[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8622-8629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02039]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 24-14; FCC 24-1; FR ID 198888]


Priority Application Review for Broadcast Stations That Provide 
Local Journalism or Other Locally Originated Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to prioritize 
processing review of certain applications filed by commercial and 
noncommercial radio and television broadcast stations that provide 
locally originated programming. The Commission's goal is to provide 
additional incentive to stations to provide programming that responds 
to the needs and interests of the communities they are licensed to 
serve. In 2017, the Commission eliminated the rule that required 
broadcast stations to maintain a main studio located in or near their 
community of license, as well as the associated requirement that the 
main studio have program origination capability. We propose this 
processing priority in order to further encourage radio and TV stations 
to serve their community of license with local journalism or other 
locally originated programming. Such prioritization would be granted to 
renewal applicants, as well as applicants for assignment or transfer of 
license, that certify they provide locally originated programming, 
thereby advancing our efforts to promote localism and serve local 
communities across the nation.

DATES: Comments may be filed on or before March 11, 2024, and reply 
comments may be filed on or before April 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and reply comments, identified by MB 
Docket No. 24-14, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc9a9f9fc9ccc8bc9a9f9fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f1f4f4a2a7a3d7f1f4f4b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, at (202) 418-2154, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6ad8f8bc8ab8792928e839195a6808585c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86cdefeba8cbe7f2f2eee3f1f5c6e0e5e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MB Docket No. 24-14; FCC 24-1, 
adopted on January 10, 2024 and released on January 17, 2024. The full 
text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-1A1.pdf.
    To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, 
computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4e2e7e7919490e4c2c7c78ac3cbd2">[email protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Background

    1. One of a broadcaster's fundamental public service obligations is 
to provide programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of 
its community of license. The Communications Act requires the 
Commission to determine, in the case of applications for licenses, 
``whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be 
served by granting such application.'' The Commission has consistently 
interpreted this requirement to mean that licensees must air 
programming

[[Page 8623]]

that serves their local community. The main studio and local program 
origination rules were originally adopted to ensure that broadcast 
stations fulfill their local service obligations. In furtherance of 
section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 
which requires the Commission to ``make such distribution of licenses, 
frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States 
and communities as to provide for a fair, efficient, and equitable 
distribution of radio service to each of the same,'' each broadcast 
radio and television station is assigned to a community of license that 
it is obligated to serve. The main studio rule required stations to 
maintain the main studio in or near its community of license to 
facilitate interaction between the station and the local community it 
is licensed to serve. The Commission also required that the main studio 
have a ``meaningful management and staff presence'' to fulfill the main 
studio's function, and that the main studio be equipped with production 
and transmission facilities.
    2. Locally originated programming was deemed an important element 
of a station's service obligations from the time location requirements 
for AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations were first adopted. As the main 
studio played a key role in the origination of a broadcast station's 
programming, its location in the community helped to ensure that the 
station could participate in community activities, that community 
members could participate in live programs, and that community 
residents could more easily present complaints or suggestions to the 
station. The Commission reasoned that interaction between the station 
and the community would help foster programming responsive to community 
needs and concerns.
    3. In 2017, however, the Commission eliminated the main studio rule 
and the associated requirements that the main studio have full-time 
management and staff present during normal business hours, and that it 
have program origination capability. The Commission found that 
technological changes have ``rendered local studios unnecessary'' as a 
means for viewers and listeners to contact or access their local 
station. The Commission noted that most community members communicate 
with stations via email, station websites, telephone, or other means, 
rather than visiting a main studio, and that public inspection files 
can now be viewed on the Commission's Online Public Inspection File 
(OPIF) database. The Commission also found that there was no evidence 
that the physical location of a station's main studio is the reason 
broadcasters are able to deliver content that meets the needs and 
interests of the local community.
    4. The elimination of the main studio rule and its associated 
requirements followed other, earlier steps taken by the Commission to 
reduce or eliminate regulations applicable to TV and radio broadcasters 
that were intended to reinforce the obligation of stations to provide 
programming responsive to community needs and interests. In its radio 
and television deregulation orders, the Commission eliminated its 
formal ascertainment and program log requirements and quantitative 
guidelines regarding the duration, type, and time of presentation of 
nonentertainment programming. While the Commission concluded generally 
that these requirements were no longer necessary or appropriate means 
to ensure station operation in the public interest, it reaffirmed the 
continuing obligation of all licensees to provide issue-responsive 
programming.
    5. Currently, the Commission requires stations to prepare quarterly 
a list of programs that ``have provided the most significant treatment 
of community issues.'' The purpose of this requirement is to provide 
both the public and the Commission with information needed to monitor a 
licensee's performance in meeting its public interest obligation of 
providing programming that is responsive to its community. Our current 
rules require full-power radio and TV and Class A TV broadcasters to 
post these issues/programs lists on the station's OPIF. Further, as 
part of the broadcast station license renewal process, the Commission 
is required to find that ``the station has served the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity'' during its preceding license term.

