[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7577-7587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3569]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 99-6]
Creation of a Low Power Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to establish
rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM (LPFM) radio
stations. It explores the appropriate technical parameters for such a
service. It also examines potentially conflicting demands for such a
service. In addressing these issues, we are and will remain mindful of
the technical requirements necessary to protect existing radio services
and preserve the excellent technical quality of radio service available
today, as well as any impact on the future introduction of terrestrial
digital audio broadcasting. We hope to receive comment from a wide
range of existing and potential users of the FM spectrum regarding the
nature and extent of different and possibly conflicting demands for
this spectrum (including the development of future terrestrial digital
audio services), and technical analysis to assist us in best resolving
those conflicts for the benefit of the public.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 12, 1999. Reply
comments must be filed on or before May 12, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Room TW-
A306, SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
Alternatively, comments may also be filed by using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), via the Internet to http://
www.fcc.gov.e-file/ecfs.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gordon or Bruce Romano, Policy
and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM,
FCC 99-6, adopted January 28, 1999 and released February 3, 1999. The
full text of this Commission NPRM is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room
TW-A306), 445 12 St. S.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this
Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. It is also available on the
Commission's web page at <>www.fcc.gov//mmb/prd/lpfm.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Introduction
1. By this Notice, we are proposing to establish rules authorizing
the operation of new, low power FM (LPFM) radio stations. In
particular, we are proposing to create two classes of low power radio
service: a 1000-watt primary service and
[[Page 7578]]
a 100-watt secondary service. We also seek comment on whether to
establish a third, ``microradio'' class of low power radio service that
would operate in the range of 1 to 10 watts on a secondary basis. These
proposals are in response to two petitions for rule making and related
comments. We believe that these new LPFM stations would provide a low-
cost means of serving urban communities and neighborhoods, as well as
populations living in smaller rural towns and communities. In creating
these new classes of stations, our goals are to address unmet needs for
community-oriented radio broadcasting, foster opportunities for new
radio broadcast ownership, and promote additional diversity in radio
voices and program services. We are proposing that LPFM stations not be
subject to certain technical rules currently applied to other classes
of radio service. In particular, we believe that current restrictions
on third-adjacent channel operations are not needed for LPFM stations,
and we believe it may be possible to disregard second-adjacent channel
interference for these stations as well. We are also proposing new
technical rules and geographic spacing requirements to ensure that new
LPFM stations do not cause interference to existing full service FM
radio stations. We are wary of any provisions that might limit the
development of future terrestrial digital radio services. The Notice
also addresses related matters such as service rules, ownership issues,
and application processing procedures for LPFM services. We also
welcome commenters to bring to our attention any alternatives or
additions to our proposals that would encourage community participation
and the proliferation of local voices.
II. Service Proposals and Issue Analysis
A. Need for Low Power Radio Service
2. We are concerned that recent consolidation may be having a
significant impact on small broadcasters and potential new entrants
into the radio broadcasting business by driving up station prices,
thereby exacerbating the difficulty of entering the broadcast industry
and of surviving as an independent operator. Additionally, we received
over 13,000 inquiries in the last year from individuals and groups
showing an interest in starting a low power radio station. Furthermore,
hundreds of commenters have urged us to create opportunities for low
power locally oriented radio service.
3. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a low power radio
service would provide new entrants the ability to add their voices to
the existing mix of political, social, and entertainment programming,
and would address special interests shared by residents of
geographically compact areas. We are not persuaded by opponents who
insist that alternative sources of information and entertainment are
available to dissatisfied speakers and listeners, including acquisition
of an existing frequency; leased time from full power stations; an
internet website; and internet webcasting. Commenters are invited to
address these issues.
B. Spectrum Considerations
4. New Spectrum Allocation. We do not intend to create a low power
radio service on any spectrum beyond that which is currently allocated
for FM use, because to do so would force consumers to purchase new
equipment to gain the benefits of the new service.
5. Channels for Low Power Radio. It does not appear possible to
designate a particular FM frequency or frequencies for one or more low
power services. No single frequency is available that would protect
existing radio service throughout the country, and there does not
appear to be any particular segment of the FM spectrum that is
generally more available for LPFM operation and to which we could
accordingly restrict low power radio service, but we request comment on
this assessment. We do not propose to authorize low power radio use in
the AM radio band. The interference potential and present congestion in
the AM band would make it a poor choice for a new radio service, and
the propagation characteristics of AM signals could exacerbate the
interference potential of low power stations. We seek comment on these
positions.
