[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56974-56978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27638]



[[Page 56974]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, FCC 99-267]


1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media 
Applications, Rules, and Processes

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document addresses thirty-eight petitions for 
reconsideration. The document grants in part several petitions, 
clarifies certain rules adopted in the Report and Order (hereafter the 
``Streamlining Order'') in this proceeding, and denies other petitions 
in whole or in part. Petitioners had not provided grounds for 
reconsidering or reversing any policies adopted in the Streamlining 
Order. Nevertheless, several petitioners pointed out specific 
circumstances in which the Commission could exempt permittees from 
strict compliance with the rules while ensuring that the policy 
underlying the rule remained intact. It also eliminates the requirement 
that applications, amendments, and other requests for Commission action 
contain an original signature, and it revises the criteria for 
evaluating ``minor change'' applications in the FM broadcasting 
service. These actions will further the Streamlining Order's stated 
goals of making the Commission's broadcast licensing procedures more 
efficient and eliminating unwarranted regulatory burdens on Commission 
broadcast regulatees.

DATES: Effective December 21, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Wagner, (202) 418-2700, Audio 
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (``MO&O''), adopted September 29, 1999; 
released October 6, 1999. The full text of the Commission's MO&O is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Dockets Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington 
D.C 20554. The complete text of this MO&O may also be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
(202) 857-3500, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order

Introduction and Background

    1. On November 26, 1998, the Commission released its Report and 
Order in MM Docket Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998), 63 
FR 70039. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission significantly 
modified its broadcast application and licensing procedures to make 
them more efficient and eliminate unwarranted regulatory burdens. 
Specifically, in the Streamlining Order, the Commission (1) Adopted an 
electronic filing mandate for key Mass Media Bureau broadcast 
application and reporting forms, establishing a ``phase-in'' period of 
six months between the date that the pertinent form becomes available 
for filing electronically and the date that electronic filing would 
become mandatory; (2) substantially revised key forms to replace many 
narrative exhibits with ``yes'' or ``no'' certifications, supplemented 
with detailed instructions and worksheets; (3) adopted a system of 
random audits to ensure the integrity of our application process, as 
well as compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's 
Rules, under the streamlined application procedures; (4) extended the 
construction period for all broadcast stations to three years (from 18 
months for radio stations and 24 months for television stations) and 
provided for automatic forfeiture of the permit if a station is not 
operational with an application for covering license on file by the end 
of that period; (5) adopted a formal system by which the construction 
period would be ``tolled'' in the event that (a) An ``act of God'' 
interfered with construction efforts, or (b) a permit itself was the 
subject of administrative or judicial review; (6) eliminated the 
restriction on payment allowable for the sale of an unbuilt 
construction permit; (7) eliminated the requirement that broadcast 
station ownership reports be filed every year on the date of the 
station's license renewal and substituted a requirement that the report 
be filed only every two years; and (8) modified the ownership report 
form to require the provision of information on the racial and gender 
identity of broadcast licensees/principals.
    2. Thirty-eight parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the 
Streamlining Order. The issues raised, and the Commission's resolution 
of each issue, are summarized below.

Discussion

Worksheets

    3. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission stated that it would 
assist applicants in completing the new certification-based forms by 
providing detailed worksheets and instructions. The Commission also 
determined that it would not require applicants to retain worksheets, 
place them in the station public files, or file them with the 
Commission.
    4. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected arguments by the Federal 
Communications Bar Association that the filing and retention of 
worksheets would constitute a minimal burden on the applicant and would 
ensure the integrity of the application process. The Commission stated 
that the worksheets were designed ``to provide guidance'' and that it 
would be contrary to the purpose of the streamlining proceeding to 
treat the worksheets as part of the application. Additionally, the 
Commission stated that the certification requirement, buttressed by the 
formal audit program and the agency's authority to request additional 
information from applicants as necessary, will be sufficient to ensure 
the integrity of the application process.