II. Discussion

    6. To provide an additional incentive to stations to broadcast 
content responsive to the needs of the local community, particularly 
news and information, we propose to adopt a change in our application 
processing procedures that would benefit those radio and TV 
broadcasters that certify that they provide locally originated content. 
Specifically, when reviewing applications for renewal, transfer, or 
assignment of license, we propose to adopt a processing policy to 
prioritize evaluation of those applications filed by stations that 
certify that they provide locally originated programming. These 
applications would be the first to be reviewed, which would likely 
result in quicker action and, if the application is granted, quicker 
approval of these applications.
    7. We tentatively conclude that our proposal to award priority 
application review to applicants that provide locally originated 
programming advances the Commission's longstanding policy goal of 
encouraging licensees to air programming that serves the needs and 
interests of their local community. We also tentatively conclude that 
the provision by a station of locally originated programming serves as 
a reasonable gauge of whether the station is serving the public 
interest by providing programming that is responsive to particular 
local needs. In addition, by focusing on where the programming is 
created, our proposal avoids having the Commission try to evaluate the 
content of a station's broadcasts to determine their local nature.
    8. The Commission has recognized that programming does not have to 
be locally originated to have interest or value to audiences in any 
particular community and has suggested that locally originated content 
may not always be responsive to a community's needs or interests. But 
the corollary that some may read into those statements--that locally 
originated programming is not valuable enough to warrant Commission 
attention--goes too far. To the contrary, programming containing at 
least some locally sourced content appears quite likely to be 
responsive to local concerns and interests. We believe that the 
incentives behind the creation of local programming (including but not 
limited to financial incentives) tend to align local creators with the 
needs and interests of local audiences; evidence suggests that creators 
of local programming would be unlikely to expend time and financial 
resources on material that has little or no appeal to local listeners 
and viewers. We also recognize that the line between ``local'' and 
``non-local'' is not always a sharp one; broadcasters may ``localize'' 
a state, national, or international issue by providing local commentary 
or local expert explanations on the probable effect of the issue on 
people within the station's signal contour. Such content plainly also 
serves local needs and interests. We seek comment on these views.
    9. Accordingly, to the degree that the Main Studio Elimination 
Order could be read to the contrary, we tentatively conclude that 
locally originated programming usually reflects needs, interests, 
circumstances, or perspectives that may be quite pertinent to that 
community and that production of local broadcast programming remains a 
key

[[Page 8624]]

consideration. We also question whether the Main Studio Elimination 
Order's predictive judgment--that the Commission's action there would 
foster creation of more and better local content--has actually come to 
pass. We invite comment on these views and request commenters to 
provide analysis and data in support of their positions. Under our 
proposal, licensees will continue to ultimately have the discretion to 
determine what mix of local and non-local programming will best serve 
the community. We tentatively conclude our proposal does not interfere 
with this discretion but merely offers an opportunity to licensees to 
obtain prioritized review of applications if they certify that they 
provide programming that is locally originated. We invite comment 
generally on these views.