6. Noncommercial Designation. 47 CFR 73.501 currently restricts the
use of FM channels 201-220 (88-92 MHz) to noncommercial educational
broadcasting. Pursuant to Sec. 73.503(a) of our rules, 47 CFR 73.503, a
noncommercial educational FM broadcast station will be licensed only to
a nonprofit educational organization and upon showing that the station
will be used for the broadcast of noncommercial educational
programming. Accordingly, absent a change in our rules, only those
noncommercial entities that meet these requirements would be eligible
to apply for and operate LPFM stations in this part of the band, and
all operations would have to be strictly noncommercial.
7. We seek comment on whether to continue the noncommercial
educational channel reservation with respect to any new LPFM stations
that would have a preclusive effect on the operation of full power
stations in the reserved band, such as the primary low power stations
discussed below, and on whether to extend a parallel reservation to any
secondary low power or microradio stations that we might authorize on
channels 201-220. Commenters should also address whether any or all low
power (and microradio) services should be limited to noncommercial
operation throughout the band, and whether eligibility should
correspondingly be restricted to those who would qualify as
noncommercial licensees under our current rules.
C. Technical Overview of LPFM Services
8. To accommodate the different visions and service demands for low
power radio, we propose two distinct classes of service: (1) a primary
LPFM service class with an ERP limit of 1,000 watts (designated
``LP1000'') and (2) a secondary class with an ERP limit of 100 watts
(designated ``LP100''). We also seek comment on the advisability of
establishing a very low power secondary ``microradio'' service with ERP
limit of one to ten watts.
1. 1000-Watt Primary Service (``LP1000'')
9. We propose LP1000 stations that would operate at a maximum
effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 1000 watts at an antenna height
above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 60 meters (197 feet), and we
propose to protect the maximum 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal contour of LP1000
stations by minimum separation distances. (60 dBu is the protected
contour for Class A stations, the next highest class of FM station.)
This would provide for a minimum separation of 65 km (40 miles) between
LP1000 stations on the same channel.
10. The proposed power/height combination would produce a 60 dBu
signal contour at a distance of 14.2 kilometers (8.8 miles) from the
station, or approximately one half the distance to the protected 60 dBu
contour of a Class A station using maximum facilities. We ask whether
the type of service envisioned for LP1000 stations could be met with
lower power levels and/or antenna heights. We believe there should also
be a lower ERP limit in the interest of efficient use of the radio
spectrum. Therefore, we propose a minimum ERP of 500 watts (60 dBu
signal at 12 km/7.5 miles). We ask whether different levels would be
more appropriate either in general, or in specific circumstances such
as to meet unique distance separation requirements or in order to
[[Page 7579]]
accommodate a negotiated settlement agreement.
11. Primary stations operating in the FM service are required to
protect all other primary stations. We propose to extend such primary
status to LP1000 stations, as secondary status might discourage
potential new entrants from investing their time and money into this
service, thereby frustrating its purpose.
12. These stations would operate under the majority of the service
rules and obligations applicable to primary stations generally. As
primary stations, LP1000 stations would be required to give and receive
co-channel, first-adjacent channel, and IF interference protection
equivalent to the protection levels other primary FM stations provide
each other. Second- and third-adjacent channel protections are further
discussed below. Likewise, new and modified facilities of existing
classes of FM stations would be required to give co-channel, first-
adjacent channel, and IF interference protection to LP1000 stations
equivalent to the protection that they provide to each other. We
propose that LP1000 stations protect other LP1000 stations on the same
channel and first-adjacent channel, and we invite comment on whether
these stations should have to protect each other's IF frequencies;
i.e., for FM channels separated by 53 or 54 channels.
13. We ask in what manner secondary FM translator and booster
stations should protect LP1000 stations, and whether the current scheme
for translator and booster protection of FM stations should be extended
to protect LP1000 stations, including exiting FM translator and booster
stations. We also ask whether to prohibit the establishment of any
translator or booster stations for use in conjunction with LP1000
stations, given our desire to maximize ownership and service
opportunities for locally owned LPFM stations.
2. 100-Watt Secondary Service (``LP100'')
14. The 100-watt class would be intended to meet the demand of
people who would like to broadcast affordably to communities of
moderate size (whether standing alone in rural areas or as part of a
larger urban area). We propose secondary stations at maximum facilities
of 100 watts ERP and 30 meters (98 feet) HAAT, to produce a 1 mV/m (60
dBu) signal contour at a distance of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) from
the station, for economical station construction. We propose a minimum
LP100 ERP of 50 watts (60 dBu signal at 4.8 km/3 miles). We do not
propose a minimum HAAT for LP100 stations. We also propose lesser
operating and service requirements, see Section G., below, to
compensate for the more limited service area of LP100 stations. We
invite comment on these and other options to promote an affordable
community broadcasting service.