Contour Maps

    5. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission required the 
submission with the application of the coverage contour overlap map 
upon which the applicant relied in certifying its compliance with the 
local radio ownership rules. In response to Petitioner David Tillotson, 
the Commission carved a limited exception to this requirement: when the 
acquisition will result in same-service overlap of stations licensed to 
the same community (and no other station outside the community of 
license is involved), an applicant will be permitted to certify 
compliance with the local radio ownership rules simply by showing that 
there are greater than the requisite number of stations licensed to 
that community.

Enforcement and Audits

    6. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission adopted a system of 
random audits to prevent abuse of its licensing process. Pursuant to 
this system, up to five percent of all broadcast applications would be 
subject to heightened scrutiny prior to grant, typically during the 
petition to deny period, and subject up to five percent of

[[Page 56975]]

all applications to a formal audit after grant.
    7. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected the contention of 
petitioner Tillotson that audits must be conducted prior to grant or, 
in any event, prior to the date on which grant of an application 
becomes final. According to the petitioner, lending institutions and 
investors will be reluctant to advance funds based upon a qualified 
opinion letter from counsel regarding finality disclosing that a 
granted application may still be subject to an audit. The Commission 
held that the post-grant audit program does not alter the concept of a 
grant's ``finality,'' as the agency has the authority under 47 U.S.C. 
312(a)(7) to revoke a construction permit or license at any time after 
grant. The adoption of a post-grant audit program therefore will not 
make permit grants any less ``final'' than under existing law.

Collection of Information on Minority and Female Ownership

    8. In the Streamlining Order, the Commission adopted a proposal to 
revise its Annual Ownership Report, to be submitted on FCC Form 323, to 
collect race and gender information about the attributable owners of 
broadcast licenses. In the MO&O, the Commission rejected the argument 
by the National Association of Broadcasters that the requirement 
imposes a ``significant burden'' on broadcasters and duplicates 
information already collected by the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (``NTIA''). The Commission held that the 
collection of race and gender data is consistent with its statutory 
mandate to ``promote the policies and purposes of [the Communications 
Act] favoring diversity of media voices'' and to promote the public 
policy of ``disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, 
including * * * businesses owned by members of minority groups and 
women.'' Collection of this data will make it easier for the Commission 
to monitor the success of these policies.
    9. Additionally, the Commission held that the requirement will not 
unduly burden broadcasters, because it will not require broadcasters to 
obtain information from anyone whose interests are not currently 
reportable. Finally on this issue, the Commission found that the NTIA's 
race and gender collection methodology does not include information on 
women and does not ensure that the NTIA report includes a complete 
listing of all stations owned by minorities; NTIA data is therefore an 
inadequate substitute for the data to be collected by the Commission.

