Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 12: Line 12:
|reply = April 21, 2008
|reply = April 21, 2008
}}
}}
 
Nearly four years after collecting comments on this ''NPRM'' and following the enactment of the ''[[Local Community Radio Act of 2010]]'', the FCC terminated this proceeding at the same time it issued the ''[[Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]].''{{Proceeding
{{Proceeding
|type      = Termination of Proceeding
|type      = Termination of Proceeding
|docket    = MM 99-25
|docket    = MM 99-25
Line 79: Line 78:


Speaking specifically on the NPRM, Chairman Martin stated that he felt that the contour method would help provide LPFM stations with more flexibility, especially if Congress eliminates the protection requirements for third-adjacent channels.  Commissioner Adelstein also spoke on contours and on the imbalance between LPFM and FM translators.  Dissenting statements mainly focused on the ''Third R&O'' as opposed to the NPRM.
Speaking specifically on the NPRM, Chairman Martin stated that he felt that the contour method would help provide LPFM stations with more flexibility, especially if Congress eliminates the protection requirements for third-adjacent channels.  Commissioner Adelstein also spoke on contours and on the imbalance between LPFM and FM translators.  Dissenting statements mainly focused on the ''Third R&O'' as opposed to the NPRM.
== Termination of proceeding ==
The FCC found that all of the proposals made in the ''Second Further Notice'' are either inconsistent with or otherwise mooted by the LCRA. Specifically, the Commission proposed to codify the interim processing policy for second-adjacent channel waiver requests that it adopted in the ''[[Third Report and Order]]''. The FCC concluded that the second-adjacent channel waiver provisions of the LCRA supersede this interim policy. Accordingly, they found that the Commission’s proposal to codify the interim policy to be moot and will not pursue it further. Similarly, they found the Commission’s proposal to adopt a contour overlap interference protection approach  to be statutorily barred by Section 3(b)(1) of the LCRA, which prohibits the Commission from modifying the current co-channel and first- and second-adjacent channel distance separation requirements.  They will not pursue this proposal either. Finally, the FCC proposed certain rule changes related to LPFM station displacement, the obligations of full-service new station and modification applicants to potentially impacted LPFM stations, and LPFM-FM translator protection priorities.  The FCC believed that Congress’ adoption of the LCRA renders pursuit of those earlier proposals unnecessary at this time. Thus, they did not move forward with any of them. Given their findings regarding each of the proposals set forth by the Commission in the Second Further Notice, the FCC considered the ''Second Further Notice'' to have been concluded.


== Related links ==
== Related links ==
Line 84: Line 86:
* [https://www.fcc.gov/document/creation-low-power-radio-service-1 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at FCC.]
* [https://www.fcc.gov/document/creation-low-power-radio-service-1 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at FCC.]
* [https://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-announces-comment-and-reply-comment-dates-low-power-fm FCC Announces Comment and Reply Comment Deadline for FNPRM at FCC.]
* [https://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-announces-comment-and-reply-comment-dates-low-power-fm FCC Announces Comment and Reply Comment Deadline for FNPRM at FCC.]
* [https://www.fcc.gov/document/lpfm-fifth-report-order-fourth-fnprm-and-fourth-order-recon LPFM Fifth Report & Order, Fourth NPRM and Fourth Order on Recon at FCC.] ''(Termination of proceeding)''
{{LpfmProceedings}}
{{LpfmProceedings}}