Radio Broadcast Services; Low Power Television Service; Application Acceptance Standard; Four-Letter Call Signs

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 93-114, FCC 94-120]

Radio Broadcast Services; Low Power Television Service;

Application Acceptance Standard; Four-Letter Call Signs

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission amended its rules governing the low power

television (LPTV) service in three respects. First, the Commission

relaxed its strict acceptance standard for new and major change

applications. Second, the Commission expanded the waiver policy

regarding terrain shielding. Third, the Commission will now permit LPTV

operators to request four-letter call signs with the suffix ``LP''

rather than the current five-character call signs consisting of letters

and numbers. The Commission declined to adopt a proposal to narrow the

definition of what constitutes a major LPTV station modification,

stating that this issue requires further consideration and will be

resolved at a later date. A summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking initiating this proceeding may be found at 58 FR 25,794

(April 28, 1993).

EFFECTIVE DATES: The revisions to Secs. 73.3564 and 73.3591 relieve

existing restrictions and as such, they are exempt from the effective

date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), and will become effective June 20, 1994. The revisions to

Sec. 73.3522 will become effective August 19, 1994. The revisions to

Secs. 73.3550, 74.780, 74.783 and to the Commission's terrain shielding

policy in the LPTV service will become effective August 19, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith A. Larson, Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, Low Power

Television Branch, (202) 632-3894.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a synopsis of the

Commission's First Report and Order, MM Docket No. 93-114, adopted May

19, 1994, and released June 2, 1994. The full text of this decision is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC's Reference Center (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the

Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,

Inc. (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Synopsis of First Report and Order

Introduction

1. On April 22, 1993, the Commission released its Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 93-114, 8 FCC Rcd 2770 (1993). In

the Notice, the Commission proposed to amend the rules and policies

governing the low power television (LPTV) service, which includes LPTV

stations and television translator stations. Specifically, we proposed

to modify our current standard for acceptance of applications and to

expand our waiver policy regarding terrain shielding. We also proposed

to permit LPTV operators to use four-letter call signs rather than the

current five-character call signs consisting of letters and numbers.

These proposals raised little disagreement among commenters and are

adopted in this First Report and Order. In addition, the Notice

proposed to narrow the definition of what constitutes a major LPTV

station modification. That issue generated significantly more diverse

comment and requires further consideration. It will be resolved at a

later date so as not to delay implementation of the changes we adopt

herein.

Application Acceptance Standards

2. In the Notice, the Commission noted that the volume of LPTV

applications has decreased and the quality of those submissions has

improved as a result of the strict standard requiring that an LPTV

applicant be ``complete and sufficient'' (i.e., ``letter perfect'') at

the close of an LPTV filing window.\1\ We pointed out that currently,

applications that are not letter perfect are returned, forcing

applicants to wait until the Commission opens a subsequent filing

window to correct their submissions. See 47 CFR 73.3564(a)(2). The

Notice concluded that the strict standard has achieved its purpose of

encouraging applicants to submit complete and carefully prepared

applications, so as to alleviate the LPTV application backlog with

which the Commission was faced. We therefore proposed that applications

be judged on a ``substantially complete'' basis similar to that used in

processing full-power television applications, whereby applications are

considered acceptance if they are not patently defective. As an

alternative to the substantially complete standard, the Notice

suggested a mid-level acceptance standard requiring the application to

be more than substantially complete but less than letter perfect.

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

\1\Applications for LPTV construction permits and major changes

to existing LPTV facilities are accepted during finite filing

windows by the Commission.

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

3. The commenters in this proceeding, who include LPTV licensees,

consulting engineers, other broadcasters, law firms and educational

institutions, overwhelmingly support adoption of a relaxed standard for

acceptance of applications. They agree with the Notice that the letter

perfect standard is no longer necessary due to the decreased volume of

LPTV applications. They also assert that the letter perfect requirement

unfairly forces LPTV applicants filing defective applications to wait

to refile in the next filing window, which sometimes does not open for

a year. Further, commenters assert that a relaxed standard is more

appropriate in

light of the limited resources of most LPTV applicants.

