[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 45 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12061-12065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4456]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 99-25; FCC 07-204]
Creation of a Low Power Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether
additional low power FM (LPFM) service and technical rule changes are
warranted, including: establishing a second-adjacent channel waiver
standard; implementing a licensing presumption that would protect
certain operating LPFM stations from subsequently proposed community of
license modifications; imposing an obligation on full-service station
applicants to assist an LPFM station potentially impacted by
implementation of its new station or modification proposal; creating
contour protection-based licensing standards for LPFM stations; and
establishing LPFM-FM translator protection priorities.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before April 7, 2008;
reply comments are due on or before April 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 99-25,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, [email protected] of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice), FCC 07-
204, adopted on November 27, 2007, and released on December 11, 2007.
The full text of this document is available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS
(http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains information collection requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission
will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later
date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how the Commission might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Commission adopts a series of wide-ranging rule changes to
strengthen and promote the long-term viability of the LPFM service, and
the localism and diversity goals that this service is intended to
advance. We also recommend to Congress that it remove the requirement
that LPFM stations protect full-power stations operating on third
adjacent channels. We intend to resolve the following issues within six
months. The next filing window for a non-tabled aural broadcast service
will be for new LFPM stations. We plan to open this window after the
Commission has resolved the issues raised in this Second Further
Notice, and has resolved other issues that could significantly impact
the availability of future spectrum for LPFM applicants, including the
disposal of substantially all of the applications filed in the recent
NCE FM window.
2. Based on numerous meetings with LPFM service proponents,
filings, and presentations at various forums and hearings convened by
the Commission over the past two years, we believe that it is
appropriate to consider whether additional LPFM service and technical
rule changes are warranted. We seek comment on the several issues set
forth below.
A. Section 73.807 Second-Adjacent Channel Waiver Standard
3. The Third Report and Order, 73 FR 3202, January 17, 2007,
details an interim processing policy that the Commission will use to
consider Sec. 73.807 of the rules waiver requests from certain LPFM
stations. As set forth more fully therein, when implementation of a
full-service station community of license modification would result in
an increase in
[[Page 12062]]
interference caused to the LPFM station or its displacement, the LPFM
station may seek a second-adjacent channel short spacing waiver in
connection with an application proposing operations on a new channel.
We seek comment generally on whether to codify the waiver and
processing policies set forth in the Third Report and Order. Would
modifications to these policies better balance the interests of LPFM
and full-service stations? Should the procedures be narrowed to apply
only when the LPFM station is subject to displacement pursuant to Sec.
73.809 of the rules? Should the rules provide a deadline for the filing
of the LPFM alternate channel application and waiver request and, if
so, what should the deadline be? Should waivers be limited to second-
adjacent channel short-spacings? Should waivers be granted only when
the LPFM station can demonstrate no actual interference due to lack of
population, terrain, or other factors, as we allow in the FM translator
service? Should continued LPFM operations be subject to the resolution
of all bona fide actual interference complaints? Should the
``encroaching'' full-service station be responsible for providing
technical assistance and assuming financial responsibility for all
direct expenses associated with resolving all bona fide actual
interference complaints, e.g., the purchase of radio filters, etc.? Do
the orders to show cause procedures fully protect impacted stations'
due process rights? Would additional procedures help ensure that the
Commission has a full record on which to evaluate waiver requests?
Should these procedures be expanded to include co- and first-adjacent
channel situations? Finally, we seek comment on whether rule changes
are warranted to provide additional flexibility to propose LPFM station
modifications.
B. LPFM Station Displacement
4. As detailed more fully in the Third Report and Order, the
Commission is adopting a processing policy to evaluate on a going
forward basis each community of license modification proposal that
would result in the displacement of an LPFM station or stations. We
seek comment generally on whether the Commission should amend Sec.
73.809 of the rules to establish a licensing presumption that would
protect certain operating LPFM stations from subsequently proposed
community of license modifications. We also seek comment on each aspect
of the current processing policy. Specifically, should the presumption
be limited to those LPFM stations that have regularly provided eight
hours of locally originated programming daily? What criteria should the
Commission use to determine whether an LPFM station has ``regularly''
satisfied the eight-hour programming requirement? Should the
presumption be extended to protect LPFM stations against subsequently
filed petitions for rulemaking for new FM allotments and/or
modification applications not proposing community of license changes?
