[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 165 (Friday, August 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43468-43472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21444]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR PART 1
[FCC 96-301]
Automatic Stays of Certain FM and TV Allotment Orders
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order amends the Commission's rules to delete a provision
that, for rulemaking proceedings to amend the FM or TV Table of
Allotments, provides for an automatic stay, upon the filing of a
petition for reconsideration of any Commission order modifying an
authorization to specify operation on a different FM or TV channel. By
this action, we remove an incentive for the filing of petitions for
reconsideration that are largely without merit, thereby expediting the
provision of expanded service to the public and conserving Commission
resources now expended processing these meritless petitions. Further,
we shall apply this procedural change to pending cases, thereby lifting
automatic stays currently in effect pursuant to the existing rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau,
Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order in MM Docket No. 95-110, FCC 96-301, adopted July 5, 1996 and
released August 8, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Order
I. Introduction
1. This Report and Order adopts the proposals set forth in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, 60 FR 39134, August
1, 1995. We herein delete that portion of Sec. 1.420(f) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.420(f), which, for rulemaking proceedings
to amend the FM or TV Table of Allotments, provides for an automatic
stay, upon the filing of a petition for reconsideration of any
Commission order modifying an authorization to specify operation on a
different FM or TV channel. By this action, we remove an incentive for
the filing of petitions for reconsideration that are largely without
merit, thereby expediting the provision of expanded service to the
public and conserving Commission resources now expended processing
these meritless petitions. Further, we shall apply this procedural
change to pending cases, thereby lifting automatic stays currently in
effect pursuant to the existing rule.
II. Background
The Existing Rule
2. The automatic stay rule applies to amendments to the TV or FM
Tables of Allotments where the Commission has modified the
authorization of the petitioner, another licensee, or another permittee
to specify operation on a different channel. Where a licensee or
permittee other than the petitioner might be directed to operate on a
different channel in order to accommodate a proposed allotment change,
that licensee or permittee is notified of the pending proceeding and is
ordered to show cause, if any, why the modification should not be
approved.1 Also, although Section 1.420(f) refers only to
petitions for reconsideration, the rule has also been applied routinely
to orders challenged by applications for review. In repealing the
automatic stay provision for petitions for reconsideration, we also
abandon this parallel policy.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 47 U.S.C. 316(a); 47 CFR 1.87. For convenience, we shall
use the term ``licensee'' to include both licensees and permittees.
\2\ For convenience, we shall use the term ``petitions for
reconsideration'' to include applications for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In addition to the automatic stay provision cited above, Section
1.420(f) of the Commission's rules requires petitions for
reconsideration and responsive pleadings to be served on parties to the
proceeding and on any licensee or permittee whose authorization may be
modified to specify operation on a different channel, and such
petitions must be accompanied by a certificate of service. Thus, the
automatic stay was intended to help ensure that affected parties have
the opportunity to comment before proposed modifications to their
authorizations become effective.
4. However, as discussed in the NPRM, broadcasters whose
authorizations are not proposed to be modified frequently file
challenges to approvals of their competitors' proposals to improve
service, thereby triggering the automatic stay. Only a very small
percentage of these challenges are ultimately successful. The automatic
stay prohibits licensees from constructing modified facilities
authorized by the Commission until final resolution of any outstanding
petition for reconsideration or until the stay is otherwise lifted. The
Notice asserted that these petitions cause unjustifiable expense and
delay for parties and absorb valuable staff resources that might
otherwise be directed to resolution of new proposals to improve
broadcast service.
Amending the Rule
5. Comments. Most of the commenters in this proceeding support
repeal of the automatic stay rule. Citing their own experiences,
several licensees contend that the rule has harmed them and obstructed
the public interest. They assert that, as a general matter, the public
is disserved by delaying the benefits of improved service. Further,
they state, a licensee's reason for seeking a channel reallotment is
often to allow it to remain financially viable. However, because of the
delay caused by the automatic stay rule, the facilities in question may
go dark or never be constructed at all, despite the Commission's having
already approved the needed modification.