Revised Construction Periods

    10. In order to reduce the time spent in applicant preparation and 
staff study of extension applications, the Commission determined in the 
Streamlining Order to: (1) Apply a uniform three-year term to all 
construction permits; (2) exclude from the calculation of this term 
those periods during which the permit itself was the subject of 
administrative or judicial review or where construction delays were 
caused by an ``act of God,'' i.e., ``toll'' the construction period for 
these events; (3) eliminate the practice of providing extra time for 
construction after a permit has been modified or assigned/transferred; 
and (4) make construction permits subject to automatic forfeiture upon 
expiration. Petitioners challenged the scope of application of the new 
rules and the tolling provisions of the new rules.
    11. The Commission rejected the challenges and affirmed the 
Streamlining Order's application of the revised construction period 
rules to all outstanding permits. First, the Commission held that the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, 13 FCC Rcd 11,349 
(1998), 63 FR 19926 (April 17, 1998), let interested commenters know 
that their interests were likely to be affected by the proceeding, and 
it fairly apprised interested parties of the subjects and issues of the 
rule making. The Streamlining Order did not ``reach back'' into past 
construction periods and change the legal consequences of actions taken 
those periods. Since permittees or licensees have no proprietary 
interest in their authorizations, permit forfeiture resulting from 
application of the rules cannot constitute an unconstitutional 
government ``taking'' so long as notice requirements were met when the 
rules were adopted. Nonetheless, the MO&O provides relief for a group 
of permittees holding valid permits on the effective date of the 
Streamlining Order, including permittees whose authorizations have 
expired but for which the forfeiture is not administratively ``final.'' 
Specifically, it establishes for those permittees a revised automatic 
forfeiture date of one year from the effective date of the MO&O.
    12. Additionally, the Commission held that the ``tolling'' 
provisions adopted in the Streamlining Order strike the proper balance 
between the fundamental public interest in expediting new broadcast 
service and the recognition that there are some legitimate obstacles 
that may prevent construction. By adding one full year to all full-
service television broadcast permits and one and one-half years to all 
other broadcast permits, the Commission has built in a ``cushion'' of 
additional time sufficient for diligent permittees to complete 
construction unless faced with insurmountable circumstances.
    13. The Commission specifically rejected the contention of several 
petitioners that local zoning matters should constitute a circumstance 
beyond the permittee's control such that the ``tolling'' provisions 
should be invoked; it held that zoning delays often stem from 
misjudgments by permittees in specifying transmitter sites and that 
diligent permittees can overcome zoning obstacles given the increased 
construction period now allotted. It did, however expand the tolling 
provision to include certain circumstances raised by petitioners, i.e.: 
(1) When there is the failure of a Commission-imposed condition 
precedent to commencement of operation (such as where a broadcaster 
ordered to change frequencies to accommodate another has not done so in 
a timely manner), and (2) in certain limited circumstances involving 
low power television stations, due to the unique nature of this 
secondary service and the impact of the transition to digital 
television on that service.
    14. The Commission also clarified the notification procedures to be 
utilized by permittees seeking to have their construction periods 
``tolled.'' Apart from the information required by the Streamlining 
Order for tolling notifications (date/circumstances of the tolling 
event, station call sign, frequency, community of license, and 
construction permit application file number), the tolling notification 
should contain the following information: (1) The grant date and 
original expiration date of the construction permit; (2) a brief 
description of the tolling event; (3) a specific reference to 
Sec. 73.3598 of the Commission's rules, the Streamlining Order, or the 
MO&O demonstrating that the circumstances qualify as an approved 
tolling event; (4) the date(s) during which the tolling impediment 
prevented construction; and (5) if possible at the time of 
notification, the permittee's calculation of the revised permit 
expiration date.

FM Minor Change Tenderability Criteria

    15. Prior to the institution of the competitive bidding procedures 
for broadcast facilities, applications for facilities in the non-
reserved FM band

[[Page 56976]]

would be acceptable for filing only if they met a two-tiered minimum 
filing requirement. First, the application had to include six essential 
elements: (1) The applicant's name and address; (2) the applicant's 
original signature; (3) the applicant's principal community; (4) the 
specified channel or frequency; (5) the class of station proposed; and 
(6) the transmitter site coordinates. Additionally, the applicant could 
omit no more than three of the ``second tier'' items specified in 
Appendix C to the Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91-347, 7 FCC Rcd 
5074 (1992), 57 FR 34,872 (August 7, 1992). In order to facilitate the 
auction process, the Commission abolished the two-tier system for all 
full-service FM applications for new facilities and major changes in 
the First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-
52, and GEN Docket No. 90-264, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 (1998), 63 FR 48615 
(September 30, 1998). Subsequently, in the Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making in this proceeding, the Commission concluded that the rationale 
underlying the auction-related processing rule change applied only to 
new and major change applications. However, in light of the revisions 
to the application forms and processing procedures proposed in the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission invited comment on 
whether or not it should modify the ``tenderability'' and two-tier 
standards for minor change FM applications.
    16. The Commission received no comments on this issue, and it did 
not address the matter in the Streamlining Order. In the MO&O, 
therefore, the Commission clarified and modified the two-tier review 
system for FM minor change applications. This action is necessary 
because many of the ``second tier'' elements have been eliminated as a 
result of the streamlined application forms. The Commission 
incorporated the six remaining elements contained in Appendix C to the 
Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91-347 directly into Sec. 73.3564 of 
its rules. Applicants FM filing minor change applications will be 
considered to meet the minimum filing requirements if they omit no more 
than three of the six items. Applicants omitting up to three of the 
second-tier elements will be sent a deficiency letter by the staff and 
given one opportunity to correct all tender and acceptance defects; 
applications omitting more than three of the six will be returned.

