**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- ) MM Docket No. 98-43

Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, )

Rules, and Processes )

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** April 2, 1998 **Released:** April 3, 1998

Comment Date: \[60 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register\]

Reply Date: \[90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register\]

By the Commission (Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a separate
statement):

**Table of Contents**

Paragraph

I. Introduction 1

II\. Issue Analysis 5

A. Electronic Filing of Applications 5

1\. Electronic Filing Proposal . 5

2\. Applicant Identification Issues 12

B. Streamlining Application Processing 17

1\. Assignment and Transfer Applications: Forms 314 and 315 21

a\. Rule Changes 22

\(i\) Payment Restrictions on the Sale of Unbuilt Stations 22

\(ii\) Requirement to Submit Contracts with Assignment and Transfer
Applications 30

\(iii\) Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap Maps 34

b\. Other Revisions 35

2\. New Commercial Station and Facility Change Applications: Form 301 36

a\. Rule Revisions 36

\(i\) Section 73.316(c) 37

\(ii\) Section 73.1030(a) 40

\(iii\) Section 73.1675(a) 41

b\. Form Revisions 43

C. Enforcement 47

D. Modifying Construction Permit Extension Procedures 51

E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments and Transfers 69

F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting Requirements 83

III\. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 90

Appendix A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix B: Forms

Appendix C: Worksheets

**I. Introduction**

With this *Notice*, we commence a proceeding to consider fundamental
changes in our broadcast application and licensing procedures. Our goals
are to reduce applicant and licensee burdens, realize fully the benefits
of the Mass Media Bureau\'s current electronic filing initiative, and
preserve the public\'s ability to participate fully in our broadcast
licensing processes. This proceeding is premised on our belief that we
can prudently increase our reliance on applicant certifications rather
than more detailed applicant informational disclosures. These proposals
are designed to reduce filing burdens and increase the efficiency of
application processing. We recognize that this approach is feasible only
if the Commission retains the capacity to verify compliance with our
rules and the accuracy of application information through audits and
inquiries. Thus, we emphasize that this streamlining initiative is
accompanied by our commitment to sanction severely those applicants that
fall short of discharging their obligations of full disclosure and
complete candor, buttressed by our proposal to establish a formal system
of random audits.

This *Notice* is part of a broad-based streamlining initiative to
overhaul Mass Media Bureau policies and licensing procedures. At this
time, our streamlining efforts include two additional proceedings that
are pending or will soon be initiated. The Commission currently has
outstanding a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* regarding ways to reduce
undue equal employment opportunity (\"EEO\") program compliance burdens
for broadcasters while still maintaining an effective EEO program.[^1]
Moreover, the Commission will shortly initiate a separate rule making to
consider technical changes. That proceeding will attempt to identify
ways to speed the introduction of new and improved broadcast services,
provide greater flexibility to broadcasters to improve existing
services, and facilitate compliance with core technical requirements.

The instant rulemaking is premised, for the most part, on the
Commission\'s current regulatory framework, *i.e.,* it assumes no
fundamental changes in our rules and policies relating to multiple
ownership, attribution, investor insulation, control, etc.[^2] Within
that framework, the proposals made in this *Notice* represent a
significant step forward. Specifically, we invite comment as to whether
electronic filing should be mandatory for 16 key Mass Media Bureau
broadcast application and reporting forms. In connection with this
transition, we propose to revise substantially these forms to facilitate
electronic application processing by replacing narrative exhibits with
\"yes/no\" questions and certifications.[^3] We also believe,
independent of electronic filing considerations, that expanded
application instructions, new worksheets and revised forms will prove
less burdensome to applicants while promoting compliance with our rules.
We are confident that implementation of these proposed changes will
create a better regulatory environment for both the public and the
broadcast industry.

We emphasize, however, that the scope of this proceeding is
significantly broader than electronic filing and that we seek generally
to overhaul and streamline broadcast licensing processes. Although not
required by statute, this initiative is undertaken in conjunction with
our 1998 biennial regulatory review. In this regard, we have tentatively
identified certain policies that either consume significant staff
resources or create burdens that may no longer be warranted.
Accordingly, we propose to eliminate: payment restrictions on the sale
of unbuilt stations, the requirement to submit contracts with assignment
and transfer applications, and several rules that add unwarranted filing
burdens on commercial new station and facility change applicants. We
consider relaxing ownership report filing requirements for commercial
and noncommercial stations. This proceeding also proposes fundamental
changes in our construction permit extension procedures. We believe
these changes will reduce the need for repetitive extension filings. We
seek comments on procedures we can adopt, consistent with statutory
restrictions, to expedite the processing of *pro forma* assignment and
transfer applications. Finally, we invite comment on other measures
which may advance our streamlining goals.

**II. Issue Analysis**

**A. Electronic Filing of Applications**

1\. *Electronic Filing Proposal*

*Background*. The Commission is committed to using information
technology to better serve members of the public and the parties that we
regulate.[^4] Accordingly, the Mass Media Bureau is currently working on
facilitating electronic filing for 15 key broadcasting application and
reporting forms.[^5] This project is one phase of a multi-phased effort
to computerize and streamline the Mass Media Bureau\'s processes. In
this Notice, we invite comment on whether we should make electronic
filing of these applications mandatory or permissive, and, if mandatory,
whether we should phase in such requirements.[^6]

*Discussion*. We believe that widespread use of electronic filing and
related processing systems will permit meaningful efficiencies in
dealing with applicants, licensees, and the general public. Our goal is
to create a customer-friendly environment that uses the most current
filing and processing technologies.

Electronic filing could, among other things, speed the processing of
applications, save Commission resources, and make filing easier for
regulatees by automatically notifying them of any critical errors or
omissions in their applications even before any staff review occurs,
through a series of edit checks and business validations.[^7] Such
efficiencies could allow broadcasters to inaugurate or improve service
to the public more quickly. In addition, because of the unique public
service obligations of broadcasters, it is critical that our processes
remain open to participation by broadcasters, broadcast applicants, and
members of the public. We believe that electronic filing could
facilitate such openness. If electronically filed applications are made
available on the Internet, interested parties could examine them at
home, at the office, or perhaps at the public library.[^8] We invite
comment on these tentative views.

We invite comment as to whether electronic filing of some or all of the
15 forms listed in note 5, *supra* should be mandatory or whether
electronic filing should be permissive. Making it mandatory would allow
us to maximize the resource savings, cost savings, and efficiencies
achievable through electronic filing.[^9] It may also permit an increase
in the accuracy of the Commission\'s data bases, which would more
accurately reflect the data filed in applications. Therefore, we seek
comment on whether we should require mandatory electronic filing of all
of these applications.[^10] Additionally, we seek comment on whether we
should require that FCC Form 398, the Children\'s Programming Report,
which can currently be filed either electronically or by paper, be filed
electronically.[^11] We seek comment on these proposals, as well as on
any legal, technical, or other issues raised by mandatory electronic
filing.[^12]

While we recognize the substantial benefits of mandatory electronic
filing, we also seek to avoid any disruption to or harmful impact on any
small businesses that may not have access to computer or Internet
services. Since computer technology and Internet accessibility have
become widespread, is lack of access to computer services that would
permit electronic filing a significant problem? For broadcasters that
lack the necessary computer and communications technology, are vendors
available to assist in the preparation and electronic filing of
applications? Would the cost of such services be unreasonably burdensome
to those broadcasters that do not have other electronic filing options?
If the lack of access to or the cost of computer services is a problem,
should we create exemptions to mandatory electronic filing for small
businesses or other qualifying entities? How should we define the
qualifying criteria for any such exemption? Would the waiver standards
or small business definitions applied by other federal agencies be
useful in this regard?[^13]

Alternatively, would any disruptive impact of a mandatory electronic
filing requirement be minimized or eliminated by phasing in such
requirements, *i.e.*, affording a transition period during which
electronic filing would be permissive?[^14] Such a transition period
might allow applicants and members of the public a period of time to
become accustomed to the new system and to gain access to computer
services if they do not already have them, and it might provide the
Commission with an opportunity to address any unforeseen problems with
the system.[^15] During such a transition period, we anticipate that
businesses could arise to offer electronic filing services to those
persons or entities that do not own computers or otherwise have access
to the Internet.

If we adopt a transition period, should it be based, at least in part,
on whether the filer is a small entity? Should the phase-in be done on a
form-by-form basis? What phase-in dates should we use? Are there ways
that we could or should encourage voluntary electronic filing during
such a transition period? What incentives could we apply to do so? We
note that its inherent advantages may likely be the most significant
incentive. However, we request comment on other possible measures to
spur electronic filing, such as higher filing fees for paper filers. We
could adopt such measures during a transition phase to assure the
highest possible level of electronic filing. We note, however, our
tentative view that we lack statutory authority to structure filing fees
based on whether the filing is paper or electronic. If we phase in mass
media electronic filing, should we require parties also to submit
traditional paper copies of any electronic filings during the
transition? Would any such requirement be consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995? Would such a requirement increase administrative
burden, delay processing, or discourage electronic filing?

2\. *Applicant Identification Issues*

*Background*. TINs are 9-digit identifiers required of all individuals
and employers to identify their tax accounts. Pursuant to the Debt
Collection Improvement Act (\"DCIA\"), Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions
and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. Law No. 104-34, Chapter 10, 110
Stat 1321, 1321-1358 (1996), he Commission and executive agencies are
required to monitor and provide information about their regulatees to
the U.S. Treasury. The statute includes a requirement that the
Commission collect Taxpayer Identifying Numbers (TIN), also referred to
as \"Taxpayer Identification Numbers,\" and share them with the U.S.
Treasury to ensure that the Commission does not refund monies to
entities that have an outstanding debt with the federal government.
Individuals use their Social Security Number as their TIN.[^16]
Employers use their Employer Identification Number (\"EIN\") as their
TIN.[^17] The Financial Management Service of the U.S. Treasury has
recommended that agencies obtain the TIN when an agency first has direct
contact with a person.[^18]

*Discussion*. We invite comment on using TINs in a manner analogous to
their proposed use in the Wireless Bureau\'s Universal Licensing
System.[^19] Under our proposal, all parties that submit broadcast
applications electronically would be required to submit a TIN as a
prerequisite for using the system, and the Mass Media Bureau would use
TINs as the unique identifier for such parties. Parties submitting
applications manually would also be required to supply their TIN on
their application form, because all such applications will be scanned
into the electronic filing system, and a TIN is necessary to track these
applications for DCIA purposes. Parties seeking to file a pleading
electronically would not be required to submit a TIN, but they would be
permitted to register using a unique identifier and password of their
choosing.[^20] Members of the public would not be required to register
simply to view applications.

We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs would satisfy the
requirements of the DCIA, and whether it would provide a unique
identifier for parties filing broadcast applications that would ensure
that the system functions properly. We would take steps to prevent
misuse of TINs. For example, the electronic filing system would be
designed so that TINs would not be available to the public. In addition,
we could limit the number of Commission employees who would have access
to TIN information in conjunction with their work.

As an alternative, we seek comment on using unique system-generated
identifiers. These identifiers would be generated by the Bureau\'s
database and would be assigned to filers in the following manner: The
first four digits would represent the year, followed by the month and
the day. For example, 20010122 would represent January 22, 2001. This
number would be followed by a three-character alphanumeric sequence in
the ranges of \"a\" to \"z\" and \"0\" to \"9.\" The identifier would
also represent the application\'s file number.[^21]

Finally, a Privacy Act submission would be published in the *Federal
Register* to obtain the requisite public and congressional comment and
Office of Management and Budget (\"OMB\") approval prior to
implementation of the electronic filing system. We seek comment on these
proposals.

**B. Streamlining Application Processing**

As noted, the transition from paper to electronic filing creates
significant opportunities to streamline and improve the way in which
applications are processed. Moreover, the elimination of manual data
entry would result in the Commission\'s databases more accurately
reflecting the data filed in applications. Electronic filing could speed
application processing and enhance public access to application
information. It would also permit for the first time the electronic
processing of many portions of broadcast applications. However, the
current versions of most Mass Media Bureau forms rely to a significant
extent on open-ended narrative exhibits and document submissions. We
could not obtain the full benefits of electronic filing and processing
simply by converting the current version of each form into an electronic
format. Accordingly, we believe that it is necessary to undertake a
thorough review of our broadcast forms and to reconsider both the
information that is collected and the form in which it is submitted.

We purposely choose to concentrate first on those application forms that
constitute the bulk of filings made by full service radio and television
broadcasters and to which the Mass Media Bureau currently allocates a
significant portion of its processing resources. Thus, we consider
changes to the license and permit assignment and transfer forms \--
Forms 314, 315 and 316; the new commercial station/technical
modification form \-- Form 301; the construction permit extension form
\-- Form 307; and the annual ownership report for commercial stations
\-- Form 323.[^22] For Forms 314, 315, 316, and 301, we have attempted
to recast as many questions as possible into an electronic \"filing
friendly\" format, replacing required exhibits with certifications and
\"yes/no\" questions. We tentatively conclude that the broadcast
application forms should restrict, to the maximum extent possible, the
use of exhibits to waiver requests or where additional information is
necessary to support application elements potentially inconsistent with
precedent or processing standards. At the same time we have taken a
fresh look at the information which we currently require, and propose to
reduce substantially the amount of information that applicants are now
required to file. For Forms 307 and 323, we propose to restructure
filing requirements altogether.

We believe these proposed changes would benefit broadcasters, the public
and the Commission. As part of this process we are making significant
revisions to the instructions to the Mass Media Bureau application forms
and adding worksheets, where applicable, to help clarify Commission
processing standards and rule interpretations. We anticipate that these
changes would increase the percentage of applications that are complete
and \"acceptable\" at the time of filing. By specifically enumerating in
instruction materials the key factual predicates underlying certain
certifications, we also believe that we would enhance the reliability of
the information provided by applicants. Our fundamental goal is to
provide applicants with sufficient guidance to intelligently certify
compliance with our rules and policies. We view the expanded application
form instructions as crucial to this process and therefore, propose to
require each applicant to certify that it has read the instructions and
disclosed fully in exhibits all matters about which there is any
question regarding full compliance with the standards and criteria set
forth in the instructions. We invite comment on this proposal. We seek
comment on whether we should require licensees to retain worksheets for
use in response to Commission audits or other Commission inquiries, or
alternatively whether licensees should be required to place worksheets
in their public inspection files. Moreover, we anticipate that staff
would no longer need to meticulously review those applications in which
an applicant\'s responses establish full compliance with our rules. We
also propose to narrow or eliminate application questions of marginal
importance and believe that these changes will not undermine the
Commission\'s ability to make informed public interest determinations.

As part of this broad review of our processing practices, we also have
scrutinized our substantive rules which significantly impact on our
ability to efficiently process the applications which are under
consideration in this proceeding. We tentatively conclude that some may
no longer serve the public interest, as discussed below. Accordingly, we
propose to eliminate or relax a number of technical and non-technical
rules and filing requirements. If adopted, these changes would both
reduce applicant filing burdens and streamline our processing of sales,
new station, and facility modification applications. Attached as
Appendix B are illustrative copies of several forms that incorporate the
changes proposed herein. Attached as Appendix C are several draft
worksheets which are designed to aid applicants in making informed
application certifications. We emphasize that based on our experience
with these fundamental changes in our application procedures, we may
consider additional modifications to the forms, related software
programs, and electronic filing procedures to simplify electronic filing
for broadcasters and enhance Commission processing efficiencies.

