Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (view source)

Revision as of 18:14, 15 August 2022

7,226 bytes added , 2 years ago

→‎Other LPFM rule changes proposed

Michi

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

379

edits

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 === Elimination of LP-10 ===
+In the original ''Report and Order,'' the FCC authorized both the 100-watt LPFM service that exists to this day and a 10-watt service referred to as [[LP-10]].  LP-10, originally referred to as "microradio" was created as a result of the ''Petition for Rulemaking'' RM-9208 filed by Nickolaus Leggett and Don Schellhardt to create a very low power radio service for neighborhoods.  During the first LPFM Filing Window Series in 2000 and 2001, the FCC only authorized LP-100 stations and then at the time, they had planned to come back to have an LP-10 filing window.  Due to the complications that arose mainly around the Auction 83 "Great Translator Invasion" window, there was never a filing window for LP-10 stations.  In this ''NPRM,'' the FCC seeks comments on whether the LP-10 service should be eliminated.
 === Proposal to add a new 250-watt LPFM service (LP-250) ===
+The FCC requested comments based on previous suggestions made by the Amherst Alliance and the Catholic Radio Association (CRA) to permit LPFM stations in rural areas to operate at 250 watts [[effective radiated power]] (ERP).  Amherst and CRA argued that rural LPFM stations are challenged to maintain economically viable stations in areas where population densities are low and larger coverage areas are possible.
+This FCC requested comments on this proposal to expand radio service to areas where full-service operations may not be economically feasible.  Such an approach would be consistent with the FCC's decision to adopt a more flexible definition of “local” applicant in non-urban areas where local applicants can be up to 20 miles from the transmitter.  This would also put LPFM on a more equal footing with FM Translators.
+Currently, distance separations between LP-100 stations and full-service stations on co-channel and first-adjacent channel stations include a 20 kilometer buffer zone.  The LCRA states that distance separations cannot be reduced.  The FCC proposed to use the same LP-100 distance separation requirements for co-channel and first-adjacent channel full-service stations for the new LP-250 service as the additional spacing would be absorbed by a portion of the buffer zone.  Required distances to second-adjacent full-service stations, all LPFM stations, all FM Translator stations, all TV Channel 6 stations and all foreign allotments would increase for the new LP-250 service class.
+The FCC asked whether geographic restrictions should be restricted in the following manner:
+* Markets 1 to 20: more than 30 kilometers from the center city.
+* Markets 21 to 50: more than 20 kilometers from the center city.
+* Markets 51 to 100: more than 10 kilometers from the center city.
+* Markets 101 and up and areas outside of metro markets: no geographic restrictions.
+The FCC also suggested just an outright prohibition on LP-250 in all areas inside of the Top 50 markets.
+The FCC asked that commenters address whether they should limit eligibility to operate in excess of the current 100 watts/30 meters maximum to previously licensed LPFM facilities in order to provide those LPFM licensees that have demonstrated their ability to construct and operate a limited opportunity to expand their listenership. They also asked commenters address whether increasing the maximum LPFM power level could result in an increased potential for interference. Specifically, should eligibility to increase power to 250 watts be limited to only those stations that can fully satisfy co-, first-, and second-adjacent channel spacing requirements?
 === Removal of intermediate frequency protection requirements ===
+LPFM stations are currently required to protect full-service stations on their [[Intermediate frequency|intermediate frequencies]] (+/- 53 or 54 channels, 10.6 or 10.8 MHz) while translator stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP are not. The FCC recognizes this disparity and propose to remove I.F. protection requirements for LPFM stations operating with less than 100 watts. The FCC believes the same reasoning that the Commission applied in exempting FM translator stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP from the I.F. protection requirements applies for LPFM stations operating at less than 100 watts ERP. These stations too are the equivalent of Class D FM stations, which are not subject to I.F. protection requirements. FM allotments would continue to be protected on the I.F. channels based on existing international agreements.
 === Requirements that LPFM applicants be community-based ===
+There was confusion around the localism policies that an organization applying for an LPFM station must be local, as in having a headquarters, campus or 75 percent of the board members residing within 20 miles of the transmitter site (10 miles in Markets 1-50).  The confusion was around whether the localism provision only applied at the time of application and what would happen if an LPFM station's licensee organization was to become non-local.  To clarify this issue, the FCC proposes to amend §[[73.853]](b) to read : “Only local applicants will be permitted to submit applications. For the purposes of this paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local if it can certify, at the time of application, that it meets the criteria listed below and if such applicant continues to satisfy the criteria at all times thereafter ….”.
 === Native Nations ===
 ==== Eligibility ====
+The current version of §73.853 of the rules does not include federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (“Native Nations”), consortia of Native Nations, or entities majority owned by Native Nations or consortia, among the categories of eligible applicants for stations in the LPFM service. In the recently adopted ''Rural Radio'' proceeding, the FCC has expressed their commitment to assisting Native Nations in establishing radio service to their members living on tribal lands, including a Tribal Priority that we incorporated into the threshold fair distribution analysis performed pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), when comparing mutually exclusive applications for permits to construct new or modified full-service NCE FM stations that propose service to different communities. In keeping with this commitment, the FCC requested comments on whether to modify the LPFM point system to award a point to a Native Nation proposing LPFM service to its community, but first, the FCC requested comments on Native Nation participation in LPFM application proceedings so they can first ensure that, under the rules, Native Nations are eligible to apply for stations in the LPFM service.
+The FCC proposes to revise §73.853(a) of the rules by adding the following: “(3) Tribal Applicants, as defined in §73.7000 of this Part, that will provide non-commercial radio services.” They further proposed to revise §73.853(b) of the rules by adding the following: “(4) In the case of a Tribal Applicant, as defined in Section 73.7000 of this Part, the proposed site for the transmitting antenna is located on that Tribal Applicant’s ‘Tribal Lands,’ as defined in Section 73.7000 of this Part.” The FCC believed that allowing Native Nations to hold LPFM licenses will be consistent with the localism and diversity goals of the LPFM service and will further our goal of assisting Native Nations in establishing radio service to their members on tribal lands.
 ==== Multiple ownership of LPFM stations ====
+...
 === Cross-ownership of FM Translators by LPFM stations ===