Automatic Stays of Certain FM and TV Allotment Orders

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 1

[FCC 96-301]

Automatic Stays of Certain FM and TV Allotment Orders

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Order amends the Commission's rules to delete a provision

that, for rulemaking proceedings to amend the FM or TV Table of

Allotments, provides for an automatic stay, upon the filing of a

petition for reconsideration of any Commission order modifying an

authorization to specify operation on a different FM or TV channel. By

this action, we remove an incentive for the filing of petitions for

reconsideration that are largely without merit, thereby expediting the

provision of expanded service to the public and conserving Commission

resources now expended processing these meritless petitions. Further,

we shall apply this procedural change to pending cases, thereby lifting

automatic stays currently in effect pursuant to the existing rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2130.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report

and Order in MM Docket No. 95-110, FCC 96-301, adopted July 5, 1996 and

released August 8, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

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

Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,

(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Order

I. Introduction

1. This Report and Order adopts the proposals set forth in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, 60 FR 39134, August

1, 1995. We herein delete that portion of Sec. 1.420(f) of the

Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.420(f), which, for rulemaking proceedings

to amend the FM or TV Table of Allotments, provides for an automatic

stay, upon the filing of a petition for reconsideration of any

Commission order modifying an authorization to specify operation on a

different FM or TV channel. By this action, we remove an incentive for

the filing of petitions for reconsideration that are largely without

merit, thereby expediting the provision of expanded service to the

public and conserving Commission resources now expended processing

these meritless petitions. Further, we shall apply this procedural

change to pending cases, thereby lifting automatic stays currently in

effect pursuant to the existing rule.

II. Background

The Existing Rule

2. The automatic stay rule applies to amendments to the TV or FM

Tables of Allotments where the Commission has modified the

authorization of the petitioner, another licensee, or another permittee

to specify operation on a different channel. Where a licensee or

permittee other than the petitioner might be directed to operate on a

different channel in order to accommodate a proposed allotment change,

that licensee or permittee is notified of the pending proceeding and is

ordered to show cause, if any, why the modification should not be

approved.1 Also, although Section 1.420(f) refers only to

petitions for reconsideration, the rule has also been applied routinely

to orders challenged by applications for review. In repealing the

automatic stay provision for petitions for reconsideration, we also

abandon this parallel policy.2

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

\1\ See 47 U.S.C. 316(a); 47 CFR 1.87. For convenience, we shall

use the term ``licensee'' to include both licensees and permittees.

\2\ For convenience, we shall use the term ``petitions for

reconsideration'' to include applications for review.

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

3. In addition to the automatic stay provision cited above, Section

1.420(f) of the Commission's rules requires petitions for

reconsideration and responsive pleadings to be served on parties to the

proceeding and on any licensee or permittee whose authorization may be

modified to specify operation on a different channel, and such

petitions must be accompanied by a certificate of service. Thus, the

automatic stay was intended to help ensure that affected parties have

the opportunity to comment before proposed modifications to their

authorizations become effective.

4. However, as discussed in the NPRM, broadcasters whose

authorizations are not proposed to be modified frequently file

challenges to approvals of their competitors' proposals to improve

service, thereby triggering the automatic stay. Only a very small

percentage of these challenges are ultimately successful. The automatic

stay prohibits licensees from constructing modified facilities

authorized by the Commission until final resolution of any outstanding

petition for reconsideration or until the stay is otherwise lifted. The

Notice asserted that these petitions cause unjustifiable expense and

delay for parties and absorb valuable staff resources that might

otherwise be directed to resolution of new proposals to improve

broadcast service.

Amending the Rule

5. Comments. Most of the commenters in this proceeding support

repeal of the automatic stay rule. Citing their own experiences,

several licensees contend that the rule has harmed them and obstructed

the public interest. They assert that, as a general matter, the public

is disserved by delaying the benefits of improved service. Further,

they state, a licensee's reason for seeking a channel reallotment is

often to allow it to remain financially viable. However, because of the

delay caused by the automatic stay rule, the facilities in question may

go dark or never be constructed at all, despite the Commission's having

already approved the needed modification.