Broadcast Application Signature Requirement

    17. Section 73.3513 of the Commission's rules specifies who must 
sign the certification section of the broadcast application or 
amendment on behalf of various broadcast entities. It also specifies 
that the applicant's attorney may sign in case of the applicant's 
disability or absence from the United States. Commission case law 
consistently has held that the application must bear an original 
signature; facsimile signatures have been held to be unacceptable. The 
basis for this policy has been that the original signature requirement 
provides assurance that the applicant has personally reviewed the 
application and can be held responsible for the truthfulness and 
accuracy of the application.
    18. In the MO&O, the Commission stated that it no longer believed 
that the original signature requirement is the only reliable means of 
guaranteeing application review: applicants can be held accountable for 
false information and representations made in applications irrespective 
of whether or not the application contains an original signature. The 
Commission cited 47 CFR 73.1015 (requiring truthful written responses 
to Commission inquiries); 47 CFR 73.3513(d) (willful false statements 
in applications will be considered, inter alia, a violation of section 
73.1015); see also 47 CFR 1.52 (facsimile signature of attorney or 
unrepresented party sufficient for subscription and verification of 
pleadings). The agency noted that there also may be cases--for example, 
informal requests for special temporary authorization in emergency 
situations--where permitting the use of facsimile signatures could 
expedite Commission action furthering the public interest. Accordingly, 
the Commission amended Sec. 73.3513 to permit facsimile signatures by 
the appropriate signatory.

Administrative Matters

Supplemental Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    19. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the public. Implementation 
of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements are 
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as 
prescribed by the Act. The new or modified paperwork requirements 
contained in this MO&O which are subject to approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget will go into effect upon OMB approval.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    20. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis in this MO&O is reprinted below at paragraphs 25-
38.

Ordering Clauses

    21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, That the petitions for 
reconsideration of the Streamlining Order ARE GRANTED IN PART AND 
DENIED IN PART, and the motions for stay filed by Z-Spanish Media, et 
al. and W. Russell Withers, Jr. IS DISMISSED.
    22. It is further ordered, That, pursuant to authority in sections 
4(i) and (j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 307(c), 
308(b), 319(b), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 303(j), 303(r), 
307(c), 308(b), 319(b), and 403, Part 73 of the Commission's Rules IS 
AMENDED as set forth below.
    23. It is further ordered, That the rule amendments set forth in 
Appendix C WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after their publication in the 
Federal Register, and the information collection requirements contained 
in these rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, following OMB approval, unless a notice is published 
in the Federal Register stating otherwise.
    24. It is further ordered, That the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 
U.S.C. 603, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') was 
incorporated in Appendix B of the Report and Order in this 
proceeding.\1\ The Commission's Supplemental Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``Supplemental FRFA'') in this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order reflects revised or additional information to that contained 
in the FRFA. This Supplemental FRFA is thus limited to matters raised 
in response to the First Report and Order that are granted on 
reconsideration in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. This

[[Page 56977]]

Supplemental FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with 
America Advancement Act of 1996.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 13 FCC Rcd 23,056 (1998). Certain abbreviated references 
used in the Memorandum Opinion and Order are also used in this 
Appendix.
    \2\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (``CWAAA''); see 
generally 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. Title II of the CWAAA is the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Need for and Objectives of Action

