[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14319]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 20, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MM Docket No. 93-114, FCC 94-120]
Radio Broadcast Services; Low Power Television Service;
Application Acceptance Standard; Four-Letter Call Signs
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission amended its rules governing the low power
television (LPTV) service in three respects. First, the Commission
relaxed its strict acceptance standard for new and major change
applications. Second, the Commission expanded the waiver policy
regarding terrain shielding. Third, the Commission will now permit LPTV
operators to request four-letter call signs with the suffix ``LP''
rather than the current five-character call signs consisting of letters
and numbers. The Commission declined to adopt a proposal to narrow the
definition of what constitutes a major LPTV station modification,
stating that this issue requires further consideration and will be
resolved at a later date. A summary of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking initiating this proceeding may be found at 58 FR 25,794
(April 28, 1993).
EFFECTIVE DATES: The revisions to Secs. 73.3564 and 73.3591 relieve
existing restrictions and as such, they are exempt from the effective
date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), and will become effective June 20, 1994. The revisions to
Sec. 73.3522 will become effective August 19, 1994. The revisions to
Secs. 73.3550, 74.780, 74.783 and to the Commission's terrain shielding
policy in the LPTV service will become effective August 19, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith A. Larson, Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, Low Power
Television Branch, (202) 632-3894.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a synopsis of the
Commission's First Report and Order, MM Docket No. 93-114, adopted May
19, 1994, and released June 2, 1994. The full text of this decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC's Reference Center (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc. (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
Synopsis of First Report and Order
Introduction
1. On April 22, 1993, the Commission released its Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 93-114, 8 FCC Rcd 2770 (1993). In
the Notice, the Commission proposed to amend the rules and policies
governing the low power television (LPTV) service, which includes LPTV
stations and television translator stations. Specifically, we proposed
to modify our current standard for acceptance of applications and to
expand our waiver policy regarding terrain shielding. We also proposed
to permit LPTV operators to use four-letter call signs rather than the
current five-character call signs consisting of letters and numbers.
These proposals raised little disagreement among commenters and are
adopted in this First Report and Order. In addition, the Notice
proposed to narrow the definition of what constitutes a major LPTV
station modification. That issue generated significantly more diverse
comment and requires further consideration. It will be resolved at a
later date so as not to delay implementation of the changes we adopt
herein.
Application Acceptance Standards
2. In the Notice, the Commission noted that the volume of LPTV
applications has decreased and the quality of those submissions has
improved as a result of the strict standard requiring that an LPTV
applicant be ``complete and sufficient'' (i.e., ``letter perfect'') at
the close of an LPTV filing window.\1\ We pointed out that currently,
applications that are not letter perfect are returned, forcing
applicants to wait until the Commission opens a subsequent filing
window to correct their submissions. See 47 CFR 73.3564(a)(2). The
Notice concluded that the strict standard has achieved its purpose of
encouraging applicants to submit complete and carefully prepared
applications, so as to alleviate the LPTV application backlog with
which the Commission was faced. We therefore proposed that applications
be judged on a ``substantially complete'' basis similar to that used in
processing full-power television applications, whereby applications are
considered acceptance if they are not patently defective. As an
alternative to the substantially complete standard, the Notice
suggested a mid-level acceptance standard requiring the application to
be more than substantially complete but less than letter perfect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Applications for LPTV construction permits and major changes
to existing LPTV facilities are accepted during finite filing
windows by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The commenters in this proceeding, who include LPTV licensees,
consulting engineers, other broadcasters, law firms and educational
institutions, overwhelmingly support adoption of a relaxed standard for
acceptance of applications. They agree with the Notice that the letter
perfect standard is no longer necessary due to the decreased volume of
LPTV applications. They also assert that the letter perfect requirement
unfairly forces LPTV applicants filing defective applications to wait
to refile in the next filing window, which sometimes does not open for
a year. Further, commenters assert that a relaxed standard is more
appropriate in
light of the limited resources of most LPTV applicants.