6. In contrast, two other parties claim that they and the public

interest are protected by the existing rule. They argue that, once a

licensee has appealed an involuntary reallotment, it should remain

protected from having to cause disruption to itself and to the

community by changing its operating channel until there is greater

certainty, as determined by the appeal, that to do so would serve the

public interest. Even if most third-party appeals are meritless,

[[Page 43469]]

the commenters assert, the benefits of preventing disruptive and

involuntary changes that will have to be undone upon the resolution of

even that small percentage of appeals that are merited outweigh the

expense or inconvenience caused by the rule.

7. Commenters that favor repealing the rule respond that its

primary purpose would still be promoted even if it were eliminated:

Affected parties would still have the opportunity to comment before a

directed change in their facilities becomes effective. Further, they

contend, the substantive merits of an appeal would not be affected by

the absence of an automatic stay.

8. Discussion. The record before us confirms the Notice's

observation that the automatic stay rule has regularly resulted in

delay in the commencement of construction and the provision of expanded

service to the public. Not even those commenters who oppose a change in

the rule dispute the assertion that the vast majority of petitions for

reconsideration are ultimately denied. We believe that the many

apparently meritless petitions for reconsideration the rule appears to

have encouraged have imposed a substantial and unwarranted cost on

local communities, individual broadcasters, and the Commission itself.

First, significant populations are denied the advantages of improved

service for long periods of time. Second, the inability to effect the

authorized change can cause stations to go dark or not be constructed

at all, harming both broadcasters and the public. Third, as both video

and audio technologies evolve, television and radio broadcasters must

be able to adapt as quickly as possible to changes in their competitive

environments. The delays inherent in an automatic stay procedure

necessarily constrain broadcasters' flexibility in this regard.

Finally, by facilitating meritless petitions for reconsideration, the

rule needlessly diverts resources that otherwise would be available to

the Commission for the performance of other necessary functions.

9. We conclude that any costs imposed by eliminating the stay

provision are modest or can be significantly moderated by other, less

restrictive processing approaches. Specifically, we note that

permittees and licensees affected by allotment changes who would no

longer be entitled to the protection of an automatic stay would

nonetheless continue to have substantial procedural protections under

the Commission's rules. Because Section 1.420(f) will continue to

require that petitions for reconsideration be served on any licensee or

permittee whose authorization could be modified, the rights of these

parties to be affirmatively informed of actions potentially affecting

their interests will continue to be protected. Moreover, any licensees

or permittees whose authorizations would actually be modified to

accommodate an underlying allotment change would continue to be

afforded the full procedural benefits of a show cause proceeding in

which they might object to the required frequency change. We also

retain the authority to impose a stay in individual cases and we will

be particularly cognizant of requests for stay filed by any party whose

authorization would be changed involuntarily. Finally, we note that

elimination of the automatic stay provision will not prejudice final

resolution of any challenges to the underlying staff decision.

10. As a result of the action we take here, parties requesting

amendment of the Table of Allotments may, upon release of an initial

staff decision granting their request, proceed to implement the change

through applications and construction notwithstanding the filing of

petitions for reconsideration of the initial decision. We emphasize, of

course, that parties electing to proceed before the allotment decision

is final do so at their own risk and must bear the costs of any

subsequent action reversing or revising the allotment decision.

Pending Cases

11. Comments. Most parties that address the issue assert that the

elimination of the automatic stay rule should be applied to all

existing cases, to expedite service to the public. They note that, just

as with prospective cases, no prejudice will occur to parties seeking

reconsideration, because the Commission will still consider each case

on its merits. Also, they state, the Commission can impose stays on a

case-by-case basis if necessary. On the other hand, one commenter

argues that application of the rule change to pending cases would

impose increased inequity on licensees and their communities, and it

would needlessly disrupt cases in progress.

12. Discussion. Section 1.420(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR

Sec. 1.420(f), involves matters of Commission practice and procedure.

The change we adopt today will not affect our substantive analysis of

any pending petition for reconsideration or application for review.

Changes in procedural rules may be applied in adjudications arising

before their enactment without raising concerns about

retroactivity.3 Moreover, in repealing the automatic stay rule, we

are concluding that such action will not cause undue inequity or

disruption to future cases. All parties will continue to have their

rights of appeal to the Commission undisturbed. Further, we have no

indication in the record that any parties will endure any unusual

hardships by application of the rule to pending cases. Consequently, we

see no reason to retain and enforce a rule that we have determined does

not serve the public interest. Accordingly, we shall lift the stay with

respect to any petitions for reconsideration or applications for review

pending as of the effective date of this Report and Order.

