FR 2025-07308

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released a notice seeking public comments on their proposed information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is a regular practice aimed at ensuring that government data collection meets its intended purposes efficiently and without creating undue burdens, particularly on small businesses.

General Summary

In this notice, the FCC is asking for feedback about the necessity and efficiency of certain data collection processes, specifically relating to Form 2100, Schedule 319. This form is used by non-profit organizations and government bodies to apply for licenses related to low power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations. Input is sought on whether these collections are needed, the accuracy of the FCC’s estimated burdens, and ways to improve these processes.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several noteworthy issues highlighted by this notice:

1. Cost Justification: The estimated annual cost attached to this process is $27,500. However, the document does not provide granular insight into how this cost is validated or deemed necessary. This raises questions about possible inefficiencies or unnecessary expenditures.

2. Transparency in Burden Estimation: The document does not describe the methods used to estimate the burden on respondents. Without clear verification processes or audits, there is a transparency gap that may result in skepticism about the appropriateness of the burden estimates.

3. Guidance for Public Comments: The notice lacks specific guidelines on how respondents should craft their feedback. This absence might lead to submissions that are inconsistent or lacking in focus, potentially undermining the quality of the feedback received.

4. Engagement with Small Entities: There are no apparent incentives or mechanisms highlighted in the notice to encourage participation from small businesses or non-profits, which might discourage these groups from providing input.

5. Complex Language: The language used, particularly in the "Needs and Uses" section, might be difficult for individuals without expertise in legal or bureaucratic terminology to understand, potentially limiting broader public engagement.

Impact on the Public

The impacts of this document on the public are broad. On one hand, it represents an opportunity for the public and relevant stakeholders to influence government processes by providing direct feedback, potentially driving improvements in efficiency and clarity. However, the issues highlighted may discourage participation and lead to missed opportunities for meaningful public engagement.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders such as small businesses, non-profits, and state or local government entities, this notice directly impacts their ability to operate LPFM stations. The feedback collected could lead to more streamlined and less burdensome application processes, benefiting these entities. However, without any mechanism to actively engage them, especially the smaller stakeholders, their voices might not be adequately represented in the feedback process.

In conclusion, while this notice appears to be a routine procedural step, its effectiveness in reducing paperwork burden and enhancing efficiency relies heavily on active and constructive public engagement. Measures to improve clarity, engagement, and transparency could significantly enhance the potential benefits of this process for all stakeholders involved.

The document under review contains specific financial reference, notably the $27,500 total annual cost associated with the information collection process outlined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This amount pertains to the extension of a currently approved collection involving the use of FCC Form 2100, Schedule 319, which deals with low power FM station license applications.

The $27,500 is identified as the total annual cost tied to the burden on the approximately 200 respondents expected to engage with this particular FCC requirement. Each respondent is anticipated to require about one hour per response, resulting in an estimated total of 200 hours annually.

In examining this financial allocation, concerns about whether the estimated amount is justified and necessary become apparent. The document does not provide explicit details on how the $27,500 annual cost is calculated or elaborated. Without transparent criteria or breakdowns on how this figure was derived, there remains a potential risk of perceived or actual wasteful spending. This could prompt scrutiny or calls for clearer justification from stakeholders and respondents.

Furthermore, the relationship between the financial allocation and its practical utility is not thoroughly clarified. The absence of specified measures to ensure that this cost effectively contributes to the intended regulatory or administrative efficiencies raises questions. Without reassurance that the funds will be utilized to lower paperwork burdens or enhance procedural efficiency, the allocation might not achieve its intended goals.

Overall, while the $27,500 sum is clearly stated, the document lacks transparency in communicating how this cost benefits the broader objectives set by the FCC, or whether it aligns with realistic expense estimates. This gap underscores the need for a more robust explanation to alleviate concerns from those reviewing the spending, ensuring that funds are not only accounted for but also serve their purpose effectively.