[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