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

\3\ See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1502

(1994), citing Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 71, (1949).

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

III. Administrative matters

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

13. The decision herein has been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13, and found to

impose or propose no modified information collection requirement on the

public.

Regulatory Flexibility Statement

14. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

USC 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought

written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including on the

IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in this

Report and Order is as follows:

A. Need for and objectives of action. The Commission's Rules

provide for an automatic stay, upon the filing of a petition for

reconsideration, of any Commission order modifying an authorization to

provide for operation on a different FM or TV channel, which is

effected by way of an allotment rule making proceeding. The automatic

stay provisions for certain reconsideration petitions in these

proceedings has created an incentive for the filing of petitions for

reconsideration that are largely without merit, thereby delaying the

provision of expanded service to the public. In order to reduce that

delay, the Commission is repealing the rule.

B. Significant issues raised by the public in response to the

initial analysis. No comments were received specifically in response to

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contained in NPRM. However,

commenters generally addressed the

[[Page 43470]]

effects of the automatic stay rule on FM and TV licensees, including

small businesses. Several commenters argued that the delay associated

with the automatic stay can prevent licensees from effecting authorized

improvements to their facilities, and they accordingly supported the

rule change. A few commenters contended that the current delay protects

third-party licensees from incurring the costs associated with

needlessly modifying and remodifying their stations.

C. Description and number of small entities to which the rule will

apply. (1) Definition of a ``small business.'' Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, small entities may include small organizations, small

businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(3) generally defines the term

``small business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small

business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small

business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;

(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration

(``SBA''). Id. According to the SBA's regulations, entities engaged in

radio or television broadcasting may have a maximum of $5.0 million or

$10.5 million, respectively, in annual receipts in order to qualify as

a small business concern.4 13 CFR 121.201 This standard also

applies in determining whether an entity is a small business for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

\4\ This revenue cap appears to apply to noncommercial

educational television stations, as well as to commercial television

stations. See Executive Office of the President, Office of

Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual

(1987), at 283, which describes ``Television Broadcasting Stations

(SIC Code 4833) as:

Establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs

by television to the public, except cable and other pay television

services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,

educational and other television stations. Also included here are

establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and

which produce taped television program materials.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small

business applies ``unless an agency after consultation with the Office

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity

for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term

which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes

such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' While we tentatively

believe that the foregoing definition of ``small business'' greatly

overstates the number of radio and television broadcast stations that

are small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining

the impact of the new rules on small business, we did not propose an

alternative definition in the IRFA.5

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

\5\ We have pending proceedings seeking comment on the

definition of and data relating to small businesses. In our Notice

of Inquiry in GN Docket No. 96-113 (In the Matter of Section 257

Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small

Businesses), FCC 96-216, released May 21, 1996, we requested

commenters to provide profile data about small telecommunications

businesses in particular services, including television, and the

market entry barriers they encounter, and we also sought comment as

to how to define small businesses for purposes of implementing

Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us

to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to

eliminate those barriers. The comment and reply comment deadlines in

that proceeding have not yet elapsed. Additionally, in our Order and

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16 (In the Matter

of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO

Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the

Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd

5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be

afforded to stations: (1) Based on small staff and what size staff

would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-

time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3)

based on operation in a market with a small minority work force. We

have not concluded the foregoing rule making.

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

Accordingly, for purposes of this Report and Order, we utilize the

SBA's definition in determining the number of small businesses to which

the rules apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable

definition of ``small business'' as applied to radio and television

broadcast stations and to consider further the issue of the number of

small entities that are radio and television broadcasters in the

future. Further, in this RFA, we will identify the different classes of

small radio and television stations that may be impacted by the rules

adopted in this Report and Order.

(2) Issues in applying the definition of a ``small business''. As

discussed below, we could not precisely apply the foregoing definition

of ``small business'' in developing our estimates of the number of

small entities to which the rules will apply. Our estimates reflect our

best judgments based on the data available to us.

An element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the

entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We were unable at

this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish

whether a specific television or radio station is dominant in its field

of operation. Accordingly, the following estimates of small businesses

to which the new rules will apply do not exclude any television or

radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and

are therefore overinclusive to that extent. An additional element of

the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be

independently owned and operated. We attempted to factor in this

element by looking at revenue statistics for owners of television and

radio stations. However, as discussed further below, we could not fully

apply this criterion, and our estimates of small businesses to which

the rules may apply may be overinclusive to this extent.

