The Federal Communications Commission next month will consider whether to launch a housekeeping process aimed at updating certain rules for radio and television stations.
At its Dec. 11 meeting, it will consider whether to open a notice of proposed rulemaking; in advance of that, it released a draft of the NPRM.
It contains numerous proposals that the FCC says are intended to better reflect its application processing requirements; clarify ambiguity; and remove references to outdated procedures and filing systems.
For instance the draft noted that over three decades, the Media Bureau has transitioned from paper to electronic filing and transitioned from its first filing database to a newer one, yet numerous rules refer to legacy procedures and discontinued databases.
Radio World has done a quick review of the 47-page draft. Of most interest to radio stations, the NPRM proposes to:
- Update the rules for AM station power increases to eliminate a requirement that stations request at least a 20% increase in nominal power. The commission explains in the draft that the current language dates to 1985, when new international agreements took effect. The FCC was worried at the time about the potential administrative impact of a large number of expected applications, so it determined that any application for power increase not involving a change in site must propose at least a 20% increase in nominal power; it thought then that increases of less than that were not likely to provide much benefit. In the draft NPRM, the FCC says this restriction is outdated; it thinks eliminating it will provide AM stations greater flexibility and new opportunities to optimize operations.
- Update language describing procedures for authorizing certain AM Class D daytime-only stations to operate unlimited-time. Some language was not updated when stations were reclassified in 1991.
- Codify an interpretation of the rules that when LPFM minor modification applications are received on the same day, they will be treated as simultaneously filed. It said there is no indication that the FCC had intended to implement a different procedure for processing minor change LPFM applications than for minor change full-service FM and FM translator applications, yet language in the rules has created uncertainty about how minor change LPFM applications are processed if received on the same day.
- Codify the interpretation of the term “authorized” station in the LPFM minimum distance separation rules as including construction permittees in addition to licensees. The draft states that an absence of a definition in the rules may have the unintended effect of causing confusion in the LPFM application process.
- Identify which applications an LPFM applicant must protect when submitting an application in a filing window for a new CP or modification of an existing authorization. LPFM applicants would have to protect FM, LPFM and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing procedures for an LPFM filing window. This proposed change would provide that a public notice that simply announces dates for a filing window will not terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications. Only a detailed public notice setting out procedures for the window terminates the need to protect prior-filed applications.
- Remove language stating that an initial special temporary authorization to address technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons. The FCC engineering staff says technical or equipment malfunctions frequently take more than 90 days to resolve. “Finding replacement parts to keep highly specialized broadcast equipment functioning may involve protracted search efforts and lengthy shipment times. In practice, requiring an update every 90 days typically results in the licensee raising the same issues and repeating the identical request from the original STA filing. The frequent filings also place an extra burden on licensees.”
The draft lists other desired changes. It proposes to:
- Replace references to the legacy Consolidated Database System electronic filing system with references to the Licensing and Management System. As of October of 2023, the bureau no longer updates CDBS, and the FCC expects to decommission it soon.
- Update references to applications. In the CDBS, applications had separate form numbers such as FCC Form 301, but in LMS, applications use FCC Form 2100 with a separate schedule number.
- Make minor editorial tweaks to the terminology referring to tables that govern FM and TV allotments.
- Eliminate language concerning a cap on the number of applications an applicant could submit in the 2021 NCE FM filing window.
- Update the commission’s incentive auction rules to remove obsolete language.
- Codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule that “directors” of corporations may sign broadcast applications, and modify the rule to expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, partnership and unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee.” The primary goal of the Signature Rule is to provide “assurance that the applicant has personally reviewed the application and can be held responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of the application.” The draft says the FCC has found that the rule, which does not permit a corporation to designate an authorized employee to sign applications or amendments, leads to numerous application dismissals of otherwise qualified applicants.
- Codify the practice concerning when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications.
- Remove obsolete application processing language.
- Consolidate the rules for petitions to deny under a single rule section.
- Revise the informal objection rule to require that informal objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector. It would also limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed, and impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that align with the limitations set for responsive pleadings to petitions to deny.
Whew!
You can read the draft NPRM here.