15. We propose that LP100 stations would operate on a secondary
basis with respect to all primary radio stations, including LP1000
stations. They would not be permitted to cause interference within the
protected service contours of existing and future primary stations, nor
would they be protected from present or future interference from these
stations. LP100 stations would provide co-channel, first-adjacent
channel, and IF interference protection to the existing FM station
classes, and co-channel and first-adjacent channel protection to LP1000
stations. We invite comment on whether LP100 stations should also
provide IF protection to LP1000 stations. By proposing secondary status
for LP100 stations, we believe we could authorize more of these
stations with less impact on present and future primary broadcast
services.
16. We seek comment on whether new LP1000 stations should be
required to protect existing co-channel and 1st-adjacent channel LP100
stations. In commenting on this issue, commenters should address the
likely cost differences between LP1000 and LP100 stations, including
costs of station construction and operation. We also seek comment on
whether LP100 stations should be permitted to select channels without
regard to interference received from other stations. Preliminary staff
analysis suggests that many more LP100 stations could operate if these
stations were permitted to apply for channels for which up to 10% of
the area within the 60 dBu contour would be predicted to receive
interference. We invite comment on our technical proposals.
17. We also seek comment on the likely impact of LP100 stations on
FM translator and booster stations, and whether LP100 stations should
be primary with respect to FM translators and boosters, which do not
originate programming. To promote localism, should we prohibit
translator or booster rebroadcasts of the programming of LP100
stations?
3. 1-10 Watt Secondary ``Microradio'' Service
18. We seek comment on the creation of a third class of LPFM
service, intended to allow an individual or group of people with very
limited means to construct a broadcast facility to reach listeners
within the confines of a very localized setting. This service would
operate with a maximum antenna height of 30 meters HAAT (and no minimum
HAAT) and ERP levels in the range of one to ten watts, for a 1 mV/m (60
dBu) signal contour at distances of about 1.8 kilometers to 3.2
kilometers (1-2 miles). We seek comment on whether such facilities
could satisfy some of the demand that has been expressed for very
inexpensive community radio services, particularly in places where
LP100 stations could not be located due to interference concerns or
financial constraints.
19. If we adopt a microradio service, we propose to have an FCC
transmitter certification requirement. We are vitally concerned that
such stations meet transmitter out-of-channel emission limits and other
standards related to interference protection of stations on adjacent
channels.
20. If we were to establish a microradio class, we would envision
it as being secondary to all other FM radio services, including LP100
stations, and thus required to protect all existing and future primary
stations, as well as FM translator and boosters, against co-channel and
1st-adjacent channel interference, and would not receive protection
from these stations. While a single station operating from 1 to 10
watts ERP may not pose a serious threat for 2nd-or 3rd-adjacent channel
or IF interference, where the interference range might extend only a
few hundred feet, we are concerned about uncertain effects of the
combined interference potential of possibly many such stations
operating on the same channel in the same general area, and we seek
comment in this regard. Also, if we adopt a microradio stations class,
should such stations be required to protect each other against
interference?
D. Interference Protection Criteria
21. Minimum Distance Separations Between Stations. We believe
minimum distance separations between stations may be the best practical
means of governing interference to and from low power radio stations,
due to the number of stations we anticipate and the effective
simplicity of such a service. Appendix B of the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making presents several tables which specify minimum distance
separations for the LPFM classes described above, including an
explanation of how these distances were determined. We seek comment on
our proposed use of minimum distance separations and, in particular, on
whether the specific values tabulated in
[[Page 7580]]
Appendix B of the Notice are appropriate for the different types of
interference protections. We invite comment on these issues, including
the effectiveness of alternative approaches for interference
protection.
22. Types of Interference Protection Standards. We propose to
protect stations operating on the same channel or on a 1st-adjacent
channel from interference caused by LPFM facilities, and no commenter
disagrees. At issue is the need to protect stations operating on the
2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channels with respect to LPFM stations. Commenters
supporting LPFM services generally oppose any requirements for 2nd-or
3rd-adjacent channel protections, contending such interference from low
power stations would be, at most, minimal. Other commenters believe
these protections should be retained to prevent interference and/or
protect future digital terrestrial radio service. As noted below and
discussed in greater detail in the Notice, these protections would
limit substantially the number of channels available for low power
radio generally and could preclude altogether the introduction of LPFM
service in mid-sized and large cities.
