379
edits
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (view source)
Revision as of 23:31, 9 August 2022
, 2 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
=== Construction period === | === Construction period === | ||
When the FCC first authorized LPFM, construction permits were allowed for 18 months without any extension. The FCC would eventually recognize that zoning and other issues could delay construction and some applicants were not able to meet the 18 month construction period. Media Access Project asked the FCC to waive or extend construction deadlines to avoid forfeit of LPFM construction permits. Current guidelines at the time allowed for tolling of a construction permit but only under certain situations such as natural disasters, administrative reviews or judicial reviews. The FCC proposes to extend the construction period to 36 months, the same period allowed to other broadcast permittees. | |||
In the interim, the Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau to provide waivers of the construction period even if it is not qualified for tolling if the issues are beyond the control of the permittee. | |||
=== Technical amendments === | === Technical amendments === | ||
Although the FCC extended the minor move distances in the ''Second Order on Reconsideration'', the amended rule will preclude time sharing applicants from relocating to a central location. | |||
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. | |||
=== Interference protection requirements === | === Interference protection requirements === | ||
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. | |||
With this in mind, the FCC did inquire: | |||
* Should LPFM applications be treated as having "primary" status over prior-filed FM translator applications and authorized FM translator stations? | |||
* Should all LPFM applications have primary status because LPFM stations are permitted to originate local programming? | |||
* Should primary status be given to LPFM stations that pledge to run 8 hours of local programming per day? | |||
* Should the FCC provide "grandfathered" protection to certain classes of FM Translators such as currently licensed, fill-in but not other area translators, etc.? | |||
* Should the FCC dismiss all pending applications and make potential refilings subject to the resolution of the licensing issues in this proceeding? | |||
* Should the FCC dismiss mutually exclusive FM translator applications? | |||
As an interim measure, the FCC will stop granting FM translator new station construction permits for a period of 6 months from the release of this ''Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking''. | |||
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". | |||
The Commission also cites §74.1203(a) as a method to address interference to LPFM stations by FM translators. | |||
=== Protection from subsequently authorized full-service FM stations === | === Protection from subsequently authorized full-service FM stations === | ||