In the Matter of AMENDMENT OF PARTS 1 AND 13 OF THE
COMMISSION'S RULES TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF PROVISIONAL RADIO OPERATOR
CERTIFICATES FOR RADIOTELEPHONE THIRD-CLASS OPERATOR PERMITS ENDORSED FOR BROADCAST
USE
Docket
No. 17780
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
10
F.C.C.2d 881 (1967)
RELEASE-NUMBER:
FCC 67-1101
September
27, 1967 Adopted
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER BARTLEY ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.
[*881]
1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in the above-entitled matter is hereby given.
2. The
Commission has under consideration the revision of its rules as they pertain to
the issuance of provisional radio operator certificates, in particular those
issued for radiotelephone third-class operator permits endorsed for broadcast
use.
3. The
Commission has been informed by the National Association of Broadcasters that
there is a shortage of licensed commercial radio operators in small market
broadcast areas and part of the difficulty appears to be due to the time
required for a prospective operator to travel to the nearest FCC filed office
and be examined, a distance which often is several hundred miles. Although the Commission does schedule
examinations at places away from the field office, such examinations in some
cases are given infrequently because of the small number of applicants. The station in the small market area has considerable
difficulty in attracting and holding experienced operators as they cannot
afford to pay the wage scale in effect in larger and more populated areas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them to
employ and train inexperienced local people.
4. At
present, as a minimum requirement, a person holding a third-class
radiotelephone operator permit which has been endorsed for broadcast operation
may be responsible for routine operation of a standard broadcast station, with
authorized operating power of 10 kw. or less and employing a nondirectional
antenna; or an FM broadcast station with an output power not in excess of 25
kw.; or a noncommercial educational FM broadcast station of 25 kw. or less
output power. Such licenses are
obtained only following successful completion of an examination before an
authorized Commission employee.
5. Section
13.8 of the rules currently provides for issuance of special [*882]
temporary operator authorizations, provisional radio operator
certificates, "in circumstances requiring immediate authority to operate a
radio station pending submission of proof of eligibility or of qualifications
or pending a determination by the Commission as to these matters."
However, at present, the rules preclude issuance of such certificates if the
applicant has not fulfilled the examination requirements. The maximum term of the certificates is 6
months.
6. The
attached proposed amendments would provide for the issuance of provisional
radio operator certificates to applicants for radiotelephone third-class
operator permits endorsed for broadcast use prior to the fulfillment of the
examination requirements and for a maximum term of 12 months. The applicant would then be expected to appear
at a regularly scheduled examination point within the term of the certificate
in order to fulfill the examination requirements. The provisional certificate is not renewable.
7. It is
believed that small business will benefit from the new procedure in that
licensed radio operators should be more readily available and inexperienced
persons may find employment in the broadcasting industry, as operators, without
the immediate necessity of traveling long distances to a Commission field
office in order to take an examination.
The applicant will be able to choose a later examination place and date
which will be more convenient to him.
8. It is
believed this is a matter of pressing need and that a determination should be
reached at an early date. Accordingly,
the times for filing comments and reply comments as hereinafter specified have
been expedited.
9. The
proposed amendments to the rules, published in 32 F.R. 13821, are issued
pursuant to the authority contained in section 303 (1) and (r) or the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
10.
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in section 1.415 of the
Commission's rules, interested persons may file comments on or before October
20, 1967, and reply comments on or before October 30, 1967. All relevant and timely comments and reply
comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in
this proceeding. In reaching its
decision in this proceeding, the Commission may also take into account other
relevant information before it, in addition to the specific comments invited by
this Notice.
11. In
accordance with the provisions of section 1.419 of the Commission's rules, an
original and 14 copies of all statements or comments filed shall be furnished
the Commission.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
CONCURRING OPINION OF
COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
Today we endeavor to ease somewhat the burdens on
the small market station-owners of this country. The proposal is encouraging.
It is not enough.
The Communications Act, and FCC regulations,
require that the operation of transmitters be carried on by licensed
operators. These [*883]
requirements grow out of the FCC's responsibility to administer an
integrated broadcasting system. Such a
system necessarily requires that transmitters be limited to predetermined
powers, frequencies, and operating hours.