23. Third-Adjacent Channel Protection. We believe that not
requiring 3rd adjacent protection to or from any of the contemplated
classes of LPFM station would entail, at worst, little risk of
interference to existing radio service. Areas of potential interference
would be very small and occur only in the immediate vicinity of the low
power transmission facility. Also we note that in 1997, we eliminated
the 3rd-adjacent channel protection for full power ``grandfathered
short spaced stations,'' including stations that operate at
substantially higher power levels than LP1000 stations. We welcome
comment on this position.
24. Second-Adjacent Channel Protection Standards. FM radio stations
protect other stations operating on the 2nd-adjacent channel where the
frequency separation is 400 kHz. In the case of grandfathered short-
spaced FM stations, we did not receive any interference complaints as a
result of such modifications during the period in which they were able
to modify facilities without regard to 2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channel
spacing (1964-1987). Similarly, in the noncommercial service, we have
been willing to accept small amounts of potential second-and third-
adjacent channel interference where such interference is
counterbalanced by substantial service gains. Staff analysis suggests
that the current 2nd-adjacent protection standards would be a
substantially larger impediment to LPFM service than the 3rd-adjacent
standard, especially in large and medium-size cities. We ask commenters
to assess the level of risk of increased interference to stations in
existing FM services that would result from permitting LPFM stations to
locate without regard to 2nd-adjacent channel spacing for this service.
The low ERP levels proposed for LPFM stations (especially LP100
stations), together with a tight spectral emission mask for such
stations and our proposed requirement to certify transmitters, should
significantly reduce the potential for harmful interference to existing
service, even if 2nd-adjacent channel interference protections are not
adopted. We also seek comment on the current state of receiver
technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in
the absence of 2nd-adjacent channel protection.
25. It is also important to take into consideration the
implications of 2nd-adjacent channel protection for the possible
conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital mode. While
the Commission has yet to formally advance any specific proposals, it
has already expressed its support for a conversion to digital radio.
One specific proposal was recently submitted in a rule making petition
(RM-9395) filed by USA Digital Radio Partners, L.P. (``USADR''), a
terrestrial digital radio proponent of a technology that uses an in-
band-on-channel (``IBOC'') technology, in which an FM radio station's
analog and digital signals would share portions of the same channel. In
the existing radio environment, USADR suggests that 2nd-adjacent
channel interference from current analog FM signals would not pose an
interference threat to its IBOC signal.
26. We are concerned that our understanding of future IBOC systems
is preliminary and that we may not be fully aware of any negative
impact or restrictions that authorization of low power radio service
would have on the transition to a digital IBOC technology for FM
stations, and are particularly interested in the views of digital radio
designers and manufacturers. We note that, as secondary services, LP100
and microradio stations would not be permitted to interfere with future
digital radio stations within their protected service areas.
27. We accordingly seek comment on appropriate interference
standards for the LPFM service. A staff study, attached to the Notice
as Appendix D, demonstrates that if LPFM stations are required to
comply with current interference restrictions, there will be few or no
licenses available in most major markets. This study shows that we
measurably increase the opportunity to engineer in LPFM stations if
third-adjacent channel protection standards are eliminated and
dramatically increase such opportunities if second-adjacent channel
standards are not considered.
E. LPFM Emissions and Bandwidth
28. We believe that the extent to which LPFM stations would degrade
FM radio service on the 2nd-adjacent channel would be considerably
limited by their lower ERP and HAAT levels. In addition, we seek other
technical means for further reducing this interference potential. We
could restrict out-of-channel emissions by establishing a strict
spectral emission mask and/or by reducing the transmission bandwidth
for LPFM stations. We also ask whether a modulation monitor should be
required or, alternatively, whether transmitters should be certified
with built-in modulation limits.
29. Emission Limits. Outside of their assigned channels, the
emissions of FM radio stations must be attenuated to specific levels.
This emission mask ensures that FM broadcast emissions are reasonably
confined within the 200 kHz channel width. The current emission mask
requires a minimum attenuation of 35 dB below the level of the
unmodulated carrier for emissions extending over the second-adjacent
channel. We invite comment on the extent to which an increased emission
attenuation requirement would reduce the potential for 2nd-adjacent
channel interference, assuming no 2nd-adjacent channel spacing
requirements. By how much would this attenuation have to be increased
in this regard? 10 dB? 20 dB? What would be the consequences of a more
restrictive emissions mask for LPFM stations? For example, at what
point would tighter emission limits become cost prohibitive? Based on
what is known about IBOC technology, could a strict emission mask for
LPFM stations significantly reduce the potential for interference to
IBOC signals, presuming we did not impose 2nd-adjacent channel spacing
requirements on LPFM stations?
