SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O), in MB Docket No. 24-626; GN Docket No. 25-133; FCC 26-14, adopted and released on March 25, 2026. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/​public/​attachments/​FCC-26-14A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0503.

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, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in the R&O on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the R&O.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document contains no new or modified information collection requirements.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. In the Report and Order (R&O) adopted and released on March 25, 2026, the Commission revises various broadcast radio and television regulations in parts 1, 73, 74 and 76 of title 47 of the CFR. The R&O updates rules to best reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau (Bureau) practices, and remove references to outdated licensing procedures. These revisions further the Commission's continued effort to remove rules and processes that are no longer necessary, and ensure that our rules are clear and functional for licensees and the public.

II. Background

2. This R&O continues our efforts to update broadcast radio and television rules. In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 24-126, 90 FR 13432, we received comments and replies from broadcast industry stakeholders who overwhelmingly support the majority of the proposed changes. We received mixed comments in response to our proposal to harmonize processing procedures for minor change LPFM applications with the current processing procedures for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications, and in response to our proposal to revise the informal objection rule to require service of pleadings upon the relevant applicant and objector, limit the number of responsive pleadings, and impose filing deadlines. As detailed below, we adopt 13 of the proposals set out in the NPRM and decline to adopt the two remaining proposals.

III. Discussion

A. Replace References to CDBS With References to LMS

3. We amend §§ 1.5000(b), 1.5004(d)(2), 1.30001(d), 1.30004(a), 73.202(a), 73.3700(b)(5)(iv), and 76.66(d)(2)(ii) to replace references to the Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the Bureau's new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system.

B. Update Form Names

4. We update §§ 73.30(c), 73.45(d)(1), 73.51(c), 73.311(a), 73.512(a), 73.625(c)(4)(i), 73.872(b)(1), 73.875, 73.1670(b), 73.1690(c)(9), 73.3580(d)(2), and 73.5002(b) to update application references from outdated form designations used in CDBS, such as “FCC Form 301,” to conform to current conventions used in LMS such as “FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301.”

C. Change Table of Assignments/Allotments References To Conform to Existing Language

5. We update inconsistent terminology in Rule references to the tables governing FM and TV allotments, by amending §§ 1.401, 1.403, 1.420, and 73.3573 to correspond with the standard language used in §§ 73.202, 73.606, and 73.622; and change references in these sections from “FM Table of Allotments” to “Table of FM Allotments;” from “TV Table of Allotments” to “Table of TV Allotments;” from “FM Table of Assignments” to “Table of FM Allotments;” and from “TV Table of Assignments” to “Table of TV Allotments.”

D. Eliminate § 73.503(g), the 2021 NCE FM Window Application Cap

6. In the NPRM, we proposed to eliminate the 10 application cap on the number of applications each applicant ( printed page 29038) could submit in the 2021 NCE FM filing window, as mandated in § 73.503(g) of the Commission's rules. While the filing window has passed, several applications remain pending from the 2021 NCE FM window. We therefore delegate authority to the Bureau to remove § 73.503(g) from our rules once the applications are final and therefore no longer subject to reconsideration or administrative or judicial review.

E. Eliminate AM Station Power Increase Restrictions

7. We update our rules for AM station power increases to eliminate the requirement that stations request at least a 20% increase in nominal power; and update AM station classifications to conform to current classifications used in the Class B and Class D definitions in § 73.21(a)(2) and (3) of our rules and international agreements. We amend § 73.3571(e)(1) through (4), to reflect these changes. We also relocate the Note to the text of § 73.3571, to conform with publishing conventions of the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register.