4. We will revise our LPTV application acceptance standards and
adopt a ``substantially complete'' test. We agree with the overwhelming
majority of commenters that the strict acceptance standard is no longer
necessary in light of the reduced number of LPTV applications being
filed with the Commission and in light of the improved quality of those
applications. We are persuaded by the comments and by our processing
experience to favor the substantially complete standard over a mid-
level standard. We do not believe that the substantially complete
standard will lead to a lessening of the overall quality of LPTV
application submissions, nor significantly delay the authorization of
LPTV service. Conversely, this standard will enable the authorization
of more stations for each filing window. We believe that this
modification of our application acceptance standards will greatly
benefit LPTV applicants, many of whom have limited resources. We note
that while we will give applicants an opportunity to cure defects in
otherwise substantially complete applications, the corrected
application must adhere to the Commission's rules and policies. For
instance, if an amendment to an application eliminates predicted
interference to one station but at the same time introduces
interference to another station, the amended application will not be
accepted and will be returned. Similarly, an application that is not
substantially complete, that is not submitted with the proper fee, or
that is not timely filed cannot be cured via subsequent amendment.
5. The Commission has developed a body of case law over the years
governing broadcast applications that were subject to the substantially
complete standard.\2\ From these decisions, certain criteria were
established, even though each case turned on the particular facts
involved. In the cases where applications failed the test, it was found
that many sections of the applications were deficient to a significant
degree or were omitted entirely, so as to lack sufficient information
regarding the adequacy of the proposals vis-a-vis the public
interest.\3\ Amendments were allowed to correct errors, unless the
application, judged as a whole, was ``so patently violative of the
rules as to make its processing a futile gesture.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See generally, Miami STV, Inc., 42 RR 2d 1056 (Broadcast
Bureau 1978); KALE, Inc., 56 FCC 2d 1033 (1975); Trustees of
Dartmouth College, 29 RR 2d 59 (1973); Central Florida Enterprises,
Inc., 22 FCC 2d 260 (1970). Prior to the adoption of the stricter
LPTV and FM standards, all broadcast applications were processed
under the substantially complete standard.
\3\See National Business Network, 82 FCC 2d 220 (1978). For
instance, in Henry M. Lesher, 67 FCC 2d 278 (1977), an FM
application lacked substantial portions of the legal and financial
sections and almost all of the community ascertainment information.
Characterizing the omissions as ``glaring'' and ``numerous,'' the
Commission stated that they impaired its ability to evaluate the
applicant's qualifications under the public interest standard, and
that conclusion was compelled by the cumulative impact of each
uncompleted section. In Voice of Information, 27 FCC 2d 723 (1971),
an FM application was judged on the basis of ``degree of
completeness'' and rejected because it omitted the entire
engineering and EEO sections and significant portions of the legal,
financial and ascertainment sections. The Commission concluded that
it lacked ``sufficient information to reach many of the necessary
determinations regarding the adequacy of the proposal * * *'' Id. at
725. In George E. Oleson, 5 FCC 2d 58 (1966), recon. denied, 6 FCC
2d 5021 (1967), an AM application was ``incomplete in many
respects'' because it lacked significant portions of the financial,
ascertainment, program service and engineering sections. In Rancocas
Valley Broadcasting Co., Inc., 95 FCC 2d 429 (1983), an AM
application lacked a proper signature, six of ten answers concerning
parties to the proposal, and a financial certification. The
Commission characterized the missing data as essential to a
threshold showing, given their quantity and significance.