30. Bandwidth Limits. FM broadcast channels have a bandwidth of 200
kHz, and the frequency modulated (``FM'') signal in each channel swings
in frequency from the center frequency toward the channel edges, with
its radiated power envelope shaped such that virtually all of the
energy of the signal is contained within the channel. The potential for
interference could be further reduced if LPFM stations
[[Page 7581]]
operated with a reduced bandwidth, creating additional frequency
separation to adjacent channels, and we seek comment on its
effectiveness as an alternative means of interference protection,
particularly with regard to 2nd-adjacent channels. What bandwidth
reduction would best serve this purpose?
31. We inquire about the operational effects of reduced bandwidth
on LPFM stations. Would LPFM signals still be received by existing
radios; for example, car radios, home stereo systems, and boom boxes? A
narrowed channel bandwidth could restrict or preclude the use of
baseband subcarriers by LPFM operators. Would prospective LPFM
operators be willing to sacrifice the use of subcarriers in return for
the ability to broadcast a narrow band radio signal? Could the loss of
LPFM subcarrier services such as those typically provided by full power
FM stations be detrimental to the public? We seek comment on the
optimal bandwidth that would strike the right balance between
facilitating a larger number of potential stations and optimizing the
services that could be offered by those stations. Commenters should
address the specific stereophonic sound transmission standards which
would be appropriate for a reduced channel bandwidth. Establishing a
reduced channel bandwidth for LPFM could necessitate the development
and manufacture of new lines of transmitting equipment, at an unknown
cost, and reduce the availability of transmitters for LPFM stations,
especially used transmitters designed for a 200 kHz bandwidth. We seek
comment on these matters and, generally, on whether any adverse effects
of LPFM operations on a reduced channel bandwidth could outweigh the
increased channel availability that could result.
F. Ownership and Eligibility
32. Local and Cross Ownership. We see the increased opportunity for
entry, enhanced diversity, and new program services as the principal
benefits of a new low power service. Accordingly, we propose not to
permit a person or entity with an attributable interest in a full power
broadcast station to have any ownership interest in any LPFM (or
microradio) station in any market, and to prohibit joint sales
agreements, time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management
agreements, and similar arrangements between full power broadcasters
and low power radio entities. We seek comment on whether we should
permit AM licensees to file applications contingent on the divestiture
of their AM station. We also propose to limit multiple ownership by
prohibiting any individual or entity from owning more than one LPFM (or
microradio) station in the same community. We seek comment on the
appropriate definition of ``market'' or ``community'' for purposes of
the restriction proposed here, as well as on what other interests or
relationships (if any) should be attributable in the LPFM context.
33. We seek comment on whether the proposed cross-ownership
restriction would unnecessarily prevent individuals and entities with
valuable broadcast experience from contributing to the success of the
service, or is necessary in order to keep the service from being
compromised or subsumed by existing stakeholders. Commenters should
also address the alternative of permitting individuals and entities
with attributable involvement in broadcasting to establish LPFM (or
microradio) stations in communities where they do not have an
attributable interest in a broadcast station. We also seek comment on
whether the cross-ownership restriction should be extended to prevent
ownership by newspapers, cable systems, or other mass media.
34. We are cognizant of the provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 which permit significant local multiple ownership of
existing full power stations. We tentatively believe, however, that
those provisions would not apply to a service that did not exist in
1996. We also tentatively believe that Congress's intent, to enhance
commercial efficiencies in the radio broadcast industry, does not
sufficiently apply to the new classes of service we are contemplating.
35. National Ownership. We seek comment on whether a limit of five
or ten stations nationally would provide a reasonable opportunity to
attain efficiencies of operation while preserving the availability of
these stations to a wide range of new applicants. We seek comment on
the provisions of the 1996 Act which eliminate national ownership
restrictions for full power radio service.