F. Post-Incentive Auction Viewer and MVPD Notification Requirements

8. We remove obsolete rule language and notice requirements that had been adopted to implement the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. Because the post-incentive auction transition period concluded on July 3, 2020, post-incentive auction notice provisions are now outdated. We delete the post-incentive auction transition consumer notification requirements in § 73.3700(c) and revise the MVPD notice provisions for ATSC 3.0 stations in §§ 73.3801(h)(4)(i), 73.6029(h)(4)(i), and 74.782(i)(4)(i) by eliminating the extended notice period for repacked stations and removing the reference to the post-incentive auction transition period. In addition, we delete § 73.3700(i), which relates to TV broadcast station operations above channel 37 (614-698 MHz, the so-called “600 MHz Band”).

G. Update § 73.870, Processing LPFM Minor Modification Applications

9. We proposed in the NPRM to codify the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity. We received conflicting comments in response to the NPRM. While NAB agrees with the NPRM's proposed approach, pointing out that it would make the processing rules consistent with treatment of applications in other similar services, three other commenters oppose the proposal. Several commenters suggest that we should move to a true first-come, first-served approach based on the exact time of day an application is received, since application submission order can be determined using receipt time stamps, a technical capability not previously available in CDBS but now available in LMS.

10. REC also suggests that we broaden the scope of commenters' alternative proposal to apply a receipt time stamp approach to all other services, rather than just LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day. While this alternative proposal goes beyond the scope of the specific rule revisions posed here, we may consider the proposal in a separate future proceeding in which we can fully assess implementing time stamp receipt technology in the context of first-come, first-served procedures for minor modification applications, not just for the LPFM service, but for all services going forward.

11. We decline to codify in the Commission's rules the Bureau's existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) at this time, and the Bureau should continue to rely on existing precedent, as appropriate, whereby LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity.

H. Revisions to § 73.807, Minimum Distance Separation Between Stations

1. Codification of Definition of the Term “Authorized” Station

12. We codify in § 73.807(a) and (c) of the Commission's rules the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” stations as including both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits for FM, LPFM, and FM translator stations.

2. Prior-Filed Application Protections

13. In the NPRM we proposed to modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that LPFM applicants must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for an LPFM filing window. The NPRM also proposed to remove the reference to “cutoff FM translator applications” as redundant and potentially confusing.

14. In order to safeguard the integrity of the filing window and the application filing process, the Bureau must retain flexibility and discretion to issue multiple public notices, should circumstances require. More than one public notice may be necessary given the particularities of future application filing windows. Accordingly, we modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing the filing procedures that will apply to any upcoming LPFM application filing window must be protected under these rule sections. We clarify that a public notice which simply announces an upcoming filing window would not terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications under §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c). We also remove the potentially confusing reference to “cutoff FM translator applications” in § 73.807(c).

I. Revise the Signature Rule

15. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to: (1) codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule (§ 73.3513), applicable to all broadcast services, that “directors” of corporations may sign applications; (2) expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, and an unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee;” and (3) clarify that the term “signed,” for applications submitted in LMS, includes an electronic signature.

16. We amend § 73.3513 to codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule that directors of corporations may sign applications. Prometheus, REC, and Common Frequency all support this addition, and no commenter opposes it. Accordingly, we adopt the change as proposed in the NPRM. Next, we clarify that the term “signed,” for applications submitted in LMS, includes an electronic signature. No commenter opposed this proposal, and we therefore adopt this additional modification to § 73.3513.

17. The NPRM also proposed to expand the Signature Rule to permit a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to designate a “duly authorized employee,” to sign applications or amendments on its behalf rather than continuing to require a signature from an officer. Prometheus, Public Broadcasters, and Common Frequency support the proposal. Prometheus and Public Broadcasters also make additional suggestions to expand flexibility. REC supports the change only in a limited circumstance. ( printed page 29039)

18. Prometheus agrees that the current rule leads to far too many otherwise qualified organizations having applications dismissed without an opportunity to amend. In conjunction with its endorsement of expanding the Signature Rule and allowing “duly authorized employees” to sign applications, Prometheus encourages the Commission to define the term broadly to “include the part-time, contract, and volunteer roles often held by nonprofit professionals in corporations, associations, and other civic and religious organizations.” Common Frequency also agrees with the option to designate a “duly authorized employee” to sign applications or amendments, and contends that any employee of the organization, or in the case of volunteer nonprofits, any person at the nonprofit with a position title, i.e. “Executive Director” or “Pastor,” should have authority to sign and file an application. Public Broadcasters likewise supports the proposal to allow duly authorized employee signatures and certifications, but requests extension of this flexibility to allow duly authorized employees of governmental entities to sign Commission applications.