4. We will revise our LPTV application acceptance standards and

adopt a ``substantially complete'' test. We agree with the overwhelming

majority of commenters that the strict acceptance standard is no longer

necessary in light of the reduced number of LPTV applications being

filed with the Commission and in light of the improved quality of those

applications. We are persuaded by the comments and by our processing

experience to favor the substantially complete standard over a mid-

level standard. We do not believe that the substantially complete

standard will lead to a lessening of the overall quality of LPTV

application submissions, nor significantly delay the authorization of

LPTV service. Conversely, this standard will enable the authorization

of more stations for each filing window. We believe that this

modification of our application acceptance standards will greatly

benefit LPTV applicants, many of whom have limited resources. We note

that while we will give applicants an opportunity to cure defects in

otherwise substantially complete applications, the corrected

application must adhere to the Commission's rules and policies. For

instance, if an amendment to an application eliminates predicted

interference to one station but at the same time introduces

interference to another station, the amended application will not be

accepted and will be returned. Similarly, an application that is not

substantially complete, that is not submitted with the proper fee, or

that is not timely filed cannot be cured via subsequent amendment.

5. The Commission has developed a body of case law over the years

governing broadcast applications that were subject to the substantially

complete standard.\2\ From these decisions, certain criteria were

established, even though each case turned on the particular facts

involved. In the cases where applications failed the test, it was found

that many sections of the applications were deficient to a significant

degree or were omitted entirely, so as to lack sufficient information

regarding the adequacy of the proposals vis-a-vis the public

interest.\3\ Amendments were allowed to correct errors, unless the

application, judged as a whole, was ``so patently violative of the

rules as to make its processing a futile gesture.''\4\

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

\2\See generally, Miami STV, Inc., 42 RR 2d 1056 (Broadcast

Bureau 1978); KALE, Inc., 56 FCC 2d 1033 (1975); Trustees of

Dartmouth College, 29 RR 2d 59 (1973); Central Florida Enterprises,

Inc., 22 FCC 2d 260 (1970). Prior to the adoption of the stricter

LPTV and FM standards, all broadcast applications were processed

under the substantially complete standard.

\3\See National Business Network, 82 FCC 2d 220 (1978). For

instance, in Henry M. Lesher, 67 FCC 2d 278 (1977), an FM

application lacked substantial portions of the legal and financial

sections and almost all of the community ascertainment information.

Characterizing the omissions as ``glaring'' and ``numerous,'' the

Commission stated that they impaired its ability to evaluate the

applicant's qualifications under the public interest standard, and

that conclusion was compelled by the cumulative impact of each

uncompleted section. In Voice of Information, 27 FCC 2d 723 (1971),

an FM application was judged on the basis of ``degree of

completeness'' and rejected because it omitted the entire

engineering and EEO sections and significant portions of the legal,

financial and ascertainment sections. The Commission concluded that

it lacked ``sufficient information to reach many of the necessary

determinations regarding the adequacy of the proposal * * *'' Id. at

725. In George E. Oleson, 5 FCC 2d 58 (1966), recon. denied, 6 FCC

2d 5021 (1967), an AM application was ``incomplete in many

respects'' because it lacked significant portions of the financial,

ascertainment, program service and engineering sections. In Rancocas

Valley Broadcasting Co., Inc., 95 FCC 2d 429 (1983), an AM

application lacked a proper signature, six of ten answers concerning

parties to the proposal, and a financial certification. The

Commission characterized the missing data as essential to a

threshold showing, given their quantity and significance.

\4\K & L Communications, Inc., 70 FCC 2d 1987, 1989 (1979) (TV

application found acceptable despite financial and minor EEO

omissions); see also National Business Network, supra, note 3 (TV

application acceptable despite defects in some financial

information, ascertainment and description of STV proposal); Racine

Telecasting Co., 51 RR 2d 1205 (1985) (TV application acceptable

despite seven omissions in the engineering section); Communications

Gaithersburg, Inc., 60 FCC 2d 537 (1976) (signature defect can be

rectified); Anax Broadcasting, Inc., 87 FCC 2d 483 (1981) (TV

application acceptable despite incomplete source of funds and

contemplation of additional unknown limited partners); Galaxy

Broadcasting, Inc., 46 RR 2d 1654 (Broadcast Bureau 1980) (TV

application acceptable despite omissions in STV proposal and

ascertainment surveys); Focus Broadcasting of the Monterey

Peninsula, Inc., 49 RR 2d 1451 (Broadcast Bureau 1981) (TV

application acceptable despite failure to document availability of

funds); LDA Communications, Inc., 49 RR 2d 1290 (Broadcast Bureau

1981) (TV application acceptable despite omission of loan and

equipment credit documentation).

