FCC to vote on administrative rule changes for broadcast services.
FCC addresses various issues that came up in the 2021 NCE FM and 2023 LPFM filing windows as well as other changes to streamline processes and change obsolete terminology in the FCC Rules.
The FCC has released a circulation draft of a Report and Order in MB Docket 24-626 which proposes to remove or change certain rules that would codify certain Media Bureau practices, remove references to outdated language and best reflect current application processing requirements. REC Networks was deeply involved in this proceeding. [Comments|Reply Comments] Please note, that this is a circulation draft of a Report and Order. This item will be voted on at the FCC Open Meeting on March 26, 2026. If the item is adopted, then the rule changes will normally take place 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
Simultaneously filed LPFM minor modification applications
In the wording of the current rules for LPFM, it states that if two conflicting minor modification applications are filed on the same day, the FCC will accept the applications in the order tendered. However, in all other broadcast services, the rule is that if two conflicting applications are filed the same day, then both applications will be considered simultaneously filed and therefore mutually exclusive meaning that the applicants would need to develop an engineering solution.
This rule was put to the test a few years ago in the case of Electron Benders, KOKT-LP where KOKT-LP filed an application for a non-adjacent channel change in the early morning and then later in the day, there was another LPFM station that filed a conflicting application for the same channel. In response to an Informal Objection that was assisted by REC, KOKT-LP had put this rule to the test stating that because KOKT-LP’s application was filed first. The Media Bureau determined at the time that they would apply the rules that applied to other broadcast stations and treated the applications as mutually exclusive. This resulted in both applications remaining pending for over a year.
In 24-626, the Commission proposed that the rules for LPFM be officially changed to match that of the other broadcast services. REC opposed this change citing the fact that unlike paper filing and the previous CDBS filing system, minor modifications filed in LMS are instantly viewable and the current environment can foster a behavior of one entity being able to “torpedo” a previously filed application on the same day. REC had proposed that instead of making LPFM move to the “same day simultaneously filed” rule, that the Commission should move all broadcast services to a “first come first served, even if on the same day” rule to reflect the technological changes that came with the evolution of the LMS filing system.
The Commission has recognized that REC did make some persuasive arguments in favor of using “first in time” for determining the order of applications received as opposed to using an obsolete method that goes back to the paper filing days. For now, the Media Bureau has been instructed to handle conflicting LPFM modifications under the “same day simultaneously filed” rules, but the Commission does want to explore the “first in time” method proposed by REC to apply to all of the broadcast services in a future proceeding as such a change would reflect the changes in technology.
AD: Michi here! BW Broadcast makes FM translators for power levels up to 1,000 watts. The BW TX-300 V3 is the workhorse for LPFM stations. With the FM Translator filing window coming up, the BW TX series would be the perfect unit to use, whether you need to receive the signal over the air or you are in a situation where you can use alternate delivery.
Progressive Concepts is your dealer for BW Broadcast transmitters. Visit them at progressive-concepts.com or call them at 630 736-9822. You can get a 5% discount on BW Broadcast transmitters purchased through Progressive Concepts by either using the coupon code REC on their website or calling them up and asking for the “REC Discount”.
Protection of prior-filed applications in respect to LPFM filing windows
§73.807 of the Rules current states that LPFM stations must protect, in part, “applications for new and existing FM stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM window period”.
In the events leading up to the 2023 LPFM Filing Window, REC took the Media Bureau to task on this phrase based on how the 2023 window was handled. Specifically, on June 22, 2023, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the dates of the 2023 LPFM Filing Window and then issue a subsequent Public Notice on July 31, 2023, which detailed the procedures for the filing window. This method was inconsistent with the single Public Notice that was released prior to the previous 2013 LPFM Filing Window. REC argued that LPFM stations filing in the 2023 Filing Window should only be required to protect other (secondary) facilities applied for prior to June 22, 2023 when the dates were announced as opposed to the July 31, 2023 date which was honored.
To address this issue, the FCC will amend §73.807 of the Rules to clearly state that this protection starts at the “release of the public notice announcing the filing procedures for the LPFM window period”.
The FCC also removed a reference to “cut-off” applications which reflected a process for application handling that was used prior to the year 2000.
Changes to the “signature rule”
For original construction permit applications (or for that matter, all applications), the FCC Rules require that for corporations, that the applications must be electronically signed by an officer of the corporation. If an application is not properly signed at the start, the application is fatal and would be dismissed for a violation of the signature rule.
During both the 2021 NCE and 2023 LPFM Filing Windows, there were a significant number of original construction permit applications that were filed by persons other than the parties to the application (i.e. not a board member, director or officer). Some of these applications were signed by volunteers, station managers and some by persons involved in the business of preparing applications. Some of these “mis-signed” applications were confronted with Informal Objections, resulting in dismissals because of a “beginner’s mistake”.
The FCC proposed to expand the signature rule to include “duly authorized employees” of an organization. This term drew concerns by other community radio advocates who state that because of the nature of some nonprofit organizations, these volunteers are not necessarily “employees” (i.e. being on the payroll). REC raised concerns that expanding the signature rule could lead to gamesmanship in the window process, especially when an application is signed by a third-party consultant involved in application preparation.