19. REC does not generally support expanding the definition of who may sign an application. It states that the Commission must approach this issue from a public interest standpoint that maintains the integrity of the meaning of the signature on the application and the accountability that goes with it, in order to prevent abuse of process. REC counters that, for the integrity of the application, the applicant's organization and the LPFM and NCE broadcast services in general, in the case of corporations, the application signatory must be a person with an attributable interest in the applicant entity, such as an officer or director. However, REC does support allowing a “duly authorized employee” to sign on behalf of a physically disabled board member.

20. We adopt the proposal to expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, and an unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee,” and we adopt the proposed changes to § 73.3513(a). We also revise the Signature Rule to allow a “duly authorized employee” of a governmental entity to sign an application. Additionally, in light of commenters' requests, while we codify the term “duly authorized employee,” we direct the Bureau to interpret the term “employee” broadly, as circumstances may require, to take account of all types of employees (whether paid or unpaid) and the varied roles and positions that each organization and entity may utilize.

21. To address REC's observation that the majority of the applications with Signature Rule defects in the 2023 LPFM window were signed by consultants and technicians that were not under the “direct employ of the organization,” we clarify that the term “duly authorized employee” will therefore not include independent consultants or other third party professionals outside of the applicant organization.

22. In response to the NPRM's proposal, commenters also seek an opportunity to amend or correct Signature Rule violations. REC argues that if an application is dismissed due to a Signature Rule violation, that the application should be eligible for nunc pro tunc reinstatement. We decline to adopt this proposal. We note that the Commission has found that strict adherence to signature requirements is critical in holding applicants accountable for the truthfulness and accuracy of their applications. We anticipate that our broadening of the definition of who can certify and sign an application to include a “duly authorized employee” will significantly decrease the number of Signature Rule violations and application dismissals. Moreover, we are directing the Bureau to interpret the term “employee” broadly. We expect that this expanded processing policy will reduce prospective Signature Rule violations and application signature defects, while at the same time will safeguard the integrity of the Commission's processes that the Signature Rule was designed to protect. We therefore decline to modify the current curative amendment or nunc pro tunc reinstatement procedures for application dismissals for Signature Rule violations.

J. Local Public Notice Requirement After Acceptance for Filing

23. The NPRM proposed to codify the established practice concerning when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications. Section 73.3580 of our rules sets out what types of applicants and licensees are required to provide local public notice, what applications trigger the requirement, the timing of the notice, and the content of the notice. The current rule provides that the Commission's release of an “acceptance public notice” of a newly filed application triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation. However, the current rule does not specify all of the ways that the Commission announces tentative selectees for new NCE FM, NCE TV, and LPFM construction permits, and accepts the tentative selectees' application for filing, which can take various forms.

24. Therefore, the NPRM proposal sought to codify the various scenarios under which certain applications are accepted for filing, for purposes of triggering an applicant's local public notice obligation, and proposed to amend §§ 73.3580(a)(1), 73.7002(b), 73.7003(a), and 73.872(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of tentative selectee(s) in a 307(b) Order, NCE Comparative Points Order, or LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation in § 73.3580. The NPRM also proposed to revise § 73.3580(a)(1) to define “an acceptance public notice” as a Commission or Bureau public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing, or an equivalent Order accepting for filing applications from a filing window under §§ 73.7002, 73.7003 or 73.872.