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

6. Following these precedents, the staff will consider applications

as not substantially complete, and therefore subject to dismissal as

patently defective, if they omit all of or large portions of several

sections of the application. This test reflects the criteria applied by

the Commission in prior cases decided under this standard, while

recognizing the differences in the current LPTV application form (FCC

Form 346). Additionally, in accordance with longstanding Commission

policy, an application found to have been filed without reasonable

assurance of site availability will not be considered substantially

complete and will be dismissed as patently defective.\5\ It has been

the experience of the staff that very few LPTV applications are

submitted to the Commission in a condition not meeting this substantial

completeness test. The simplified format of the LPTV applicant form,

which generally specifies the exact information to be submitted in

boxes rather than in narrative exhibits, serves to guide applicants in

successfully completing the form.

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

\5\See 62 Broadcasting, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 1768 (1989); see also

South Florida Broadcasting Co., Inc., 99 FCC 2d 840, 842 (Rev. Bd.

1984) (``It is elemental that a prospective construction permittee

must have, if little else, an antenna site, a technical keystone of

the broadcasting operation.'')

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

7. Accordingly, in keeping with the proposals advanced in the

Notice, applicants filing substantially complete applications

containing defects or omissions will be given an opportunity to cure

the defects. If the defect prevents the staff from further processing

the application, a deficiency letter will be issued and the applicant

will have 30 days from the date of that letter to correct the defect.

If the defect does not prevent processing, the staff will not send a

deficiency letter until it completes pre-acceptance studies on the

application or until a subsequent defect prevents further processing,

at which time the applicant will be given 30 days to amend. Applicants

will be given one opportunity to amend for each deficiency letter

received. Applications revised to correct all defects identified by the

staff and that do not introduce any new defects will then be listed as

``Accepted for Filing'' in a public notice, either in the form of a

lottery announcement notice for mutually-exclusive applications or a

``proposed grant list'' for non-mutually-exclusive applications. Any

amendment submitted to correct a defective application must be a minor

amendment and must otherwise be acceptable in all respects. See 47 CFR

Sec. 73.3572(a). The same policies and procedures that apply before the

application is accepted for filing will govern correction of

deficiencies identified in the post-acceptance stage. In order to

prevent undue processing delays, we will strictly enforce the 30-day

period.\6\

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

\6\Extensions of time may be granted if the applicant is able to

show good cause why it cannot file its amendment within the 30-day

period.

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

Terrain Shielding

8. The Commission's present terrain shielding policy in the LPTV

service provides that the Commission will waive its application

acceptance standards for predicted interference when it is demonstrated

that, due to the existence of intervening terrain, an applicant's

proposed operation will not cause interference to another facility.\7\

Consideration of waivers based on terrain shielding is currently

limited to LPTV applications that are not mutually-exclusive with other

applications submitted during a particular filing window. We proposed

in the Notice to broaden the circumstances in which terrain shielding

waivers can be used in the authorization of LPTV service. Because the

volume of applications is now manageable, we stated that it was

administratively feasible to expand the terrain waiver policy to

include mutually-exclusive applications. In this regard, we proposed to

consider an applicant's terrain shielding showing with respect to a

protected broadcast facility, even if that application is mutually-

exclusive with another timely filed LPTV application(s), allowing the

application to be accepted for filing.

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

\7\Commission Policy Regarding Terrain Shielding, 3 FCC Rcd 2664

(1988), 53 FR 15557 (May 2, 1988), recon. granted in part, 3 FCC Rcd

7105 (Terrain Shielding Policy Statement). See 47 CFR 74.705, 74.707

and 74.709 for LPTV application acceptance standards for

interference protection.

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

9. Further, the Notice proposed to permit applicants to consider

terrain shielding as a basis for resolving situations of mutual

exclusivity. Without consideration of terrain, proposed facilities in

mutually-exclusive applications, by definition, are predicted to

interfere with each other to the extent that not all of them can be

granted. Under our proposal, applicants for nearby LPTV facilities

using the same channel but separated by terrain obstructions could all

be granted, without involvement in the Commission's random selection

(i.e., lottery) process. Finally, the Notice proposed to take terrain

shielding into account when applicants raise it for the first time in

amendments responding to deficiency letters.