1\. *Assignment and Transfer Applications: Forms 314 and 315*[^23]

The Mass Media Bureau devotes considerable staff resources to processing
the several thousand assignment and transfer applications it receives
each year.[^24] We believe that substantial benefits could be gained in
this area from the implementation of electronic filing and processing.
We have reviewed and propose substantial revisions to the sales
application forms (FCC Forms 314 and 315). A number of proposed
application form changes follow from our review of our assignment and
transfer rules and the information currently collected as part of the
sales application process. We propose to eliminate the rule restricting
payments upon assignment or transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we
propose to eliminate the requirement that applicants file sales
agreements as part of the assignment or transfer application. In
addition, we propose other changes that are not subject to the
rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act[^25] and
therefore may be implemented without notice and comment. Nonetheless, we
believe the changes are substantial enough to warrant discussion here.

a\. *Rule Changes*

\(i\) *Payment Restrictions on the Sale of Unbuilt Stations*

*Background*. Section 73.3597(c) of the Commission\'s rules restricts
payments upon assignment or transfer of an unbuilt station to
reimbursement of a seller\'s expenses (\"no profit\" rule).[^26] The
\"no profit\" rule requires that an application to assign or transfer an
unbuilt station include declarations by both parties that the seller
will not be reimbursed for more than out-of-pocket expenses.[^27] In
addition, Section 73.3597(d) provides that where the seller retains an
interest in an unbuilt station, the Commission must consider whether the
transaction involves actual or potential gain to the seller over and
above reimbursement of expenses.[^28] In such cases, our rules provide
that the assignment or transfer application must be designated for
hearing unless the transferor or assignor has obligated itself to
provide the station with a capital contribution proportionate to the
transferor\'s or assignor\'s equity share in the station for the
one-year period commencing with program tests.[^29]

The Commission adopted the current \"no profit\" rule as a mechanism to
ensure that an applicant held the requisite intent to place a proposed
station on the air and initiate service. The rule was intended \"to
preclude trafficking in construction permits for unbuilt stations by
barring the use of such permits as a means of obtaining financial gain
from their transfer before the original grantee builds and operates the
station.\"[^30] The Commission\'s adoption of the \"no profit\"
limitation supplemented the adoption seven years earlier of the \"three
year rule,\" which provided that permittees seeking to assign or
transfer a station held for less than three years would be required to
make a compelling affirmative showing of unforeseen circumstances or
hardship.[^31]

When the Commission eliminated the \"three year rule\" in 1982, we
announced that the Commission would \"limit . . . action in this area to
enforcing Sections 301 and 304 of the Communications Act,\"[^32] which
traditionally have been interpreted to provide, *inter alia*, that
licenses issued by the Commission convey no property interest.[^33] At
that time, the Commission reasoned that the for-profit assignment or
transfer of a construction permit prior to commencement of program tests
violates the letter and spirit of these statutory provisions.[^34] In
addition, as a policy matter, the Commission stated that implicit in the
filing of a construction permit application is an applicant\'s
representation of intent to construct and promptly initiate
service.[^35] As a result, the Commission concluded that retention of
the \"no profit\" limitation was necessary to maintain the integrity of
the Commission\'s processes and to further the public interest objective
of expeditious introduction of new service.[^36] We also concluded that
once a permittee commences operations, it has fulfilled its service
commitment and therefore, the \"no profit\" limitation should no longer
apply.[^37]

*Discussion*. We now propose to eliminate the \"no profit\" rule.[^38]
Although the Commission previously concluded that the \"no-profit\" rule
was mandated by statute when we eliminated the \"three year rule,\" we
subsequently held in *Bill Welch* that there is no *per se* statutory
proscription against for-profit sales of unbuilt stations.[^39] Rather,
the Commission reasoned that Sections 301 and 304 of the Act \"address
congressional concerns that the Federal Government retain ultimate
control over radio frequencies, as against any rights, especially
property rights, that might be asserted by licensees who are permitted
to use the frequencies.\"[^40] The Commission concluded that the
language of Sections 301 and 304 does not specifically prohibit sales of
unbuilt construction permits and such sales are not inconsistent with
the government\'s ultimate control over those licenses.[^41]
Furthermore, the Commission found that the for-profit sale of the
cellular authorizations obtained through a lottery was consistent with
the public interest.[^42] While the Commission recognized that the
for-profit sale of unbuilt cellular facilities may increase the risk of
speculation, it found that the best approach to discourage speculation
would be to review all assignment and transfer applications pursuant to
the cellular service\'s \"anti-trafficking\" provision.[^43]

We believe that the statutory analysis set forth in *Bill Welch* remains
correct, and therefore, that there is no statutory proscription against
the for-profit sale of construction permits for unbuilt broadcast
stations. Moreover, we no longer believe that retention of the rule is
necessary to facilitate the introduction of new broadcast services or to
maintain the integrity of our licensing process. With the initiation of
competitive bidding for broadcast spectrum in situations where mutually
exclusive applications are filed, we believe that the winning bidder\'s
payment of fair market value for a construction permit combined with a
restricted construction permit extension policy proposed *infra* will
promote the prompt construction of broadcast facilities.[^44] Moreover,
our concern about spectrum speculation in an auction environment, where
the winning bidder has paid, axiomatically, fair market value for an
authorization, is significantly less than in *Bill Welch*, in which a
cellular authorization was obtained in a lottery. Thus, we tentatively
conclude that we should follow the same construction permit sale policy
which is followed in other services subject to auction procedures.[^45]

We recognize that the Commission will not be conducting auctions to
assign construction permits in every context. For example, we may decide
not to use auction procedures for noncommercial station licenses.[^46]
Also, we may receive applications that attract no competing applications
(\"singletons\") and thus would not be auctionable. We seek comment on
whether the fact that a construction permit may not be issued through
auction should cause us to retain the \"no profit\" rule in such
situations. We specifically invite commenters to discuss the pros and
cons of applying the \"no profit\" rule in cases where no auction takes
place.[^47]

We tentatively conclude that reimbursement restrictions should also be
eliminated for outstanding construction permits. Existing permittees
acquired their authorizations under the current limitations, without any
reasonable expectation that there would be an opportunity to sell at a
profit prior to the initiation of service. It also appears that a number
of commercial station construction permits will be issued prior to the
implementation of competitive bidding, primarily as a result of
settlement agreements facilitated by Section 309(l)(3) of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.[^48] Section 309(l)(3) requires the Commission to
waive, *inter alia,* the \"no profit\" rule with regard to settlements
among certain applicants entered into by February 1, 1998.[^49] We
tentatively conclude that we also should permit the for-profit sale of
these construction permits, which to a certain extent have already been
subject to private competitive forces. More generally, we believe that
sales to serious buyers willing to acquire construction permits at fair
market value and under strict construction requirements will help ensure
the prompt initiation of new service. Moreover, this reasoning appears
to apply equally to both outstanding construction permits and those that
will be issued before the implementation of competitive bidding
procedures. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

If we retain the current \"no profit\" rule, we propose to allow
permittees to certify compliance with the rule by answering a series of
\"yes/no\" questions. For example, a permittee would be required to
certify that it has not included any expenses for services rendered by
any of its principals and that there are no consulting or future
employment agreements between the permittee and the assignee that are
part of the consideration for assignment of the permit to the proposed
assignee. The Commission would continue to have the authority to request
an itemized accounting of expenses on a case-by-case basis where
disclosures in an application raise issues or concerns.[^50] We seek
comment on the appropriateness of allowing permittees to certify
compliance, and particularly on our proposal to allow a seller to
certify that it will not be reimbursed for more than its out-of-pocket
expenses. We also request comment on whether it would be sufficient to
require sellers to place copies of all expense documentation in a
station\'s public file if the no-profit rule is retained.

\(ii\) *Requirement to Submit Contracts with Assignment and Transfer
Applications*

*Background*. In connection with our broad review of the Mass Media
Bureau\'s processing practices, we have reviewed the information that
currently is collected as part of the application process. The current
sales forms, FCC Forms 314, 315 and 316, require that the seller submit
a copy of the contract and/or agreement for the assignment or transfer
of the station, or if the agreement has not been reduced to writing, a
written description of the complete oral agreement. In addition, Section
73.3613(b) of the Commission\'s rules requires that licensees and
permittees file with the Commission any documents relating to the
present or future ownership or control of the licensee or permittee
within thirty days of execution.[^51] The Commission has used the sales
agreement, together with the application, to understand the overall
structure of each transaction involving the assignment or transfer of a
broadcast authorization. These documents also have enabled the
Commission to independently verify compliance with various rules,
including the Commission\'s prohibition against reversionary interests,
and to ensure that a non-party cannot exercise undue influence over an
assignee or transferee.

*Discussion*. We propose to eliminate the requirement that such
contracts and/or agreements be filed as part of assignment or transfer
applications as well as the portion of Section 73.3613(b) that requires
that such agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of
execution.[^52] To the extent that we can rely on applicants\'
certifications regarding the contents of sales agreements rather than on
a direct review of the relevant documents, the Commission could achieve
significant resource savings. However, we also recognize that any
processing changes must not impede our ability to discharge our
obligation under Section 310(d) of the Act to grant only those
applications that serve the public interest, convenience and necessity
and must preserve the public\'s ability to monitor and participate in
the consideration of sales applications.

In lieu of the requirement that applicants file the agreements and/or
contracts with the application, we propose to require applicants to
carefully and thoroughly review their sales and organizational documents
against the detailed standards set forth in the instructions to Forms
314 and 315.[^53] These standards have been designed to identify the
core issues that the Commission passes on now when it reviews the actual
agreements and/or contracts. We propose to expand application
instructions to cover both the sales and loan agreements and also issues
relating to non-party investor influence over the assignee or
transferee. We also believe that a checklist of criteria regarding
investor insulation would clarify the limited scope of insulated
investor involvement in a licensee entity. Applicants would be required
to disclose fully any sales, financing or investor information where the
transaction or the assignee entity does not conform fully to the
standards set forth in the instructions. However, we may request copies
of agreements on a case-by-case basis where disclosures made in an
application raise issues or concerns.[^54] We seek comment on whether
the proposed application procedures and certifications would suffice
instead of the requirement that applicants file the sales agreements
with their applications. In particular, we seek comment on whether the
proposed instruction materials and related certifications would suffice
instead of individualized review of agreements and contracts where
complex transactions are involved. Finally, we seek comment on whether
these procedures are sufficient to discharge our obligation under
Section 310(d) of the Act to grant only those applications that serve
the public interest, convenience and necessity.

If the Commission eliminates the requirement that applicants file sales
agreements with their applications and the rule requiring that such
agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of execution,
we propose to require that applicants place all such agreements in the
station\'s public inspection file and to modify our public inspection
file rule accordingly. The revised assignment and transfer forms would
require the current permittee or licensee to certify that this has been
done. However, we are concerned about preserving meaningful public
participation under Section 309(d) of the Act and minimizing applicant
filing burdens.[^55] Are the proposed procedures sufficient to permit
the public to monitor station transactions? Does Section 309(d) of the
Act effectively mandate that we require applicants to place copies of
sales agreements in their public inspection files or some other place?
We also seek comment on the impact of ending the practice of having
sales agreements available for inspection in the Commission\'s
Washington, D.C. public reference room.

\(iii\) *Requirement to Submit Contour Overlap Maps*

With regard to radio applicants, we propose to reduce administrative
burdens on broadcasters and at the same time streamline the staff review
process by eliminating the requirement that applicants submit contour
overlap maps to demonstrate compliance with our local radio ownership
rules. We propose to rely on applicant certifications in place of
contour maps. An applicant would be in a position to make this local
radio ownership certification only after completing a worksheet.[^56] To
the extent a proposed transaction would involve more than one
\"market,\" as that term is defined in Section 73.3555(a)(4)(ii), we
would require the applicant to complete the worksheet with regard to
each such market. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we
seek comment on whether our elimination of the requirement that
applicants submit contour overlap maps will detrimentally affect the
public\'s ability to access the information necessary to monitor station
sales and thereby undermine the opportunity for meaningful public
participation under Section 309(d) of the Act.[^57] In connection with
these changes, we also seek comment on whether we should require an
applicant to place a copy of the contour overlap map in the station\'s
public inspection file. It is our belief that most applicants that
propose to hold multiple radio interests in a single area would need to
prepare contour overlap maps to meaningfully and accurately complete the
worksheet and answer the related application certification question,
regardless of whether there is a Commission filing requirement. We also
seek comment on whether applicants should be exempt from the public file
requirement in those situations in which compliance is obvious, *e.g.,*
where a certification is premised on the fact there are forty-five or
more stations in a major market. We seek comment of whether we should
require an applicant to prepare a map solely for placement in the
station\'s public inspection file in such circumstances.

b\. *Other Revisions*

As noted above, we also propose revisions to the sales forms (FCC Forms
314 and 315) that do not require changes in our rules. These changes are
intended to maximize the advantages of electronic filing and processing
and eliminate burdensome disclosure requirements. As noted above, these
proposed form changes are not subject to the Administrative Procedure
Act\'s notice and comment rulemaking requirements.[^58] Nevertheless, we
believe that comment on the proposed revisions is warranted. We urge
interested parties to review the draft forms carefully so that
meaningful comments may be submitted regarding the proposed revisions in
the forms.

2\. *New Commercial Station and Facility Change Applications: Form 301*

a\. *Rule Revisions*

Form 301 is used to propose new stations, as well as major and minor
changes to authorized facilities in the commercial television, FM and AM
services. In order to more fully realize our goals of simplifying the
preparation of the technical portion of Form 301 and reducing paperwork
for broadcast applicants, we propose to modify or eliminate filing and
reporting requirements codified in three Commission rules: 47 C.F.R.
\'\' 73.316(c) (FM directional antenna systems), 73.1030(a)
(Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy and radio
research installations) and 73.1675(a) (Auxiliary antennas).

\(i\) *Section 73.316(c)*

We propose to modify Section 73.316(c) to shift the filing requirements
now codified in subsections (1)-(2) and (4)-(7) from the construction
permit phase to the license phase of the FM authorization process.[^59]
Subsections (1) and (4) of 47 C.F.R. \' 73.316(c) require the submission
as part of Form 301 of information regarding directional antenna
manufacturer and type, and a vertical plane pattern plot. In practice,
however, we have not needed such information until the license stage of
the authorization process.[^60] With regard to subsection (c)(1), the
Commission recognized in the *One Step Licensing Report and Order* that
in many cases the construction permit applicant has not selected an
antenna manufacturer or model type.[^61] As to the vertical plane
pattern plot required by (c)(4), the primary purpose of this information
is to demonstrate that a directional antenna\'s actual performance
comports with the Commission\'s technical standards. Thus, we recognized
in the *One Step Licensing Report and Order* that vertical plane pattern
plots \"should be supplied with the licens\[e\] application.\"[^62] We
now propose to change the rule to require the information set forth in
these subsections only at the license application stage of the FM
authorization process.

Section 73.316(c)(2) requires that FM applicants submit as part of Form
301 a composite pattern plot for proposed directional antennas. A
composite pattern tabulation, however, is sufficient for processing such
applications. In practice, the staff also has required submission of
such a plot (based on the antenna\'s actual, rather than its
theoretical, composite pattern) with the FM license application, as part
of a directional antenna\'s proof of performance. We now propose to
modify Section 73.316(c)(2) to require the submission of a measured
composite pattern plot with only the license application and to permit
FM applicants to file tabulated composite pattern data with Form 301.
This proposed modification would reduce paperwork for FM applicants, who
in practice now are required to submit such plots twice during the
authorization process. It also would codify the processing requirement
that plots be submitted at the license stage. In order to conform the
rule to the new and revised Section 73.310(a) (composite antenna
pattern),[^63] we also propose to substitute the term \"composite
antenna pattern\" for the following language in the present Section
73.316(c)(2): \"relative field horizontal plane pattern\" with \"\[a\]
single pattern encompassing both the horizontal and vertical
polarization . . ., rather than separate patterns for horizontal and
vertical polarization.\"

Subsections (5) through (7) of the present Section 73.316(c) require the
submission with the FM construction permit application of directional
antenna mounting data. We propose to modify these subsections to limit
this disclosure requirement to license applications and to conform
subsections (5) through (7) with subsection (8) of Section 73.316(c),
which currently requires that applicants establish rule compliance at
the license application stage. We anticipate that these changes to
Section 73.316(c) would simplify the overall authorization process for
FM applicants proposing the use of directional antennas.