Finally, we seek comment on other approaches to resolve LPFM station
displacement conflicts and the reasons why such alternative approaches
would more appropriately balance the interests of these services.
C. Obligations of Full-Service New Station and Modification Applicants
to Potentially Impacted LPFM Stations
5. Currently, a full-service station applicant has no obligation to
assist an LPFM station potentially impacted by implementation of its
new station or modification proposal. We believe that this policy is
inconsistent with the comity and respect to which LPFM stations are
entitled and with certain reimbursement policies which the Commission
has established for full-service stations which are involuntarily
required to change channels. As proposed in part by the Station
Resource Group, we tentatively conclude that an applicant for a new or
modified station should be required to assume certain technical,
financial, and notice obligations if implementation of the proposal
could impact an LPFM station. Specifically we tentatively conclude that
in these circumstances, the full-service station should be required to
provide notice of its application filing to the LPFM station. As part
of its application filing, the full-service station should be required
to include the results of its search for an alternate LPFM channel. It
should also be required to cooperate in good faith with the LPFM
station in developing the best technical approach, including a possible
LPFM site relocation, to ameliorate the interference and/or
displacement impact of its proposal. In addition, the ``encroaching''
full-service station should be responsible for certain expenses
relating to any LPFM station channel change and/or transmitter site
change necessitated by the full-service station proposal. We
tentatively conclude such expenses should be limited to the physical
changes in the LPFM station's transmission system. We seek comment on
each of these tentative conclusions and on other measures to ensure the
equitable treatment of LPFM stations.
6. We believe that these procedures should apply if the LPFM
authorization was issued or a pending LPFM facility application was
filed prior to the filing of a full-service station application for
construction permit or license, including one that proposes a community
of license modification. We tentatively conclude that these procedures
should be limited to those situations in which implementation of the
full-service proposal would result in the full-service and LPFM
stations operating at less than the minimum distance separations set
forth in Sec. 73.807 of the rules and could result in either an
increase in interference caused to the LPFM station or the permanent
displacement of the LPFM station. We seek comment on these proposed
limitations on the scope and extent of these remedial procedures.
D. Contour Protection-Based Licensing Standards for LPFM Stations
7. An LPFM new station or modification application must protect all
existing stations and prior filed applications on the basis of distance
separations set forth in Sec. 73.807 of the rules. This methodology,
used in connection with virtually all FM non-reserved band full-service
station licensing, provides a straight-forward standard for determining
technical acceptability. As a result of this methodology's simplicity,
the Commission was able to provide an on-line ``channel finder''
utility prior to the first series of LPFM filing windows. This tool
enabled unsophisticated potential applicants to identify without
expense available FM spectrum in their local communities.
8. Prometheus and other LPFM advocates argue that the Commission
should adopt a more flexible ``contour'' methodology for the licensing
of LPFM stations. Although full-service NCE FM stations are licensed
pursuant to a contour methodology, it appears that these parties are
urging the Commission to permit LPFM station licensing pursuant to the
FM translator protection rule, Sec. 74.1204 of the rules. As
demonstrated by the filing of over 13,000 applications in the 2003
window for new non-reserved band FM translator construction permits,
adoption of this standard would vastly expand LPFM licensing
opportunities throughout the nation and create the possibility of
locating new LPFM stations in a number of major and spectrum-congested
markets.
9. The flexibility of FM translator licensing is based on four key
factors. Translators, like LPFM stations, may only operate with limited
power. This necessarily limits distances from the proposed station's
transmitter site to its
[[Page 12063]]
co- and adjacent-channel interfering contours. Secondly, a protection
methodology based on contours is, itself, a more flexible licensing
approach. Although contour and distance separation requirements are
derived from common principles, the contour methodology requires
applicants to protect actual--rather than class maximum--facilities.
Thus, modifying our rules to permit LPFM applicants to ``engineer in''
new proposals on the basis of contour protection standards would result
in new licensing opportunities.
10. The two other factors are closely tied to the fact that FM
translators are licensed on a secondary basis. As a secondary service,
translators are licensed without regard to the extent of received
interference they would receive. LPFM stations also receive the benefit
of this flexibility. The fourth factor is the Sec. 74.1204(d)
exception to the Sec. 74.1204(a) of the rules contour methodology.
