In Re Standard Broadcast APPLICATION
FOR MAJOR AND MINOR CHANGES
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
23 F.C.C.2d 811;
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-260
April
14, 1970
JUDGES:
THE COMMISSION
BY COMMISSIONERS BURCH (CHAIRMAN), BARTLEY, ROBERT E. LEE, COX, H. REX LEE AND
WELLS WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING IN PART
AND DISSENTING IN PART WITH STATEMENT, ISSUES THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC NOTICE.
OPINION:
[*811]
Applications for changes in standard broadcast facilities are, as in the
other broadcast services, classified in the rules as either "major"
or "minor". The same
distinction is drawn in Section 309 of the Communications Act, which prescribes
a 30-day holding period for major change applications and for the filing of
petitions to deny such applications by any party in interest. Moreover, major change applicants must, for
example, submit proof of publication and, in many situations, are responsible
for completing the programming portions of application forms on the basis of
ascertainment of community problems.
These requirements generally do not apply to minor change applicants.
Section
1.571(a)(1) of our rules defines major change applications as those involving
changes in frequency, power, hours of operation, and station location. This section further provides that
applications [**2] for other types of
changes may, upon notification to the applicant, be treated as major change
applications. In the past, most
applications treated as major under this proviso have been proposals to change
the radiation pattern. Other types of
applications (notably for changes in transmitter site, antenna height, and
MEOV's) have been consistently classified as minor.
Pattern change
applications have previously been classified as major or minor on an ad hoc
basis. With the advent of the AM
application "freeze", these determinations have become crucial. Because of interference and city coverage
constraints in the AM band, the magnitude of change resulting from applications
of this type is characteristically small, irrespective of how they are
classified.
After careful
review of this matter, we have concluded that henceforth applications for
changes in AM radiation patterns, including those for change from directional
to non-directional operation and vice versa, will usually be considered as
minor change proposals, unless associated with changes in frequency, power,
hours of operation, or station location.
In addition, and in keeping with the original intent [*812]
of Section 1.571 [**3] of the
rules, applications for changes in hours of operation not involving new
nighttime propagation studies will also be considered as minor change
proposals.
It is recognized
that proposed changes in site or radiation pattern might, in rare instances,
involve a combination of factors which would prompt us to treat them as major
change applications rather than minor change applications. We feel that the public interest requires
that our present discretion be preserved in this regard. For this reason, the proviso language
appearing in Section 1.571(a)(1) has been retained. *These changes will align AM application procedures more closely
with those followed in the FM and TV broadcast services and will, it is
believed, dispel much of present uncertainty as to the treatment of specific
applications.
Action by the
Commission March 11, 1970.
Commissioners Burch (Chairman), Bartley, Robert E. Lee, Cox, H. Rex Lee
and Wells with Commissioner Johnson concurring in part and dissenting in part
with statement to be issued later.
DISSENTBY: JOHNSON (IN PART)
DISSENT:
SEPARATE OPINION
OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
The Commission's
action here is [**4] a minor one: Certain types of applications for changes in
AM radio operation will henceforth be considered "minor" in nature
and therefore entitled to different and expedited procedural treatment. The result will be that most of the work in
this area will be processed by the Commission staff and decisions made by
delegated authority.
I thoroughly
agree with the Commission's action insofar as it simplifies processing
routines. I believe that at least half
of the matters now regularly on the Commissioners' agenda could appropriately
be handled at the staff level. However,
important ingredients in any system of delegated authority must be comprehensive
and exact policy guidelines, so that those who must make the decisions have
known standards upon which to base their actions. In addition, top policymakers must have management reporting
techniques which can provide a quick review of actions being taken in their
names by subordinates. These are
necessary components of a well-run organization, in order to make matters
easier for our staff, to insure that the interests of the public are being
protected, and to simplify matters and provide greater equity for those who
come to the Commission [**5] seeking action.
This action does
not include guidelines which the staff will be expected to follow in exercising
its delegated authority. And at present
there is no systematic reporting system for actions taken under delegated
authority; we read about them in the same press releases that are made
available to the public. I believe the
Commission has been remiss in failing to improve its internal management; we
should reconsider our entire program of using delegated authority. Therefore, I concur with this delegation to
the staff, but I dissent to the absence of guidelines and a reporting
system. Without either, this delegation
becomes simply an abdication.