\(ii\) *Section 73.1030(a)*

Section 73.1030(a) protects radio astronomy and radio research
installations in West Virginia and Puerto Rico from interference by
proposed new or modified broadcast facilities. The rule requires
applicants in specified areas to notify the observatories of their
proposals prior to or simultaneously with the filing of their
applications with the Commission and we propose no change in this
procedure.[^64] The Commission then allows the observatories a 20-day
comment period. The present rule specifies that applicants must disclose
the date of notification to the observatory. We believe that this
disclosure requirement is superfluous because Section 73.1030(a)
requires applicants to provide the required notice no later than the
filing date of the application. The 20-day period for comment or
objection necessarily commences on the filing date.[^65] Accordingly, we
propose to modify Section 73.1030(a) by eliminating the requirement that
applicants indicate in their applications the date of observatory
notification. The staff could determine automatically based upon a
proposed facility\'s coordinates whether Section 73.1030(a) is
applicable, and where the rule applies, automatically provide the
observatory in question the requisite 20-day comment period, commencing
on the filing date of the application.[^66]

\(iii\) *Section 73.1675(a)*

Section 73.1675(a) provides that the service contour of a proposed
broadcast auxiliary operation must not exceed the specified
corresponding contour for the licensed main station operation. The rule
requires broadcast applicants to submit maps demonstrating compliance
with this provision in support of their construction permit
applications. Staff rarely relies on these maps because the Commission
now has the tools to automatically verify compliance with Section
73.1675(a) based upon technical facility data required by Form 301.
Accordingly, we propose to modify the rule to eliminate the map
requirement for auxiliary facilities for the FM and TV broadcast
services. Although we believe that the rationale for eliminating the
Section 73.1675(a) map requirement is equally applicable to the FM and
TV broadcast services, we propose to retain the map requirement for AM
auxiliary facility permit applications. Determining service contours for
AM facilities requires conductivity measurement data which our databases
do not contain at this time. Therefore, verification of compliance with
Section 73.1675(a) for AM auxiliary facilities still requires manual
processing.

In sum, we believe that these proposed rule modifications would simplify
and make less burdensome the Form 301 application process. Moreover, we
believe that adoption of these changes would not jeopardize the
technical integrity of the broadcast services or the consistent
enforcement of our core rules and policies. We also believe that these
proposals would not diminish the public\'s ability to monitor or comment
on these facility applications. We seek comments on these modifications,
and request additional suggestions to eliminate or streamline reporting
and filing requirements which relate to Form 301 filings.

b\. *Form Revisions*

We also propose to reorganize and streamline FCC Form 301. The proposed
revisions are intended to reduce applicant filing burdens and increase
application processing efficiencies. First, we propose to conform Forms
301, 314 and 315 non-technical questions where regulatory concerns are
identical. Thus, the non-technical portions of Form 301 would
substantially duplicate the proposed new assignment and transfer forms.
In addition, we propose to reorganize the FM technical data section of
the application, Section V-B. Section V-B presently requires FM
broadcast applicants to demonstrate compliance with our technical rules
through submission of complex and detailed technical exhibits. These
technical exhibits are not submitted in a form or manner amenable to
computer data entry or analysis and, therefore, require manual
processing by the engineering staff. The revised Section V-B would
require applicants to certify compliance with our technical rules for
routine and non-waiver issues. The technical data required for
engineering review would be organized in such a manner as to facilitate
electronic entry of the data and, in some instances, allow our computer
engineering programs to verify compliance with our technical rules.
Consistent with our overall streamlining goals, we also propose to
eliminate certain burdensome, duplicative or marginally relevant
questions.[^67]

The revised Section V-B would consist of a certification section and a
discrete technical section or \"Tech Box.\" The certification section
would consist of a number of \"yes/no\" questions regarding compliance
with the Commission\'s technical rules. While Section V-B currently
requires as many as 14 exhibits, the revised version normally would
require no more than one or two exhibits. Exhibits would be required
only in connection with the most critical technical and public safety
matters, such as FM spacing, contour protection, and radiofrequency
electromagnetic exposure guidelines. Applications with verified \"yes\"
answers to all certification questions and with all necessary exhibits
attached would be processed on an expedited basis. All other
applications would be handled on a case-by-case basis. The revised Form
301 would also include detailed instructions to assist applicants in
preparing the technical portion of the form.

The \"Tech Box\" would cover all critical technical data required for
engineering review. Presently, questions and filing requirements
pertaining to technical data are interspersed throughout Section V-B. We
have found that this organization results in minor errors and
application discrepancies, necessitating repeated staff requests for
explanations and amendments. Such requests delay processing and tax the
Commission\'s limited resources. We anticipate that the \"Tech Box\"
would help eliminate this problem. In the event of any discrepancies
between data in the \"Tech Box\" and data submitted elsewhere in the
application, the data in the \"Tech Box\" would be controlling. Use of
the \"Tech Box\" also would facilitate electronic data entry and allow
the Commission\'s computer engineering programs to perform automatically
certain review functions now performed by the staff.

We believe that the revised Form 301, together with the proposed
modifications to our codified filing requirements discussed above, would
reduce the administrative burden of the broadcast application process
and make possible more efficient allocation of staff resources without
compromising our ability to maintain the technical integrity of
broadcast services, enforce our core rules and policies and permit
members of the public to monitor applications.[^68]

**C. Enforcement**

We have proposed substantial revisions to our applications forms and
processing procedures. These would significantly streamline the amount
of information that applicants must furnish to the Commission. We would
rely more heavily on certifications by applicants that they comply with
the applicable rules. By so doing, we do not intend at all to lower our
expectation that licensees conduct themselves as public trustees. Under
the Communications Act we retain the obligation to ensure that licensees
continue to serve the public interest and comply with the Commission\'s
rules.

Similarly, our proposals to relax or eliminate some of our rules and
policies should not be taken to mean that we will not take seriously the
rules and policies that remain. In fact, in a deregulatory setting,
where regulatory burdens are decreased, a permittee\'s or licensee\'s
unwillingness or inability to comply with the remaining rules has even
greater significance. Accordingly, we seek to ensure that our
enforcement policies remain adequate in light of our streamlining
efforts. Current enforcement measures applied by the Commission range
from admonitions to forfeitures to conducting hearings to determine
whether to revoke or deny renewal of a broadcaster\'s license. We invite
comment as to whether our existing enforcement measures and policies
remain sufficient.

We note that if the proposed revisions to our application forms and
processing procedures are adopted, we intend to have a formal program of
random audits to ensure that licensees continue to comply with our rules
and we intend to rely heavily on such audits. We invite comments as to
how we should implement such audits and whether such audits are
sufficient means of ensuring continued licensee compliance with our
rules and policies. If not, we invite comment as to what additional
measures, if any, we should adopt.

We reiterate that we take seriously permittees\' and licensees\'
representations to the Commission. We will not hesitate to impose strong
sanctions in the event that we find that misrepresentation has occurred
with respect to any such permittee or licensee certifications in
whatever streamlined applications we adopt. Candor is one of the highest
obligations of a licensee or permittee, as we rely to a great extent on
representations made in applications and other filings with the
Commission.[^69]

**D. Modifying Construction Permit Extension Procedures**

*Background*. The Act provides that the Commission may not grant a
license for a broadcast station without first issuing a construction
permit specifying the operating and construction parameters for the
facility, including the date on which the facility must be completed and
ready for operation.[^70] Whether for a new facility or for a
modification of a licensed station, the Commission issues a construction
permit for either 24 months (for full power TV) or 18 months (for AM,
FM, International Broadcast, low power TV, TV translator, TV booster, FM
translator, FM booster, broadcast auxiliary, or Instructional TV Fixed
station (\"ITFS\")).[^71] Within the specified time frame, a permittee
must complete construction and file an application for a license to
cover.

If a permittee fails to complete construction within the time period
specified in its construction permit, the Act provides that the
construction permit will be automatically forfeited unless the delay was
caused by circumstances that were not within the permittee\'s control or
the Commission, in its discretion, authorizes additional time.[^72]
Under our rules, we use identical criteria to determine whether
authorization of additional time is in the public interest, regardless
of whether the construction permit is for a new station or a proposed
modification of a licensed station.[^73] Specifically, we authorize a
permittee additional time to complete construction when it can
demonstrate one of the following three conditions: (1) construction is
complete and testing is underway looking toward prompt filing of a
license application; (2) substantial progress has been made, *i.e.*,
demonstration that equipment is on order or on hand, site acquired, site
cleared and construction proceeding toward completion; or (3) no
progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control of the
permittee (such as delays caused by governmental budgetary processes and
zoning problems) but the permittee has taken all possible steps to
expeditiously resolve the problem and proceed with construction.[^74] A
permittee that makes a satisfactory \"one-in-three\" showing (*i.e.*,
satisfies one of the above-three criteria) is afforded up to an
additional six months within which to complete construction. If the
permittee fails to complete construction prior to the expiration of this
additional period, the construction permit is once again subject to
forfeiture unless the Commission grants a further extension of time
based on a satisfactory \"one-in-three\" showing for the most recent
construction period.[^75]

Our rules also allow a permittee to file an application to modify a
construction permit or to file an application either to assign or
transfer control of a construction permit. If an application to modify a
construction permit, or an application to assign or transfer control of
a construction permit, is filed outside the first half of the
construction permit\'s initially authorized period (*i.e.*, after the
first 12 of the initial 24 months of a full power TV construction permit
or after the first nine of the initial 18 months of a construction
permit for other facilities) the permittee must make the same
\"one-in-three\" showing discussed above.[^76] When an application to
modify a construction permit is granted, the time period allowed for
construction is six months from the issuance of the authorization to
modify or the remainder of the construction permit\'s already authorized
construction period, whichever is longer.[^77] When an application to
assign or transfer control of a construction permit is granted, the
construction permit is extended for 12 months from the consummation of
the assignment or transfer of control, unless, at the time of
consummation, more than 12 months is remaining in the construction
permit\'s already authorized construction period.[^78]

Section 319 of the Act and our rules governing construction permits,
described above, are intended to strike a balance between our
fundamental interest in expediting new service to the public and in
preventing the warehousing of scarce spectrum and our recognition that
there are sometimes legitimate obstacles which prevent the rapid
construction of broadcast facilities. On several occasions we have
lengthened construction periods to conform our policies to changes in
broadcast technology and the broadcast marketplace, as well as to
respond to the ever-increasing tide of applications for extensions.

From 1934 to 1970, permittees were afforded eight months for
construction. During this era, several significant developments occurred
in the broadcast marketplace, including the introduction of both FM and
TV broadcast services. To address these changes, in 1970, we established
an 18-month construction period for TV stations and increased the
construction period for radio permittees to 12 months.[^79] We also used
that rulemaking to announce our intention to strictly scrutinize
applications for additional construction time and to deny all that
failed to show compelling public interest benefits justifying their
grant.[^80]

In 1985, citing the increasing complexity of construction, scarcity of
equipment suppliers and growing complexity in the design and
construction of broadcast stations, we again amended our rules and
increased the construction periods to the current terms of 24 months for
TV permittees and 18 months for radio permittees.[^81] Furthermore, we
eliminated grants of extension applications based on a \"catch-all\"
demonstration that the public interest would be served by the extension
of construction permit and we reasserted our intention to carefully
scrutinize all extension applications.[^82] We expected that longer
construction periods, in combination with the removal of the
\"catch-all\" public interest showing and increased scrutiny, would
significantly curb the substantial number of extension applications.

While many permittees are now able to complete construction within the
initial construction period afforded under the current rules, it remains
the case that a significant number of permittees do not succeed in
constructing their proposed facilities prior to permit expiration. As a
result, we continue to receive large numbers of extension applications
each year. For example in 1996, the Mass Media Bureau\'s Audio Services
Division alone received 617 applications to extend AM and FM
construction permits. In 1997, that number increased more than 10
percent to 687. Although most of the extension applications we receive
contain satisfactory \"one-in-three\" showings and, accordingly, are
granted, substantial staff resources are required for the fact-intensive
analysis involved in processing these applications.

In addition to the burden on staff resources, our current scheme places
a substantial administrative burden on permittees and in some instances
may actually create a barrier to prompt completion of construction.
Specifically, if a permittee is unable to complete construction prior to
expiration of the permit, the permittee is not only faced with the
burden of completing and filing an extension application but the
permittee must also wait a typical interval of two months while the
staff processes the extension request. During this interval, after the
permit has expired but before the staff has acted on the extension
application, the permittee remains unsure of the construction permit\'s
status (*i.e.*, the pending extension application might be denied) and
therefore any construction progress made during this period is at a
permittee\'s own risk. Given this uncertainty, many permittees choose
not to proceed with construction while an extension application is
pending.

*Discussion*. On the basis of our experience, we believe it is now time
to further consider amending our Mass Media rules governing construction
of facilities. As discussed more fully below, we propose to reduce the
necessity for extensions by increasing the authorized construction
period provided in an initial construction permit to a period that would
allow sufficient time for a diligent permittee to complete construction
of a facility, even if the permittee encounters significant construction
difficulties. Specifically, we propose to: (1) issue all construction
permits for a uniform three-year term; (2) extend permits only in
circumstances where the permit itself is the subject of administrative
or judicial appeal or where construction delays have been caused by an
\"act of God;\" (3) eliminate the current practice of providing extra
time for construction after a permit has been the subject of a
modification or an assignment or transfer of control; and (4) make
construction permits subject to automatic forfeiture upon expiration.
Additionally, we propose to apply these rules to any construction permit
that is within its initial construction period at the time these rules
are adopted.

In addition to fulfilling our streamlining goals of reducing the
necessity for extensions and thereby reducing paperwork and
administrative burdens, we believe that our proposed changes coincide
appropriately with the Commission\'s plan to issue construction permits
to build new stations and to make major modifications of licensed
facilities through an auction process.[^83] While we must obviously
provide applicants who receive a broadcast authorization through the
auction process an adequate period of time to construct their
facilities, we believe that three years is a sufficient period and that
a competitive bidding procedure will attract willing and able
participants and thus promote the expeditious construction of
facilities.[^84]

*Increased, Uniform Period For All Construction Permits*. As noted, we
propose to issue all future construction permits, whether for full power
or low power TV, TV translator, TV booster, AM, FM, FM translator, FM
booster, International Broadcast, or broadcast auxiliary facilities,
with a uniform three-year construction period. Furthermore, we propose
to grant the proposed three-year construction period to all permits,
whether for the construction of a new facility or for a modification of
a licensed station. Based on our experience in granting extensions, we
believe that an uninterrupted three-year construction period, combined
with the tolling mechanism described in paragraph 64 *infra*, would
provide adequate time in which any diligent permittee could successfully
complete construction.

We invite comment on the need for, and relative merits of, a uniform
period and we seek comment as to whether a three year term is
appropriate. We solicit comments on typical construction time lines and
problems, particularly where commenters support alternative permit time
frames. We also seek comment as to whether the proposed longer
construction period would remove an incentive for prompt construction by
permittees who are capable of completing construction much earlier than
the proposed three-year deadline. This question is particularly relevant
regarding construction permits to modify licensed facilities and permits
to construct secondary facilities where a three-year period might, in
instances where the proposed changes do not require extensive
construction efforts, be far more than a diligent permittee needs to
successfully construct and therefore might promote spectrum warehousing.
Commenters are specifically asked to comment on the extent to which
construction permit applicants are not really prepared to and do not
want to proceed promptly with construction when they apply, but rather
are applying in an attempt to preserve some right for the future or to
block other parties\' potential plans. We also seek comment on whether
we should impose a shorter construction period, *e.g.*, one year, for
construction permits for minor modifications to licensed facilities. We
particularly are concerned that under Section 73.208 of our rules, a
three-year construction period for such permits would have a preclusive
impact on the ability of other parties to file applications.[^85]

We propose not to apply the three-year construction period to the
digital television (\"DTV\") facilities constructed by initial DTV
licensees, which are on their own construction schedule.[^86] However,
in our *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth
Report and Order* the Commission established special construction rules
for new NTSC permittees whose applications remained pending on April 3,
1997.[^87] This limited class of permittees, which are not eligible for
an initial DTV paired license, may construct either an analog or a
digital station. These permittees also must complete construction with
the \"traditional\" two-year construction period applied to NTSC
stations,[^88] and, if they initially construct analog facilities, may
convert to DTV by the 2006 deadline. If we adopt the three-year
construction period proposed in this *Notice*, we propose to increase to
three years the initial period afforded these NTSC permittees to
construct either analog or digital facilities. We propose no change in
the 2006 deadline for converting to DTV. We invite comment as to whether
the two-year period for this group of NTSC permittees should be extended
to three years if we adopt the three-year proposal discussed herein.