It requires that quality of audio and visual signals be maintained. It would be administratively costly (if not
impossible) to attempt to police a broadcasting system operated by individuals
wholly ignorant of the technological limitations upon them. Licensing of operators is designed to assure
that transmitters will be in the hands of those capable of keeping their
broadcast signals within the necessary bounds.
But it is a big jump from this underlying
philosophy to the FCC's present regulations -- and, especially, their impact on
broadcasters in the smaller markets.
Stationowners in major markets have access to a
larger pool of manpower, can pay engineers more, can train personnel more easily
at their stations or local schools, have access to local license examination
centers of the FCC -- and are operating in the midst of extraordinarily heavy
use of frequencies by others.
Small market broadcasters have few engineers
available locally, difficulties in recruiting, training, paying, and licensing
personnel. Potential engineers must
travel great distances to take FCC examinations. And the consequences of operation in violation of
Commission-imposed limitations, while serious, are far less significant. Moreover, licensed engineers, once hired and
trained, are often subject to being lured away to higher paying jobs in larger
cities.
Given these differences, I believe the whole matter
of operator requirements in smaller market stations is worthy of reevaluation
-- not just the limited matter we address today: "provisional
licenses" to permit unlicensed personnel to operate stations while
receiving training.
Here is a sampling of the kind of questions I would
like to see us address more generally.
What are our present "manning"
requirements for broadcast stations?
What kind of training is required, for how many positions, at what
different classes of stations (for example, those with directional antennas)?
Why are these requirements imposed? What are examples of the kinds of
consequences that would come about from lesser standards -- or present
standards? What are the jobs that need to be performed by licensed personnel? How much training does each take? How much time? Which require an engineer to be in constant attendance, and which
merely require that trained personnel be on call? What are the tradeoffs between technically trained personnel and
new technology, automation, and mechanization -- past, present, and
prospective?
What characteristics, training, and experience are
necessary to qualify for the various licensed operator positions? What is the potential supply of such persons
-- in various regions of the country?
What are the difficulties in recruiting and holding such personnel? What are the pay scales? What are the competing sources of employment
for them? Must trained personnel be
brought into the smaller markets, or can local people be trained for these
positions?
[*884] What available alternatives are there to our
current regulations? Are different
standards warranted for smaller markets and the large urbanized areas? Could more training programs be provided for
present personnel to qualify them for the jobs that need doing? Is greater reliance upon shared personnel
warranted in smaller markets? Are there
administrative ways of easing the burden of applicants traveling great
distances to take irregularly scheduled FCC examinations?
The FCC -- and its licensees -- must maintain the integrity
of our national broadcasting system, whatever the cost. Its predecessor, the Radio Commission, was
born out of the industry's insistence that the intolerable chaos of unregulated
broadcasting signals be eliminated. We
must never allow those conditions to return.
But radio waves are not precise. Like old generals, they do not die, they
fade away. Moreover, their coverage
area changes with the weather, the time of day and year, atmospheric
conditions, and soil conditions. Nor
are our measuring devices able to provide us more than mere
approximations. Whether or not a
station is "on frequency" depends on how precisely one wishes to
define, and then measure, "drift." We have chosen to create a
national system of 7,000 commercial radio and television station transmitters
(as a part of a larger total of 5 million transmitters nationally for all
purposes). We have chosen to accept a
measure of signal interference in exchange for these large numbers, and this diversity
of programming. We have struck a
pragmatic balance between engineering virginity and commercial chaos.
The same process must be applied to our licensed
operator requirements. Our engineering
colleges could not turn out enough graduates to man every transmitter in
America 24 hours a day. And even if
they could, that extreme could not assure the total elimination of occasional
technical failure or malfunctioning.
Again, we must strike a balance.
There is nothing immutable about our present standards. Perhaps, in some respects, they should be
more rigorous. Perhaps, in other
respects, they should be less.
In any event, I feel intuitively that a thorough
review is in order. And I would
personally welcome any comments that might be filed in this proceeding dealing
with the more general issues before us.