[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