10. No commenter opposes our proposals to expand our waiver policy

regarding terrain shielding to mutually-exclusive applicants and to

permit applicants to consider terrain shielding as a basis for

resolving situations of mutual exclusivity. Commenters support these

proposals as a practical approach to acceptance of applications that

more realistically reflects a station's actual potential to interfere

with another station. Some commenters also propose changes to our

existing terrain shielding procedures.\8\

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

\8\In Commission Policy Regarding Terrain Shielding, 3 FCC Rcd

7105 (1988), we concluded that case-by-case evaluation of terrain

shielding ``affords the administrative flexibility to select from

among available prediction models one that applies to the

topographic features in each case.'' The existing flexible

guidelines have worked well in practice and we see no need to revise

them. Moreover, we believe that modifications to our current policy

would be at odds with our aim in this proceeding, which is to

streamline the LPTV application process. We decline, therefore, to

pursue further in this proceeding these suggested modifications to

our current LPTV terrain shielding policy.

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

11. We will adopt the proposals advanced in the Notice regarding

terrain shielding waivers. We believe that if intervening terrain

prevents an LPTV applicant from interfering with other LPTV or full-

power TV stations or other LPTV facilities proposed in pending

applications, the applicant should be permitted to take that situation

into account, regardless of whether the application is mutually-

exclusive with another LPTV application. The proposals we adopt in this

proceeding do not affect the nature of applicants' terrain shielding

waiver submissions, nor the manner in which the staff evaluates such

submissions, as provided in the Commission's LPTV Terrain Shielding

Policy Statement. LPTV applicants seeking terrain shielding waivers

should continue to follow the existing criteria for demonstrating

noninterference based on terrain considerations, i.e., submitting

either detailed profiles of the terrain in pertinent directions toward

the protected signal contours of potentially affected stations or

letters of assent from the licensees of such stations, agreeing that

terrain shielding would prevent interference but without surrendering

the right to be protected against any actual interference. Also,

mutually-exclusive applicants may now use either of these methods to

demonstrate that their respective station proposals could co-exist

without an interference conflict.\9\ Further, while we strongly urge

applicants to fully address applicable terrain shielding conditions at

the initial application stage, we will accept a satisfactory terrain

shielding showing for the first time in response to a deficiency

letter. We believe that this will facilitate the initiation of new or

modified LPTV station operations by treating the omission of terrain

shielding data like any other error in an otherwise substantially

complete application and giving the applicant an opportunity to make

appropriate corrections.

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

\9\We reiterate that where two mutually-exclusive applicants

choose to resolve the exclusivity by agreeing that interference

between their two facilities would not be likely due to the

existence of intervening terrain, the parties will be responsible

for eliminating any interference that might occur, and the parties

are expected to cooperate fully to that end. See Notice at 2772.

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

12. In adopting the LPTV terrain shielding proposals in the Notice,

we are simply removing administrative barriers that were necessary when

the LPTV Terrain Shielding Policy Statement was first established. Had

the current LPTV application processing climate existed at that time,

we would not have found it necessary to limit consideration of terrain

shielding among LPTV applicants. In the more than five years since its

adoption, our terrain policy has enabled the grant of more than 200

LPTV and TV translator stations that otherwise would not have been

possible. The policy also has been successful in terms of interference

protection. LPTV stations are not permitted to interfere with the

regularly viewed signals and programs of full-power TV stations. We

know of no instance in which the grant of a terrain shielding waiver in

the LPTV service has resulted in interference to the reception of

another broadcast facility. Thus, our broadening of eligible LPTV

applicants for terrain shielding waivers should not increase the

likelihood that LPTV stations will cause interference to the reception

of full-power TV stations.

Call Signs

13. In the Notice, we proposed to amend our rules to permit LPTV

stations to request four-letter call signs rather than the five-

character alpha-numeric call signs that are currently assigned. We

stated our belief that such a modification may be competitively

beneficial to the LPTV industry and may reduce confusion to viewers,

who are accustomed to four-letter call signs. We proposed to append a

distinctive suffix such as ``LP'' to any LPTV four-letter call sign to

avoid confusion with full-power television stations.

14. The Notice presented two options for assigning four-letter call

signs. Under the first option, four-letter call signs would be

permitted only for LPTV stations that meet certain threshold

requirements, including a minimum number of hours of operation and a

given amount of locally originated programming, as well as other

requirements currently imposed on full-power stations such as the

multiple ownership, children's programming, main studio and public file

requirements. Alternatively, the second option would permit all LPTV

stations to request four-letter call signs upon applying for a license.