Under paragraph (d) of that section, the general FM translator contour
overlap provisions will not apply ``if it can be demonstrated that no
actual interference will occur due to intervening terrain, lack of
population or such other factors as may be applicable.'' For many
years, the Commission has permitted FM translator applications to use
the D/U signal strength ratio methodology to establish the area of
predicted interference and to demonstrate the ``lack of population''
within this area to satisfy the requirements under Sec. 74.1204(d) of
the rules.
11. However, the FM translator technical rules include a second and
essential requirement: The inflexible obligation to resolve all bona
fide actual interference complaints pursuant to Sec. 74.1203(a) of the
rules. A translator station that cannot resolve all complaints must
suspend operations. The two rules operate in tandem. The flexibility of
Sec. 74.1204(d) of the rules is backstopped by the permanent Sec.
74.1203(a) secondary service obligation to resolve actual interference
complaints.
12. We tentatively conclude that the licensing of LPFM stations
pursuant to the standards of Sec. 74.1204 of the rules or some other
``contour-based'' methodology is in the public interest. We tentatively
conclude that an LPFM station licensed under this standard would be
required to resolve all actual interference complaints or cease
operations. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also
tentatively conclude not to allow the use of alternative propagation
methodologies, such as Longley Rice, to show lack of interference.
These showings impose enormous staff processing burdens and are
typically subject to opposition. Additionally, as demonstrated by the
significant number of FM translator proposals submitted in the 2003
filing window, we believe that permitting D/U ratio showings to
establish ``lack of population'' subject to interference provides ample
licensing flexibility. We seek comment specifically on whether it is
appropriate to license LPFM stations to community groups, which often
have limited resources and technical expertise, under a standard that
subjects such stations to the constant risk of being forced off the air
if they cannot resolve interference complaints promptly. We also seek
comment on whether it is appropriate to adopt an LPFM technical
licensing regime that would require the use of consulting engineers. We
tentatively conclude that Sec. 73.807 of the rules should be retained
if a ``contour'' rule is adopted in this proceeding. Stations holding
licenses issued pursuant to the current Rule would not be required to
resolve actual interference complaints except in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 73.809 of the rules. We seek comment on this
approach which would provide differing levels of protection to
operating LPFM stations based on each station's choice of technical
processing standards.
E. LPFM--FM Translator Protection Priorities
13. The Third Report and Order does not reach a conclusion on the
``co-equal'' status between LPFM stations and FM translator stations.
Under the rules for these services, a first-filed LPFM or FM translator
application must be protected by all subsequently filed LPFM and FM
translator applications. Localism, diversity and competition remain our
key radio broadcasting goals. We find that it would be useful to
develop a better record on whether and how these goals would be
advanced by altering the priorities between these two services. We seek
comment on this issue. In particular, we seek comment on whether we
should distinguish between translators that are fed by satellite and
those that received and retransmit programming delivered terrestrially.
We also seek comment on the extent to which providing priority to LFPM
stations could impact established listening patterns or disrupt
established translator signal delivery systems that NCE broadcasters
rely on extensively to disseminate programming. We also seek comment on
the Prometheus proposal to limit the number of translator stations that
would have priority over subsequently applied for LPFM facilities.
Prometheus proposes to limit priority status to 25 translator stations
for each originating station but would not consider ``full power
repeaters'' as originating stations. We seek comment both on this
proposed cap and Prometheus' proposed definition of ``originating
station,'' for the purpose of applying this cap. We also seek comment
on whether such an approach is administratively feasible given the fact
that an FM translator may without prior consent or notice to the
Commission change its primary station.
II. Administrative Matters
A. Filing Requirements
14. Ex Parte Rules. The Second Further Notice in this proceeding
will be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' subject to the ``permit-
but-disclose'' requirements under Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. Ex
parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with
Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when
presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum
summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of
the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
More than a one-or two-sentence description of the views and arguments
presented is generally required. Additional rules pertaining to oral
and written presentations are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b).
15. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and
1.419 of the rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
[[Page 12064]]
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may
also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample
form and directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
16. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554. Persons with disabilities who need assistance in the FCC
Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0267 (voice),
(202) 418-7365 (TTY), or [email protected]. These documents also will
be available from the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System.
Documents are available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and Adobe
Acrobat. Copies of filings in this proceeding may be obtained from Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554; they can also be reached by telephone, at
(202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160; by e-mail at [email protected]; or via
their Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531
(voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
17. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rule making
proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). By the issuance of this Second Further Notice, we
seek comment on the impact our suggested proposals would have on small
business entities. The complete initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is attached.
