Fourth Order on Reconsideration
This Order on Reconsideration addresses a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Ace Radio in response to the FCC's action in the Third Report and Order. This NPRM was released together with the Fifth Report and Order and the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and was issued on the same day as the Fourth Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration.
| Document Information | |
|---|---|
| Type | Order on Reconsideration |
| Docket Number(s) | MM 99-25 |
| FCC Number | 12-28 |
| FCC Record | 27 FCC Rcd 3315 |
| Federal Register Citation(s) | 77 FR 20555 |
| Federal Register Date(s) | April 5, 2012 |
| Relevant Dates | |
| Adoption Date | March 19, 2012 |
| Release Date | March 19, 2012 |
In the Third Report and Order, the FCC adopted an interim waiver processing policy. The FCC also revised §73.809 and other provisions of the rules in order to protect and preserve the LPFM service. Ace Radio Corporation filed a petition for reconsideration which opposed both the interim waiver processing policy and the revisions made to §73.809. The FCC denied in part the Petition and defer consideration of the remainder of the Ace Radio’s arguments.
Ace Radio challenges the interim waiver processing policy. However, the FCC tentatively concluded that Section 3(b)(2) of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 supersedes this policy. They believed it is appropriate to defer consideration of Ace Radio’s arguments regarding the interim waiver processing policy until they had resolved this issue. To the extent Ace Radio’s arguments remain relevant, they will consider them at that time.
The FCC rejected Ace Radio’s arguments regarding their revisions to §73.809 of the rules to remove second-adjacent channels from the interference complaint procedures set forth therein. Ace Radio first argues that it did not have an opportunity to comment on the Commission’s proposal to modify §73.809 of the rules to remove second-adjacent channels from the rule. It also asserts that the revisions to §73.809 are not justified by the record and, when coupled with the Commission’s interim waiver processing policy, will allow LPFM stations to operate within a full-service station’s 70 dBu contour, resulting in interference holes, otherwise known as the “swiss cheese” effect.
The FCC stated that they provided ample public notice that it was considering modification of §73.809 of the rules to remove second-adjacent channels. In the Further Notice, the FCC explicitly raised the issue of “encroachment” and whether a relaxation of the second-adjacent channel interference restrictions found in §73.809 of the rules was necessary to prevent LPFM stations from being displaced. While Ace Radio argues that “the number of city of license applications filed does not justify [the Commission’s] action,” it fails to raise any facts or questions of law showing that the FCC's decision was incorrect. Contrary to Ace Radio’s suggestion that the number of LPFM stations at risk of displacement is insignificant, the Media Bureau identified 44 LPFM stations that could be forced to cease operations as a result of the filing activity resulting from the January 2007 lifting of the freeze on the filing of FM community of license modification proposals combined with the implementation of new streamlined licensing procedures.
The FCC also noted that Ace Radio has mischaracterized the effects this rule modification will have on signal reception within a full-service station’s 70 dBu contour. The diagram provided by Ace Radio portrays the full 60 dBu contour of 118 hypothetical LPFM stations within the 70 dBu contour of a full-service station. The fact that an LPFM station has a 60 dBu contour on a second- or third-adjacent channel inside the 70 dBu contour of a full-service station does not establish that the LPFM station would cause interference. Any potential interference received by the full-service station would be only in the immediate vicinity of the low-power transmitter site, and can be substantially reduced or eliminated through various technical measures. Finally, contrary to Ace Radio’s assertion, the FCC did not, in its modification of §73.809, remove the second-adjacent restriction for the general allocation processes for LPFMs. Rather, this rule change is limited to situations involving a full-service station that is authorized subsequent to an LPFM station. The FCC determined that Ace Radio’s concerns are without merit.
Related links
LPFM Fifth Report & Order; Fourth NPRM and Fourth Order on Recon at FCC