\4\K & L Communications, Inc., 70 FCC 2d 1987, 1989 (1979) (TV
application found acceptable despite financial and minor EEO
omissions); see also National Business Network, supra, note 3 (TV
application acceptable despite defects in some financial
information, ascertainment and description of STV proposal); Racine
Telecasting Co., 51 RR 2d 1205 (1985) (TV application acceptable
despite seven omissions in the engineering section); Communications
Gaithersburg, Inc., 60 FCC 2d 537 (1976) (signature defect can be
rectified); Anax Broadcasting, Inc., 87 FCC 2d 483 (1981) (TV
application acceptable despite incomplete source of funds and
contemplation of additional unknown limited partners); Galaxy
Broadcasting, Inc., 46 RR 2d 1654 (Broadcast Bureau 1980) (TV
application acceptable despite omissions in STV proposal and
ascertainment surveys); Focus Broadcasting of the Monterey
Peninsula, Inc., 49 RR 2d 1451 (Broadcast Bureau 1981) (TV
application acceptable despite failure to document availability of
funds); LDA Communications, Inc., 49 RR 2d 1290 (Broadcast Bureau
1981) (TV application acceptable despite omission of loan and
equipment credit documentation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Following these precedents, the staff will consider applications
as not substantially complete, and therefore subject to dismissal as
patently defective, if they omit all of or large portions of several
sections of the application. This test reflects the criteria applied by
the Commission in prior cases decided under this standard, while
recognizing the differences in the current LPTV application form (FCC
Form 346). Additionally, in accordance with longstanding Commission
policy, an application found to have been filed without reasonable
assurance of site availability will not be considered substantially
complete and will be dismissed as patently defective.\5\ It has been
the experience of the staff that very few LPTV applications are
submitted to the Commission in a condition not meeting this substantial
completeness test. The simplified format of the LPTV applicant form,
which generally specifies the exact information to be submitted in
boxes rather than in narrative exhibits, serves to guide applicants in
successfully completing the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See 62 Broadcasting, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 1768 (1989); see also
South Florida Broadcasting Co., Inc., 99 FCC 2d 840, 842 (Rev. Bd.
1984) (``It is elemental that a prospective construction permittee
must have, if little else, an antenna site, a technical keystone of
the broadcasting operation.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Accordingly, in keeping with the proposals advanced in the
Notice, applicants filing substantially complete applications
containing defects or omissions will be given an opportunity to cure
the defects. If the defect prevents the staff from further processing
the application, a deficiency letter will be issued and the applicant
will have 30 days from the date of that letter to correct the defect.
If the defect does not prevent processing, the staff will not send a
deficiency letter until it completes pre-acceptance studies on the
application or until a subsequent defect prevents further processing,
at which time the applicant will be given 30 days to amend. Applicants
will be given one opportunity to amend for each deficiency letter
received. Applications revised to correct all defects identified by the
staff and that do not introduce any new defects will then be listed as
``Accepted for Filing'' in a public notice, either in the form of a
lottery announcement notice for mutually-exclusive applications or a
``proposed grant list'' for non-mutually-exclusive applications. Any
amendment submitted to correct a defective application must be a minor
amendment and must otherwise be acceptable in all respects. See 47 CFR
Sec. 73.3572(a). The same policies and procedures that apply before the
application is accepted for filing will govern correction of
deficiencies identified in the post-acceptance stage. In order to
prevent undue processing delays, we will strictly enforce the 30-day
period.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Extensions of time may be granted if the applicant is able to
show good cause why it cannot file its amendment within the 30-day
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrain Shielding
8. The Commission's present terrain shielding policy in the LPTV
service provides that the Commission will waive its application
acceptance standards for predicted interference when it is demonstrated
that, due to the existence of intervening terrain, an applicant's
proposed operation will not cause interference to another facility.\7\
Consideration of waivers based on terrain shielding is currently
limited to LPTV applications that are not mutually-exclusive with other
applications submitted during a particular filing window. We proposed
in the Notice to broaden the circumstances in which terrain shielding
waivers can be used in the authorization of LPTV service. Because the
volume of applications is now manageable, we stated that it was
administratively feasible to expand the terrain waiver policy to
include mutually-exclusive applications. In this regard, we proposed to
consider an applicant's terrain shielding showing with respect to a
protected broadcast facility, even if that application is mutually-
exclusive with another timely filed LPTV application(s), allowing the
application to be accepted for filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Commission Policy Regarding Terrain Shielding, 3 FCC Rcd 2664
(1988), 53 FR 15557 (May 2, 1988), recon. granted in part, 3 FCC Rcd
7105 (Terrain Shielding Policy Statement). See 47 CFR 74.705, 74.707
and 74.709 for LPTV application acceptance standards for
interference protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Further, the Notice proposed to permit applicants to consider
terrain shielding as a basis for resolving situations of mutual
exclusivity. Without consideration of terrain, proposed facilities in
mutually-exclusive applications, by definition, are predicted to
interfere with each other to the extent that not all of them can be
granted. Under our proposal, applicants for nearby LPTV facilities
using the same channel but separated by terrain obstructions could all
be granted, without involvement in the Commission's random selection
(i.e., lottery) process. Finally, the Notice proposed to take terrain
shielding into account when applicants raise it for the first time in
amendments responding to deficiency letters.