6. In contrast, two other parties claim that they and the public
interest are protected by the existing rule. They argue that, once a
licensee has appealed an involuntary reallotment, it should remain
protected from having to cause disruption to itself and to the
community by changing its operating channel until there is greater
certainty, as determined by the appeal, that to do so would serve the
public interest. Even if most third-party appeals are meritless,
[[Page 43469]]
the commenters assert, the benefits of preventing disruptive and
involuntary changes that will have to be undone upon the resolution of
even that small percentage of appeals that are merited outweigh the
expense or inconvenience caused by the rule.
7. Commenters that favor repealing the rule respond that its
primary purpose would still be promoted even if it were eliminated:
Affected parties would still have the opportunity to comment before a
directed change in their facilities becomes effective. Further, they
contend, the substantive merits of an appeal would not be affected by
the absence of an automatic stay.
8. Discussion. The record before us confirms the Notice's
observation that the automatic stay rule has regularly resulted in
delay in the commencement of construction and the provision of expanded
service to the public. Not even those commenters who oppose a change in
the rule dispute the assertion that the vast majority of petitions for
reconsideration are ultimately denied. We believe that the many
apparently meritless petitions for reconsideration the rule appears to
have encouraged have imposed a substantial and unwarranted cost on
local communities, individual broadcasters, and the Commission itself.
First, significant populations are denied the advantages of improved
service for long periods of time. Second, the inability to effect the
authorized change can cause stations to go dark or not be constructed
at all, harming both broadcasters and the public. Third, as both video
and audio technologies evolve, television and radio broadcasters must
be able to adapt as quickly as possible to changes in their competitive
environments. The delays inherent in an automatic stay procedure
necessarily constrain broadcasters' flexibility in this regard.
Finally, by facilitating meritless petitions for reconsideration, the
rule needlessly diverts resources that otherwise would be available to
the Commission for the performance of other necessary functions.
9. We conclude that any costs imposed by eliminating the stay
provision are modest or can be significantly moderated by other, less
restrictive processing approaches. Specifically, we note that
permittees and licensees affected by allotment changes who would no
longer be entitled to the protection of an automatic stay would
nonetheless continue to have substantial procedural protections under
the Commission's rules. Because Section 1.420(f) will continue to
require that petitions for reconsideration be served on any licensee or
permittee whose authorization could be modified, the rights of these
parties to be affirmatively informed of actions potentially affecting
their interests will continue to be protected. Moreover, any licensees
or permittees whose authorizations would actually be modified to
accommodate an underlying allotment change would continue to be
afforded the full procedural benefits of a show cause proceeding in
which they might object to the required frequency change. We also
retain the authority to impose a stay in individual cases and we will
be particularly cognizant of requests for stay filed by any party whose
authorization would be changed involuntarily. Finally, we note that
elimination of the automatic stay provision will not prejudice final
resolution of any challenges to the underlying staff decision.
10. As a result of the action we take here, parties requesting
amendment of the Table of Allotments may, upon release of an initial
staff decision granting their request, proceed to implement the change
through applications and construction notwithstanding the filing of
petitions for reconsideration of the initial decision. We emphasize, of
course, that parties electing to proceed before the allotment decision
is final do so at their own risk and must bear the costs of any
subsequent action reversing or revising the allotment decision.
Pending Cases
11. Comments. Most parties that address the issue assert that the
elimination of the automatic stay rule should be applied to all
existing cases, to expedite service to the public. They note that, just
as with prospective cases, no prejudice will occur to parties seeking
reconsideration, because the Commission will still consider each case
on its merits. Also, they state, the Commission can impose stays on a
case-by-case basis if necessary. On the other hand, one commenter
argues that application of the rule change to pending cases would
impose increased inequity on licensees and their communities, and it
would needlessly disrupt cases in progress.
12. Discussion. Section 1.420(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
Sec. 1.420(f), involves matters of Commission practice and procedure.
The change we adopt today will not affect our substantive analysis of
any pending petition for reconsideration or application for review.