*Restrict Extensions to Circumstances Where Delays Are Beyond the
Permittee\'s Control*. As noted in paragraph 52 *supra,* Section 319(b)
of the Act states that a construction permit will not be subject to
forfeiture if delays have been caused by circumstances that are beyond a
permittee\'s control. To comply with this statutory prohibition, we
propose to toll the period of a construction permit when circumstances
outside a permittee\'s control prevent construction. We propose,
however, to strictly limit the circumstances that would qualify for such
treatment. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we can limit the
tolling of the construction period to when the grant of a construction
permit is the subject of administrative or judicial appeals or when
construction has been delayed by an \"act of God.\" Moreover, we propose
to define \"acts of God\" very narrowly in terms of natural disasters
(e.g., floods, tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes) and even then to
only toll the construction period for the length of time which a
diligent permittee would need to recover from the effects of the event,
up to a maximum of one year. We also propose to require strict
documentation of a permittee\'s efforts to build subsequent to such
events.

Commenters are requested to address both the legal and economic
consequences of this proposal and to suggest a mechanism by which a
permittee would inform the Commission of natural disasters which have
delayed construction and request the tolling of a construction period.
We seek comment whether this proposed rule change would be consistent
with Section 319(b) of the Act. Finally, we seek comment as to whether
difficulties in obtaining local zoning authorization are sufficiently
beyond the permittee\'s control to warrant treatment similar to that of
delays caused by administrative and judicial review. Our tentative
conclusion is that zoning delays can be overcome and construction can be
completed within the proposed three-year construction period if a
permittee pursues the zoning process diligently.

*Eliminate Post-Modification and Post-Assignment Extensions*. As
previously noted in paragraph 53 *supra*, when a permittee for a new
facility files an application to modify its construction permit, or an
application to assign or transfer control of its construction permit
outside the first half of the construction permit\'s initially
authorized period, we currently require a \"one-in-three\" showing and,
upon grant, we provide the permittee, in most instances, with additional
time in which to complete construction. Since we believe that the
proposed three-year construction period will provide sufficient time for
completion, even when a construction permit has been the subject of
further modification, assignment, or transfer, we propose to eliminate
both the restriction on second-half construction period modifications
and assignments and the extended construction periods provided under our
rules. Thus, both a permittee that modifies an unbuilt station and a
buyer of an unbuilt station would be held to a construction permit\'s
original deadline, unless the period was subject to tolling as described
in paragraph 64 *supra*. We seek comment on whether elimination of
automatic extensions when unbuilt stations have been modified, assigned,
or transferred is consistent with Section 319(b) of the Act. In
addition, we propose to eliminate, as unnecessary, the requirement that
permittees that modify unbuilt stations certify that construction will
commence immediately upon grant.[^89] We likewise propose to eliminate
the analogous certification requirement for assignees and
transferees.[^90] We seek comment on these proposals.

*Automatic Forfeiture of Expired Construction Permits*. While Section
319(b) of the Act provides for the automatic forfeiture of an expired
construction permit (unless the Commission authorizes additional time or
the delay was caused by circumstances outside the permittee\'s
control),[^91] the Commission\'s practice has been to take an
affirmative action cancelling a construction permit before it is
forfeited.[^92] As a result, we are compelled to dedicate scarce staff
resources to cancel expired construction permits and then notify
permittees of our action. In an effort to streamline this process, we
propose to make a construction permit subject to automatic forfeiture,
without further Commission action, upon expiration of the three-year
construction period proposed in paragraph 61 *supra*. We seek comment on
whether an automatic cancellation policy for expired construction
permits should be adopted and our tentative conclusion that such a
procedure would be consistent with the Act\'s automatic forfeiture
provision.

*Application of New Rules to Outstanding Permits*. Finally, we propose
that the rules regarding construction permits, and extensions thereof,
that we adopt in this rulemaking proceeding be applied to any
construction permit that is currently in its initial construction period
(*i.e.*, the first 24 months for a full power TV facilities permit and
the first 18 months for an AM, FM, International Broadcast, low power
TV, TV translator, TV booster, FM translator, FM booster, or broadcast
auxiliary permit).[^93] We invite comment on how to implement our
proposal and whether implementation would cause unjustifiable hardship
to permittees or would result in a disservice to the public. We believe,
however, that it would be administratively unworkable to apply the
proposed rules to construction permits that are already beyond their
initial construction periods (whether through extension, assignment,
transfer of control, or modification). Because many of these permits
have already been afforded a construction period close to (or, in many
instances, in excess of) the three-year term proposed in this *Notice*,
we propose to continue to apply the rules as they exist today to permits
outside their initial periods. We invite comment on the tentative
conclusion that it is more appropriate to continue to apply our current
rules to construction permits that are beyond their initial periods.

**E. Modifying Pro Forma Assignments and Transfers**

*Background*. Pursuant to the Act and current Commission rules and
policies, prior Commission consent is required for assignments or
transfers of control of broadcast licenses or permits.[^94] Under
Section 310(d) of the Act:

No construction permit or station license, or any rights thereunder,
shall be transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner,
voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of
control of any corporation holding such permit or license, to any person
except upon application to the Commission and upon finding by the
Commission that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be
served thereby.[^95]

Unauthorized transfer of control of a broadcast permit or license is a
serious rule violation, which can result in the imposition of severe
penalties, including loss of license. Consent for involuntary
assignments or transfers of control or those that do not involve a
\"substantial change in ownership or control\" may be obtained by filing
a \"short form\" application, FCC Form 316, which requires less
information than our \"long forms,\" FCC Forms 314 and 315, and is not
subject to the public notice and a thirty-day petition to deny procedure
under Section 309 of the Act.[^96] Assignments or transfers that may be
filed on Form 316 are:

\(1\) assignment from an individual or individuals (including
partnerships) to a corporation owned and controlled by such individuals
or partnerships without any substantial change in their relative
interests;

\(2\) assignment from a corporation to its individual stockholders
without effecting any substantial change in the disposition of their
interests;

\(3\) assignment or transfer by which certain stockholders retire and
the interest transferred is not a controlling one;

\(4\) corporate reorganization which involves no substantial change in
the beneficial ownership of the corporation;

\(5\) assignment or transfer from a corporation to a wholly owned
subsidiary thereof or vice versa, or where there is an assignment from a
corporation to a corporation owned or controlled by the assignor
stockholders without substantial change in their interests; or

\(6\) assignment of less than a controlling interest in a
partnership.[^97]

Additionally, Form 316 may be used to seek FCC consent to the
involuntary assignment of license or transfer of control upon the death
or legal disability of an individual permittee or licensee, a person
directly or indirectly in control of a corporate permittee or licensee,
or a member of a partnership, where the assignment or transfer is to a
person or entity legally qualified to succeed to the foregoing interests
under the laws of the place having jurisdiction over the estate
involved.[^98] Such cases include assignments or transfers to a
bankruptcy trustee pursuant to Court order.[^99]

*Discussion*. We note that approximately 35 percent of radio and
television assignment and transfer applications propose *pro forma*
transactions and are filed on FCC Form 316. Every effort is made to
process these routine applications quickly. Indeed, the average
processing time from filing in Pittsburgh to FCC action for both Audio
Services Division (\"ASD\") and Video Services Division (\"VSD\") is
approximately ten days, and fewer than five days from receipt of the
applications by either Division. Moreover, both ASD and VSD are able to
accommodate filers by initiating short form application processing with
a receipt-stamped copy of the Pittsburgh filing. Where speed is
demonstrated to be critical, both divisions can issue manually-released
public notices in order to complete processing within a single business
day. Nevertheless, some broadcasters have claimed that these speed of
disposal rates have caused financial and other problems with respect to
these *pro forma* transactions.

In this regard, we note past suggestions by broadcasters and others that
the current *pro forma* assignment and transfer process can be
streamlined and regulatory burdens on licensees substantially reduced
with respect to certain routine transfers and assignments. For certain
*pro forma* transfers and assignments, which do not affect actual
control of the licensee or permittee and which are routinely and
virtually always granted by the Commission, broadcasters have questioned
whether they should be required to file an application and wait for a
grant. Our goal is to streamline our procedures to the extent possible
to eliminate any significant problems or unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Therefore, we invite comment on such proposals. We specifically ask
commenters to identify any specific situations or transactions in which
such short processes may cause difficulties, and how, so that we can
tailor our procedures accordingly.[^100]

We particularly note that some types of *pro forma* assignments or
transfers may be suited for streamlined procedures. For example: (1)
court-ordered transfers to a bankruptcy trustee; (2) certain corporate
reorganizations (such as a change in an intermediate subsidiary); (3)
reorganization by a corporate licensee in another state where no other
changes are made; (4) involuntary assignment of license or construction
permit or transfer of control due to death or legal disability of the
individual permittee or licensee; and (5) assignment of less than a
controlling interest in a partnership? We invite comment on whether
these and/or other categories of *pro forma* transfers and assignments
should be subjected to a streamlined procedure.

While we seek to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, we note that our
ability to ease our rules with respect to any transfers and assignments
is constrained by the tenets of Section 310(d) of the Act, which, as
noted above, requires prior Commission consent to transfers and
assignments \"in any manner.\" Accordingly, we invite comment as to how
we may streamline our procedures while nonetheless complying with
Section 310(d).

We note past suggestions that we adopt a notification procedure for
certain *pro forma* transfers and assignments instead of requiring a
Form 316 application process and prior Commission consent. Under such a
streamlined procedure certain assignments and transfers, as listed
above, could be carried out by licensees or permittees, subject only to
a requirement that the Commission be notified of the assignment or
transfer within a certain period thereafter (say 30 days) and the
requirement that an Ownership Report Form be filed within 30 days after
the assignment or transfer.[^101] Notification and the filing of the
Ownership Report would be important to ensure that the Commission\'s
license records are kept current.

Would Section 310(d) permit us to adopt such a notification procedure?
While we have adopted a notification procedure for *pro forma*
assignments and transfers for certain telecommunications carriers, which
are also governed by Section 310(d), in that case, we were expressly
given forbearance authority under Section 10 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.[^102] No such forbearance authority applies here.
Nonetheless, it can be argued that Section 310(d) would permit us to
make a blanket finding that certain types of *pro forma* transactions
are *per se* in the public interest, so that an individual finding would
not then need to be made in a particular case, thereby allowing such
transactions to go forward upon notification to the Commission. In one
context, the Cable Television Relay Service (\"CARS\"), we have
streamlined transfers by providing that prior Commission consent is not
required for assignments or transfers of control \"in cases where the
change in ownership does not affect the identity or controlling interest
of the licensee.\"[^103] We do not require Commission notification of
such transfers. We invite comment as to whether this precedent is
applicable to broadcast transfers.

We invite comment on the procedures that should be followed for
notifications of transactions that are determined to fall outside the
scope of *per se* grantable applications. Commenters should also
consider the procedures we should adopt in response to notifications for
transactions that we conclude are both voluntary and involve a
substantial change in ownership or control, and thus are subject to the
public notice and petition to deny provisions of Section 309(d).
Finally, we invite comment on the sanctions that should be imposed for
such erroneous notifications.

The Commission also uses \"short form\" procedures in connection with
tender offers and proxy contests to acquire control of entities that
hold Commission licenses.[^104] Under these expedited procedures an
acquiring entity initially files a Form 316 application with a request
that the Commission grant a special temporary authorization to permit a
transfer of control from the shareholders of the target entity to an
independent trustee of a voting trust.[^105] Generally, the special
temporary authorization imposes various conditions to prevent a bidder
from exercising control of the tendered stock and from attempting to
influence the actions of the trustee. If successful, the Commission must
pass on the qualifications of the acquiring entity in a \"long form\"
application. We question whether the streamlining options considered in
this *Notice* should apply to our tender offer and proxy contest
processing policies. Our experience is that established procedures
substantially accommodate the need of bidders for expeditious Commission
review and consent. Moreover, unlike \"routine\" *pro forma* transfers,
these applications contemplate a substantial change in ownership or
control of a licensee or permittee entity and the immediate grant of a
special temporary authorization to a trustee empowered to collect stock
and exercise control of such entity on an interim basis. Thus, the FCC
application process can generate controversial fact-specific issues that
implicate core regulatory concerns not amenable to a prospective *per
se* public interest determination.[^106] Accordingly, we seek comment on
our tentative conclusion that the proposed streamlining procedures
should not be extended to cover the processing of \"short form\"
applications relating to tender offers and proxy contests for control of
Commission licensees.

Assuming that a notification procedure could be adopted consistent with
Section 310(d), are there benefits to obtaining prior consent to such
transactions that would be lost if we adopt a notification requirement?
Should we require that a notification and Ownership Report both be filed
with the Commission or, in the alternative, would an Ownership Report be
sufficient in this regard? Is the thirty-day period an appropriate time
limit for the notification requirement? Should we require that a
notification letter be filed, or should we adopt a new notification form
for this purpose? If we require that a notification letter or form be
filed, what information should be required to be filed in the letter?
Finally, should we place such notifications on public notice to permit
the public an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the application of
the \"blanket\" consent to a particular transaction? Alternatively,
would a requirement that the notification be placed in the station\'s
public file be sufficient in this regard?

As an alternative to a notification procedure, we could keep the current
application process but, in the case of certain specified *pro forma*
assignments and transfers, permit applicants to proceed, at their own
risk, to consummate the transfer or assignment if Commission action
denying the application is not taken within a set short period after the
application is filed. We invite comment as to whether this alternative
would be consistent with Section 310(d). We note that the Commission
would, in the event that this proposal is adopted, retain the authority
to deny the assignment or transfer even after such a consummation and
require that the transaction be unwound. Thus, we believe, the
Commission\'s authority under Section 310 of the Act would be retained.

Assuming we could adopt such an alternative procedure consistent with
Section 310(d), we invite comment as to what the time period for
required Commission action should be and as to whether ten business days
is an appropriate time period for this purpose. Further, we invite
comment as to whether such a proposal would significantly and
meaningfully reduce regulatory burdens and provide adequate relief. We
note our concern that it may be difficult to unwind sales or transfer
transactions after they have occurred and invite comment as to whether
this is a significant negative factor that we should consider or whether
we should rely on applicants to make a reasoned judgment as to whether
they should take the risk that the Commission may later unwind a
transaction that has been consummated prior to FCC consent. We note that
this proposal would apply only to narrow categories of *pro forma*
transfers and assignments, as specified above, where Commission consent
is virtually always received. We invite comment on all aspects of this
proposal.

**F. Streamlined Ownership Reporting Requirements**

*Background*. Section 73.3615 of the Commission\'s rules requires that,
with the exception of sole proprietorships and partnerships composed
entirely of natural persons, licensees of commercial AM, FM and TV
broadcast stations file an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 once a year,
on the anniversary of the date that their license renewal applications
must be filed.[^107] A licensee owning more than one station may file
one such report per year, on the anniversary date of its choice,
provided that its reports are not more than one year apart. A permittee
of a new commercial AM, FM or TV station must also file an Ownership
Report within 30 days of the date of grant of an application for the
original construction permit and on the date that it applies for a
license for that new station. A licensee or permittee which has a
current and unamended Ownership Report on file need not file a new
report, but instead may file a letter with the Commission verifying that
the licensee or permittee has reviewed its current report and that it is
still accurate. In addition, the Commission routinely requests that Form
323 be filed within 30 days of the consummation of an authorized
transfer of control or assignment of license.

Licensees of noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast stations
must file an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323-E at the time their
applications for renewal are required to be filed, which now is every
eight years.[^108] As in the case of commercial licensees, the
Commission also routinely requires that Form 323-E be filed within 30
days of consummation of an authorized transfer of control or assignment
of license. In addition, a supplemental Ownership Report must be filed
by a noncommercial educational licensee or permittee within 30 days
after *any* change occurs in the information previously reported.