10. No commenter opposes our proposals to expand our waiver policy
regarding terrain shielding to mutually-exclusive applicants and to
permit applicants to consider terrain shielding as a basis for
resolving situations of mutual exclusivity. Commenters support these
proposals as a practical approach to acceptance of applications that
more realistically reflects a station's actual potential to interfere
with another station. Some commenters also propose changes to our
existing terrain shielding procedures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\In Commission Policy Regarding Terrain Shielding, 3 FCC Rcd
7105 (1988), we concluded that case-by-case evaluation of terrain
shielding ``affords the administrative flexibility to select from
among available prediction models one that applies to the
topographic features in each case.'' The existing flexible
guidelines have worked well in practice and we see no need to revise
them. Moreover, we believe that modifications to our current policy
would be at odds with our aim in this proceeding, which is to
streamline the LPTV application process. We decline, therefore, to
pursue further in this proceeding these suggested modifications to
our current LPTV terrain shielding policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. We will adopt the proposals advanced in the Notice regarding
terrain shielding waivers. We believe that if intervening terrain
prevents an LPTV applicant from interfering with other LPTV or full-
power TV stations or other LPTV facilities proposed in pending
applications, the applicant should be permitted to take that situation
into account, regardless of whether the application is mutually-
exclusive with another LPTV application. The proposals we adopt in this
proceeding do not affect the nature of applicants' terrain shielding
waiver submissions, nor the manner in which the staff evaluates such
submissions, as provided in the Commission's LPTV Terrain Shielding
Policy Statement. LPTV applicants seeking terrain shielding waivers
should continue to follow the existing criteria for demonstrating
noninterference based on terrain considerations, i.e., submitting
either detailed profiles of the terrain in pertinent directions toward
the protected signal contours of potentially affected stations or
letters of assent from the licensees of such stations, agreeing that
terrain shielding would prevent interference but without surrendering
the right to be protected against any actual interference. Also,
mutually-exclusive applicants may now use either of these methods to
demonstrate that their respective station proposals could co-exist
without an interference conflict.\9\ Further, while we strongly urge
applicants to fully address applicable terrain shielding conditions at
the initial application stage, we will accept a satisfactory terrain
shielding showing for the first time in response to a deficiency
letter. We believe that this will facilitate the initiation of new or
modified LPTV station operations by treating the omission of terrain
shielding data like any other error in an otherwise substantially
complete application and giving the applicant an opportunity to make
appropriate corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\We reiterate that where two mutually-exclusive applicants
choose to resolve the exclusivity by agreeing that interference
between their two facilities would not be likely due to the
existence of intervening terrain, the parties will be responsible
for eliminating any interference that might occur, and the parties
are expected to cooperate fully to that end. See Notice at 2772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In adopting the LPTV terrain shielding proposals in the Notice,
we are simply removing administrative barriers that were necessary when
the LPTV Terrain Shielding Policy Statement was first established. Had
the current LPTV application processing climate existed at that time,
we would not have found it necessary to limit consideration of terrain
shielding among LPTV applicants. In the more than five years since its
adoption, our terrain policy has enabled the grant of more than 200
LPTV and TV translator stations that otherwise would not have been
possible. The policy also has been successful in terms of interference
protection. LPTV stations are not permitted to interfere with the
regularly viewed signals and programs of full-power TV stations. We
know of no instance in which the grant of a terrain shielding waiver in
the LPTV service has resulted in interference to the reception of
another broadcast facility. Thus, our broadening of eligible LPTV
applicants for terrain shielding waivers should not increase the
likelihood that LPTV stations will cause interference to the reception
of full-power TV stations.
Call Signs
13. In the Notice, we proposed to amend our rules to permit LPTV
stations to request four-letter call signs rather than the five-
character alpha-numeric call signs that are currently assigned. We
stated our belief that such a modification may be competitively
beneficial to the LPTV industry and may reduce confusion to viewers,
who are accustomed to four-letter call signs. We proposed to append a
distinctive suffix such as ``LP'' to any LPTV four-letter call sign to
avoid confusion with full-power television stations.