With respect to applying the revenue cap, the SBA has defined

``annual receipts'' specifically in 13 CFR 121.104, and its

calculations include an averaging process. We do not currently require

submission of financial data from licensees that we could use to apply

the SBA's definition of a small business. Thus, for purposes of

estimating the number of small entities to which the rules apply, we

are limited to considering the revenue data that are publicly

available, and the revenue data on which we rely may not correspond

completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts.

Under SBA criteria for determining annual receipts, if a concern

has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate during the

applicable averaging period for determining annual receipts, the annual

receipts in determining size status include the receipts of both firms.

13 CFR 121.104(d)(1). The SBA defines affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103.

While the Commission refers to an affiliate generally as a station

affiliated with a network, the SBA's definition of affiliate is

analogous to our attribution rules. Generally, under the SBA's

definition, concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern

controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or

parties controls or has the power to control both. 13 CFR

121.103(a)(1). The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management,

previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual

relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. 13 CFR

121.103(a)(2). Instead of making an independent determination of

whether radio and television stations were affiliated based on SBA's

definitions, we relied on the data bases available to us to afford us

that information.

(3) Estimates based on BIA data. We have performed a study based on

the data contained in the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access

Television Analyzer Database, which lists a total of 1,141 full-power

commercial television stations. We have excluded from our calculations

Low Power Television

[[Page 43471]]

(LPTV) Stations and translator stations, two secondary services that

have traditionally not had standing in allotment proceedings, which are

the subject of this rule. It should be noted that the percentage

figures derived from the data base may be underinclusive because the

data base does not list revenue estimates for noncommercial educational

stations, and these are therefore excluded from our calculations based

on the data base. Non-commercial stations also have a diminished

regulatory burden by virtue of the rule change adopted in this Report

and Order. The data indicate that, based on 1995 revenue estimates, 440

full-power commercial television stations had an estimated revenue of

10.5 million dollars or less. That represents 54 percent of commercial

television stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program.

The data base does not list estimated revenues for 331 stations. Using

an extreme scenario, if those 331 commercial stations for which no

revenue is listed are counted as small stations, there would be a total

of 771 stations with an estimated revenue of 10.5 million dollars or

less, representing approximately 68 percent of the 1,141 commercial

television stations listed in the BIA data base.

Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial television

stations as listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 488

owners. The data base lists estimated revenues for 60 percent of these

owners, or 295. Of these 295 owners, 158 or 54 percent had annual

revenues of 10.5 million dollars or less. Using an extreme scenario, if

the 193 owners for which revenue is not listed are assumed to be small,

the total of small entities would constitute 72 percent of owners.

In summary, based on the foregoing extreme analysis based on the

data in the BIA data base, we estimate that as many as approximately

771 commercial television stations (about 68 percent of all commercial

televisions stations) could be classified as small entities. As we

noted above, these estimates are based on a definition that we believe

greatly overstates the number of television broadcasters that are small

businesses. Further, it should be noted that under the SBA's

definitions, revenues of affiliated businesses that are not television

stations should be aggregated with the television station revenues in

determining whether a concern is small. The estimates overstate the

number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are

based do not include or aggregate such revenues from non-television

affiliated companies.

There are approximately 10,250 commercial radio broadcasting

stations and 1,810 noncommercial radio broadcast stations of all sizes

in the nation, with approximately 5,200 different commercial owners.

For the same reasons as above, the exact number of small radio

broadcasting entities to which the elimination of the rule will apply

is unknown. Based on 1995 revenue estimates, the BIA Publications, Inc.

MasterAccess Analyzer Database data base indicates that 3,314

commercial radio stations had an estimated revenue of $5.0 million or

less. That represents approximately 90 percent of commercial radio

stations with revenue estimates listed in the BIA program. The data

base does not list estimated revenue for 6,571 stations. Using the most

extreme scenario, if those 6,571 stations for which no revenue

estimates is listed are counted as small stations, there would be a

total of 9,885 stations with an estimated revenue of $5.0 million

dollars or less, representing approximately 96 percent of the 10,257

commercial radio stations listed in the BIA data base.