Changes in procedural rules may be applied in adjudications arising
before their enactment without raising concerns about
retroactivity.3 Moreover, in repealing the automatic stay rule, we
are concluding that such action will not cause undue inequity or
disruption to future cases. All parties will continue to have their
rights of appeal to the Commission undisturbed. Further, we have no
indication in the record that any parties will endure any unusual
hardships by application of the rule to pending cases. Consequently, we
see no reason to retain and enforce a rule that we have determined does
not serve the public interest. Accordingly, we shall lift the stay with
respect to any petitions for reconsideration or applications for review
pending as of the effective date of this Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1502
(1994), citing Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 71, (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Administrative matters
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
13. The decision herein has been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13, and found to
impose or propose no modified information collection requirement on the
public.
Regulatory Flexibility Statement
14. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
USC 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including on the
IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in this
Report and Order is as follows:
A. Need for and objectives of action. The Commission's Rules
provide for an automatic stay, upon the filing of a petition for
reconsideration, of any Commission order modifying an authorization to
provide for operation on a different FM or TV channel, which is
effected by way of an allotment rule making proceeding. The automatic
stay provisions for certain reconsideration petitions in these
proceedings has created an incentive for the filing of petitions for
reconsideration that are largely without merit, thereby delaying the
provision of expanded service to the public. In order to reduce that
delay, the Commission is repealing the rule.
B. Significant issues raised by the public in response to the
initial analysis. No comments were received specifically in response to
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contained in NPRM. However,
commenters generally addressed the
[[Page 43470]]
effects of the automatic stay rule on FM and TV licensees, including
small businesses. Several commenters argued that the delay associated
with the automatic stay can prevent licensees from effecting authorized
improvements to their facilities, and they accordingly supported the
rule change. A few commenters contended that the current delay protects
third-party licensees from incurring the costs associated with
needlessly modifying and remodifying their stations.
C. Description and number of small entities to which the rule will
apply. (1) Definition of a ``small business.'' Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, small entities may include small organizations, small
businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 concern 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''). Id. According to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in
radio or television broadcasting may have a maximum of $5.0 million or
$10.5 million, respectively, in annual receipts in order to qualify as
a small business concern.4 13 CFR 121.201 This standard also
applies in determining whether an entity is a small business for
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This revenue cap appears to apply to noncommercial
educational television stations, as well as to commercial television
stations. See Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual
(1987), at 283, which describes ``Television Broadcasting Stations
(SIC Code 4833) as:
Establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs
by television to the public, except cable and other pay television
services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,
educational and other television stations. Also included here are
establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and
which produce taped television program materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Small Business Administration 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.'' While we tentatively
believe that the foregoing definition of ``small business'' greatly
overstates the number of radio and television broadcast stations that
are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining
the impact of the new rules on small business, we did not propose an
alternative definition in the IRFA.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We have pending proceedings seeking comment on the
definition of and data relating to small businesses. In our Notice
of Inquiry in GN Docket No. 96-113 (In the Matter of Section 257
Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small
Businesses), FCC 96-216, released May 21, 1996, we requested
commenters to provide profile data about small telecommunications
businesses in particular services, including television, and the
market entry barriers they encounter, and we also sought comment as
to how to define small businesses for purposes of implementing
Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us
to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to
eliminate those barriers. The comment and reply comment deadlines in
that proceeding have not yet elapsed. Additionally, in our Order and
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16 (In the Matter
of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd
5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be
afforded to stations: (1) Based on small staff and what size staff
would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-
time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3)
based on operation in a market with a small minority work force. We
have not concluded the foregoing rule making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize the
SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which
the rules apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable
definition of ``small business'' as applied to radio and television
broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of
small entities that are radio and television broadcasters in the
future. Further, in this RFA, we will identify the different classes of
small radio and television stations that may be impacted by the rules
adopted in this Report and Order.
(2) Issues in applying the definition of a ``small business''. As
discussed below, we could not precisely apply the foregoing definition
of ``small business'' in developing our estimates of the number of
small entities to which the rules will apply. Our estimates reflect our
best judgments based on the data available to us.
An element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We were unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish
whether a specific television or radio station is dominant in its field
of operation. Accordingly, the following estimates of small businesses
to which the new rules will apply do not exclude any television or
radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and
are therefore overinclusive to that extent. An additional element of
the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We attempted to factor in this
element by looking at revenue statistics for owners of television and
radio stations. However, as discussed further below, we could not fully
apply this criterion, and our estimates of small businesses to which
the rules may apply may be overinclusive to this extent.