A. Processing Priority

    10. We tentatively conclude that our proposal would apply only to 
those applications for which processing is not immediately available 
because the application has a hold, petition to deny, or other pending 
issue that requires further staff review. Applications without holds or 
other processing issues requiring additional staff review, also 
referred to here as ``simple'' applications, would be acted upon 
consistent with current routine processing procedures. In contrast, 
applications that have holds related to the applicant's failure to 
comply with Commission rules, or where petitions to deny or informal 
objections have been filed, generally require additional staff research 
and processing time before they can be processed. The amount of time it 
takes to process these types of applications is often dependent upon 
the number of applications pending before the Commission at any given 
time, the complexity of the issues involved, and the availability of 
Commission staff to process the applications in light of other agency 
priorities. With respect to these more ``complex'' applications, we 
propose that the staff first would consider those that are filed 
together with a certification that the station provides programming 
that is locally originated. We tentatively conclude this approach will 
not slow the review of ``simple'' applications that are otherwise 
grantable but will create a priority system for more ``complex'' 
applications that require further staff attention. We will not delay 
the processing of a ``simple'' application while a more ``complex'' 
application with a certification is pending. We seek comment on this 
approach.
    11. We propose that the decision by a licensee to elect to certify 
that the station meets the local programming guideline be purely 
voluntary, and we seek comment on this proposal. With respect to those 
licensees that either cannot, or choose not, to provide a 
certification, the Commission staff will process the licensee's 
application pursuant to its normal procedures. Applications that do not 
include a certification will not be scrutinized or processed 
differently as a substantive matter than applications with a 
certification, other than the prioritization proposal discussed above.
    12. While we do not propose at this time to extend our proposed 
application processing priority to modification applications, waiver 
requests, or requests for Special Temporary Authority (STA), we invite 
comment on whether these types of applications and requests should be 
included in our proposal herein. Based upon the experience of the 
Media's Bureaus licensing divisions, we note that the review time for 
these applications is generally more abbreviated than for renewals and 
transactions, and therefore such a prioritization may not be 
appreciably relevant. Despite this, should these, or other, kind of 
requests be treated in the same manner as renewal applications and 
applications for assignment and transfer of control for purposes of 
application processing priority?
    13. Finally, we do not propose to offer priority application 
review, as outlined herein, to applications filed for radio translators 
or boosters or TV translators. Booster stations do not originate 
programming and translator stations may only originate a very limited 
amount of programming so the underlying purpose of the proposed 
processing policy--i.e., to further incentivize broadcast licensees to 
serve community needs and interests through production of locally 
originated programming--would not apply. Accordingly, we believe there 
would be minimal value, if any, in asking these stations to certify 
they provide locally originated programming content. As noted above, we 
tentatively conclude this approach will not slow the review of 
``simple'' applications that are otherwise grantable. We seek comment 
on our proposals and findings.

B. Applications Eligible for Processing Priority

1. ``Local'' Market
    14. Under our proposal, we would prioritize the review of 
applications filed by stations that provide locally originated 
programming. We invite comment on how we should define ``local'' for 
this purpose. The former main studio rule required each AM, FM, and 
television broadcast station to maintain a main studio that is located 
either: ``(1) [w]ithin the station's community of license; (2) [a]t any 
location within the principal community contour of any AM, FM, or TV 
broadcast station licensed to the station's community of license; or 
(3) [w]ithin twenty-five miles from the reference coordinates of the 
center of its community of license as described in Sec.  
73.208(a)(1).'' Should we define ``locally originated'' programing as 
programming originated within one or more of these geographic areas? 
One purpose of the former main studio rule was to ensure that the 
station complied with its local service obligations. Would adopting a 
definition of the geographic area in which ``locally originated '' 
programming is created for purposes of priority application review in a 
manner similar to the geographic area used for the former main studio 
rule help ensure that this programming reflects the needs and interests 
of the local community? Should we instead define the ``local'' market 
as the station's service contour? As service contours generally 
encompass a larger geographic area than a station's community of 
license or principal community contour, this definition would give the 
station more flexibility with respect to where local programming could 
be originated. We invite comment generally on how to define the 
geographic area in which a program should be originated in order to 
qualify as ``local'' under our proposal herein. Should we define the 
local market differently for radio stations than for TV stations? 
Should we define the local market differently for low power TV stations 
than full power TV stations?
2. Locally ``Originated'' Programming
    15. We also invite comment on how to define programming 
``originated'' locally for purposes of qualifying for priority 
application review. We propose that any kind of activity involved in 
creating audio (radio) or video (TV) programming that occurs within the 
``local'' market, as defined in this proceeding, would be sufficient. 
Local program origination could involve, for example, activities such 
as program scripting, recording (video or audio) at a studio or other 
location in the local market, or editing. Our proposed approach would 
include programming that contains video or audio recordings that were 
made at locations outside the local market, as long as the program also 
includes some other element of local