    26. The actions taken in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are in 
response to petitions for reconsideration of the rules and policies 
adopted in the Report and Order to streamline the Commission's 
broadcast application procedures, reducing both applicant and licensee 
burdens as well as increasing the efficiency of application processing 
to conserve staff resources, while at the same time preserving the 
public's ability to participate in the broadcast license process. The 
petitions are denied, with the following exceptions.
    27. The first amendment to the rules and policies adopted in the 
Report and Order in this proceeding is based on petitions arguing that 
the promulgated provisions for seeking extension of time to construct 
were too restrictive and did not account for certain circumstances 
legitimately beyond the control of the permittee. While rejecting the 
majority of the petitioners' arguments, we did state that we would 
accord relief to permittees who are prevented form construction by 
operation of a Commission-imposed condition or by Commission processing 
requirements for permit modifications, the latter being most prevalent 
in the Low Power Television (``LPTV'') service.
    28. Second, in response to a petition claiming that such procedure 
was costly and often unnecessary, we exempted applicants for 
assignment/transfer of control of broadcast stations from the 
requirement that applications proposing local radio ownership concerns 
must be accompanied by a contour map detailing the stations serving the 
pertinent broadcast ``market.'' No map would be required if the 
applicant could demonstrate that a sufficient number of stations are 
licensed to the community in question that the numerical cap will not 
be approached.
    29. Third, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') in this 
proceeding \3\ invited comments on a streamlined approach to FM ``minor 
change'' applications, which currently are evaluated under a two-tiered 
review process. The NPRM invited comment on a proposal that would 
parallel the approach previously adopted with respect to applications 
for new FM stations and ``major change'' applications. The Commission 
received no comments on this issue, and it was not addressed in the 
Report and Order. However, the streamlined application forms adopted in 
the Report and Order eliminated many of the second-tier review 
elements. Accordingly, this Memorandum Opinion and Order incorporates 
the remaining elements directly into the FM processing rules, 
specifically 47 CFR 73.3564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 13 FCC Rcd 11,349 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Finally, this Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts sua sponte a 
rule permitting the use of facsimile signatures in place of the 
original applicant signature that had previously been required on all 
applications and requests for Commission action. The Commission 
believes that an applicant can be held accountable for false 
information and representations in an application whether or not the 
application contains an original signature, and permitting facsimile 
signatures will in some cases expedite the submission and processing of 
requests for Commission action.

II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public in Response to 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    31. No petitions or comments were received in response to the FRFA. 
Several petitioners, however, raised indirectly small business-related 
issues. As indicated above, for example, several petitioners stated 
that the revised construction period/tolling procedures would 
disproportionately impact LPTV permittees; \4\ another petitioner 
commented that the construction period/tolling procedures will 
disproportionately impact public television stations, especially those 
proposing to construct their initial facility as a digital broadcast 
station. One petitioner argued that the contemporaneous notification 
procedure would increase, as opposed to decrease, the burden on 
permittees.\5\ Another petitioner claimed that the contour map 
submission requirement was unduly expensive and unnecessary in many 
assignment/transfer cases, even those involving the local radio 
ownership rules.\6\ Finally, one petitioner noted that the requirement 
that broadcasters provide information regarding the race, ethnicity, 
and gender of any attributable owner was burdensome and unnecessary, 
given that ethnicity and gender data is already collected by the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(``NTIA'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Comments of Browne Mountain Television, Equity 
Broadcasting Corporation, UP Wireless, L.L.C., and Z-Spanish Media, 
et al.
    \5\ See Comments of Z-Spanish Media, et al.
    \6\ See Comments of David Tillotson.
    \7\ See Comments of Association of America's Public Television 
Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which Rules Will Apply

    32. Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, 
small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 
601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small 
business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business 
is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not 
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA''). 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small 
business applies ``unless an agency after consultation with the Office 
of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for public comment, 
establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate 
to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.''
    33. In the FRFA, we utilized the definition of ``small business'' 
promulgated by the SBA. No petitions or comments were received 
concerning the Commission's use of the SBA's small business definition 
for the purposes of the FRFA, and we will therefore continue to employ 
such definition for this Supplemental FRFA. We hereby incorporate by 
reference the description and estimate of the numbers of small entities 
from the FRFA in this proceeding.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other 
Compliance Requirements