Alternatively, if we look at owners of commercial radio stations as

listed in the BIA data base, there are a total of 5,207 owners. The

data base lists estimated revenues for 29 percent of these owners, or

1,532. Of these 1,532 owners, 1,344 or 88 percent had annual revenue of

less than $5.0 million. Using the most extreme scenario, if the 3,675

owners for which revenue estimates are not listed are assumed to be

small businesses, then the total of small entities would constitute 96

percent of commercial radio station owners. Further, many noncommercial

radio broadcasters are considered to be small entities. Thus, a large

number of owners of radio broadcast facilities of several types

(commercial AM, commercial FM, and noncommercial FM stations) could

benefit from the rule amendment herein adopted.

(4) Alternative classification of small stations. An alternative

way to classify small radio and television stations is by the number of

employees. The Commission currently applies a standard based on the

number of employees in administering its Equal Employment Opportunity

Rule (EEO) for broadcasting.\6\ Thus, radio or television stations with

fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from certain EEO

reporting and recordkeeping requirements.\7\ We estimate that the total

number of broadcast stations with 4 or fewer employees is approximately

4,239.\8\

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

\6\ The Commission's definition of a small broadcast station for

purposes of applying its EEO rule was adopted prior to the

requirement of approval by the Small Business Administration

pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.

632(a), as amended by Section 222 of the Small Business Credit and

Business Opportunity Enhancement Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-366,

section 222(b)(1), 106 Stat. 999 (1992), as further amended by the

Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of

1994, Pub. L. 103-403, section 301, 108 Stat. 4187 (1994). However,

this definition was adopted after the public notice and the

opportunity for comment. See Report and Order in Docket No. 18244,

23 FCC 2d 430 (1970).

\7\ See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 73.3612 (Requirement to file annual

employment reports on Form 395 applies to licensees with five or

more full-time employees); First Report and Order in Docket No.

21474 (In the Matter of Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment

Opportunity Rules and FCC Form 395), 70 FCC 2d 1466 (1979). The

Commission is currently considering how to decrease the

administrative burdens imposed by the EEO rule on small stations

while maintaining the effectiveness of our broadcast EEO

enforcement. Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 96-16 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and

Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending

Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture

Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996). One option under consideration

is whether to define a small station for purposes of affording such

relief as one with ten or fewer full-time employees. Id. at para.

21.

\8\ Compilation of 1994 Broadcast Station Annual Employment

Reports (FCC form 395B), Equal Opportunity Employment Branch, Mass

Media Bureau, FCC.

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

D. Projected compliance requirements of the rule. This Report and

Order imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance

requirements.

E. Significant alternatives considered minimizing the economic

impact on small entities and consistent with the stated objectives. The

action taken does not impose additional burdens on small entities and,

as discussed in detail at paragraphs 9-10 of the Report and Order, will

in fact have a positive economic impact, as entities, including small

entities, will be able to increase their service more expeditiously and

with fewer legal challenges. A small entity opposing Commission action

by petitioning for reconsideration will still be able to seek a stay in

an individual case, based on the merits of that case. In those cases

where a third party is required to move involuntarily, all costs are

borne by the party initiating the request for changes to the allotment

table. This should adequately address the concerns of commenters

opposed to this rule change.

F. Report to Congress. The Secretary shall send a copy of this

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis along with this Report and Order

in a report to Congress pursuant to Section 251 of

[[Page 43472]]

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

codified at 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this RFA will also be

published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

15. Accordingly, it is ordered That Sec. 1.420(f) of the

Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.420(f), is amended as set forth below.

16. It is further ordered That any stay granted pursuant to Section

1.420(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Sec. 1.420(f), that is in

effect on the effective date of this Report and Order is lifted.

17. It is further ordered That, pursuant to the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996, the amendment set forth below will

become effective September 23, 1996.

18. It is further ordered That this proceeding is terminated.

19. Additional Information. For additional information regarding

this proceeding, please contact Paul Gordon, Mass Media Bureau, Policy

and Rules Division, (202) 418-2130.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and procedure, Radio, Telecommunications,

Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j), unless otherwise

noted.

2. Section 1.420 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

Sec. 1.420 Additional procedures in proceedings for amendment of the

FM or TV Tables of Allotments.

* * * * *

(f) Petitions for reconsideration and responsive pleadings shall be

served on parties to the proceeding and on any licensee or permittee

whose authorization may be modified to specify operation on a different

channel, and shall be accompanied by a certificate of service.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-21444 Filed 8-22-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P