*Streamlining Proposal*. We propose to reduce the frequency with which
Ownership Reports (FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and
noncommercial educational AM, FM and TV broadcast stations must be filed
with the Commission. Currently, most licensees of commercial broadcast
stations are required to file Ownership Reports annually. Our proposal
would relax this requirement so that such licensees would have to file
Ownership Reports when they file their stations\' license renewal
applications and four years thereafter, at the mid-point of their
scheduled license term. In addition, we propose to formalize the
Commission\'s current practice of requesting an Ownership Report within
30 days of an approved assignment or transfer by amending Section
73.3615 of the Commission\'s Rules to specifically require that a
commercial or noncommercial educational licensee or permittee shall file
an Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 or 323-E within 30 of days of
consummation of an approved license assignment or transfer of control.
In the event that we adopt a notification procedure for certain *pro
forma* assignments and transfers, we propose to also require the filing
of an Ownership Report within thirty days of the consummation of those
transactions. We invite comment on all aspects of these proposals. We
also invite comment on whether we should adopt the same proposed relaxed
ownership reporting requirements for noncommercial educational AM, FM
and TV broadcast station licensees and permittees. In addition, we
invite comment as to whether, as discussed more fully above, we should
institute mandatory electronic filing for Ownership Report forms.

We tentatively believe that our proposed relaxed ownership reporting
requirements would ease the paperwork burden on licensees and permittees
without impairing the public\'s ability to ascertain the identities of
broadcast station owners. Similarly, we believe that our relaxed
requirements would not adversely affect the Commission\'s ability to
monitor ownership of commercial and noncommercial educational broadcast
stations and compliance with our multiple ownership limitations and the
alien ownership and prior consent provisions of Section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. We note that Ownership Reports
rarely generate challenges or complaints. We invite comment on these
tentative conclusions.

Under the current ownership reporting system, many commercial licensees
can file the same basic certification letter each year, referencing a
full Ownership Report filed years earlier. The obligation to file a full
report on the annual reporting date, however, is often triggered by
slight changes in ownership, for which prior approval is not required.
In such cases, the Commission receives little new information from the
licensee. Since the Commission must approve major ownership changes in
advance, and Ownership Reports reflecting changes due to transfers or
assignments would be required to be filed in connection with
consummation of sales transactions and transfers, we would be able to
retain current information on the controlling interests in licensees and
permittees. Accordingly, we do not believe that our regulatory functions
would be impeded if we are informed of less substantial changes less
frequently than annually. We, of course, have the ability to obtain at
any time full, current ownership information from any licensee should
such information be needed to discharge our regulatory responsibilities.
We invite comment as to whether our proposals would hinder members of
the public and other broadcasters in obtaining necessary ownership
information and monitoring ownership changes.

As discussed above, the current ownership reporting requirements are
stricter for noncommercial stations than for commercial stations. We
believe that the supplemental reporting requirement, under which a
noncommercial educational licensee or permittee must file within 30 days
after any change in previously reported information, may be especially
burdensome for noncommercial permittees and licensees. This requirement
often serves to elicit information of less substantial changes for which
prior Commission approval is not required. As noted above, we propose,
therefore, to conform the Form 323-E reporting requirements to our Form
323 reporting requirements, as revised. We seek comment on whether
eliminating the 30-day supplemental reporting requirement, coupled with
the addition of a regular four-year filing requirement, will result in
an overall reduction of the burden on noncommercial educational
licensees.

While we have proposed a four-year reporting interval for noncommercial
and commercial permittees or licensees, we invite comment as to whether
a two-year or other reporting interval would be more appropriate or
beneficial. In this regard, commenters contending that a four-year
reporting requirement would be detrimental to the public\'s or the
Commission\'s ability to monitor adequately significant changes in the
ownership of broadcast stations should provide specific examples and
arguments to substantiate their position.

**III. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS**

*Comments and Reply Comments*. Pursuant to applicable procedures set
forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R.
Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties shall file comments within
sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this *Notice* in the
Federal Register and reply comments within ninety (90) days of the date
of publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register. To file
formally in this proceeding, you must file an original plus six copies
of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must
file an original plus eleven copies. You should send comments and reply
comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments
will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.

*Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis*. This *Notice*
proposes rule and procedural revisions which may contain an information
collection requirement. As part of our continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and OMB to take this
opportunity to comment on the information collection contained in this
*Notice*, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.
No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other
comments on this *Notice*; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of
publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register. Comments should
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB
Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503
or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.

*Ex parte Rules*. This proceeding will be treated as a
\"permit‑but‑disclose\" proceeding subject to the
\"permit‑but‑disclose\" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the
rules. 47 C.F.R. \' 1.1206(b), as revised. *Ex parte* presentations are
permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except
during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, *ex parte* or
otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral *ex parte*
presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation
must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally
required. *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section
1.1206(b).

*Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*. With respect to this
*Notice*, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (\"IRFA\") is
contained in Appendix A. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act,[^109] the Commission has prepared an IRFA of the expected
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this *Notice*. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. We ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the prevalence
of small businesses in the industries covered by this *Notice*. Comments
on the IRFA must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines
as comments on the *Notice* and must have a distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. \'\' 154(i), 154(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310,
this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* IS ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

*Additional Information*. For additional information on this proceeding,
please contact Peter Doyle, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau
(202) 418-2780; James J. Brown, Video Services Division, Mass Media
Bureau (202) 418-1600; or Mania K. Baghdadi, Policy and Rules Division,
Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2130.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (\"RFA\"),[^110] the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Flexibility Analysis
(\"IRFA\") of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (\"Notice\"). Written public comments are requested on this IRA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments of the Notice provided above in & 88. The
Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5
U.S.C. \' 603(a). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. *See id*.

**A. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rules:** With this
*Notice*, the Commission commences a proceeding to review its broadcast
applications and related rules. The Commission\'s goals are to
streamline its procedures, speed introduction of new and expanded
services to the public, reduce administrative burdens on regulatees,
increase public access to information about the Bureau\'s actions and
processing activities, and maximize efficiency in the use of Commission
resources, while maintaining the technical integrity of broadcast
services, fostering the Commission\'s goals of competition and
diversity, continuing enforcement of the Commission\'s core rules and
policies, and permitting members of the public a continued opportunity
to monitor station performance. This review is taken in conjunction with
the Commission\'s 1998 biennial regulatory review. Although Congress did
not mandate this area of review, the Commission nonetheless undertakes
it to assure that its rules and processes are no more regulatory than
necessary to achieve Commission goals.

**B. Legal Basis:** Authority for the actions proposed in this *Notice*
may be found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. \'\' 154(i), 154(j),
303, 308, 309, and 310.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply:** 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 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\"). 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.\"[^111]

The proposed rules and policies will apply to television broadcasting
licensees, radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees of
either service. The Small Business Administration defines a television
broadcasting station that has no more than \$10.5 million in annual
receipts as a small business.[^112] Television broadcasting stations
consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual
programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay
television services.[^113] Included in this industry are commercial,
religious, educational, and other television stations.[^114] Also
included are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting
and which produce taped television program materials.[^115] Separate
establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television program
materials are classified under another SIC number.[^116] There were
1,509 television stations operating in the nation in 1992.[^117] That
number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately
1,569 operating television broadcasting stations in the nation as of
January 31, 1998.[^118] For 1992,[^119] the number of television
stations that produced less than \$10.0 million in revenue was 1,155
establishments.[^120]

Additionally, the Small Business Administration defines a radio
broadcasting station that has no more than \$5 million in annual
receipts as a small business.[^121] A radio broadcasting station is an
establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio
to the public.[^122] Included in this industry are commercial religious,
educational, and other radio stations.[^123] Radio broadcasting stations
which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce
radio program materials are similarly included.[^124] However, radio
stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in
producing radio program material are classified under another SIC
number.[^125] The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127)
radio station establishments produced less than \$5 million in revenue
in 1992.[^126] Official Commission records indicate that 11,334
individual radio stations were operating in 1992.[^127] As of January
31, 1998, official Commission records indicate that 12,241 radio
stations were operating, of which 7,488 were FM stations.[^128]

Thus, the proposed rules will affect many of the approximately 1,569
television stations, approximately 1,208 of which are considered small
businesses.[^129] Additionally, the proposed rules will affect some of
the 12,241 radio stations, approximately 11,751 of which are small
businesses.[^130] These estimates may overstate the number of small
entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not
include or aggregate revenues from non-television or non-radio
affiliated companies.

In addition to owners of operating radio and television stations, any
entity who seeks or desires to obtain a television or radio broadcast
license may be affected by the proposals contained in this item. The
number of entities that may seek to obtain a television or radio
broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment as to such number.

**D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements:** The measures proposed in this *Notice* would
reduce the reporting required of prospective and current applicants,
permittees and licensees. All proposals aim to reduce the overall
administrative burden upon both the public and the Commission. We
propose to make the electronic filing of many broadcast related
applications mandatory and seek comment as to whether to do so on a
phased-in basis. We note that such a phased-in procedure has been used
elsewhere to benefit small businesses. For example, the SEC incorporated
its mandatory filing rules in stages. While most companies were phased
into the electronic filing system in 1993, small businesses were not
completely phased in until May 1996. We believe that electronic filing
could, among other things, speed the processing of applications, save
Commission resources, and make filing easier for regulatees by informing
them of certain errors in their applications before they are actually
sent.

The full benefits of electronic filing and processing would not be
realized simply by concerting the current version of each form into an
electronic format. We have therefore concluded that it is necessary to
undertake a thorough review of broadcast forms and to reconsider both
the information that is collected and the form in which it is submitted.
Accordingly, we propose to delete or narrow overly burdensome questions
and to rely more on applicant certifications. If adopted, these changes
would both reduce applicant filing burdens and streamline our processing
of sales, new station, and facility modification applications. We also
tentatively propose to eliminate the rule restricting payments upon
assignment or transfer of unbuilt stations. Further, we tentatively
propose to eliminate the requirement that applicants file sales
agreements as part of the assignment or transfer application, and that
such agreements be filed with the Commission within thirty days of
execution. Instead, we propose that such agreements would have to be
placed in the station\'s public inspection file and the current
permittee or licensee would be required to certify to such placement. In
addition, we propose to make revisions to the sales forms that are
intended to maximize the advantages of electronic filing and processing.

We further propose to reduce the frequency with which Ownership Reports
(FCC Forms 323 and 323-E) for commercial and noncommercial educational
AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations must be filed with the Commission. We
tentatively believe that this proposal would ease the paperwork burden
on licensees and permittees without impairing the public\'s ability to
ascertain the identities of broadcast station owners.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered**: This *Notice*
solicits comment on a variety of alternatives discussed herein. These
alternatives are intended to streamline our rules and procedures. Our
goals are to reduce applicant and licensee burdens, realize fully the
benefits of the Mass Media Bureau\'s current electronic filing
initiative, and preserve the public\'s ability to participate fully in
our broadcast licensing processes. These proposals are designed to
reduce filing burdens and increase the efficiency of application
processing. Any significant alternatives presented in the comments will
be considered.

**F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules:** The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this
proceeding do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
this IRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.

**APPENDIX B**

Attached are copies of revised FCC Forms 301 and 314.

\[Insert \"301NPRM1.PDF\"\]

**SECTION III-A AM BROADCAST ENGINEERING DATA**

**TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS**

Ensure that the specifications below are accurate. Contradicting data
found elsewhere in this application will be disregarded. All items must
be completed. The response \"on file\" is not acceptable. The response
\"not applicable\" is not acceptable unless otherwise noted.

**TECH BOX**

1\. **Frequency**: \_\_\_\_\_\_ kHz 2. **Class**: AG BG CG DG

3\. **Hours of Operation**: G Unlimited G Limited G Daytime G Share Time
G Specified Hours: \_\_\_\_\_

4\. **Nondirectional**: G Day G Night G Critical Hours G Not Applicable

Estimated Efficiency: \_\_\_\_\_\_ mV/m per kW at 1 km

5\. **Directional**: G Daytime only (DA-D) G Nighttime only (DA-N) G Not
Applicable

G Same constants day and night (DA-1)

G Different constants day and night (DA-2)

G Different constants day, critical hours, and night (DA-3)

Theoretical Efficiency: Day: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Night: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Critical
Hours: \_\_\_\_\_\_ mV/m per kW at 1 km at 1 Ω loss

Standard Efficiency: Day: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Night: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Critical
Hours: \_\_\_\_\_\_ mV/m per kW at 1 km

Q Factor: Day: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Night: \_\_\_\_\_\_ Critical Hours:
\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. **Power**: Daytime \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW Nighttime \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW
Critical Hours \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW

7\. **Daytime Antenna Location Coordinates**: 8. **Nighttime Antenna
Location Coordinates**:

To the nearest second (NAD 27) To the nearest second (NAD 27)

  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- ---------
  LATITUDE    Degrees   Minutes   Seconds   NG SG        LATITUDE    Degrees   Minutes   Seconds

  LONGITUDE   Degrees   Minutes   Seconds   WG EG        LONGITUDE   Degrees   Minutes   Seconds
  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- ---------

9\. **Tower Array**:

+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Towers**      | 1          | 2          | 3          | 4          |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Height of       |            |            |            |            |
| radiator above  |            |            |            |            |
| base insulator, |            |            |            |            |
| or above base,  |            |            |            |            |
| if grounded     |            |            |            |            |
| (rounded to     |            |            |            |            |
| nearest tenth   |            |            |            |            |
| of meter).      |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Electrical      |            |            |            |            |
| Height of       |            |            |            |            |
| radiator        |            |            |            |            |
| (degrees).      |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Overall height  |            |            |            |            |
| above ground    |            |            |            |            |
| (include        |            |            |            |            |
| obstruction     |            |            |            |            |
| lighting-       |            |            |            |            |
| rounded to      |            |            |            |            |
| nearest meter)  |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Field           |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Phase           |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Orientation     |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Tower Reference |            |            |            |            |
| Switch          |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Top Loaded      |            |            |            |            |
| Apparent Height |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Orientation     |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Antenna         | \_\_       | \_\_       | \_\_       | \_\_       |
| Structure       | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| Registration.   | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                 | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
|                 | ^Number^   | ^Number^   | ^Number^   | ^Number^   |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
|                 | G          | G          | G          | G          |
|                 | No         | No         | No         | No         |
|                 | tification | tification | tification | tification |
|                 | Filed with | Filed with | Filed with | Filed with |
|                 | FAA.       | FAA.       | FAA.       | FAA.       |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
|                 | G Not      | G Not      | G Not      | G Not      |
|                 | a          | a          | a          | a          |
|                 | pplicable. | pplicable. | pplicable. | pplicable. |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Hours of        | G Day      | G Day      | G Day      | G Day      |
| operation       |            |            |            |            |
| (check all that | G Night    | G Night    | G Night    | G Night    |
| apply).         |            |            |            |            |
|                 | G Critical | G Critical | G Critical | G Critical |
|                 | Hours      | Hours      | Hours      | Hours      |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

For additional towers, submit an exhibit listing information requested
above \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

^Exhibit\ No.^

DRAFT - FCC 301 (Page 4)

**March 1998**

**SECTION III-A AM BROADCAST ENGINEERING DATA**

**CERTIFICATION**

If any question is answered \"No,\" a request for waiver, explanation,
or justification must be submitted otherwise, the application will be
returned without further consideration. Exhibits are required as noted.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| 13.**Broadcast Facility**. The proposed facility        | GYESGNO    |
| complies with the engineering standards and assignment  |            |
| requirements of 47 CFR \'\' 73.24(e), 73.33, 73.45,     | \_\_\_     |
| 73.150, 73.152, 73.160, 73.182(a)-(i), 73.186, 73.189,  | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| 73.1650. **Exhibit Required.**                          | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| 14.**Community Coverage**. The proposed facility        | ^Exh       |
| complies with community coverage requirements of 47 CFR | ibit\ No.^ |
| \' 73.24(i). **Exhibit Required.**                      |            |
|                                                         | GYESGNO    |
| 15.**Main Studio Location**. The main studio complies   |            |
| with requirements of 47 CFR \' 73.1125.                 | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| 16.**Interference**. The proposed facility complies     | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| with all of the following applicable rule sections.     |            |
| Check all those that apply. A separate **exhibit is     | ^Exh       |
| required** for each applicable section as indicated.    | ibit\ No.^ |
|                                                         |            |
| **Groundwave**.                                         | GYESGNO    |
|                                                         |            |
| a\) G 47 CFR \' 73.37.                                  | GYESGNO    |
|                                                         |            |
| **Skywave**.                                            | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| b\) G 47 CFR \' 73.182.                                 | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| **Critical Hours**.                                     | ^Exh       |
|                                                         | ibit\ No.^ |
| c\) G 47 CFR \' 73.187.                                 |            |
|                                                         | \_\_\_     |
| **Blanketing Interference**. The proposed facility      | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| complies with the requirements of 47 CFR \' 73.24(g).   | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| 17.**Environmental Protection Act**. The proposed       | ^Exh       |
| facility is excluded from environmental processing      | ibit\ No.^ |
| under 47 CFR \' 1.1306 (*i.e.*, the facility will not   |            |
| have a significant environmental impact and complies    | \_\_\_     |
| with the maximum permissible radiofrequency             | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| electromagnetic exposure limits for controlled and      | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| uncontrolled environments). Unless the applicant can    |            |
| determine compliance through the use of the RF          | ^Exh       |
| worksheets in Appendix A, an **exhibit is required.**   | ibit\ No.^ |
|                                                         |            |
| 18.**Site Availability**. Applicant certifies that it   | GYESGNO    |
| has reasonable assurance that the site or proposed      |            |
| structure will be available for the applicant\'s        | GYESGNO    |
| intended purpose.                                       |            |
|                                                         | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | ^Exh       |
|                                                         | ibit\ No.^ |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | GYESGNO    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PREPARER\'S CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 3 MUST BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED.**

DRAFT - FCC 301 (Page 5)

**March 1998**

**SECTION III-B FM BROADCAST ENGINEERING DATA**

**TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS**

Ensure that the specifications below are accurate. Contradicting data
found elsewhere in this application will be disregarded. All items must
be completed. The response \"on file\" is not acceptable. The response
\"not applicable\" is not acceptable unless otherwise noted.