[[Page 8625]]

creation. For particular programming that contains content made at 
locations outside the local market, should we establish a minimum 
amount of required locally originated programming? What other kinds of 
local activities should qualify as local program origination?
    16. We note that, in the case of mutually exclusive applications 
for new Low Power FM (LPFM) stations, the Commission's rules favor the 
selection of applicants that pledge to provide at least eight hours of 
locally originated programming each day. The LPFM rules define ``local 
origination'' as ``the production of programming by the licensee within 
ten miles of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna'' and 
provides the following examples of locally originated programming: 
``licensee produced call-in shows, music selected and played by a disc 
jockey present on site, broadcasts of events at local schools, and 
broadcasts of musical performances at a local studio or festival, 
whether recorded or live.'' We propose that these kinds of programs and 
activities would qualify as locally originated programming for purposes 
of our proposed priority application review, and invite comment on this 
proposal. Are there other examples of locally originated programming we 
should provide?
    17. We note that, in the LPFM context for resolving mutually 
exclusive applications, the rules require the locally originated 
programming to be produced by the licensee. We do not propose to adopt 
a similar requirement for this priority application review proposal. 
Thus, we propose that the locally originated content can be produced by 
a third party that is not the licensee. We invite comment on this 
approach.
    18. The LPFM rules further provide that local origination ``does 
not include the broadcast of repetitive or automated programs or time-
shifted recordings of non-local programming whatever its source.'' 
Should we exclude these kinds of programs and/or time-shifted 
recordings from the definition of local programming for purposes of 
priority application review? In addition, the LPFM rules provide that 
``local origination does not include a local program that has been 
broadcast twice, even if the licensee broadcasts the program on a 
different day or makes small variations in the program thereafter.'' In 
adopting this restriction for LPFM, the Commission noted that local 
origination is a ``central virtue'' of that service and that there was 
``room for abuse'' if repetitious, automated programs could count as 
locally originated. Should we adopt this same restriction on repetition 
of locally originated programming for purposes of priority application 
review? With respect to television stations, should we define ``locally 
originated programming'' for purposes of priority application review as 
programming containing simultaneous video and audio programming where 
the audio portion of the programming directly relates to the video 
portion of the program? This would mean that, for television 
applicants, video-only or audio-only programming would not count for 
purposes of obtaining priority application review. For television 
stations, would this restriction help ensure that locally originated 
programming contains the type of television services viewers expect TV 
stations to provide?

C. Certification

    19. We propose to provide priority staff review to licensees that 
certify that the station(s) provides on average at least three hours 
per week of locally originated programming. We note that, to be 
eligible for Class A status, the CBPA required that low power TV 
stations, during the 90 days preceding the date of enactment of the 
statute, broadcast an average of at least three hours per week of 
programming produced within the ``market area'' served by the station. 
Should we adopt the same three-hour guideline for purposes of priority 
staff review? We note that under a three-hour per week criteria, 
stations on the air 24 hours per day seven days each week that air 
locally originated programming for just two minutes at the top of each 
hour would exceed a three-hour guideline. Should the guideline number 
be greater or less than three hours? Should it be prorated for stations 
that are on the air less than 24 hours per day? Should the amount be 
the same for radio and television stations? Should it be the same for 
commercial and non-commercial stations? Should applicants be required 
to have met the required amount of hours per week for a minimum number 
of days or weeks prior to filing of the application? If so, what would 
be an appropriate minimum number of days or weeks? As in the CBPA, 
would 90 days prior to the filing of the application be an appropriate 
timeframe? Should applicants also be required to continue to meet the 
required amount of hours per week while the subject application is 
pending? Should applicants be required to re-certify compliance while 
the application is pending? Should applicants also be required to 
continue to meet the required amount of hours per week for a minimum 
number of days or weeks after the application is granted? If so, what 
would be an appropriate minimum number of days or weeks?
    20. We propose that the Media Bureau add a question to each FCC 
application form for which expedited processing would be made available 
(e.g., each TV/radio renewal, transfer, and assignment application 
form) asking the licensee whether it certifies, under penalty of 
perjury, that the station(s) provides at least three hours per week of 
locally originated programming, consistent with the criteria adopted in 
this proceeding. We invite comment on this approach. We propose that, 
in the case of applications involving multiple stations (such as an 
application proposing the transfer or assignment of multiple stations), 
priority review be available only if the applicant certifies that every 
station included in the application meets the priority processing 
criteria, and invite comment on this proposal. Should we require the 
applicant to provide any additional information that would permit the 
Commission to review the certification, such as identifying the 
programs the applicant claims are locally originated?

D. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    21. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as 
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

III. Procedural Matters

    22. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM 
initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex 
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte

[[Page 8626]]

presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation 
must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the 
meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize 
all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may 
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior 
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page 
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in 
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    23. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments 
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121 (1998).
    24. During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    25. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule 
changes proposed in this NPRM on small entities. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the first page of this 
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them 
as responses to the IRFA.
    26. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The 
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act requires each agency, 
in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-
language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will 
publish the required summary of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    27. This document proposes new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection 
requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the 
first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    29. In this NPRM, we propose to prioritize processing review of 
certain applications filed by commercial and noncommercial radio and 
television broadcast stations that provide locally originated 
programming. Our goal is to provide additional incentive to stations to 
provide programming that responds to the needs and interests of the 
communities they are licensed to serve. In 2017, the Commission 
eliminated the rule that required broadcast stations to maintain a main 
studio located in or near their community of license, as well as the 
associated requirement that the main studio have program origination 
capability. We propose this processing priority in order to further 
encourage radio and TV stations to serve their community of license 
with local journalism or other locally originated programming. Such 
prioritization would be granted to renewal applicants, as well as 
applicants for assignment or transfer of license, that certify they 
provide locally originated programming, thereby advancing our efforts 
to promote localism and serve local communities across the nation.
    30. The NPRM also seeks comment on the Commission's proposal to 
exclude television translator and radio translator and booster stations 
from the proposed priority application review proposal and on whether 
its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's 
relevant legal authority.

B. Legal Basis

    31. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, and 309.

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

    32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation;

[[Page 8627]]

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    33. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA'sOffice of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 
million businesses.
    34. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    35. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    36. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with 
sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the 
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn 
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. 
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated 
network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that 
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this 
data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small 
entities under the SBA small business size standard.
    37. As of March 31, 2023, there were 1,375 licensed commercial 
television stations. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had 
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission 
staff review of the BIA Kelsey Media Access Pro Television Database 
(BIA) on April 7, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission 
estimates as of March 31, 2023, there were 383 licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations, 381 Class A TV stations, and 
1,887 LPTV stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and 
otherwise does not have access to financial information for these 
television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how 
many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small 
business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual 
receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television 
station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as 
small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
    38. Radio Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public.'' Programming may originate in the station's own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA 
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 
$41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during 
that year. Of this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less 
than $25 million per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small 
business size standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are 
small entities.
    39. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
radio stations to be 11,153 (4,472 commercial AM stations and 6,681 
commercial FM stations). Of this total, 11,151 stations (or 99.98%) had 
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission 
staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on 
April 7, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as 
of March 31, 2023, the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations 
to be 4,219, and the number of LPFM Stations to be 1,999. The 
Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have access 
to financial information for these radio stations that would permit it 
to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under 
the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's 
large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of 
radio station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify 
as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
    40. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must 
be included. This estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of 
small entities that might be affected, because the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from 
affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of 
``small business'' is that the entity not be dominant in its field of 
operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify 
the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is 
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station 
from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may 
be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    41. We expect that the proposed rules set forth in the NPRM will 
impose new

[[Page 8628]]

