Order on Reconsideration
When the FCC adopted the Report and Order to create the LPFM service, there was a significant number of Petitions for Reconsideration and requests for clarification filed by many parties for the FCC to reconsider various aspects of that Order.
| Document Information | |
|---|---|
| Type | Memorandum Opinion and Order |
| Docket Number(s) | MM 99-25 |
| Related RM(s) | RM-9208, RM-9242 |
| FCC Number | 00-349 |
| FCC Record | 15 FCC Rcd 19208 |
| Relevant Dates | |
| Adoption Date | September 20, 2000 |
| Release Date | September 28, 2000 |
Petitions filed
National Public Radio
National Public Radio (NPR) sought reconsideration on the FCC's decision to not apply a third-adjacent channel protection requirement on LPFM stations, especially for the protection of FM stations that carry radio reading services for the blind and other persons with disabilities as well as providing protection to cable headends and also the impacts to future In Band On Channel (IBOC) digital operations and LPFM's status in respect to FM translator stations. NPR and the National Translator Association are seeking reconsideration to address potential interference to the "inputs" of FM translators by LPFM stations. NPR and Alan W. Jurison allege that the rules do not adequately protect the service areas of full-service licensees questioning the FCC's use of the 70 dBu contour for the interference standard if a full-power station modifies their facility and NPR further raises concerns over protections to noncommercial stations, which use the 60 dBu contour for community coverage. Jurison also addresses the issue of grandfathered "super power" FM stations in the commercial portion of the broadcast band.
Original LPFM petitioners
RM-9242 petitioner Rodger Skinner and the United Church of Christ asked for reconsideration of the decision to require second-adjacent channel protections. Skinner also seeks reconsideration on the FCC's decision to not provide the LP-1000 service as well as the decision to make LPFM only a noncommercial service. UCC also asked for the Commission to extend the time when only local community based applicants will be eligible for stations from the two years adopted in the Report and Order as well as the decision to not require LPFM stations to maintain a public file or file ownership reports. RM-9208 co-petitioner Don Schellhardt requests that the FCC allows unlicensed broadcasters if the unauthorized broadcaster has challenged the legality of an FCC order to cease operations and/or sought an injunction to bar the FCC from enforcing such an order and the court "allowed" the unlicensed broadcaster to continue operating while the legal challenge was pending.
Other petitioners
David S. Black, a station manager at the student station at the University of Wisconsin requested reconsideration on the decision to make LPFM a secondary service as opposed to a primary service; Black, along with Michael Camarillo on behalf of KAMP Student Radio at the University of Arizona requests that universities that have full-service licensees should also be allowed to operate student LPFM stations. Craig Fox stated that LPFM stations should be required to use calibrated modulation monitors; and Amherst Alliance wanted the "cut off date" used to determine when full-service stations would be protected to be either February 29, 1999 or January 20, 2000 instead of 30 days prior to the opening of the filing window. The Order will also address reconsideration sought by the New York State Thruway Authority and the engineering firm of Lohnes and Culver to permit LPFM stations to be able to use directional antennas and the ability for government agencies to be subject to the same ownership caps as an educational licensee.
Lawson and Langford asked the FCC to allow AM licensees to be able to apply for LPFM licenses; Cohn and Marks requested clarification of the rules for educational licensees that also hold Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licenses. Kenneth Bowles seeks clarification of the local program origination point pledge. The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) filed a supplementary pleading contending that the FCC should award the first LPFM licenses to minority broadcast training institutions and to include a preference point for educational institutions in the point system.
FCC decisions in response to the petitions
Third adjacent channel protection
The FCC generally affirms the decisions reached in the Order but makes some changes to address issues raised on reconsideration:
Radio Reading Services
A vulnerability was identified by NPR in respect to FM stations operating a Radio Reading Service because radios designed to receive subcarrier (or Subsidiary Communications Authority or SCA) broadcasts are more vulnerable to interference than mass marketed receivers. As a result, the FCC has identified a list of FM broadcast stations that are reported to be operating SCAs for Radio Reading Services. The FCC has extended third-adjacent channel protection requirements to any full-service FM station that is carrying a radio reading service.
LPFM interference to the input of an FM translator
While the FCC denied the National Translator Association's request that interference to the input channel of an FM translator should be considered during the application process, the FCC agreed that any actual interference issues should be addressed. Therefore, if it turns out that the LPFM station causes interference with a translator's input signal in use at the time when the LPFM station is authorized, the LPFM must immediately cease operations until appropriate remedial action is taken.
Directional antennas for public safety and transportation
At the suggestion of the New York State Thruway Authority, the FCC will permit LPFM stations operated for public safety reasons to be use directional antennas. NYSTA argued that the use of directional antennas will prevent signal energy from reaching unpopulated areas. The FCC amended §73.816 to reflect this.
Clarifications to the Report and Order
FM Translator protection to LP-100 stations
The FCC clarified that until an LP-100 station is on the air and licensed, it must be protected by FM Translator stations at the maximum ERP permitted to the LPFM station. This is because when LP-100 stations are authorized, they will be assigned a minimum and maximum ERP. For example, an LPFM station authorized to operate a maximum 100 watts ERP will be authorized at a minimum of 50 watts ERP. Once the LPFM station is licensed, then translators will protect the LPFM station at the actual ERP the station is operating. The FCC amended §74.1204(a) in order to clarify this.
Changes made by the Commission on their own motion
Protection to low-power TV stations on Channel 6
In this Order, the FCC recognized that no distance separation chart was put in for low power TV (LPTV) stations and TV translator stations operating on Channel 6. As a result, §73.825 was amended to add a second set of distance separation charts for LP-100 and LP-10 towards LPTV Channel 6 stations.
LP-10 distance separation tables
Contours are normally based on a group of curves which looks at the ERP and HAAT. When the ERP is at such low level and the field strength is so strong that the distances are so short, that a "free space" calculation is used as opposed to the curves. If computing a distance using free-space results in a distance longer than 1.6 kilometers, then the distance is considered 1.6 kilometers. When the FCC did the distance separation charts for protections to Canada, it turned out that the second-adjacent channel requirements for LP-10 stations was longer than the distances for LP-100. This was because staff used the full free-space distance instead of capping at 1.6 km. The FCC amends §73.807(g) to address this anomaly.
Protection to foreign low power facilities
The original Report and Order did not take into consideration any protections to low power FM facilities in Canada and Mexico. The FCC amends §73.807(g) to address this.
Denied reconsideration requests
In addition to the issues already discussed, the FCC denied reconsideration on various issues including:
- The decision to continue protecting second-adjacent channel stations.
- The decision to not authorize any LP-1000 stations.
- The decision to not authorize any LPFM service classes as primary service.
- The decision to not authorize a commercial LPFM service.
- Adopting a new requirement for modulation monitors to prevent overmodulation.
- Changing the cut-off date used for the protection of other stations for applications filed in the window.
- Added protection requirements for LPFM stations located near cable TV headend facilities.