14. The Notice presented two options for assigning four-letter call
signs. Under the first option, four-letter call signs would be
permitted only for LPTV stations that meet certain threshold
requirements, including a minimum number of hours of operation and a
given amount of locally originated programming, as well as other
requirements currently imposed on full-power stations such as the
multiple ownership, children's programming, main studio and public file
requirements. Alternatively, the second option would permit all LPTV
stations to request four-letter call signs upon applying for a license.
We stated our inclination to favor the second option.
15. No commenter opposes permitting LPTV stations to use four-
letter call signs, and all parties specifying a preference prefer the
second option. Commenters contend that four-letter call signs will
facilitate marketing and will be easier to include in ratings books and
ratings surveys. They also argue that four-letter call signs will
alleviate public confusion regarding the nature of LPTV stations; they
submit that the current call signs can lead the public to mistake LPTV
stations for amateur radio operations.
16. Most commenters, primarily LPTV operators, oppose the adoption
of an ``LP'' suffix as unnecessarily segregating LPTV stations from
full-power television stations. They analogize that licensees in
different broadcast services use four-letter call signs without any
suffix requirement. For example, they note, a Class A FM station is not
designated any differently from a Class C FM station, nor do AM
daytimers have to distinguish themselves from full-time AM stations.
Some of these commenters suggest that if the Commission does require a
suffix, the suffix should be ``CT'' (for ``community television''),
``TX'' (as used in the FCC TV engineering database), or ``TV.''
17. Another area in which some commenters differ with the Notice
deals with when an LPTV station should be eligible to request a four-
letter call sign. The Notice proposed to award four-letter call signs
at the time the LPTV license is applied for rather than at the
construction permit stage. Several commenters contend that early
assignment of a four-letter call sign will allow the LPTV station to
more effectively market itself to the public.
18. All initial construction permits for LPTV stations will
continue to be issued with a five-character alpha-numeric call sign.
However, we will permit any LPTV station that so chooses to request a
four-letter call sign, without threshold operating requirements, after
receiving its construction permit.\10\ We stated our belief in the
Notice that only licensed LPTV stations should be able to apply for
four-letter call signs because many LPTV construction permits never
become operational. We recognize commenters' concerns, however, that
LPTV operators need to have four-letter call signs as early as possible
to effectively market their stations to the public. One commenter
suggests that an LPTV station be permitted to apply for a four-letter
call sign at any time after issuance of the initial construction permit
if the request is accompanied by a certification that a firm equipment
order has been placed or that physical construction is underway at the
transmitter site. We believe that this limited restriction is not
unreasonable in that it will not unduly burden LPTV permittees and will
promote efficient use of Commission resources. Accordingly, a permittee
requesting a four-letter call sign must include with that request a
certification that it has placed a firm equipment order, which includes
a down payment for such major components as a transmitter or a
transmitting antenna, that physical construction is underway at the
transmitter site or that the station has been constructed. In addition,
permittees, as well as LPTV licensees requesting a four-letter call
sign, must also submit the drug certification statement required by
Section 1.2002 of the Commission's Rules. By a later public notice, a
schedule will be established by which licensees and permittees will be
able to apply for four-letter call signs. Those stations in operation
for the longest period of time will have the opportunity to apply
first.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\All initial LPTV construction permits will be issued with a
five-character LPTV call sign. TV translator stations appear to have
no need for four-letter call signs and therefore will not be
eligible to request them.
\11\There are now 1,400 licensed LPTV stations and an additional
1,300 outstanding LPTV construction permits, which represent a
potentially large number of requests for modified call signs.