or additional filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
small and other entities. We note, however, that while the proposed 
rules will create additional compliance requirements, the NPRM also 
proposes that the decision by a licensee to elect to certify that the 
station meets the local programming guideline be purely voluntary. With 
respect to those small or other licensees that either cannot, or choose 
not, to provide a certification, the Commission staff will process the 
licensee's application pursuant to its normal procedures.
    42. The NPRM proposes to provide priority in terms of processing 
review to applications filed by commercial and noncommercial radio and 
television broadcast stations that certify that they provide on average 
at least three hours per week of locally originated programming. The 
NPRM also seeks comment on whether applicants should also be required 
to re-certify compliance while the subject application is pending, and 
whether they should be required to continue to meet the required amount 
of hours per week for a minimum number of days or weeks after the 
application is granted. We propose that the Media Bureau add a question 
to each FCC application form for which expedited processing would be 
made available (e.g., each TV/radio renewal, transfer, and assignment 
application form) asking the licensee whether it certifies, under 
penalty of perjury, that the station(s) provides at least three hours 
per week of locally originated programming, consistent with the 
criteria adopted in this proceeding. We also propose that, in the case 
of applications involving multiple stations, priority review be 
available only if the applicant certifies that every station included 
in the application meets the priority processing criteria. We invite 
comment on these proposals. We also seek comment on whether we should 
require applicants to provide any additional information that would 
permit the Commission to review the certification, such as identifying 
the programs the applicant claims are locally originated.
    43. We propose that licensees that request priority staff review of 
an application(s) be required to certify, under penalty of perjury, 
that the station meets the criteria adopted in this proceeding. The 
NPRM seeks comment on whether we should require applicants to provide 
any additional information that would permit the Commission to review 
the certification, such as identifying the programs the applicant 
claims are locally originated. We expect that the information we 
receive in the comments will help the Commission identify and evaluate 
relevant compliance matters for small entities, including compliance 
costs and other burdens that may emerge as a result of the potential 
changes discussed in the NPRM.

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

    44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    45. The NPRM seeks comment generally on its proposal to provide 
priority staff review of applications filed by stations that certify 
that they provide an average of at least three hours per week of 
locally originated programming. The NPRM invites comment on whether 
this guideline is appropriate. We also invite comment on all the 
proposed approaches and on any alternatives, which will provide the 
Commission additional information on possible steps that can be taken 
to minimize any significant impact on small entities.
    46. In an effort to minimize significant economic impact on small 
entities as a result of the proposals that are ultimately adopted, the 
NPRM makes clear that a station's participation in certifying that it 
meets the qualifications for priority application review is purely 
voluntary. A station may choose whether it wants to provide the 
additional information to qualify for prioritized review of its 
application and, should it decline to, would have its application 
processed pursuant to its normal procedures. Applications that do not 
include a certification will not be scrutinized or processed 
differently as a substantive matter than applications with a 
certification, other than the prioritization proposal discussed in the 
NPRM.
    47. Finally, we do not propose to offer priority application 
review, as outlined herein, to applications filed for radio translators 
or boosters or TV translators. Booster stations do not originate 
programming and translator stations may only originate a very limited 
amount of programming so the underlying purpose of the proposed 
processing policy--i.e., to further incentivize broadcast licensees to 
serve community needs and interests through production of locally 
originated programming--would not apply. Accordingly, we believe there 
would be minimal value, if any, in asking these stations to certify 
they provide locally originated programming. We tentatively conclude 
that our prioritized processing approach will not slow the review of 
``simple'' applications that are otherwise grantable.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    48. None.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    49. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, and 309 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
154(j), 303, 307, and 309, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
adopted.
    50. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 
336, 339.

0
2. Section 73.3514 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.3514   Content of applications.

* * * * *
    (c) Applicants for renewal, assignment, or transfer of license for 
commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations may 
request priority staff review of such applications if the applicant 
certifies

[[Page 8629]]

that the station provides an average of at least three hours per week 
of locally originated programming. This paragraph does not apply to TV 
translator or radio translator or booster stations.
    (1) For purposes of this provision, locally originated programming 
is programming produced either
    (i) [W]ithin the station's community of license;
    (ii) [A]t any location within the principal community contour of 
any AM, FM, or TV broadcast station licensed to the station's community 
of license; or
    (iii) [W]ithin 25 miles from the reference coordinates of the 
center of its community of license as described in Sec.  73.208(a)(1).
    (2) For purposes of this provision, locally originated programming 
is defined as:
    (i) Programming that was created within the area defined in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Programming that contains video or 
audio recordings that were made at locations outside the area defined 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section qualifies as locally originated 
programming as long as the program also includes some other element of 
local creation that takes place in the area defined in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, including program scripting, recording (video or 
audio) at a studio or other location in the local market, editing, or 
other activity.
    (ii) Locally originated programming does not include: the broadcast 
of repetitive or automated programs or time-shifted recordings of non-
local programming whatever its source; a local program that has been 
broadcast twice, even if the licensee broadcasts the program on a 
different day or makes small variations in the program thereafter. In 
addition, with respect to television stations, locally originated 
programming is programming containing simultaneous video and audio 
programming where the audio portion of the programming directly relates 
to the video portion of the program.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-02039 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>