**TECH BOX**

1\. Channel Number: \_\_\_\_\_\_

2\. Class (select one): A \_\_ B1 \_\_ B \_\_ C3 \_\_ C2 \_\_ C1 \_\_ C
\_\_

3\. Antenna Location Coordinates: 4. One-Step proposal allotment
coordinates

filed pursuant to MM Docket 92-159:

\_\_\_\_ Not applicable

To the nearest second (NAD 27) To the nearest second (NAD 27)

  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- ---------
  LATITUDE    Degrees   Minutes   Seconds   NG SG        LATITUDE    Degrees   Minutes   Seconds

  LONGITUDE   Degrees   Minutes   Seconds   WG EG        LONGITUDE   Degrees   Minutes   Seconds
  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- ---------

5\. Antenna Structure Registration Number:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ Not applicable

\_\_\_\_ FAA Notification Filed with FAA

6\. Antenna Location Site Elevation Above Mean Sea Level: \_\_\_\_\_\_
meters

7\. Overall Tower Height Above Ground Level: \_\_\_\_\_\_ meters

8\. Effective Radiated Power: \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW (H) \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW (V)

9\. Maximum Effective Radiated Power: \_\_\_\_ Not applicable
\_\_\_\_\_\_ kW (H) \_\_\_\_\_\_ kW (V)

(Beam-Tilt Antenna ONLY)

10\. Height of Radiation Center Above Ground Level: \_\_\_\_\_\_ meters
(H) \_\_\_\_\_\_ meters (V)

11\. Height of Radiation Center Above Average Terrain: \_\_\_\_\_\_
meters (H) \_\_\_\_\_\_ meters (V)

12\. Directional Antenna Relative Field Values: \_\_\_\_ Not applicable

Rotation: \_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ None

  ------------ ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------
  Degree       Value   Degree   Value   Degree   Value   Degree   Value   Degree   Value   Degree   Value

  0                    60               120              180              240              300      

  10                   70               130              190              250              310      

  20                   80               140              200              260              320      

  30                   90               150              210              270              330      

  40                   100              160              220              280              340      

  50                   110              170              230              290              350      

  Additional                                                                                        
  Azimuths                                                                                          
  ------------ ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------

DRAFT - FCC 301 (Page 6)

**March 1998**

**SECTION III-B FM BROADCAST ENGINEERING DATA**

**CERTIFICATION**

If any question is answered \"No,\" a request for waiver, explanation,
or justification must be submitted otherwise, the application will be
returned without further consideration. Exhibits are required as noted.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **AUXILIARY ANTENNA APPLICANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO      | GYESGNO    |
| RESPOND TO ITEMS 13-16. PROCEED TO ITEM 17.**           |            |
|                                                         | GYESGNO    |
| 13.**Allotment**. The proposed facility complies with   |            |
| the allotment requirements of 47 CFR \' 73.203.         | GYESGNO    |
|                                                         |            |
| 14.**Community Coverage**. The proposed facility        | GYESGNO    |
| complies with community coverage requirements of 47 CFR |            |
| \' 73.315.                                              | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| 15.**Main Studio Location**. The main studio complies   | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| with requirements of 47 CFR \' 73.1125.                 |            |
|                                                         | ^Exh       |
| 16.**Interference**. The proposed facility complies     | ibit\ No.^ |
| with all of the following applicable rule sections.     |            |
| Check all those that apply.                             | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| **Separation Requirements.**                            | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| a\) G 47 CFR \' 73.207                                  | ^Exh       |
|                                                         | ibit\ No.^ |
| **Grandfathered Short-Spaced.**                         |            |
|                                                         | \_\_\_     |
| b\) G 47 CFR \' 73.213(a) with respect to station(s):   | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| **Exhibit Required.**                                   | ^Exh       |
|                                                         | ibit\ No.^ |
| c\) G 47 CFR \' 73.213(b) with respect to station(s):   |            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        | \_\_\_     |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| **Exhibit Required.**                                   | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         |            |
| d\) G 47 CFR \' 73.213(c) with respect to station(s):   | ^Exh       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        | ibit\ No.^ |
|                                                         |            |
| **Exhibit Required.**                                   | GYESGNO    |
|                                                         |            |
| **Contour Protection.**                                 | GYESGNO    |
|                                                         |            |
| e\) G 47 CFR \' 73.215 with respect to station(s):      | \_\_\_     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        | \_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
| **Exhibit Required.**                                   |            |
|                                                         | ^Exh       |
| **Cross-Modulation**. The applicant accepts full        | ibit\ No.^ |
| responsibility for the elimination of cross-modulation  |            |
| interference with respect to facilities in close        | GYESGNO    |
| proximity to the proposed transmitter site that are in  |            |
| existence or authorized prior to the grant of this      |            |
| application and the elimination receiver-induced        |            |
| modulation caused to radio receivers in use prior to    |            |
| the grant of this application.                          |            |
|                                                         |            |
| 17.**Environmental Protection Act**. The proposed       |            |
| facility is excluded from environmental processing      |            |
| under 47 CFR \' 1.1306 (*i.e.*, the facility will not   |            |
| have a significant environmental impact and complies    |            |
| with the maximum permissible radiofrequency             |            |
| electromagnetic exposure limits for controlled and      |            |
| uncontrolled environments). Unless the applicant can    |            |
| determine compliance through the use of the RF          |            |
| worksheets in Appendix A, an **exhibit is required.**   |            |
|                                                         |            |
| 18.**Site Availability**. Applicant certifies that it   |            |
| has reasonable assurance that the site or proposed      |            |
| structure will be available for the applicant\'s        |            |
| intended purpose.                                       |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PREPARER\'S CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 3 MUST BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED.**

DRAFT - FCC 301 (Page 7)

**March 1998**

\[Insert \"301TV2.PDF\"\]

\[Insert \"301DTV3.PDF\"\]

\[Insert \"314NPRM4.PDF\"\]

**APPENDIX C**

Attached are the following sample worksheets that would be included with
FCC Form 314 under the approach proposed in the *Notice*:

Worksheet \# 1 - Local Radio Station Ownership - Assignee Question 5a.

Worksheet \# 2 - Investor Insulation and Non-party Influence Over
Assignee - Assignee

Question 5e.

Worksheet \# 3 - Family Relationships - Assignee Question 5c.

**WORKSHEET** **\# 1**

**LOCAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP**

The local radio ownership rule, 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3555(a)(1), sets the
maximum number of stations in which a party may hold attributable
interests in any particular radio market. In radio markets with 14 or
fewer commercial radio stations, a party may hold an attributable
ownership interest in up to 5 commercial radio stations, not more than 3
of which are in the same service (AM or FM). However, a party may not
hold an attributable ownership interest in more than 50 percent of the
stations in markets of 14 or fewer stations. In a radio market with
between 15 and 29 (inclusive) commercial radio stations, a party may
hold an attributable ownership interest in up to 6 commercial radio
stations, no more than 4 of which are in the same service. In a radio
market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive) commercial radio stations, a
party may hold an attributable ownership interest in up to 7 commercial
radio stations, no more than 4 of which are in the same service. In a
radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations, a party may hold
an attributable ownership interest in up to 8 commercial radio stations,
no more than 5 of which are in the same service.

A radio market is defined as that area encompassed by the principal
community contours (predicted or measured 5 mV/m groundwave contour for
AM; predicted 3.16 mV/m contour for FM) of the mutually overlapping
stations proposing to have common ownership. The number of stations in
the market is based on the principal community contours of all
operating, full-service commercial stations whose principal community
contours overlap or intersect the principal community contours of the
commonly-owned and mutually overlapping stations. In calculating the
number of stations in a market in which a party may have an attributable
ownership interest, we attribute to the prospective buyer only those
commonly-owned stations that contribute to the mutual overlap in the
relevant radio market. That is, a station contour that overlaps the
contour of a station outside the mutual overlap area, but does not have
mutual overlap with all stations that create the market, does not count
toward the local radio ownership \"cap.\"

An assignee must complete this worksheet if the principal community
service contour (predicted or measured 5 mV/m groundwave contour for AM;
predicted 3.16 mV/m contour for FM) of any AM or FM station being
assigned overlaps with the principal community service contour of an AM
or FM station in which the assignee or any party to this application has
or proposes to have an attributable interest (including any AM or FM
station with principal community contour overlap in which the applicant
or any party to the application brokers or proposes to broker more than
15 percent of the broadcast time per week of such station).

1\. Is the overlap in every instance between only one AM and one FM
station where

neither of these two stations overlaps the principal community contour
of a

third station in the same service? G Yes G No

If yes, the proposed assignment complies with local radio station
ownership rules.

If No to 1., answer the following questions with regard to each of the
radio markets defined by the stations with mutually overlapping
principal community contours:

2\. Number of commercial AM and FM stations in the market:

a\. 45 or more G Yes G No

b\. Between 30 and 44 G Yes G No

c\. Between 15 and 29 G Yes G No

d\. 14 or fewer G Yes G No

3\. Number of FM stations in the market in which the assignee or parties
to the application would have an attributable interest following
assignment of the stations: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. Number of AM stations in the market in which the assignee or parties
to the application would have an attributable interest following
assignment of the stations: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. Total number of AM and FM stations in the market in which the
assignee or parties to the application would have an attributable
interest following assignment of the stations: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If assignee determines based on its answers to these questions that it
is in compliance with 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3555(a), assignee may certify to
such compliance in assignee question 5a of the attached application. If
assignee determines that it is not in compliance with the local radio
ownership rules, assignee shall submit an exhibit stating reasons in
support of a waiver of the rules.

**WORKSHEET \# 2**

**INVESTOR INSULATION AND NON-PARTY INFLUENCE OVER ASSIGNEE**

**I. Investor Insulation**

If an assignee is a limited partnership or a limited liability company
(\"LLC\") that seeks to insulate partners or members in accordance with
the Commission\'s attribution rules, the assignee shall ensure that each
such limited partner or LLC member is not materially involved, directly
or indirectly, in the management or operation of the media-related
activities of the partnership or LLC. To ensure that each such limited
partner or LLC member is not materially involved, directly or
indirectly, in the management or operation of the media-related
activities of the partnership or LLC, the limited partnership or LLC
enabling documents shall:

a\. specify that any exempt limited partner/LLC member (if not a natural
person, its directors, officers, partners, etc.) cannot act as an
employee of the limited partnership/LLC member if his or her functions,
directly or indirectly, relate to the media enterprises of such entity;

b\. bar any exempt limited partner/LLC from serving, in any material
capacity, as an independent contractor or agent with respect to the
partnership/LLC\'s media enterprises;

c\. restrict any exempt limited partner/LLC member from communicating
with the limited partnership/LLC, the general partner, or any LLC
management committee on matters pertaining to the day-to-day operations
of its business;

d\. empower the general partner/LLC management committee to veto any
admissions of additional general partners/LLC members admitted by vote
of the exempt limited partners/LLC members;

e\. prohibit any exempt limited partner/LLC member from voting on the
removal of a general partner/LLC member or limit this right to
situations where the general partner/LLC member is (i) subject to
bankruptcy proceedings, as described in Section 402(4)-(5) of the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, (ii) is adjudicated incompetent
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) is removed for cause, as
determined by an independent party;

f\. bar any exempt limited partner/LLC member from performing any
services to the limited partnership/LLC materially relating to its media
activities, with the exception of making loans to, or acting as a surety
for, the business; and

g\. state, in express terms, that any exempt limited partner/LLC member
is prohibited from becoming actively involved in the management or
operation of the media businesses of the limited partnership/LLC.

If these conditions are met with regard to every limited partner and LLC
member that the applicant seeks to insulate, the applicant may certify
in assignee question 5e of the attached application to compliance with
the Commission\'s restrictions regarding insulation of non-party
investors.

**II. Non-Party Influence Over Assignee**

A. Non-party investors, *i.e.*, investors with nonattributable
interests, may have very limited powers over the operations of a
licensee. Accordingly, assignee should ensure that with respect to any
agreement, arrangement or understanding involving insulated parties or
other investors with nonattributable interests, including creditors,
secured parties, program suppliers, and any other persons not disclosed
as parties to this application, that such agreement **does not**:

1\. give any non-party investor the right to vote on any matters decided
by the assignee\'s board of directors, partnership committee or other
management group;

2\. give any non-party investor the right to attend, or appoint an
observer to attend, assignee board, partnership or other management
meetings;

3\. place any limitation on assignee programming discretion;

4\. give any non-party investor the right to vote on, approve or
restrict assignee\'s actions on any matter relating to programming,
personnel or finances;

5\. give any non-party creditor or any bond, debenture or warrant holder
the right to vote on, approve or restrict the assignee\'s actions on any
matter relating to programming, personnel or finances;

6\. give any non-party creditor or any bond, debenture or warrant holder
the right to share in the profits of the assignee;

7\. give any non-party investor that holds a non-voting convertible
interest the right to convert such an interest and acquire control of
the assignee based on the assignee\'s actions relating to programming,
personnel and finances;

8\. give any non-party investor, creditor, or bond, debenture or warrant
holder the right to vote on, approve or deny the selection or removal of
a general partner of an assignee partnership or a member of the
assignee\'s governing body; and

9\. give any non-party investor, creditor, or bond, debenture or warrant
holder the right to convert, tender or require the tendering of stock
pursuant to a put or call agreement based on the actions of the assignee
or transferee relating to programming, personnel or financing.

If these conditions are met with regard to every non-party investor and
creditor, applicant may certify in assignee question 5e of the attached
application that it complies with the Commission\'s restrictions
regarding non-participation of non-party investors and creditors.

B. With respect to any loan agreement, assignee has ensured that such
agreement:

1\. includes an unconditional promise by the assignee to pay on demand
or on a specific date a sum certain;

2\. contains a fixed or defined variable rate of interest on the loan;
and

3\. does not prohibit the redemption of the loan by the assignee, or
permit redemption at the option of the lender only.

If these conditions are met with regard to each loan application,
applicant may certify in assignee question 5e of the attached
application that it complies with the Commission\'s restrictions
regarding non-participation of non-party investors and creditors.

**WORKSHEET \# 3**

**FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS**

An assignee must complete this worksheet if any member of the immediate
family (*i.e.*, husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son or
daughter) of any party to the application or non-party equity owner
holding a nonattributable interest of 5% or more in the applicant have
any interest in or connection with any other broadcast station, pending
broadcast application or daily newspaper in the same area or, in the
case of a television station applicant only, a cable television system
in the same area .