25. Accordingly, we: (1) amend § 73.7002(b) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in a 307(b) Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; (2) amend § 73.7003(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an NCE Comparative Points Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; (3) amend § 73.872(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; and (4) revise § 73.3580(a)(1) to define “an acceptance public notice” as a Commission or Bureau public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing, or an equivalent Order accepting for filing applications from a filing window under §§ 73.7002, 73.7003 or 73.872.

K. Remove 90-Day STA Restriction Necessitated by Technical or Equipment Problems

26. We amend § 73.1635(a)(4) to remove language providing that an initial STA necessitated by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons. We will also correct a typo in the fourth sentence of paragraph (a)(4) by replacing ( printed page 29040) “expeditions” with “expeditious.” No commenters objected to this change.

L. Remove Obsolete Application Processing Language

27. The NPRM proposed to modify various application processing rules to remove and/or revise references to application processing procedures that are no longer used, including, for example, replacing “tendered for filing” terminology with “filed,” and removing obsolete paper-filing references.

28. These include: § 73.37(c), which addresses application requirements for new AM stations; § 73.3516(e), which sets forth the process for filing a petition to deny during a license renewal proceeding; §§ 73.3526 and 73.3527, which describe required online public inspection file documents; § 73.3573(f)(1), which outlines the processing of FM applications; § 73.3578(a), which concerns amendments to applications; § 73.3591(b), which explains the processing of applications without a hearing; and § 73.3597(b)(2), which addresses the processing of transfer and assignment applications. We also delete all obsolete paper-filing procedure references from § 73.3564(a), and replace the term “tendered for filing” with “filed” throughout § 73.3564. We further delete § 73.3564(c) references to cut-off procedures for reserved band FM NCE applications that have since been eliminated by the Commission in favor of a filing window approach. Lastly, we remove Note 1 to § 73.3522, which reflects amendment processing procedures that have been eliminated with the implementation of electronic filing. We delegate authority to the Bureau to update LMS to display application statuses based on our rules, including the changes adopted herein. The Bureau is instructed to issue a Public Notice once the LMS updates have been completed and explain the system revisions.

M. Redesignate Renewal Application Petition To Deny Rule

29. We consolidate our rules for petitions to deny under a single rule; § 73.3584. Accordingly, we redesignate the revised § 73.3516(e) as a new paragraph (f) to rule § 73.3584. We also replace cross-references to current § 73.3516(e) with references to redesignated § 73.3584(f).

N. Revise the Informal Objection Rule

30. In the NPRM, we proposed to: (1) require that informal objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector; (2) limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed; and (3) impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that aligned with the limitations set for responsive pleadings to petitions to deny.

31. Four commenters support requiring service on the applicant. NAB argues that a service requirement for informal objections will afford opportunity for the applicant to respond and will improve staff processing efficiency without needing to act as an intermediary. Prometheus agrees that informal objectors should notify the applicant and every contact representative by email or surface mail. Public Broadcasters observes that these common-sense updates will provide clarity and improve organization regarding the procedures. Two commenters also propose that service be implemented using LMS, via automatic email notifications to the applicant of any pleadings filed.

32. REC opposes adding any restrictions to the informal objection process, arguing that: (1) informal objections are a critical tool to combat gamesmanship; (2) LPFM and NCE community “watchdogs” use the mechanism to maintain application and service integrity; (3) informal objections allow unsophisticated members of the public to participate without an attorney; and (4) the service requirement is not in the public interest because it would create a barrier to stations' obligation to allow for participation from local listeners. REC also expresses concern that applicants could exploit procedural requirements to get informal objections dismissed.

33. We also received mixed comments regarding the proposal to limit responsive pleading types to one opposition and one reply. REC opposes limiting responsive pleadings to one opposition and one reply because new information may occur outside of the proposed deadlines, and objectors require flexibility with respect to supplemental pleadings. NAB, Public Broadcasters, and Common Frequency agree with limiting the type of responsive pleadings allowed to one opposition and one reply. Similarly, we received mixed support regarding the proposal to implement filing deadlines for responsive pleadings. REC supports use of time limits for responsive pleadings, and NAB supports “appropriate response timelines,” but proposes relaxation of the deadlines for “bona fide” objections filed by inexperienced parties. Common Frequency maintains that pleading time restrictions should only apply to renewal applications, and opposes deadlines for informal objections filed against non-renewal applications.