The FCC will expand the signature rule to include “duly authorized employees” but at the same time clarifies, that such an “employee” does not have to be of the traditional sense, meaning that a volunteer representing the organization would be able to sign. In addition, in addressing one of REC’s concerns, the Commission has clarified that third-party persons who are involved in the preparation of applications (who are not a part of the organization) are not considered duly authorized employees.
REC Networks advises our peers that plan to provide filing services for applicants in the upcoming 2026 NCE FM Translator Filing Window that it is NOT APPROPRIATE for the consultant/engineer to be the signatory of the application. It must be someone directly inside of the organization.
The FCC has declined the requests by REC and other community radio advocates to permit applications that were dismissed for the signature rule to be given a single opportunity (nunc pro tunc) to update the signatory. With the expansion of the eligibility to sign being extended to duly authorized employees inside of the organization, the chances of an application being dismissed for the signature rule (other than by a third party consultant) are greatly reduced.
“Accepted for filing” indicator in LMS
In the discussion about non-controversial changes related to the documents that can trigger an application being accepted for filing (thus opening a period of Petitions to Deny and Informal Objections, see below), REC raised the issue that with the conversion of electronic filing from CDBS to LMS, the industry lost a systematic method of determining when an application was truly accepted for filing and that the methods needed to determine if an application is properly accepted for filing are overly burdensome.
As a workaround, REC developed a program in our Enhanced License Management System (eLMS) that would attempt to “read” the Applications public notice and re-status those applications within eLMS as “Accepted for Filing”. As an “Accepted for Filing” status can take place in other documents other than the Applications public notice, eLMS cannot fully track these applications.
To address REC’s concerns, the FCC has ordered the Media Bureau to modify the LMS database to include an “accepted for filing” date in the application data. As long as that data is properly provided in the daily raw data dump that LMS provides to the general public, we would be able to read that information and thus discontinue the need for the “outboard” program that we currently use to determine application acceptance.
Changes to how Informal Objections are filed
In light of the many Informal Objections filed during the 2021 and 2023 filing windows, the FCC proposed some major changes to Informal Objections. Specifically, the FCC proposed to:
Require that Informal Objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector;
Limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed; and
Impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that aligned with the limitation set for responsive pleadings (oppositions and replies) to Petitions to Deny.
In opposition, REC argued:
Informal Objections are a critical tool to combat gamesmanship;
LPFM and NCE community “watchdogs” (including REC) use these objections in order to maintain application and service integrity; and
Informal Objections allow members of the general public who may not normally participate in proceedings (such as the average radio listener or TV viewer) to participate without an attorney.
REC states that such requirements would create a barrier to a station’s obligation to allow for participation from local listeners and that applicants could explote procedural requirements to get Informal Objections dismissed. REC suggested that it would not be in the public interest to prevent members of the public, especially those who are not well-versed on Commission policies from participating in the public comment process.
In response, the FCC was persuaded by REC’s arguments on this topic and as a result, will not make any changes to this rule stating that the current rule “strikes an appropriate balance to promote critical participation from members of the public in our filing and licensing proceeding”.
Non-controversial items
The Report and Order has also made several changes which REC determined were not controversial or otherwise do not apply to the FM broadcast services:
Update references in the rules to the former CDBS filing system to reflect the current LMS electronic filing system.
Update references in the rules that refer to old form numbers used in the paper filing and CDBS days to reflect the schedule numbers used in LMS.
Rewording some rules that referred to the Table of FM Allotments and the Table of TV Allotments that referred to those tables by different names.
Removing the reference to the 10-application limit for new NCE FM full-service stations that was put in place for the 2021 filing window. This language is now obsolete. This change is consistent with a past deletion the FCC did after the conclusion of the 2007 NCE FM full-service filing window.
Codified the long-standing interpretation of an “authorized station” in §73.807 of the Rules to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits for FM, LPFM and FM Translator stations.
Amend the rules to clarify that an application will be accepted for filing, not just when it shows on the daily Applications public notice as being accepted for filing, but also in other documents, such as the determination of tentative selectees in the point system, threshold fair distribution or through any other order.
Eliminate the restriction that Special Temporary Authority applications due to technical or equipment problems are only granted for 90 days. Instead, they will be granted for 180 days, consistent with other STA applications.
Amend rules to eliminate the term “tendered for filing”, which is a term that goes back to the paper filing days and replace it with simply, “filed”.
Combine two Petition to Deny rules, one related to renewals and one related to other applications into a single rule.
For AM broadcast stations, removing a requirement that AM stations requesting a power increase must propose at least a 20% increase in nominal power and to update references to Class B, C and D AM stations to confirm to the parameters in §73.21 of the rules and international agreements.
Remove post-Incentive Auction view and MVPD (multichannel video programming distributor) notification requirements and to remove references in the rules regarding TV operations above Channel 37.
Final reminder
This Report and Order is just a circulation draft at this time. It will be voted on at the March 26, 2026 FCC Open Meeting and if adopted, the rule changes will normally go in effect at least 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any adopted items that may involve changes in information collection (such as form changes) may take longer to implement due to Office of Management and Budget/Paperwork Reduction Act processes that must be completed first.
Overall, REC is very satisfied with the outcome of this proceeding. While we did not get everything we wanted, the Commission has left open some new opportunities for longer term improvements that were suggested by us. Overall, we consider this proceeding a “win”.