    34. The Report and Order adopted a number of rules and policies 
that included, but reduced, reporting, record-keeping, and compliance 
requirements. These were described in detail in the FRFA and are not 
increased in any way by the rule and policy amendments adopted in this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Those reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements that were amended were in fact ameliorated. For example, 
certain assignment/transfer applicants will not need to submit contour 
maps to demonstrate compliance with the local radio ownership rules.
    35. Additionally, while the Memorandum Opinion and Order

[[Page 56978]]

retains the requirement that permittees and licensees compile and 
retain information concerning the ethnicity and gender of its 
attributable owners, they must submit this information on a biennial, 
rather than annual, basis. As stated in the FRFA, not all broadcast 
licensees are required to file ownership reports at all; sole 
proprietorships and partnerships comprised solely of natural persons 
are exempt from the filing requirement. Furthermore, the modified 
reporting requirements apply only to commercial broadcast stations, not 
to the 2401 noncommercial educational FM and television stations 
authorized as of April 30, 1999.

V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    36. The FRFA described in some detail the steps taken in the Report 
and Order to minimize significant economic impact on small entities and 
the alternatives considered. The rule and policy amendments adopted in 
this Memorandum Opinion and Order should also serve to minimize the 
adverse impact of the ``streamlining'' rules on small entities. 
Initially, with respect to the revised construction period/tolling 
rules, we note that small entities that might require more time to 
construct an authorized broadcast station than would a large 
corporation would likely benefit from the rules adopted in the Report 
and Order. These entities would now be given on extra year to construct 
a new television facility and 18 extra months to complete a radio 
station. Furthermore, these revised construction periods apply to all 
outstanding permits. Therefore, to the extent that such smaller 
entities needing some additional time will be granted up to three 
``unencumbered'' years simply upon a written request for such 
treatment.
    37. As urged by several petitioners, the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order modifies the rules and policies promulgated in the Report and 
Order in such ways that will indirectly benefit smaller broadcast 
entities. For example, the elimination of the need to compose and 
submit station service contour maps in all assignment/transfer 
applications implicating the local radio ownership rules will likely 
benefit smaller entities owning fewer broadcast stations.

VI. Report to Congress

    38. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order in this proceeding, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report 
that will be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 801(l)(1)(A). In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

Part 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

    2. Section 73.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 73.3513  Signing of applications.

* * * * *
    (c) Facsimile signatures are acceptable. Only the original of 
applications, amendments, or related statements of fact, need be 
signed; copies may be conformed.
* * * * *
    3. Section 73.3564 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and 
adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 73.3564  Acceptance of applications.

* * * * *
    (a) *  *  *
    (2) In the case of minor modifications of facilities in the non-
reserved FM band, applications will be placed on public notice if they 
meet the following two-tiered minimum filing requirements as initially 
filed in first-come/first-serve proceedings:
    (i) The application must include:
    (A) Applicant's name and address,
    (B) Applicant's signature,
    (C) Principal community,
    (D) Channel or frequency,
    (E) Class of station, and
    (F) Transmitter site coordinates; and
    (ii) The application must not omit more than three of the following 
second-tier items:
    (A) A list of the other media interests of the applicant and its 
principals,
    (B) Certification of compliance with the alien ownership provisions 
contained in 47 U.S.C. 310(b),
    (C) Tower/antenna heights,
    (D) Effective radiated power,
    (E) Whether the antenna is directional or omnidirectional, and
    (F) An exhibit demonstrating compliance with the contour protection 
requirements of 47 CFR 73.215, if applicable.
    (3) Applications found not to meet minimum filing requirements will 
be returned to the applicant. Applications found to meet minimum filing 
requirements, but that contain deficiencies in tender and/or acceptance 
information, shall be given an opportunity for corrective amendment 
pursuant to 73.3522 of this part. Applications found to be 
substantially complete and in accordance with the Commission's core 
legal and technical requirements will be accepted for filing. 
Applications with uncorrected tender and/or acceptance defects 
remaining after the opportunity for corrective amendment will be 
dismissed with no further opportunity for amendment.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-27638 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P