We stated our inclination to favor the second option.

15. No commenter opposes permitting LPTV stations to use four-

letter call signs, and all parties specifying a preference prefer the

second option. Commenters contend that four-letter call signs will

facilitate marketing and will be easier to include in ratings books and

ratings surveys. They also argue that four-letter call signs will

alleviate public confusion regarding the nature of LPTV stations; they

submit that the current call signs can lead the public to mistake LPTV

stations for amateur radio operations.

16. Most commenters, primarily LPTV operators, oppose the adoption

of an ``LP'' suffix as unnecessarily segregating LPTV stations from

full-power television stations. They analogize that licensees in

different broadcast services use four-letter call signs without any

suffix requirement. For example, they note, a Class A FM station is not

designated any differently from a Class C FM station, nor do AM

daytimers have to distinguish themselves from full-time AM stations.

Some of these commenters suggest that if the Commission does require a

suffix, the suffix should be ``CT'' (for ``community television''),

``TX'' (as used in the FCC TV engineering database), or ``TV.''

17. Another area in which some commenters differ with the Notice

deals with when an LPTV station should be eligible to request a four-

letter call sign. The Notice proposed to award four-letter call signs

at the time the LPTV license is applied for rather than at the

construction permit stage. Several commenters contend that early

assignment of a four-letter call sign will allow the LPTV station to

more effectively market itself to the public.

18. All initial construction permits for LPTV stations will

continue to be issued with a five-character alpha-numeric call sign.

However, we will permit any LPTV station that so chooses to request a

four-letter call sign, without threshold operating requirements, after

receiving its construction permit.\10\ We stated our belief in the

Notice that only licensed LPTV stations should be able to apply for

four-letter call signs because many LPTV construction permits never

become operational. We recognize commenters' concerns, however, that

LPTV operators need to have four-letter call signs as early as possible

to effectively market their stations to the public. One commenter

suggests that an LPTV station be permitted to apply for a four-letter

call sign at any time after issuance of the initial construction permit

if the request is accompanied by a certification that a firm equipment

order has been placed or that physical construction is underway at the

transmitter site. We believe that this limited restriction is not

unreasonable in that it will not unduly burden LPTV permittees and will

promote efficient use of Commission resources. Accordingly, a permittee

requesting a four-letter call sign must include with that request a

certification that it has placed a firm equipment order, which includes

a down payment for such major components as a transmitter or a

transmitting antenna, that physical construction is underway at the

transmitter site or that the station has been constructed. In addition,

permittees, as well as LPTV licensees requesting a four-letter call

sign, must also submit the drug certification statement required by

Section 1.2002 of the Commission's Rules. By a later public notice, a

schedule will be established by which licensees and permittees will be

able to apply for four-letter call signs. Those stations in operation

for the longest period of time will have the opportunity to apply

first.\11\

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

\10\All initial LPTV construction permits will be issued with a

five-character LPTV call sign. TV translator stations appear to have

no need for four-letter call signs and therefore will not be

eligible to request them.

\11\There are now 1,400 licensed LPTV stations and an additional

1,300 outstanding LPTV construction permits, which represent a

potentially large number of requests for modified call signs.

Accordingly, we believe that a phased implementation of the new LPTV

call sign policy is necessary to ensure expeditious handling of call

sign requests and the avoidance of delays. A fair and flexible means

of accomplishing this is first to accept requests from operators of

licensed stations on the basis of years of operation. Once all

station licensees have been afforded an opportunity to request a

four-letter call sign, the opportunity will be extended to LPTV

permittees. The certification requirement will effectively enable

the Commission to award four-letter call signs to those permittees

most likely to construct and operate their stations.

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

19. All LPTV four-letter call signs will include a suffix of ``-

LP,'' (e.g., ``WXYZ-LP''). We do not agree that the suffix will unduly

prejudice LPTV stations, and we believe that such a suffix is necessary

to distinguish LPTV stations from full-power television stations so as

to guard against public confusion. The commenters' comparison of the

relationship between LPTV and full-power stations to that of different

types of stations in other broadcast services is inapposite. Different

classes of FM stations are all regulated as part of the FM service, and

different classes of AM stations are all regulated under the AM

service. LPTV stations, however, are regulated as a distinct broadcast

service from full-power television stations. As such, they are not

constrained to follow rules applicable to full-power stations such as

multiple ownership restrictions, children's programming rules, the

prime time access rule, local public file requirements and main studio

requirements.