With respect to applying the revenue cap, the SBA has defined
``annual receipts'' specifically in 13 CFR 121.104, and its
calculations include an averaging process. We do not currently require
submission of financial data from licensees that we could use to apply
the SBA's definition of a small business. Thus, for purposes of
estimating the number of small entities to which the rules apply, we
are limited to considering the revenue data that are publicly
available, and the revenue data on which we rely may not correspond
completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts.
Under SBA criteria for determining annual receipts, if a concern
has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the
applicable averaging period for determining annual receipts, the annual
receipts in determining size status include the receipts of both firms.
13 CFR 121.104(d)(1). The SBA defines affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103.
While the Commission refers to an affiliate generally as a station
affiliated with a network, the SBA's definition of affiliate is
analogous to our attribution rules. Generally, under the SBA's
definition, concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern
controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or
parties controls or has the power to control both. 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1). The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management,
previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual
relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. 13 CFR
121.103(a)(2). Instead of making an independent determination of
whether radio and television stations were affiliated based on SBA's
definitions, we relied on the data bases available to us to afford us
that information.
(3) Estimates based on BIA data. We have performed a study based on
the data contained in the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access
Television Analyzer Database, which lists a total of 1,141 full-power
commercial television stations. We have excluded from our calculations
Low Power Television
[[Page 43471]]
(LPTV) Stations and translator stations, two secondary services that
have traditionally not had standing in allotment proceedings, which are
the subject of this rule. It should be noted that the percentage
figures derived from the data base may be underinclusive because the
data base does not list revenue estimates for noncommercial educational
stations, and these are therefore excluded from our calculations based
on the data base. Non-commercial stations also have a diminished
regulatory burden by virtue of the rule change adopted in this Report
and Order. The data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue estimates, 440
full-power commercial television stations had an estimated revenue of
10.5 million dollars or less. That represents 54 percent of commercial
television stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program.
The data base does not list estimated revenues for 331 stations. Using
an extreme scenario, if those 331 commercial stations for which no
revenue is listed are counted as small stations, there would be a total
of 771 stations with an estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or
less, representing approximately 68 percent of the 1,141 commercial
television stations listed in the BIA data base.
Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television
stations as listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 488
owners. The data base lists estimated revenues for 60 percent of these
owners, or 295. Of these 295 owners, 158 or 54 percent had annual
revenues of 10.5 million dollars or less. Using an extreme scenario, if
the 193 owners for which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small,
the total of small entities would constitute 72 percent of owners.
In summary, based on the foregoing extreme analysis based on the
data in the BIA data base, we estimate that as many as approximately
771 commercial television stations (about 68 percent of all commercial
televisions stations) could be classified as small entities. As we
noted above, these estimates are based on a definition that we believe
greatly overstates the number of television broadcasters that are small
businesses. Further, it should be noted that under the SBA's
definitions, revenues of affiliated businesses that are not television
stations should be aggregated with the television station revenues in
determining whether a concern is small. The estimates overstate the
number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are
based do not include or aggregate such revenues from non-television
affiliated companies.
There are approximately 10,250 commercial radio broadcasting
stations and 1,810 noncommercial radio broadcast stations of all sizes
in the nation, with approximately 5,200 different commercial owners.
For the same reasons as above, the exact number of small radio
broadcasting entities to which the elimination of the rule will apply
is unknown. Based on 1995 revenue estimates, the BIA Publications, Inc.
MasterAccess Analyzer Database data base indicates that 3,314
commercial radio stations had an estimated revenue of $5.0 million or
less. That represents approximately 90 percent of commercial radio
stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program. The data
base does not list estimated revenue for 6,571 stations. Using the most
extreme scenario, if those 6,571 stations for which no revenue
estimates is listed are counted as small stations, there would be a
total of 9,885 stations with an estimated revenue of $5.0 million
dollars or less, representing approximately 96 percent of the 10,257
commercial radio stations listed in the BIA data base.
Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial radio stations as
listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 5,207 owners. The
data base lists estimated revenues for 29 percent of these owners, or
1,532. Of these 1,532 owners, 1,344 or 88 percent had annual revenue of
less than $5.0 million. Using the most extreme scenario, if the 3,675
owners for which revenue estimates are not listed are assumed to be
small businesses, then the total of small entities would constitute 96
percent of commercial radio station owners. Further, many noncommercial
radio broadcasters are considered to be small entities. Thus, a large
number of owners of radio broadcast facilities of several types
(commercial AM, commercial FM, and noncommercial FM stations) could
benefit from the rule amendment herein adopted.
(4) Alternative classification of small stations. An alternative
way to classify small radio and television stations is by the number of
employees. The Commission currently applies a standard based on the
number of employees in administering its Equal Employment Opportunity
Rule (EEO) for broadcasting.\6\ Thus, radio or television stations with
fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from certain EEO
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.\7\ We estimate that the total
number of broadcast stations with 4 or fewer employees is approximately
4,239.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Commission's definition of a small broadcast station for
purposes of applying its EEO rule was adopted prior to the
requirement of approval by the Small Business Administration
pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632(a), as amended by Section 222 of the Small Business Credit and
Business Opportunity Enhancement Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-366,
section 222(b)(1), 106 Stat. 999 (1992), as further amended by the
Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
1994, Pub. L. 103-403, section 301, 108 Stat. 4187 (1994). However,
this definition was adopted after the public notice and the
opportunity for comment. See Report and Order in Docket No. 18244,
23 FCC 2d 430 (1970).
\7\ See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 73.3612 (Requirement to file annual
employment reports on Form 395 applies to licensees with five or
more full-time employees); First Report and Order in Docket No.
21474 (In the Matter of Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment
Opportunity Rules and FCC Form 395), 70 FCC 2d 1466 (1979). The
Commission is currently considering how to decrease the
administrative burdens imposed by the EEO rule on small stations
while maintaining the effectiveness of our broadcast EEO
enforcement. Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket
No. 96-16 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and
Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture
Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996). One option under consideration
is whether to define a small station for purposes of affording such
relief as one with ten or fewer full-time employees. Id. at para.
21.
\8\ Compilation of 1994 Broadcast Station Annual Employment
Reports (FCC form 395B), Equal Opportunity Employment Branch, Mass
Media Bureau, FCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Projected compliance requirements of the rule. This Report and
Order imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
E. Significant alternatives considered minimizing the economic
impact on small entities and consistent with the stated objectives. The
action taken does not impose additional burdens on small entities and,
as discussed in detail at paragraphs 9-10 of the Report and Order, will
in fact have a positive economic impact, as entities, including small
entities, will be able to increase their service more expeditiously and
with fewer legal challenges. A small entity opposing Commission action
by petitioning for reconsideration will still be able to seek a stay in
an individual case, based on the merits of that case. In those cases
where a third party is required to move involuntarily, all costs are
borne by the party initiating the request for changes to the allotment
table. This should adequately address the concerns of commenters
opposed to this rule change.
F. Report to Congress. The Secretary shall send a copy of this
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis along with this Report and Order
in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of
[[Page 43472]]
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
codified at 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this RFA will also be
published in the Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
15. Accordingly, it is ordered That Sec. 1.420(f) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.420(f), is amended as set forth below.
16. It is further ordered That any stay granted pursuant to Section
1.420(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 1.420(f), that is in
effect on the effective date of this Report and Order is lifted.
17. It is further ordered That, pursuant to the Contract with
America Advancement Act of 1996, the amendment set forth below will
become effective September 23, 1996.
18. It is further ordered That this proceeding is terminated.
19. Additional Information. For additional information regarding
this proceeding, please contact Paul Gordon, Mass Media Bureau, Policy
and Rules Division, (202) 418-2130.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Radio, Telecommunications,
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j), unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 1.420 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.420 Additional procedures in proceedings for amendment of the
FM or TV Tables of Allotments.
* * * * *
(f) Petitions for reconsideration and responsive pleadings shall be
served on parties to the proceeding and on any licensee or permittee
whose authorization may be modified to specify operation on a different
channel, and shall be accompanied by a certificate of service.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-21444 Filed 8-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