C. Additional Information
18. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact
Peter Doyle, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2700, or Holly
Saurer, Policy Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-7283.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
Second Further Notice. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of this entire Second Further Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In
addition, the Second Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof)
will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The Second Further Notice has been initiated to obtain comments
concerning proposed LPFM service and technical rule changes to address
the potential interference to, or displacement of, certain LPFM
stations caused by subsequently implemented full-service station
community of license modifications. Specifically the Second Further
Notice recommends that Congress remove the requirement that LPFM
stations protect full service stations operating on third-adjacent
channels. It seeks comment on whether to modify the LPFM technical
rules to codify the second-adjacent channel waiver and displacement
policies adopted in the Third Report and Order. It also tentatively
concludes that when implementation of a full-service station facility
proposal would impact an LPFM station, the full-service station would
be required to provide the LPFM station notice of its application
filing, provide technical assistance in identifying alternative
channels, and reimbursement for any resulting LPFM facility
modifications.
The Second Further Notice tentatively concludes that the LPFM
technical rules should be modified to permit the licensing of LPFM
stations by using a contour, as opposed to a distance separation,
methodology in order to expand LPFM station licensing opportunities. It
also tentatively concludes that the Commission should retain as an
alternate licensing scheme the current LPFM distance separation rule in
the event that a contour rule is adopted.
Finally, the Second Further Notice seeks additional comment on the
issue of whether the Commission should retain the current ``co-equal''
status between the LPFM and FM translator services.
The Commission believes that adoption of these proposed rule
changes will strengthen and promote the long-term viability of the LPFM
service, and the localism and diversity goals that this service is
intended to advance by streamlining and clarifying the process by which
LPFM stations can resolve
[[Page 12065]]
potential interference issues with full-power stations.
B. Legal Basis
The authority for this Second Further Notice is contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as encompassing the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental entity.'' In addition, the
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
LPFM Radio Stations. The proposed rules and policies potentially
will apply to all low power FM radio broadcasting licensees and
potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that
has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A
radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio
stations. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in
radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are
similarly included. As of the date of release of this Second Further
Notice, the Commission's records indicate that more than 1,286 LPFM
construction permits have been granted. Of those permits, approximately
809 stations are on the air, serving mostly mid-sized and smaller
markets. It is not known how many entities ultimately may seek to
obtain low power radio licenses. Nor do we know how many of these
entities will be small entities. We expect, however, that due to the
small size of low power FM stations, small entities would generally
have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
None.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
In this Second Further Notice, the Commission (1) recommends that
Congress remove the requirement that LPFM stations protect full-service
stations operating on third-adjacent channels; (2) seeks comment on
whether to modify the LPFM technical rules to codify the second-
adjacent channel waiver and displacement policies adopted in the Third
Report and Order; (3) tentatively concludes that when implementation of
a full-service station facility proposal would impact an LPFM station,
the full-service station would be required to provide the LPFM station
notice of its application filing, provide technical assistance in
identifying alternative channels, and reimbursement for any resulting
LPFM facility modifications; (4) tentatively concludes that the LPFM
technical rules should be modified to permit the licensing of LPFM
stations by using a contour, as opposed to a distance separation,
methodology in order to expand LPFM station licensing opportunities,
and (5) tentatively concludes that the Commission should retain as an
alternate licensing scheme the current LPFM distance separation rule in
the event that a contour rule is adopted.
In light of changed circumstances since the Commission last
considered the issue of protection rights for LPFM stations from
subsequently authorized full-service stations, the Commission found it
necessary to consider these rule changes to avoid the potential loss of
LPFM stations. The Commission considered maintaining the status quo,
but rejected this idea because it would create an inappropriate burden
on LPFM stations by allowing the issue of interference caused by
encroaching full-service stations to go unresolved. By contrast, the
Second Further Notice proposes a codified approach to resolving
interference issues with encroaching full-service stations, which will,
in turn, allow more LPFM stations to remain on-the-air.
LPFM service has created and will continue to create significant
opportunities for new small businesses by allowing small businesses to
develop LPFM service in their communities. In addition, the Commission
generally has taken steps to minimize the impact on existing small
broadcasters. To the extent that the Second Further Notice imposes any
burdens on small entities, these burdens are only incidental to the
benefits conferred by the creation of a set of rules that would allow
LPFM stations to resolve potential interference and/or displacement
conflicts with encroaching full-service FM stations by making the
requisite showings under the proposed rules.
F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4456 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P