34. We are persuaded by the concerns REC raises regarding imposing new requirements and restrictions on the informal objection process, and we conclude that the current rule strikes an appropriate balance to promote critical participation from members of the public in our application filing and licensing proceedings. We therefore decline to adopt these specific changes at this time.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

35. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Amendment of Parts 1, 73, 74 and 76 of the Commission's rules to Update rules Applicable to Broadcast Stations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released in December 2024. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA; however, we discuss relevant comments and related proposals that may impact small entities below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

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

36. The R&O updates the Commission's rules by revising various broadcast radio and television regulations in parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The proposals adopted therein revise rules to best reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau (Bureau) practices, and remove references to outdated licensing procedures. These revisions further the Commission's continued effort to remove rules and processes that are no longer necessary, and ensure that our rules are clear and functional for licensees and the public.

37. Specifically, the R&O: (1) replaces references to the Bureau's legacy Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system; (2) updates rules to correspond to the form naming conventions used in LMS; (3) changes table of assignments/allotments references to conform to current standard language; (4) delegates ( printed page 29041) authority to the Bureau to remove a ten application cap adopted for the 2021 Noncommercial (NCE) FM new station application window, upon finality of the remaining NCE FM applications; (5) updates the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power and to reflect current AM station classifications and other administrative updates; (6) updates the TV rules to remove obsolete language concerning the now-completed incentive auction; (7) codifies in § 73.807 of the Commission's rules the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” stations to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits; (8) modifies §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) of the Commission's rules to clarify that a low power FM (LPFM) applicant submitting an application in a filing window for a new construction permit or modification of an existing LPFM authorization must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for an LPFM filing window; (9) modifies the Signature Rule, which currently states that only officers can sign applications, to allow a “duly authorized employee” to sign, and codifies the existing rule interpretation that directors may sign applications; (10) clarifies the rules concerning when an applicant for a new Noncommercial Educational (NCE) FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permit must give local public notice of its application; (11) removes language limiting grant of certain Special Temporary Authority (STA) submissions to 90 days, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for other reasons; (12) modifies the application processing rules to remove and revise references to various procedures that are now obsolete; and (13) consolidates the rules for petitions to deny license renewal applications under a single rule section.

38. In response to the NPRM, we received comments and replies from broadcast industry stakeholders who overwhelmingly support the majority of the proposed changes. We received mixed comments in response to our proposal to harmonize processing procedures for minor change LPFM applications with the current processing procedures for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications, and in response to our proposal to revise the informal objection rule to require service of pleadings upon the relevant applicant and objector, limit the number of responsive pleadings, and impose filing deadlines. While these two proposals were significant, the record on these proposals is mixed and lacks clear support from commenters. Therefore we decline to adopt these two specific changes in the R&O.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

39. Though no comments were filed directly addressing the IRFA, a number of comments were submitted regarding proposals that may impact small entities. We received substantive comments for the following five proposals: (1) updating the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power, and to reflect current AM station classifications; (2) modifying §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to clarify that an LPFM applicant submitting an application in a filing window for a new construction permit or modification of an existing LPFM authorization must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for the LPFM filing window; (3) modifying the Signature Rule to allow a “duly authorized employee” to sign, and codifying the existing rule interpretation that directors may sign applications; (4) clarifying the rules concerning when an applicant for a new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permit must give local public notice of its application; and (5) removing language limiting grant of certain Special Temporary Authority (STA) submissions to 90 days, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for other reasons.

