change applications. This action is necessary
because many of the ``second tier'' elements have been eliminated as a
result of the streamlined application forms. The Commission
incorporated the six remaining elements contained in Appendix C to the
Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91-347 directly into Sec. 73.3564 of
its rules. Applicants FM filing minor change applications will be
considered to meet the minimum filing requirements if they omit no more
than three of the six items. Applicants omitting up to three of the
second-tier elements will be sent a deficiency letter by the staff and
given one opportunity to correct all tender and acceptance defects;
applications omitting more than three of the six will be returned.
Broadcast Application Signature Requirement
17. Section 73.3513 of the Commission's rules specifies who must
sign the certification section of the broadcast application or
amendment on behalf of various broadcast entities. It also specifies
that the applicant's attorney may sign in case of the applicant's
disability or absence from the United States. Commission case law
consistently has held that the application must bear an original
signature; facsimile signatures have been held to be unacceptable. The
basis for this policy has been that the original signature requirement
provides assurance that the applicant has personally reviewed the
application and can be held responsible for the truthfulness and
accuracy of the application.
18. In the MO&O, the Commission stated that it no longer believed
that the original signature requirement is the only reliable means of
guaranteeing application review: applicants can be held accountable for
false information and representations made in applications irrespective
of whether or not the application contains an original signature. The
Commission cited 47 CFR 73.1015 (requiring truthful written responses
to Commission inquiries); 47 CFR 73.3513(d) (willful false statements
in applications will be considered, inter alia, a violation of section
73.1015); see also 47 CFR 1.52 (facsimile signature of attorney or
unrepresented party sufficient for subscription and verification of
pleadings). The agency noted that there also may be cases--for example,
informal requests for special temporary authorization in emergency
situations--where permitting the use of facsimile signatures could
expedite Commission action furthering the public interest. Accordingly,
the Commission amended Sec. 73.3513 to permit facsimile signatures by
the appropriate signatory.
Administrative Matters
Supplemental Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
19. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified
reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the public. Implementation
of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements are
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as
prescribed by the Act. The new or modified paperwork requirements
contained in this MO&O which are subject to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget will go into effect upon OMB approval.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
20. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in this MO&O is reprinted below at paragraphs 25-
38.
Ordering Clauses
21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, That the petitions for
reconsideration of the Streamlining Order ARE GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART, and the motions for stay filed by Z-Spanish Media, et
al. and W. Russell Withers, Jr. IS DISMISSED.
22. It is further ordered, That, pursuant to authority in sections
4(i) and (j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 307(c),
308(b), 319(b), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r),
307(c), 308(b), 319(b), and 403, Part 73 of the Commission's Rules IS
AMENDED as set forth below.
23. It is further ordered, That the rule amendments set forth in
Appendix C WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after their publication in the
Federal Register, and the information collection requirements contained
in these rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register, following OMB approval, unless a notice is published
in the Federal Register stating otherwise.
24. It is further ordered, That the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5
U.S.C. 603, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') was
incorporated in Appendix B of the Report and Order in this
proceeding.\1\ The Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``Supplemental FRFA'') in this Memorandum Opinion
and Order reflects revised or additional information to that contained
in the FRFA. This Supplemental FRFA is thus limited to matters raised
in response to the First Report and Order that are granted on
reconsideration in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. This
[[Page 56977]]
Supplemental FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with
America Advancement Act of 1996.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998). Certain abbreviated references
used in the Memorandum Opinion and Order are also used in this
Appendix.
\2\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (``CWAAA''); see
generally 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. Title II of the CWAAA is the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Need for and Objectives of Action
26. The actions taken in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are in
response to petitions for reconsideration of the rules and policies
adopted in the Report and Order to streamline the Commission's
broadcast application procedures, reducing both applicant and licensee
burdens as well as increasing the efficiency of application processing
to conserve staff resources, while at the same time preserving the
public's ability to participate in the broadcast license process. The
petitions are denied, with the following exceptions.
27. The first amendment to the rules and policies adopted in the
Report and Order in this proceeding is based on petitions arguing that
the promulgated provisions for seeking extension of time to construct
were too restrictive and did not account for certain circumstances
legitimately beyond the control of the permittee. While rejecting the
majority of the petitioners' arguments, we did state that we would
accord relief to permittees who are prevented form construction by
operation of a Commission-imposed condition or by Commission processing
requirements for permit modifications, the latter being most prevalent
in the Low Power Television (``LPTV'') service.
28. Second, in response to a petition claiming that such procedure
was costly and often unnecessary, we exempted applicants for
assignment/transfer of control of broadcast stations from the
requirement that applications proposing local radio ownership concerns
must be accompanied by a contour map detailing the stations serving the
pertinent broadcast ``market.'' No map would be required if the
applicant could demonstrate that a sufficient number of stations are
licensed to the community in question that the numerical cap will not
be approached.
29. Third, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') in this
proceeding \3\ invited comments on a streamlined approach to FM ``minor
change'' applications, which currently are evaluated under a two-tiered
review process. The NPRM invited comment on a proposal that would
parallel the approach previously adopted with respect to applications
for new FM stations and ``major change'' applications. The Commission
received no comments on this issue, and it was not addressed in the
Report and Order. However, the streamlined application forms adopted in
the Report and Order eliminated many of the second-tier review
elements. Accordingly, this Memorandum Opinion and Order incorporates
the remaining elements directly into the FM processing rules,
specifically 47 CFR 73.3564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 13 FCC Rcd 11,349 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Finally, this Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts sua sponte a
rule permitting the use of facsimile signatures in place of the
original applicant signature that had previously been required on all
applications and requests for Commission action. The Commission
believes that an applicant can be held accountable for false
information and representations in an application whether or not the
application contains an original signature, and permitting facsimile
signatures will in some cases expedite the submission and processing of
requests for Commission action.