Moreover, they operate on a secondary, non-interference basis. We

believe that the distinctive suffix ``-LP'' is more appropriate than

``TV,'' ``CT'' or other suggestions because it best reflects the

longstanding denomination of the service and would not introduce new

and possibly confusing terminology.

20. As we proposed in the Notice, requests for four-letter call

signs will be handled under the practices detailed in Sec. 73.3550 of

the Commission's Rules.\12\ An LPTV operator may not request a call

sign used by another broadcast station unless the stations are commonly

owned, or unless the LPTV operator has the other station's written

consent. Also in keeping with the Notice, where a call sign is

requested by more than one party, the first operator to file its

request with the Commission will prevail. In the case of identical

requests filed on the same day, the call letters will be assigned to

the station with the longest continuous record of broadcasting

operation under substantially unchanged ownership and control. We also

adopt the proposal from commenters that a full-power television station

will prevail in the situation where a full-power station and an LPTV

station apply for the same call sign on the same day. Similarly, an AM

or FM radio stations will prevail over an LPTV station applying for the

same call sign on the same day.

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

\12\Requests for modified call sign assignments can be made by

letter to the Commission in accord with Sec. 73.3550.

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

Administrative Matters

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

21. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the

Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for

this item as follows.

I. Need for and Purpose of this Action

22. This action is taken to relax the Commission's standards

regarding acceptance of applications for stations in the low power

television (LPTV) service, and to permit LPTV stations to request four-

letter call signs.

II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--None.

III. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected

23. The Commission considered a lesser relaxation of the

application acceptance standards. The Commission also considered not

allowing LPTV operators to apply for four-letter call signs until after

they are licensed.

24. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and Order,

including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. No.

96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 4 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981)).

Ordering Clause

25. It is therefore ordered that pursuant to the authority

contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), the Commission's policy

changes set forth herein are adopted, and Secs. 73.3522, 73.3550,

73.3564, 73.3591, 74.780 and 74.783 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR

73.3522, 73.3550, 73.3564, 73.3591, 74.780 and 74.783, are amended as

set forth below. The revisions to Secs. 73.3564 and 73.3591 relieve

existing restrictions. As such, they are exempt from the effective date

requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),

and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The

revisions to Sec. 73.3522 will become effective 60 days after

publication in the Federal Register. The revisions to Secs. 73.3550,

74.780, 74.783 and to the Commission's terrain shielding policy in the

LPTV service will become effective 60 days after they are published in

the Federal Register and subject to approval by the Office of

Management and Budget.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

47 CFR Part 74

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Parts 73 and 74 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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

2. Section 73.3522 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read

as follows:

Sec. 73.3522 Amendment of applications.

(a) * * *

(3) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 73.3525, 73.3572 and

73.3580, any application for a low power TV, TV translator or TV

booster station may be amended as a matter of right during the

application window filing period pursuant to Sec. 73.3564(d). If it is

determined that a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster application

is substantially complete but contains some defect(s) or omission(s), a

deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant 30 days to

correct the defect.

* * * * *

3. Section 73.3550 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (f), (h),

(j) and (n), as follows:

Sec. 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.

* * * * *

(b) No request for a new call sign assignment will be accepted from

an applicant for a new station until the FCC has granted a construction

permit. Failure by the permittee of a new station to request the

assignment of a specific call sign within 30 days of grant of the

construction permit will result in the FCC, on its own motion,

assigning an appropriate call sign. All initial construction permits

for low power TV stations will be issued with a five-character low

power TV call sign.

* * * * *

(f) Only four-letter call signs (plus an LP suffix or FM or TV

suffixes, if used) will be assigned. However, subject to the other

provisions of this section, a call sign of a station may be conformed

to a commonly owned station holding a three-letter call assignment

(plus FM, TV or LP suffixes, if used).

* * * * *

(h) Call signs are assigned on a ``first-come-first-served'' basis.