40. We received a robust record on these five significant proposals. For example, Prometheus, REC, and NAB support the AM power increase rule revisions and agree that the changes would offer increased flexibility to AM broadcasters. NAB also maintains that eliminating the 20% minimum increase in power requirement will help AM stations achieve required community of license coverage, and contribute to the elimination of minimum efficiency requirements for AM stations. Commenters largely support codifying the term “authorized” to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits as proposed. REC argued there should only be one public notice released prior to an LPFM filing window, and that it should contain all of the relevant window information and filing procedures. NAB argued that a public notice that only announces future filing window dates should not trigger the rule's protections. We also received varied responses regarding our proposed changes to the Signature Rule. Prometheus and Public Broadcasters support the changes, and feel the term “duly authorized employee” should be interpreted broadly. Public Broadcasters also requested that it be extended to government entities, in order to alleviate the burdensome requirement that a high-level government official must be the signatory. REC opposed our proposed changes, arguing that the signatory must be a person with a presumed attributable interest in the application, such as an officer or director. Prometheus and REC both proposed allowing nunc pro tunc reinstatement and curative amendments for signature rule violations. Regarding when an NCE applicant must give local public notice of its application, REC and Public Broadcasters supported the proposed rule updates. In addition, Prometheus and REC requested that we update LMS to display an “accepted for filing” application status. Lastly, commenters support removing the 90-day grant restriction on technical STAs; NAB agreed that this reduces burdens on both applicants and FCC staff. Public Broadcasters also agreed it would greatly benefit from this extension of the STA term, which is more realistic, given the time it takes to procure and replace technical equipment. We discuss these proposals and other alternatives that minimize the impact on small broadcasters in section F.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy

41. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

42. 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 adopted rules. 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” ( printed page 29042) 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; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

43. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. 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 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

44. The rules adopted in the R&O will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

E. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

45. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

46. As discussed above, the R&O updates various broadcast radio and television regulations in Parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 of title 47 the CFR. The proposals adopted in the R&O amend existing rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau practices, clarify and harmonize rule provisions, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. These included, for example, replacing references to the legacy database system; changing table of allotment references to conform to current language; updating rules to correspond to the application form naming conventions used in the new LMS electronic filing system; updating the TV rules to remove obsolete language concerning the no-completed incentive auction; codifying the existing interpretation of the term “authorized stations” to include both licensed stations and granted construction permits; and consolidating the rules for petitions to deny license renewal applications under a single rule section. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in the NPRM can be minimized for small entities. The Commission is open to considering alternatives to the rules proposed in the NPRM, including but not limited to alternatives that will minimize significant economic burdens on small and other broadcasters.

47. The other rule revisions do not impose additional reporting requirements or compliance requirements for small entities, but rather, reduce and/or clarify compliance burdens. For example, the R&O eliminates the requirement that an AM station requesting to increase power must propose at least a 20% increase in the station's nominal power. Elimination of this requirement will provide AM broadcasters with greater flexibility and thus allow for new opportunities for stations to optimize their technical operations. The R&O also revises the minimum distance separation rule for new and modified LPFM applications to clarify which prior-filed applications must be protected; defines an “authorized station” that must be protected; and clarifies that a public notice that just announces the filing window dates will not serve to terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications. These clarifications will help small entities understand their compliance obligations, thus reducing the amount of time and financial resources broadcast applicants incur. ( printed page 29043)

48. The R&O further defines the term “acceptance public notice,” which triggers the local public notice obligations for applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits, many of whom are small entities. The rule currently only addresses an application's acceptance for filing vis-a-vis a routinely released LMS Public Notice, but the rule revisions in the Report and Order clarify that certain types of NCE construction permit applications are “accepted for filing” by Orders and documents other than a standard LMS-issued Acceptance public notice. While this change simply codifies an existing interpretation, it will help applicants understand and thus better comply with their local notice obligations.

