FCC Issues Proposed Rulemaking to Clean Up and Clarify Certain Broadcast Regulations

On November 20, 2024, the FCC announced a rulemaking to amend certain broadcast station regulations that are outdated, ambiguous or inaccurate due to changes in filing systems and procedures over the years. For attorneys that practice before the FCC, these types of proceedings are welcome because they eliminate language that creates confusion and is sometimes inconsistent with filing form instructions or other procedures where competing applications must be considered.

Most of the proposed changes are practical and helpful amendments to eliminate inaccurate references that remain in the rules despite changes elsewhere that make them moot.  A few rule changes will eliminate outdated and obsolete requirements. Others will harmonize application processing procedures across all services.

There are two new rule changes of note.  The first is a proposal to allow someone other than an officer of an applicant to sign FCC applications.  The current “Signature Rule” requires an officer of a corporation, partner of a partnership, or officer member of an unincorporated association to sign applications or amendments on a broadcast entity’s behalf.  Violations of the Signature Rule are not curable, and several recent applications filed in contested proceedings have been dismissed as a result.  The proposed rule would permit a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to designate a “duly authorized employee” to sign applications or amendments on its behalf. The FCC asks numerous questions about the risks associated with such an approach and documentation to prove that such an individual is authorized to sign applications.  The FCC also asks whether an LLC member should be authorized to sign applications.

The second notable rule change is a proposal to revise the informal objection rule to require service of pleadings upon an applicant or objector, to limit the type of responsible pleadings, and to impose filing deadlines.  In our experience, especially with the advent of online filing, informal objections have become an easy way to delay or even derail application processing, especially because the first time an applicant becomes aware of such a filing is usually when the staff decides to make them aware of a filing that is holding up application processing.  A rule change to formalize informal objection pleading cycles and require service of these pleadings would be a helpful path to expedient objection and application processing.