A broadcast station and a daily newspaper are considered to be in the
same area if: (1) the predicted or measured 2 mV/m contour of an AM
station encompasses the entire community in which such daily newspaper
is published; (2) the predicted 1 mV/m contour of an FM station
encompasses the entire community in which such daily newspaper is
published; or (3) the Grade A contour of a TV station encompasses the
entire community in which such daily newspaper is published. A daily
newspaper is one that is published four or more days per week, is in the
English language and is circulated generally in the community of
publication. A college newspaper is not considered as being circulated
generally. *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3555(d) and 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3555 Note
6.

A television station and a cable television system are considered to be
in the same area if the Grade B contour of the television station
overlaps in whole or in part the service area of such system, *i.e.*,
the area within which the system is serving subscribers. *See* 47 C.F.R.
\' 76.501(a).

Answer the following questions for each such relationship:

1\. Has the family member who is not included as an interest holder in
the assignee been involved in negotiations with the licensee/permittee
for the acquisition of any of the station(s) to be assigned?

G Yes G No

2\. Has the family member who is not included as an interest holder in
the assignee provided financing or otherwise been involved in the
process of making financial arrangements for the acquisition of any of
the station(s) to be assigned? G Yes G No

3\. Are the family members involved together in the management or
operation of any other media interests located in other areas? G Yes G
No

4\. Are there any agreements, arrangements or understandings, either
written or oral, between the family members with same-area media
interests for the participation of one family member in the financial
affairs, commercial practices, programming, or employment practices of
the other family member\'s media entity. Consider, for example, joint
sales agreements, local marketing agreements, and arrangements to share
facilities or personnel. G Yes G No

If assignee answers \"No\" to all of the above questions, assignee may
certify in assignee question 5c of the attached application that it
complies with the Commission\'s policies relating to media interests of
immediate family members. If assignee answers \"Yes\" to any one of the
above questions, assignee shall submit an exhibit giving full
particulars.

[^1]: ^?^ *Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket No.
    96-16, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996).

[^2]: ^?^ Some of these rules are being reviewed in other contexts, such
    as our attribution and ownership proceedings. *See, e.g., Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket Nos. 94-150 *et al*., 10 FCC Rcd
    3606, 3614 (1995); *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM
    Docket Nos. 94-150 *et al*., 11 FCC Rcd 19895 (1996) (attribution
    rules); *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket
    Nos. 91-221 & 87-8, 11 FCC Rcd 21655 (1996) (TV local ownership
    rules); *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket Nos. 96-222,
    91-221, & 87-8, 11 FCC Rcd 19949 (1996) (TV national ownership
    rules).

[^3]: ^?^ For example, an FM licensee is currently required to file up
    to fourteen exhibits as part of its technical showing in FCC Form
    301. As proposed, only two or three exhibits typically would be
    required with the revised form.

[^4]: ^?^ Our web site, http://www.fcc.gov, has become a useful resource
    for the public to learn about the agency and its actions, as well as
    to communicate their views to the Commission. In addition, all of
    the agency\'s Bureaus have their own web pages, and our electronic
    mailbox allows the public to express opinions and ask questions
    about a variety of subjects. The Commission may be reached at
    fccinfo@fcc.gov.

[^5]: ^?^ The Mass Media Bureau is developing electronic versions of the
    following 15 forms: FCC Forms 301, 302-AM, 302-FM, 302-TV, 307, 314,
    315, 316, 340, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, and 5072. As noted in
    paragraph 8, *infra*, we also propose to require the electronic
    filing of Form 398, which already is available in electronic form.

[^6]: ^?^ In our pending proceeding on the electronic filing of rule
    making comments, we address implementation questions, such as how to
    confirm receipt by the Commission and how to address the service of
    copies to all relevant parties. *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
    in GC Docket No. 97-113, 12 FCC Rcd 5150, 5153-57 (1997)
    (*Electronic Filing in Rule Making Proceedings Notice*). Therefore,
    these questions will not be the subject of the instant proceeding.
    In the *Electronic Filing in Rule Making Proceedings Notice*, we
    propose to allow parties to file comments electronically in all
    notice and comment rule making proceedings conducted under section
    553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. \' 553, (with the
    exception of broadcast allotment proceedings) and to give such
    comments the same treatment and consideration as paper filings.

[^7]: ^?^ For example, if a party fails to check the box certifying its
    compliance with the statutory alien ownership requirements, 47
    U.S.C. \' 310(b), then the application would not be fileable.

[^8]: ^?^ The public would continue to be able to review and obtain
    copies of electronically filed applications through the
    Commission\'s public reference room and where applicable, in the
    station\'s public file.

[^9]: ^?^ If electronic filing is permissive, some paper filings would
    have to be scanned into the Commission\'s system. Dealing with fewer
    paper filings would reduce the Commission\'s administrative burdens.
    Further, a dual filing system (paper and electronic) would reduce
    predictability with respect to staffing requirements in several
    areas, including data entry and applications processing.

[^10]: ^?^ We do not anticipate requiring that petitions to deny,
    informal objections, and other related documents be submitted
    electronically.

[^11]: ^?^ The Children\'s Programming Report fully sets forth the
    informational and educational programming broadcast by commercial
    television broadcasters. The Report must be filed annually, although
    quarterly filings with the Commission are encouraged.

[^12]: ^?^ We note that we have adopted mandatory electronic filing
    systems in other regulatory areas. For example, with respect to
    common carriers, we recently announced that we would soon require
    incumbent local exchange carriers (\"ILECs\") to file their federal
    tariffs and associated documents electronically pursuant to the
    Commission\'s Electronic Tariff Filing System (\"ETFS\"). *See
    Report and Order* in CC Docket No. 96-187, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2195
    (1997); *Public Notice*, DA 97-2491 (November 25, 1997) (\"*ETFS
    Public Notice\"*). In addition, the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau is implementing a consolidated license processing system,
    Universal Licensing System, for the services under its jurisdiction.
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in WT Docket No. 98-20, FCC 98-23
    (released March 18, 1998) (\"*ULS Notice*\")**.** We have proposed
    that all applications and notifications submitted to the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau in all of the wireless radio services be
    filed electronically, starting in 1999.

[^13]: ^?^ The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (\"CFTC\"), For
    example, generally requires the electronic filing of certain daily
    reports by futures commission merchants. 17 C.F.R. \' 17.00(a).
    Exemptions from the CFTC\'s electronic filing requirements were once
    liberally granted because of the relatively high cost of compliance.
    However, noting that lower prices have made personal computers
    commonplace for business applications, the CFTC recently announced
    that it would now examine each exemption request on a case-by-case
    basis. 62 Fed. Reg. 24026, 24028 (May 2, 1997). In addition, the
    Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") has established a
    \"hardship exemption\" to its mandatory electronic filing rules.
    Specifically, a filer may claim or request a hardship exemption
    based on several factors, including technical difficulties in filing
    and undue burden and expense of conversion to an electronic format.
    17 C.F.R. \'\' 232.201 and 232.202. The Small Business
    Administration (\"SBA\") has adopted small business size standards
    for broadcast radio and television stations in 13 C.F.R \' 121.201.
    According to the SBA\'s regulations, entities engaged in television
    broadcasting (Standard Industrial Classification (\"SIC\") Code
    4833) with no more than \$10.5 million in annual receipts qualify as
    small business concerns. Entities engaged in radio broadcasting (SIC
    Code 4832) with no more than \$5 million in annual receipts also
    qualify as small business concerns.

[^14]: ^?^ We note that we have phased in the electronic filing
    requirement, or have proposed to do so, in various nonbroadcast
    contexts where the Commission has instituted or has proposed to
    institute mandatory electronic filing. For example, when we
    inaugurated the Electronic Tariff Filing System for local exchange
    carriers (\"LEC\"), we stated that its use would initially be
    permissive, but that it would soon become mandatory. We also stated
    that LECs would still be required to file tariffs and associated
    documents on paper until the end of the transition period, and that
    paper filing would thereafter be prohibited. *ETFS Public Notice*.
    Mandatory electronic filing has not yet commenced.

[^15]: ^?^ We note that phase-in procedures have been used elsewhere to
    benefit small businesses. For example, the SEC incorporated its
    mandatory filing rules in stages, phasing in most companies in 1993.
    *See* 58 Fed Reg 14628 (March 18, 1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 14848 (March
    18, 1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 14999 (March 18, 1993). However, small
    businesses were not completely phased in until May 1996. 61 Fed.
    Reg. 13544 (March 27, 1996).

[^16]: ^?^ Therefore, for the purposes of this *NPRM*, the term
    \"Taxpayer Identification Number\" shall mean \"Social Security
    Number\" for individuals.

[^17]: ^?^ Such numbers are sometimes referred to as Federal
    Identification Numbers (\"FIN\"). EINs are issued by the IRS to all
    employers whether or not they pay taxes. These employers include
    corporations, sole proprietors, partnerships, state and local
    governments, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations,
    and federal government/military agencies.

[^18]: ^?^ The authority to collect TINs is found in 31 U.S.C. \'
    7701(c)(1).

[^19]: ^?^ *ULS Notice* && 71-75.

[^20]: ^?^ Registering an identifier and password would be optional.
    These identifiers would be used solely to identify the entity making
    the filing so that once the relevant administrative information is
    in our database it can be prefiled on the pleadings form when the
    same entity makes subsequent filings.

[^21]: ^?^ The system would rely upon TINs or unique identifiers to
    restrict access and ensure security. Similarly, applicants and
    licensees will use these numbers to identify themselves to the
    system.

[^22]: ^?^ Other forms listed in note 5, *supra,* also will be changed
    to permit electronic filing. We have attempted to use identical
    questions, where possible, across the universe of forms included in
    the conversion process. Thus, changes made to these other
    application forms will track to a significant extent changes made to
    the forms discussed more fully below. However, revisions to these
    other forms are not premised on rule changes, and therefore, are not
    discussed further in this *Notice*.

[^23]: ^?^ The proposed changes in the processing of short form
    applications are discussed *infra* at paragraphs 69-81.

[^24]: ^?^ In fiscal year 1997 alone, the Audio and Video Services
    Divisions combined received over 4600 assignment and transfer
    applications.

[^25]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C.A. \' 553(b)(3)(A).

[^26]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3597(c) provides in pertinent part:

    (1)(i) *Unbuilt Station* refers to an AM, FM or TV broadcast station
    or a low power TV or TV translator station for which a construction
    permit is outstanding, and, regardless of the stage of physical
    completion, as to which program tests have not been commenced or, if
    required, been authorized.

    \(2\) The FCC will not consent to the assignment or transfer of
    control of the construction permit of an unbuilt station if the
    agreements or understandings between the parties provide for, or
    permit, payment to the seller of a sum in excess of the aggregate
    amount clearly shown to have been legitimately and prudently
    expended and to be expended by the seller, solely for preparing,
    filing, and advocating the grant of the construction permit for the
    station, and for other steps reasonably necessary toward placing the
    station in operation.

    47 C.F.R. \' 73.3597(c)(1)(i) and (2).

[^27]: ^?^ Section 73.3597(c)(3) provides in pertinent part:

    \(i\) Applications for consent to the assignment of a construction
    permit or transfer of control shall, in the case of unbuilt
    stations, be accompanied by declarations by both the assignor (or
    transferor) and by the assignee (or transferee) that, except as
    clearly disclosed in detail in the applications, there are no
    agreements or understandings for reimbursement of the sellers
    expenses or other payments to the seller. . . .

    \(ii\) When the seller is to receive reimbursement of his expenses,
    the applications of the parties shall include an itemized accounting
    of such expenses, together with such factual information as the
    parties rely upon for the requisite showing that those expenses
    represent legitimate and prudent outlays made solely for the
    purposes allowable under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    47 C.F.R. \' 73.3597(c)(3)(i) and (ii).

[^28]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3597(d)(1).

[^29]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3597(d)(2).

[^30]: ^?^ *See Assignment and Transfer of Construction Permits for New
    Broadcast Stations (Section 1.597 of the Commission\'s Rules)*, 16
    FCC 2d 789, 789 (1969). Trafficking is defined as speculation,
    barter or trade in licenses. *See Amendment of Part I of the
    Commission\'s Rules Adding Section 1.365 Concerning Applications for
    Voluntary Assignments or Transfers of Control*, 32 FCC 689, 689
    (1962).

[^31]: ^?^ *Amendment of Part I of the Commission\'s Rules Adding
    Section 1.365 Concerning Applications for Voluntary Assignments or
    Transfers of Control*, 32 FCC 689 (1962).

[^32]: ^?^ *See Amendment of Section 73.3597 of the Commission\'s Rules
    (Applications for Voluntary Assignments or Transfers of Control),
    Report and Order*, 52 RR 2d 1081, 1088 (1982) (\"*Trafficking Report
    and Order*\")(subsequent history omitted).

[^33]: ^?^ *Trafficking Report and Order*, 52 RR 2d at 1089; *see also
    Applications for Voluntary Assignments or Transfers of Control,
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 47 Fed. Reg. 985, 987 (1982)
    (\"*Trafficking NPRM*\").

[^34]: ^?^ *Trafficking Report and Order*, 52 RR 2d at 1089.

[^35]: ^?^ *Id.* at 1083.

[^36]: ^?^ *Id.* at 1089.

[^37]: ^?^ *Id.* The Commission found, however, that in light of our
    concerns about the integrity of Commission processes, a one-year
    holding period should be imposed on those who obtain a permit
    through a comparative hearing. *Id.* This one-year holding period
    subsequently was imposed on permittees who obtained their permits
    through the Minority Ownership Policy. *See Amendment of Section
    73.3597 of the Commission\'s Rules (Applications for Voluntary
    Assignments or Transfers of Control)*, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 99 FCC 2d 971 (1985).

[^38]: ^?^ We note that our proposed modifications to our construction
    permit extension procedures would impact on the assignment and
    transfer of unbuilt stations. *See infra* & 66.

[^39]: ^?^ *Bill Welch*, 3 FCC Rcd 6502 (1988).

[^40]: ^?^ *Id.* at 6503.

[^41]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^42]: ^?^ *Id.* at 6504. While the Commission concluded in *Bill Welch*
    that the for-profit sale of unbuilt cellular authorizations was not
    prohibited by statute and in the public interest, the Commission
    specifically stated that its decision on statutory grounds would not
    affect the prohibition of such for-profit sales in the broadcast
    service. *Id* at 6505 n.26.

[^43]: ^?^ *Id.* Section 22.139 of the Commission\'s rules provides,
    *inter alia*, that \"\[c\]arriers must not obtain or attempt to
    obtain an authorization in the Public Mobile services for the
    principal purpose of speculation or profitable resale of the
    authorization, but rather for the provision of common carrier
    telecommunication services to the public.\" 47 C.F.R. \' 22.139.

[^44]: ^?^ *See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act \-- Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and
    Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses*, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-52 and
    GEN Docket No. 90-264, FCC 97-397 (rel. November 26, 1997)
    (\"*Auction NPRM*\"); *see also Notice infra* & 59. In the *Auction
    NPRM*, we tentatively concluded that competitive bidding is
    statutorily mandated for mutually exclusive applications for
    secondary services, whether such applications were filed before or
    after July 1, 1997. *See Auction NPRM* && 39-41. Were the Commission
    to subsequently reach a different conclusion, we would need to
    reevaluate whether the \"no profit\" rule should continue to apply
    to the assignment and transfer of low power TV and TV translator
    stations.

[^45]: ^?^ *See e.g.* 47 C.F.R. \' 24.839.

[^46]: ^?^ *See* Section 3002(a)(1)(A)(2)(C), Balanced Budget Act of
    1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251.

[^47]: ^?^ We note that a proceeding is pending to develop comparative
    criteria to select among mutually exclusive noncommercial station
    applicants. *See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for New
    Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making,* 10 FCC Rcd 2877 (1995). Such applicants are now subject to
    a processing freeze. *Id.*

[^48]: ^?^ Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).

[^49]: ^?^ *See Gonzales Broadcasting, Inc.,* 12 FCC Rcd 1253, 1255-56
    (1997).