II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public in Response to
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31. No petitions or comments were received in response to the FRFA.
Several petitioners, however, raised indirectly small business-related
issues. As indicated above, for example, several petitioners stated
that the revised construction period/tolling procedures would
disproportionately impact LPTV permittees; \4\ another petitioner
commented that the construction period/tolling procedures will
disproportionately impact public television stations, especially those
proposing to construct their initial facility as a digital broadcast
station. One petitioner argued that the contemporaneous notification
procedure would increase, as opposed to decrease, the burden on
permittees.\5\ Another petitioner claimed that the contour map
submission requirement was unduly expensive and unnecessary in many
assignment/transfer cases, even those involving the local radio
ownership rules.\6\ Finally, one petitioner noted that the requirement
that broadcasters provide information regarding the race, ethnicity,
and gender of any attributable owner was burdensome and unnecessary,
given that ethnicity and gender data is already collected by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(``NTIA'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Comments of Browne Mountain Television, Equity
Broadcasting Corporation, UP Wireless, L.L.C., and Z-Spanish Media,
et al.
\5\ See Comments of Z-Spanish Media, et al.
\6\ See Comments of David Tillotson.
\7\ See Comments of Association of America's Public Television
Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which Rules Will Apply
32. Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations,
small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.
601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small
business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business
is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA'').
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small
business applies ``unless an agency after consultation with the Office
of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for public comment,
establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate
to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.''
33. In the FRFA, we utilized the definition of ``small business''
promulgated by the SBA. No petitions or comments were received
concerning the Commission's use of the SBA's small business definition
for the purposes of the FRFA, and we will therefore continue to employ
such definition for this Supplemental FRFA. We hereby incorporate by
reference the description and estimate of the numbers of small entities
from the FRFA in this proceeding.
IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other
Compliance Requirements
34. The Report and Order adopted a number of rules and policies
that included, but reduced, reporting, record-keeping, and compliance
requirements. These were described in detail in the FRFA and are not
increased in any way by the rule and policy amendments adopted in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Those reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that were amended were in fact ameliorated. For example,
certain assignment/transfer applicants will not need to submit contour
maps to demonstrate compliance with the local radio ownership rules.
35. Additionally, while the Memorandum Opinion and Order
[[Page 56978]]
retains the requirement that permittees and licensees compile and
retain information concerning the ethnicity and gender of its
attributable owners, they must submit this information on a biennial,
rather than annual, basis. As stated in the FRFA, not all broadcast
licensees are required to file ownership reports at all; sole
proprietorships and partnerships comprised solely of natural persons
are exempt from the filing requirement. Furthermore, the modified
reporting requirements apply only to commercial broadcast stations, not
to the 2401 noncommercial educational FM and television stations
authorized as of April 30, 1999.
V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
36. The FRFA described in some detail the steps taken in the Report
and Order to minimize significant economic impact on small entities and
the alternatives considered. The rule and policy amendments adopted in
this Memorandum Opinion and Order should also serve to minimize the
adverse impact of the ``streamlining'' rules on small entities.
Initially, with respect to the revised construction period/tolling
rules, we note that small entities that might require more time to
construct an authorized broadcast station than would a large
corporation would likely benefit from the rules adopted in the Report
and Order. These entities would now be given on extra year to construct
a new television facility and 18 extra months to complete a radio
station. Furthermore, these revised construction periods apply to all
outstanding permits. Therefore, to the extent that such smaller
entities needing some additional time will be granted up to three
``unencumbered'' years simply upon a written request for such
treatment.
37. As urged by several petitioners, the Memorandum Opinion and
Order modifies the rules and policies promulgated in the Report and
Order in such ways that will indirectly benefit smaller broadcast
entities. For example, the elimination of the need to compose and
submit station service contour maps in all assignment/transfer
applications implicating the local radio ownership rules will likely
benefit smaller entities owning fewer broadcast stations.
VI. Report to Congress
38. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order in this proceeding, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report
that will be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 801(l)(1)(A). In
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:
Part 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.3513 Signing of applications.
* * * * *
(c) Facsimile signatures are acceptable. Only the original of
applications, amendments, or related statements of fact, need be
signed; copies may be conformed.
* * * * *
3. Section 73.3564 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and
adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3564 Acceptance of applications.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) In the case of minor modifications of facilities in the non-
reserved FM band, applications will be placed on public notice if they
meet the following two-tiered minimum filing requirements as initially
filed in first-come/first-serve proceedings:
(i) The application must include:
(A) Applicant's name and address,
(B) Applicant's signature,
(C) Principal community,
(D) Channel or frequency,
(E) Class of station, and
(F) Transmitter site coordinates; and
(ii) The application must not omit more than three of the following
second-tier items:
(A) A list of the other media interests of the applicant and its
principals,
(B) Certification of compliance with the alien ownership provisions
contained in 47 U.S.C. 310(b),
(C) Tower/antenna heights,
(D) Effective radiated power,
(E) Whether the antenna is directional or omnidirectional, and
(F) An exhibit demonstrating compliance with the contour protection
requirements of 47 CFR 73.215, if applicable.
(3) Applications found not to meet minimum filing requirements will
be returned to the applicant. Applications found to meet minimum filing
requirements, but that contain deficiencies in tender and/or acceptance
information, shall be given an opportunity for corrective amendment
pursuant to 73.3522 of this part. Applications found to be
substantially complete and in accordance with the Commission's core
legal and technical requirements will be accepted for filing.
Applications with uncorrected tender and/or acceptance defects
remaining after the opportunity for corrective amendment will be
dismissed with no further opportunity for amendment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-27638 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
