Overview
Title
Information Collection Requirement Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FCC wants to hear what people think about new ideas to let radio and TV stations test ways to work better without making too much extra work for small businesses. They want to know if this is really helpful and if the rules are clear enough for everyone.
Summary AI
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is inviting public comments on information collection, as part of efforts to reduce paperwork burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection concerns requests by AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations for experimental authorizations to improve technical operations. Comments should focus on the necessity, utility, accuracy, burden, and quality of the information collected. Public input should be submitted by April 28, 2025, to the FCC’s Cathy Williams via email.
Abstract
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a notice inviting public comments on an information collection requirement, as part of its ongoing effort under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to minimize paperwork burdens. The focus of this collection is on requests from AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations for experimental authorizations aimed at improving technical operations. Opinions from both the public and other federal entities are sought regarding the necessity and practicality of this information collection, as well as the accuracy of the FCC’s estimates concerning the burden on respondents. The deadline for submitting comments is set for April 28, 2025.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable issue with the document is the absence of detailed information explaining how these experimental authorizations will directly benefit the public or enhance broadcasting services. Without clear articulation of public benefits, stakeholders may question the necessity and practical utility of these experiments. Furthermore, while the document acknowledges efforts to alleviate burdens on small businesses, it doesn't specify particular steps or measures that will be undertaken, leaving this point somewhat unclear.
Additionally, the broad range of the estimated time per response—ranging from 2.25 to 5.25 hours—suggests imprecision in estimating the time required by respondents, calling into question the accuracy of burden estimates provided by the FCC. The language used in the document, including references to legal provisions such as "Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934," might also present barriers to understanding for a general audience, limiting accessibility.
Another concern arises from the lack of discussion around the potential impacts and benefits for respondents, apart from a brief reference to being "required to obtain or retain benefits." This absence of detailed information could make it difficult for stakeholders to weigh the advantages of compliance against its demands.
Public Impact
The wider impact of this document on the public could be mixed. While the goal of reducing paperwork burdens is commendable, the lack of clarity around the benefits resulting from the experimental authorizations could hinder public understanding and support. Public confidence might be affected if the perceived improvements in broadcasting services are not clearly communicated.
Specific Stakeholder Impacts
For specific stakeholders, particularly those in the broadcasting industry, the document presents both potential challenges and opportunities. Large broadcasting enterprises might have the resources to manage the experimental processes and any associated reporting requirements efficiently. However, smaller businesses, especially those with fewer than 25 employees, could face significant hurdles in complying with the proposed information collection requirements, especially if measures to ease their burdens are not clearly laid out.
In conclusion, while this FCC notice endeavors to uphold principles of reduced bureaucracy and enhanced service through experimental broadcasting technologies, it would benefit from more precise, transparent details to ensure broader understanding and engagement from all stakeholders involved.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing the Federal Register document regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) information collection requirements, there is a clear reference to financial allocations under the section titled "Total Annual Costs." It is stated that the total annual costs for the information collection amount to $148,750.
Financial Summary
This amount represents the annual expenditure required to support the collection of information related to experimental authorizations for licensed broadcast stations. This includes necessary administrative processes involved in processing applications submitted by broadcast stations seeking to conduct technical experiments.
Relevance to Identified Issues
The financial reference of $148,750 ties directly to the FCC's operations concerning the approval and review of applications for experimental authorizations. This figure is implicitly connected to some of the identified issues within the document:
Necessity and Utility: While the document outlines the expenditure, it lacks specificity regarding how these financial resources translate into direct public benefits. Without an explanation of how this spending improves broadcast services or supports the public interest, stakeholders may question the necessity and utility of the allocated costs.
Minimization of Burden on Small Businesses: The FCC mentions efforts to reduce burdens on small businesses but does not detail how the annual costs, including $148,750, could be optimized to further this goal. Clarity on how the Commission plans to mitigate or allocate portions of this cost toward reducing small business burdens would address stakeholder concerns.
Precision of Time Estimates and Cost Implications: The document's range for "Estimated Time per Response" (2.25-5.25 hours) suggests variability in application review processes that may impact the overall financial outlay. A more precise estimate could improve transparency about how resource allocation, including the stated financial amount, is derived and utilized.
Overall, while the total annual costs are clearly documented, the connection between these financial commitments and their practical application or benefits remains somewhat opaque. Enhanced transparency could help stakeholders assess the value and efficiency of the FCC's financial expenditures.
Issues
• The document lacks specific details on how the proposed experimental authorizations will directly benefit the public or improve broadcast services, which could lead to concerns about necessity and utility.
• While the notice mentions efforts to reduce the burden on small business concerns, it does not specify what measures will be taken, leaving this point vague and potentially unclear.
• The range for 'Estimated Time per Response' (2.25-5.25 hours) is relatively broad, which could suggest a lack of precision in estimating the average time required, potentially impacting the reliability of the Commission's burden estimate.
• The document uses administrative and legal jargon that may not be easily understood by the general public, such as specific references to 'Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended', which might make the document less accessible.
• There is no discussion of potential impacts or benefits to the respondents apart from the statement 'Required to obtain or retain benefits', which could make it harder for stakeholders to assess the value of compliance.