379
edits
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (view source)
Revision as of 23:27, 11 August 2022
, 2 years ago→LCRA Section 5
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== LCRA Section 5 == | == LCRA Section 5 analysis == | ||
=== Text of law === | === Text of law === | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
=== Section 5(3) - Equal in Status === | === Section 5(3) - Equal in Status === | ||
... | Section 5(3) requires that translator and LPFM stations “remain equal in status and secondary to existing and modified full-service FM stations.” The FCC requested comments on whether and how this requirement impacts the treatment of pending FM translator applications. Can the FCC waive the cut-off rules in order to give priority to a later-filed LPFM application over a pending FM translator application? Section 5(3) refers to "stations" and not "applications". If Section 5(3) is interpreted to only apply to stations, the FCC would be able to defer action on any pending FM translator applications that it determines must make way for LPFM opportunities and then process those applications later. | ||
On the other hand, a number of factors argue in favor of interpreting Section 5(3) to prohibit cut-off rule waivers in this context. Under current Commission rules, stations in these two services are “co-equal” in this licensing context in one principal way. Specifically, under the FCC's “cut-off” rules, a prior filed application in one service “cuts off” a subsequently filed application in the other service. Given that the cut-off rules are a principal characteristic of the two services’ co-equal status and that “stations” and “applications” were used interchangeably in the FCC proceeding before the LCRA was adopted, it seems reasonable to assume that Congress intended the same meaning when it used the term “station” in the LCRA. If so interpreted, the Commission would lack authority to adopt a processing policy which includes the dismissal of prior-filed translator applications in conflict with subsequently filed LPFM applications. | |||
* Alternatively, does Section 5(3) merely require that the FCC not favor either service in developing translator and LPFM new station licensing rules? | |||
* If this alternative interpretation is adopted, what criteria are relevant in assessing whether such rules maintain a “co-equal” status between the services, especially when the current technical licensing rules, which provide substantially greater opportunities for future translator licensing in many markets, are taken into account? | |||
== Proposed FM Translator processing plan == | |||
=== Open a joint FM Translator/LPFM application window === | |||
=== Establish a priority for future LPFM applications === | |||
=== Adopt a market-specific translator application dismissal processing policy === | |||
== Other issues == | |||
=== Prevention of trafficking in translator station construction permits and licenses === | |||
=== Restrictions on the use of FM translators to rebroadcast AM stations === | |||
{{LpfmProceedings}} | {{LpfmProceedings}} | ||