Accordingly, we believe that a phased implementation of the new LPTV
call sign policy is necessary to ensure expeditious handling of call
sign requests and the avoidance of delays. A fair and flexible means
of accomplishing this is first to accept requests from operators of
licensed stations on the basis of years of operation. Once all
station licensees have been afforded an opportunity to request a
four-letter call sign, the opportunity will be extended to LPTV
permittees. The certification requirement will effectively enable
the Commission to award four-letter call signs to those permittees
most likely to construct and operate their stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. All LPTV four-letter call signs will include a suffix of ``-
LP,'' (e.g., ``WXYZ-LP''). We do not agree that the suffix will unduly
prejudice LPTV stations, and we believe that such a suffix is necessary
to distinguish LPTV stations from full-power television stations so as
to guard against public confusion. The commenters' comparison of the
relationship between LPTV and full-power stations to that of different
types of stations in other broadcast services is inapposite. Different
classes of FM stations are all regulated as part of the FM service, and
different classes of AM stations are all regulated under the AM
service. LPTV stations, however, are regulated as a distinct broadcast
service from full-power television stations. As such, they are not
constrained to follow rules applicable to full-power stations such as
multiple ownership restrictions, children's programming rules, the
prime time access rule, local public file requirements and main studio
requirements.
Moreover, they operate on a secondary, non-interference basis. We
believe that the distinctive suffix ``-LP'' is more appropriate than
``TV,'' ``CT'' or other suggestions because it best reflects the
longstanding denomination of the service and would not introduce new
and possibly confusing terminology.
20. As we proposed in the Notice, requests for four-letter call
signs will be handled under the practices detailed in Sec. 73.3550 of
the Commission's Rules.\12\ An LPTV operator may not request a call
sign used by another broadcast station unless the stations are commonly
owned, or unless the LPTV operator has the other station's written
consent. Also in keeping with the Notice, where a call sign is
requested by more than one party, the first operator to file its
request with the Commission will prevail. In the case of identical
requests filed on the same day, the call letters will be assigned to
the station with the longest continuous record of broadcasting
operation under substantially unchanged ownership and control. We also
adopt the proposal from commenters that a full-power television station
will prevail in the situation where a full-power station and an LPTV
station apply for the same call sign on the same day. Similarly, an AM
or FM radio stations will prevail over an LPTV station applying for the
same call sign on the same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Requests for modified call sign assignments can be made by
letter to the Commission in accord with Sec. 73.3550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Matters
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
21. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
this item as follows.
I. Need for and Purpose of this Action
22. This action is taken to relax the Commission's standards
regarding acceptance of applications for stations in the low power
television (LPTV) service, and to permit LPTV stations to request four-
letter call signs.
II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--None.
III. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
23. The Commission considered a lesser relaxation of the
application acceptance standards. The Commission also considered not
allowing LPTV operators to apply for four-letter call signs until after
they are licensed.
24. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. No.
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 4 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981)).
Ordering Clause
25. It is therefore ordered that pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), the Commission's policy
changes set forth herein are adopted, and Secs. 73.3522, 73.3550,
73.3564, 73.3591, 74.780 and 74.783 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
73.3522, 73.3550, 73.3564, 73.3591, 74.780 and 74.783, are amended as
set forth below. The revisions to Secs. 73.3564 and 73.3591 relieve
existing restrictions. As such, they are exempt from the effective date
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),
and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The
revisions to Sec. 73.3522 will become effective 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The revisions to Secs. 73.3550,
74.780, 74.783 and to the Commission's terrain shielding policy in the
LPTV service will become effective 60 days after they are published in
the Federal Register and subject to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
47 CFR Part 74
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 73 and 74 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended 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.
2. Section 73.3522 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 73.3522 Amendment of applications.
(a) * * *
(3) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 73.3525, 73.3572 and
73.3580, any application for a low power TV, TV translator or TV
booster station may be amended as a matter of right during the
application window filing period pursuant to Sec. 73.3564(d). If it is
determined that a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster application
is substantially complete but contains some defect(s) or omission(s), a
deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant 30 days to
correct the defect.
* * * * *
3. Section 73.3550 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (f), (h),
(j) and (n), as follows:
Sec. 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.
* * * * *
(b) No request for a new call sign assignment will be accepted from
an applicant for a new station until the FCC has granted a construction
permit. Failure by the permittee of a new station to request the
assignment of a specific call sign within 30 days of grant of the
construction permit will result in the FCC, on its own motion,
assigning an appropriate call sign. All initial construction permits
for low power TV stations will be issued with a five-character low
power TV call sign.