[^50]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 1.17 (\"The Commission or its
    representatives may, in writing, require from any applicant,
    permittee or licensee written statements of fact relevant to a
    determination whether an application should be granted or denied, or
    to a determination of whether a license should be revoked, or to
    some other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission.\").

[^51]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3613(b).

[^52]: ^?^ We note that in the *Auction NPRM*, we proposed to conduct
    broadcast spectrum auctions in conformity with the general
    competitive bidding rules set forth in Part I, Subpart Q of the
    Commission\'s rules. *See Auction NPRM* & 51. Section 1.2111 of the
    Commission\'s rules provides that where a license has been obtained
    through a competitive bidding procedure, an applicant seeking
    approval to assign or transfer control of such license within the
    first three years of obtaining the license must file with the
    Commission the relevant assignment or transfer agreements or
    contracts. We recognize that Section 1.2111 is inconsistent with our
    proposal here to eliminate the requirement that applicants file
    assignment and transfer agreements with the application. In the
    *Auction NPRM*, we have sought comment on whether there are any
    general competitive bidding rules that are inappropriate in the
    context of broadcast auctions. *Id*. We intend to ensure that the
    rules adopted in this proceeding are consistent with the rules
    adopted in the pending broadcast auction proceeding.

[^53]: ^?^ *See* Appendix C, FCC Form 314 Worksheets

[^54]: ^?^ *See* *supra* n. 50.

[^55]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. \' 309(d).

[^56]: ^?^ *See* Appendix C, Worksheet \# 1.

[^57]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. \' 309(d).

[^58]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C.A. \' 553(b)(3)(A).

[^59]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.316(c).

[^60]: ^?^ *See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules
    to Permit Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast Facilities Without a
    Construction Permit* in MM Docket 96-58, 12 FCC Rcd 12371, 12404-05
    (1997) (\"*One Step Licensing Report and Order*\").

[^61]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^62]: ^?^ *Id.* at 12405.

[^63]: ^?^ *See One Step Licensing Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    12386 and 12431.

[^64]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 1030(a); *see* *Amendment of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Establish a Radio Astronomy Coordination Zone in Puerto
    Rico, Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 96-2, 12 FCC Rcd 16522
    (1997) (\"*Puerto Rico Report and Order*\").

[^65]: ^?^ See *Puerto Rico Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 16531
    (rejecting proposal that applicants be allowed to trigger
    commencement of the 20-day period prior to filing their
    applications).

[^66]: ^?^ In addition to eliminating the Section 73.1030(a) reporting
    requirement, we propose to make the internal organization of the
    rule more consistent by designating the present subsection (a) as
    subsection (a)(1). *See* *Puerto Rico Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 16546 (creating new subsection (a)(2)). We also propose to
    conform the present subsection (a) to subsection (a)(2) by
    specifying that applicants under the former may provide the
    requisite notification prior to, as well as simultaneously with, the
    filing of their applications. *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.1030(a) and
    (a)(2)(ii); *Puerto Rico Report and Order* 12 FCC Rcd at 16531.

[^67]: ^?^ For example, we propose to eliminate Questions 7(a)(3) and
    7(b)(2) of the current Section V-B relating to site elevation and
    height of radiation center above mean sea level, the answers to
    which questions may be derived easily from other data required by
    the technical portion of the form. Similarly, applicants would no
    longer submit Federal Aviation Administration (\"FAA\") information,
    including copies of FAA determinations because this information can
    be accessed through the FCC antenna structure registration number
    included in the application. We also propose to eliminate the sketch
    of the supporting antenna structure required by Question 8 of the
    current Section V-B.

[^68]: ^?^ In order to facilitate the auction process, the Commission
    proposed to eliminate tenderability and two-tiered minimum filing
    requirements for new and major change FM applications in the
    *Auction NPRM*. *See Auction NPRM* & 78. We believe the rationale
    underlying this auction-related processing proposal applies only to
    new and major change applications. *See id.* In light of the
    revisions we are proposing herein to our application forms and
    processing procedures, however, we invite comment on whether we also
    should modify the tenderability and two-tier processing standards
    for minor change FM applications. 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3564.

[^69]: ^?^ *E.g.*, *Swan Creek Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 39 F.3d
    1217 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (applicant disqualified in comparative
    broadcast proceeding for lack of candor); *RKO General, Inc. v.
    FCC*, 670 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1981), *cert. denied*, 456 U.S. 927
    (1982) (license renewal denied based on lack of candor).

[^70]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. \'\' 318, 319(a)-(b). Section 319(d) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, allows the Commission to
    implement regulations regarding minor changes to licensed facilities
    whereby a modified license may be issued without prior issuance of a
    construction permit. The Commission has recently implemented
    \"one-step\" licensing procedures that can be used in specified
    circumstances. *See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast Facilities
    Without a Construction Permit*, 12 FCC Rcd 12371 (1997); 47 C.F.R.
    \' 73.1690.

[^71]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3598(a)-(b). Although the construction period
    for ITFS is set forth in Section 73.3598, ITFS is a point-to-point
    microwave (non-broadcast) service and is therefore outside the scope
    of the proposals contained in this Mass Media streamlining
    initiative.

[^72]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. \' 319(b). Our rule implementing \' 319(b)
    provides that a construction permit \"shall be declared forfeited if
    the station is not ready for operation within the time specified
    therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for
    completion, and a notice of the forfeiture of any construction
    permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC
    as of the expiration date.\" 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3599.

[^73]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \'\' 73.3534(b). Applications for extension of time
    are made on FCC Form 307.

[^74]: ^?^ *Id.* The same criteria are also used to determine whether a
    permittee that has allowed its construction permit to expire prior
    to requesting an extension should be afforded additional time to
    construct. Our rules refer to a post-expiration request as a
    \"replacement\" rather than an \"extension.\" *See* 47 C.F.R. \'
    73.3534(e). Extensions for International Broadcast are processed
    under more general guidelines. *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3534(c)
    (permittee may either demonstrate that its failure to complete was
    due to causes that were beyond its control or may provide other
    information \"sufficient to justify an extension.\").

[^75]: ^?^ In determining whether an extension is warranted, the
    Commission will only look at the most recent authorized construction
    period*. See Rainbow Broadcasting Company*, 9 FCC Rcd 2839, 2846
    (1994), *rev\'d on other grounds sub nom.* *Press Broadcasting
    Company v. FCC*, 59 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 1995); *Panavideo
    Broadcasting, Inc.*, 6 FCC Rcd 5259 (1991).

[^76]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3535(a)-(b). Although 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3535(d)
    specifies that we will not accept an application to modify a
    construction permit, or an application to assign or transfer control
    of a construction permit, filed after the initial construction
    period, the Commission has interpreted this rule to allow acceptance
    of such applications so long as the construction permit has not
    expired \-- whether or not the permittee has received prior
    extensions of time to construct. *See Clarke Broadcasting Corp.*, 11
    FCC Rcd 3057, 3057 n.5 (1996).

[^77]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3535(c).

[^78]: ^?^ *Id*. Historically, as discussed below, the staff has applied
    the \"one-in-three\" showing required by Section 73.3535 of the
    Commission\'s rules and the additional 12 month provision only to
    the assignments and transfers of control of construction permits to
    construct new stations (*i.e.*, the rule has not been applied to an
    application to assign or transfer control of a licensed station with
    an outstanding construction permit to modify facilities). Moreover,
    the staff applies Section 73.3535(c) of the Commission\'s rules only
    to \"long-form\" applications to assign or transfer control a
    construction permit (*i.e.*, applications on FCC Form 314 or 315).

[^79]: ^?^ *Report and Order* in Docket No. 18763, 23 FCC 2d 274 (1970).

[^80]: ^?^ *Id.* at 274-75.

[^81]: ^?^ *See Memorandum Opinion and Order* (\"*1985 MO&O*\"), 102 FCC
    2d 1054, 1055 (1985).

[^82]: ^?^ Prior to the *1985 MO&O*, Section 73.3534 of the
    Commission\'s rules provided that extensions would be granted only
    \"upon a specific and detailed showing that the failure to complete
    was due to causes not under the control of the grantee, or upon a
    specific and detailed showing of other matters sufficient to justify
    the extension.\" In applying this standard, the Commission granted
    extensions \"where permittees \[had\] made bona fide efforts to meet
    their commitments and \[took\] substantial steps toward
    construction, where delays in construction resulted from unforeseen
    circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, or where the
    permittee \[had\] shown that the public interest would be served by
    the grant of the extension.\" *Northeast TV Cablevision Corp., et
    al.*, 21 FCC 2d 442, 444 (1970).

[^83]: ^?^ The Commission has proposed auctioning the broadcast spectrum
    as directed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33,
    111 Stat. 251 (1997). *See Auction NPRM* && 1, 6-7.

[^84]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, *Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio
    Satellite Service*, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5815 (1997); *Amendment of Part
    95 of the Commission\'s Rules to Modify Construction Requirements
    for Interactive Video and Data Services*, 11 FCC Rcd 2472, 2473
    (1996); *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    \-- Competitive Bidding*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2358 (1994).

[^85]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.208(b) (station separation requirements
    in licensing proceedings are determined by protecting both licensed
    and permitted facilities).

[^86]: ^?^ *See Fifth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC
    Rcd 12809 (1997), *on reconsideration*, FCC 98-23, released February
    23, 1998. *See also Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268,
    FCC 97-115, released April 21, 1997, *on reconsideration*, FCC
    98-24, released February 23, 1998.

[^87]: ^?^ *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth
    Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-23, && 11-16,
    released February 23, 1998.

[^88]: ^?^ *Id.* & 11.

[^89]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3535(b).

[^90]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3535(a).

[^91]: ^?^ *See* *supra* note 72 and accompanying text.

[^92]: ^?^ *See Edward A. Baker v. FCC*, 834 F.2d 181, 185 (D.C. Cir.
    1987); *1985 MO&O*, 102 FCC 2d at 1058 n.11.

[^93]: ^?^ We note that we have broad rulemaking authority to revise our
    processing rules and to apply the new rules to pending applicants.
    *See Maxcell Telecom Plus v. FCC*, 815 F.2d 1551, 1555 (D.C. Cir.
    1987) (upholding decision to decide pending cellular cases by
    lottery rather than by comparative hearing). *See also Chadmoore
    Communications v. FCC*, No. 96-1061 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 1997)
    (upholding the denial of an application for an extension of the
    construction period based on a subsequently adopted rule disallowing
    such extension, because no right to an extension vested upon the
    filing of the application).

[^94]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. \' 310(d); 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3540(a); 47 C.F.R. \'
    73.3541. The instructions to FCC Form 323 set out examples of when
    particular transactions constitute a transfer of control or an
    assignment requiring prior Commission consent. For a general survey
    of this area, see Stephen F. Sewell, *Assignments and Transfers of
    Control of FCC Authorizations Under Section 310(d) of the
    Communications Act of 1934*, 43 *Fed. Comm. L. J.* 277 (1991).

[^95]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. \' 310(d).

[^96]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. \' 309(b), (c)(2)(B), (d). In the case of short
    form applications, however, the Commission entertains informal
    objections, under 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3587, which may be filed any time
    up until Commission action on the application.

[^97]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3540(f). The standard for determining when a
    \"long form\" as opposed to a \"short form\" is required and *vice
    versa* is set out in *Clay Broadcasters*, 21 RR 2d 442 (1971);
    *Barnes Enterprises*, 55 FCC 2d 721, 725 n.4 (1975); *Grace
    Missionary Baptist Church*, 80 FCC 2d 330 (1980).

[^98]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3541.

[^99]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, *O.D.T. International*, 9 FCC Rcd 2575 (1994).

[^100]: ^?^ We have been informally advised that one common problem
    results from last-minute restructuring, often for tax purposes,
    during the final stages of closing an approved transaction.

[^101]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3615(f).

[^102]: ^?^ *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, *Forbearance from Section
    310(d) of the Communications Act Regarding Non-substantial
    Assignments of Wireless Licenses and Transfers of Control Involving
    Telecommunications Carriers*, FCC 98-18, released February 4, 1998;
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56,
    Sect. 10, *codified at* 47 U.S.C. \' 160(a).

[^103]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. \' 78.35(c). In adopting this rule, we explained
    that:

    \[W\]e see no need for FCC approval in cases where ownership
    transfer does not result in a change in the identity of the licensee
    or the ultimate controlling interest of the licensee. Section 310(d)
    \[of the Act\] requires Commission approval only when a license is
    transferred to another person or when control of a corporation
    holding a license is transferred. Thus, Section 310(d) does not
    appear to require FCC approval of ownership changes that do not
    involve a change in the identity or controlling interest of the
    licensee. *Pro forma*, or \"short form,\" assignments or transfers
    of control which do involve such changes will continue to require
    approval. (footnotes omitted)

    *Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 84-886, 100 FCC 2d 1136, 1140-41
    (1985).

[^104]: ^?^ *See generally* *Tender Offers and Proxy Contests,* 59 Rad.
    Reg. 1536 (1986), *appeal dismissed sub nom. Office of Communication
    of the United Church of Christ v. FCC,* 826 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir.
    1987).

[^105]: ^?^ *See, e.g., Macfadden Acquisition Corp.,* 104 FCC 2d 545,
    565-66 (1986); *Viacom, Inc.,* 8 FCC Rcd 8439 (1993).

[^106]: *See, e.g.*, *Viacom, Inc.*, 8 FCC Rcd 8439, 8441 (1993)
    (requiring Trustee to divest himself of stock to insure \"strict
    insulation from the bidder\").

[^107]: 47 C.F.R. \' 73.3615.

[^108]: 47 C.F.R. \' 73.1615(d); 73.1020(a).

[^109]: Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. \' 601 *et seq*.
    (1981), as amended.

[^110]: *See* 5 U.S.C. \' 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. \' 601 *et.
    seq*., has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act
    of 1996, Pub. L. No. 194-12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (\"CWAA\"). Title
    II of the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (\"SBREFA\").

[^111]: While we tentatively believe that the SBA\'s 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 proposals on
    small television and radio stations, for purposes of this *Notice*,
    we utilize the SBA\'s definition in determining the number of small
    businesses to which the proposed rules would apply, but we reserve
    the right to adopt a more suitable definition of \"small business\"
    as applied to radio and television broadcast stations or other
    entities subject to the proposed rules in this Notice and to
    consider further the issue of the number of small entities that are
    radio and television broadcasters or other small media entities in
    the future. *See Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 93‑48
    (*Children\'s Television Programming*), 11 FCC Rcd 10660, 10737-38
    (1996), *citin*g 5 U.S.C. \' 601(3).

[^112]: 13 C.F.R. \' 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833
    (1996).

[^113]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1992 CENSUS OF TRANSPORTATION,
    COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, ESTABLISHMENT AND FIRM SIZE, Series
    UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).

[^114]: *Id*. *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.

[^115]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1992 CENSUS OF TRANSPORTATION,
    COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, ESTABLISHMENT AND FIRM SIZE, Series
    UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995).

[^116]: *Id*. SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production); SIC
    7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services
    (producers of live radio and television programs).

[^117]: FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and
    Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of
    Commerce, *supra* note 110, Appendix A-9.

[^118]: FCC News Release \"Broadcast Station Totals as of January 31,
    1998.

[^119]: Census for Communications\' establishments are performed every
    five years ending with a \"2\" or \"7\". *See* Economics and
    Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of
    Commerce, *supra* note 110, III.

[^120]: The amount of \$10 million was used to estimate the number of
    small business establishments because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at \$9,999,999 and began at \$10,000,000. No category for
    \$10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^121]: 13 C.F.R. \' 121.201, SIC 4832.

[^122]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, *supra* note 110, Appendix A-9.

[^123]: *Id*.

[^124]: *Id*.

[^125]: *Id*.

[^126]: The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same
    facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM
    combination counts as one establishment.

[^127]: FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.

[^128]: FCC News Release \"Broadcast Station Totals as of January 31,
    1998.\"

[^129]: We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at less
    than \$10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 1998 total of 1569 TV
    stations to arrive at 1,208 stations categorized as small
    businesses.

[^130]: We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with less
    than \$5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to the
    12,241 individual station count to arrive at 11,751 individual
    stations as small businesses.