Receipt by the FCC of a request for an available call sign blocks the

acceptance of competing requests until the first received request is

processed to completion. In the case of requests for the same call sign

being received on the same date at the FCC, the assignment (if

otherwise grantable) will be made to the station having the longest

continuous record of broadcasting operation under substantially

unchanged ownership and control. However, involuntary and pro forma

assignments will not be taken into account in determining priority. If

a low-power TV operator and an AM, FM or full-power TV operator apply

for the same call sign on the same date at the FCC, the AM, FM or full-

power TV operator will prevail.

Note: The provisions of paragraph (h) of this section shall not

apply to a licensee requesting a transfer to another frequency where

the existing and new facilities serve substantially the same area

(i.e., where at least one of the stations serves both communities of

license).

* * * * *

(j) The provisions of this section shall not apply to International

broadcast stations, to stations authorized under Part 74 of the rules

(except as provided in Sec. 74.783 of this chapter), nor to FM or TV

stations seeking to modify an existing call sign only to the extent of

adding or deleting an ``-FM'' or ``-TV'' suffix. The latter additions

and deletions may be effective upon notification to the Commission.

* * * * *

(n) Where a requested call sign, without the ``-FM,'' ``-TV'' or

``-LP'' suffix, would conform to the call sign of any other non-

commonly owned station(s) operating in a different service, the

applicant must obtain and submit with the application for the call sign

the written consent of the licensee(s) of such stations.

4. Section 73.3564 is amended by revising the second sentence of

introductory paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(2) (the note following

paragraph (a)(2) is unchanged) to read as follows:

Sec. 73.3564 Acceptance of applications.

(a) * * * Except for non-reserved band FM (except for Class D)

applications, those found to be complete or substantially complete are

accepted for filing and are given file numbers.* * *

* * * * *

(2) The application must not omit more than 3 of the second tier

items specified in appendix C, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 91-347,

FCC 92-328, 7 FCC Rcd 5074 (1992). Applications found not to meet

minimum filing requirements will be returned to the applicant.

Applications found to meet minimum filing requirements but that contain

deficiencies in tender and/or acceptance information shall be given an

opportunity for corrective amendment pursuant to Sec. 73.3522.

Applications found to be substantially complete and in accordance with

the Commission's core legal and technical requirements will be accepted

for filing. Applications with uncorrected tender and/or acceptance

defects remaining after the opportunity for corrective amendment will

be dismissed with no further opportunity for corrective amendment. In

the case of low power TV, TV translator and TV booster applications,

those found to be substantially complete will be listed on a Commission

public notice as tendered for filing and given file numbers. Those that

are not substantially complete will be returned to the applicant. If it

is determined that a low power TV, TV translator or TV booster

application is substantially complete but contains some defect(s) or

omission(s), a deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant

30 days to correct the defect. If the defect is not corrected within 30

days of the date on the deficiency letter, the application will be

returned with no further opportunity to amend.

* * * * *

5. Section 73.3591 is amended by revising paragraph (b)

introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 73.3591 Grants without hearing.

* * * * *

(b) In making its determinations pursuant to the provisions of

paragraph (a) of this section, the FCC will not consider any other

application, or any application if amended so as to require a new file

number, as being mutually exclusive or in conflict with the application

under consideration unless such other application was substantially

complete, and tendered for filing by:

* * * * *

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL, AUXILIARY, AND SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 1082, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or

apply secs. 301, 303, 307, 48 Stat. 1081, 1082, as amended, 1083, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 301, 303, 307.

Sec. 74.780 [Amended]

2. Section 74.780 is amended by adding the reference

``Sec. 73.3550--Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.''

after the reference to Sec. 73.3545 and before the reference to

Sec. 73.3561.

3. Section 74.783 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as

paragraph (f) and adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 74.783 Station identification.

* * * * *

(e) Low power TV permittees or licensees may request that they be

assigned four-letter call signs in lieu of the five-character alpha-

numeric call signs described in paragraph (d) of this section. Parties

requesting four-letter call signs are to follow the procedures

delineated in Sec. 73.3550. Such four-letter call signs shall begin

with K or W; stations West of the Mississippi River will be assigned an

initial letter K and stations east of the Mississippi River will be

assigned an initial letter W. The four-letter call sign will be

followed by the suffix ``-LP.'' A party holding a low power TV

construction permit who requests a four-letter call sign must file with

that request a certification that the station has been constructed,

that physical construction is underway at the transmitter site or that

a firm equipment order has been placed.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 94-14319 Filed 6-17-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M