* * * * *
(f) Only four-letter call signs (plus an LP suffix or FM or TV
suffixes, if used) will be assigned. However, subject to the other
provisions of this section, a call sign of a station may be conformed
to a commonly owned station holding a three-letter call assignment
(plus FM, TV or LP suffixes, if used).
* * * * *
(h) Call signs are assigned on a ``first-come-first-served'' basis.
Receipt by the FCC of a request for an available call sign blocks the
acceptance of competing requests until the first received request is
processed to completion. In the case of requests for the same call sign
being received on the same date at the FCC, the assignment (if
otherwise grantable) will be made to the station having the longest
continuous record of broadcasting operation under substantially
unchanged ownership and control. However, involuntary and pro forma
assignments will not be taken into account in determining priority. If
a low-power TV operator and an AM, FM or full-power TV operator apply
for the same call sign on the same date at the FCC, the AM, FM or full-
power TV operator will prevail.
Note: The provisions of paragraph (h) of this section shall not
apply to a licensee requesting a transfer to another frequency where
the existing and new facilities serve substantially the same area
(i.e., where at least one of the stations serves both communities of
license).
* * * * *
(j) The provisions of this section shall not apply to International
broadcast stations, to stations authorized under Part 74 of the rules
(except as provided in Sec. 74.783 of this chapter), nor to FM or TV
stations seeking to modify an existing call sign only to the extent of
adding or deleting an ``-FM'' or ``-TV'' suffix. The latter additions
and deletions may be effective upon notification to the Commission.
* * * * *
(n) Where a requested call sign, without the ``-FM,'' ``-TV'' or
``-LP'' suffix, would conform to the call sign of any other non-
commonly owned station(s) operating in a different service, the
applicant must obtain and submit with the application for the call sign
the written consent of the licensee(s) of such stations.
4. Section 73.3564 is amended by revising the second sentence of
introductory paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(2) (the note following
paragraph (a)(2) is unchanged) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3564 Acceptance of applications.
(a) * * * Except for non-reserved band FM (except for Class D)
applications, those found to be complete or substantially complete are
accepted for filing and are given file numbers.* * *
* * * * *
(2) The application must not omit more than 3 of the second tier
items specified in appendix C, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 91-347,
FCC 92-328, 7 FCC Rcd 5074 (1992). 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 Sec. 73.3522.
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 corrective amendment. In
the case of low power TV, TV translator and TV booster applications,
those found to be substantially complete will be listed on a Commission
public notice as tendered for filing and given file numbers. Those that
are not substantially complete will be returned to the applicant. If it
is determined that a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster
application is substantially complete but contains some defect(s) or
omission(s), a deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant
30 days to correct the defect. If the defect is not corrected within 30
days of the date on the deficiency letter, the application will be
returned with no further opportunity to amend.
* * * * *
5. Section 73.3591 is amended by revising paragraph (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3591 Grants without hearing.
* * * * *
(b) In making its determinations pursuant to the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the FCC will not consider any other
application, or any application if amended so as to require a new file
number, as being mutually exclusive or in conflict with the application
under consideration unless such other application was substantially
complete, and tendered for filing by:
* * * * *
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL, AUXILIARY, AND SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 1082, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or
apply secs. 301, 303, 307, 48 Stat. 1081, 1082, as amended, 1083, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 301, 303, 307.
Sec. 74.780 [Amended]
2. Section 74.780 is amended by adding the reference
``Sec. 73.3550--Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.''
after the reference to Sec. 73.3545 and before the reference to
Sec. 73.3561.
3. Section 74.783 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as
paragraph (f) and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.783 Station identification.
* * * * *
(e) Low power TV permittees or licensees may request that they be
assigned four-letter call signs in lieu of the five-character alpha-
numeric call signs described in paragraph (d) of this section. Parties
requesting four-letter call signs are to follow the procedures
delineated in Sec. 73.3550. Such four-letter call signs shall begin
with K or W; stations West of the Mississippi River will be assigned an
initial letter K and stations east of the Mississippi River will be
assigned an initial letter W. The four-letter call sign will be
followed by the suffix ``-LP.'' A party holding a low power TV
construction permit who requests a four-letter call sign must file with
that request a certification that the station has been constructed,
that physical construction is underway at the transmitter site or that
a firm equipment order has been placed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-14319 Filed 6-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
