Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions

Issued together with the ''Second Order on Reconsideration,'' this ''Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' is mainly the byproduct of various ''ex parte'' meetings, filings and of a forum hosted by the FCC on February 8, 2005.  This forum was intended to inform the FCC of achievements by LPFM stations and the challenges faced as the service marks its fifth year.  {{Proceeding

The FCC wanted to know if such transfers should require any restrictions beyond assuring that the license entity still meets LPFM eligibility criteria.  The FCC wanted to know the types of organizational structures utilized by LPFM licensees and how transfers of control, if permitted would be effectuated.  The FCC wishes more information on whether and how to amend the rules to permit a transfer of control of an LPFM licensee in the case of a sudden change in the majority of a governing board.  The FCC proposes to amend the rules to permit changes of more than 50 percent of the membership of the governing boards that occur suddenly, in addition to the gradual board changes that are currently permitted under the rules.

In the interim, the Commission has delegated to the Media Bureau the authority to consider, on a case-by case basis, requests for waivers of §73.865 in order to permit transfers in cases where the public interest would be served such as a change in a majority of the governing board with no change in the organization's mission; development of a partnership or cooperate effort between local community groups, of which one is the licensee; and to transfer to another local entity upon the inability of the current licensee to maintain operations.  Cases where the LPFM station is being sold for a profit, transferred to a non-local entity or to another entity that already owns another LPFM station would not be grounds for a waiver.

In the original rules, the FCC allowed for entities to own up to 5 LPFM stations after 2 years of the service and up to 10 stations after 3 years.  Despite this, the Original Filing Window Series was limited to only local applicants.  The United Church of Christ, Office for Communication (UCC) has requested that the FCC permanently prohibits multiple ownership and either permanently restrict the service to only local entities or extend the "locals only" restrictions for an additional period of time.

Now that two years as passed since the Original Filing Window Series, the FCC questions whether they should amend the rules to reinstate the locals only rule for a longer period of time or to make the restriction permanent.  Would a continued limitation on multiple ownership foster diversity of programming or viewpoint or would it prevent LPFM licensees from achieving economies of scale? Does an eligibility for entities assure local service for listeners or night it result in some communities losing LPFM service because no local entity seeks to provide it?

In the original rules, the FCC set up a 30 day settlement period in which applicants that are mutually exclusive can attempt to reach a time sharing settlement agreement.  Media Access Project stated that because LPFM stations have minimal resources, 30 days is too short.  MAP had requested the deadline be 90 days instead.  The FCC proposes a 90 day period instead of 30.

The FCC also proposed expectancy of renewal for viable involuntary time share agreements.  In the past, such arrangements were not renewable.  

UCC has requested that the rules be amended to allow time share applicants to be able to relocate multiple time share proponents to a single transmitter site as long as it meets minimum distance separation requirements.  The FCC proposes to permit a time share agreement that includes a move to a central location, notwithstanding the site relocation limits in §73.871.

LPFM advocates requested that the FCC reassess the relationship between FM Translators and LPFM stations for licensing purposes.  Prometheus Radio Project stated that because NCE translators may be fed by satellite, such translators are used to retransmit distant signals, contrary to the intended purpose of the translator service to merely extend the reach of local stations.  They further contend that every new translator that does not expand the reach of a station originating local programming takes the place of a potential LPFM station that will originate local programming.  Prometheus cites the Auction 83 "Great Translator Invasion" filing window where they claimed that virtually all opportunities for new LPFM stations in the top-25 markets have been eliminated.  They stated that translator applications not being filed by  local members of the community, but instead by non-local organizations applying for a large number of translator licenses.  To overcome the preclusive impact of the 2003 translator window, Prometheus requests that the FCC give locally controlled and operated LPFM stations priority over translators.

Some have recommended the use of contours for protection of FM translators instead of distance separation.  As a result of the ''Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2001'', the use of distance separation has been statutorily mandated.  Even if there was no statutory ban, the FCC still favors distance separation as it is modeled similar to that for commercial FM stations and that it is more "simple and reliable".