49. The R&O also removes language providing that an initial STA required by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons, which will ease the regulatory burden on small entities. Applicants seeking a technical STA currently have to file STA requests twice as often as applicants for other STAs—90 days instead of 180 days. However, as commenters note, station technical problems often require at least 180 days to order equipment and complete the repairs. Therefore, this revision allows stations to reduce their STA filing requirements in half.

50. In addition, the R&O expands the definition of who may sign a certification beyond an officer of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a member who is an officer of the unincorporated association, or a governmental entity to include a “duly authorized employee,” similar to rules used by other bureaus and offices that allow for directors and authorized employees to sign applications and amendments for the organization. This revision will help small entities avoid signature rule violations, reduce the number of application dismissals, and avoid excessive costs associated with responding to petitions to deny.

51. All of the above changes will promote application efficiency and shorter application processing times. In determining the economic impact and projected compliance requirements for small and other entities, in the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the costs and benefits associated with the proposals made in the NPRM. However, no commenters directly addressed this inquiry.

F. Discussion of Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

52. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

53. In the NPRM, the Commission considered alternatives such as retaining the existing rules, while taking steps to amend other related rules to further improve the accuracy of the CFR, many of which may minimize the impact of the regulations on small broadcasters. For example, in proposing to revise the Signature Rule, we considered whether to permit a “duly authorized employee” to sign for the corporation, partnership or unincorporated association, or, in the alternative, to maintain our current rules requiring officers, partners, or members who are officers to sign, which often results in application dismissals. Public Broadcasters noted that, for governmental organizations, the current rule is burdensome and requires signatures from high-level officials in large organizations, which are often difficult to obtain. We therefore considered adding “duly authorized employee” to the rule defining who may sign on behalf of a governmental entity applicant. We also considered whether we should limit “duly authorized employee” to specific employees, and how this decision, if adopted, might impact small broadcasters that may not be represented by counsel. In the R&O, to minimize the impact on small and other entities, and to prevent dismissal of applications for signature rule violations, the Commission now allows duly authorized employees to sign applications on behalf of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations, and governmental entities. We also considered updating our processing procedures to allow for curative amendments or nunc pro tunc reinstatement procedures to remedy signature rule violations, but ultimately declined to do so because strict adherence to signature requirements is critical in holding applicants accountable for the truthfulness and accuracy of their applications. We anticipate that the increased processing flexibility for signature rule compliance will ease compliance burdens for small entities and result in a significant reduction of rule violations.

54. We similarly considered leaving the technical STA filing requirement at 90 days, but based on comments, decided that revising the rule, to the allow for the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons, would result in fewer burdens and application processing obligations. NAB agreed with this approach, noting that it reduces burdens on both applicants and staff. Public Broadcasters also noted that applicants will greatly benefit from this revision because the longer term more realistically reflects the time it takes to procure and replace defective technical equipment. Commenters generally agreed with our proposal to update the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power, which will reduce compliance burdens for these small entities.

55. As discussed in section B, REC and NAB proposed certain modifications to the prior-filed application protections found in §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) of the Commission's rules. We did not adopt those alternatives because the modifications in the Report and Order clarify that a public notice, which simply announces an upcoming filing window, would not terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications under the applicable rules.

56. Lastly, we declined to adopt the proposal in the NPRM to codify the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity. There was a general lack of support from commenters, with some alternatively proposing that the Commission move to a true first-come, first-served approach based on the exact time of day an application is received. This alternative goes beyond the scope of the rule revisions posed in this proceeding, and will not be adopted at this time.

G. Report to Congress

57. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the ( printed page 29044) Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

V. Ordering Clauses

58. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336, this Report and Order is adopted and shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

59. 47. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336, the Commission's rules are amended as set forth in Appendix A and such amendments shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

60. It is further ordered that the Media Bureau is delegated authority to remove § 73.503(g) in accordance with the terms set forth herein.

61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

62. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Program Management shall send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

63. It is further ordered that should no petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 24-626 shall be terminated, and the docket closed.

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 as follows:

91 FR 29037