36. Residency Requirements. We do not propose to establish a local
residency for any LPFM stations, and we do not propose to require that
owners be involved in day-to-day management of the station. We have
long recognized that full power stations require neither local
residency nor integration between ownership and management to assess
and address local needs and interests. Such a restriction would also
frustrate any attempt at achieving certain efficiencies from national
multiple ownership long recognized as beneficial for full-power
stations. Additionally, because the service areas for all stations will
be relatively small, a potential new entrant may hold residency in a
location where no LP1000 channels can be found, so that we might
frustrate one of the significant potentials of LP1000 stations with
such a requirement. Moreover, we expect the nature of the service
provided would attract primarily local or nearby residents in any
event. We also note the probable limitations on our discretion to adopt
an integration requirement. See Bechtel v. FCC, 957 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir.
1992); see also Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
37. Character Qualifications and Unauthorized Broadcasters. We
propose to apply the same standards for character qualifications
requirements to all LPFM broadcasters as we do to full power
broadcasters. We see no reason to distinguish between LPFM (or
microradio) and other broadcast licensees for this purpose. Commenters
believing otherwise are invited to explain the rationale for any
distinction.
38. We note how this issue relates to the particular issue of
previously and currently unlicensed operators. Unlicensed radio
operators not only violate the longstanding statutory prohibition
against unlicensed broadcasting and our present rules on unlicensed
broadcasting, but they also use equipment of unknown technical
integrity. Such illegal radio transmissions raise a particular concern
because of the potential for harmful interference to authorized radio
operations, including public safety communications and aircraft
frequencies.
39. The Commission has repeatedly urged all unlicensed radio
operators to cease broadcasting. When they have not, we have filed
complaints in federal district courts to shut them down by seeking: (1)
injunctive relief pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 401; (2) seizure and forfeiture
of the radio station equipment pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 510; (3) monetary
forfeitures pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503; and/or (4) criminal penalties
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 501. In addition, we have issued cease and desist
orders pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 312 to a number of unlicensed
broadcasters. Nevertheless, despite repeated warnings by Commission
officials and the Commission's successes in federal district court
litigation, some unlicensed broadcasters have persisted in their
unlawful activity.
40. We are concerned with misconduct which demonstrates the
[[Page 7582]]
proclivity of an applicant or licensee to deal truthfully with the
Commission and to comply with our rules and policies. Parties who
persist in unlawful operation after the Commission has taken any of
these enforcement actions could be deemed per se unqualified, and we
seek comment as to the eligibility of such parties for a license in any
new radio service. We seek comment on whether there are circumstances
under which such a party could be considered rehabilitated. The
reliability as licensees of parties who may have illegally operated for
a time but have ceased operation after being advised of an enforcement
action, however, is not necessarily as suspect. We seek comment on the
propriety of accepting as licensees of low power (or microradio)
licenses parties who may have broadcast illegally but have promptly
ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do so, or who
voluntarily cease operations within ten days of the publication of this
summary in the Federal Register.
G. Service Characteristics
41. Local Programming. We seek comment on whether to impose a
minimum local origination requirement on any of the three proposed
classes of LPFM service. We are inclined to give low power (and
microradio) licensees the same discretion as full-power licensees to
determine what mix of local and nonlocal programming will best serve
the community. However, in order to promote new broadcast voices, we
propose that an LPFM station not be permitted to operate as a
translator, retransmitting the programming of a full-power station.
42. Public Interest Programming Requirements. Because they would be
primary stations with potentially substantial coverage areas, we
propose to require LP1000 licensees to adhere to the same Part 73
requirements regarding public interest broadcasting as apply to full
power FM licensees. We propose that an LP1000 licensee's service
obligations pertain to those listeners within its predicted 1 mV/m
signal contour in the same way that full power radio station must serve
the listeners in its community of license. We expect the very nature of
LP100 and microradio stations will ensure that they serve the public.
Therefore, we are disinclined to put the burdens of complying with
specific programming requirements on these licensees, particularly
given the size of their stations and the simplicity we are striving for
in this service. We seek comment on these issues.
43. Other Service Rules. We also request comment on whether LPFM
stations of each class should be subject to the variety of other rules
in Part 73 with which full power stations must comply, including, for
example, the main studio rule (47 CFR 73.1125(a)), public file rule (47
CFR 73.3526, 73.3527), and the periodic ownership reporting
requirements (47 CFR 73.3615). Given the purposes and power levels of
LP1000 stations, we tentatively conclude that LP1000 licensees should
generally meet the Part 73 rules applicable to full power FM stations,
and we seek comment regarding any individual rules that should not be
applied. We would be disinclined to apply these service rules to
microradio stations, and we particularly seek comment with regard to
the rules appropriate for LP100 stations. Where a rule should not apply
to a particular class of service, commenters should analyze the
characteristics of that service that warrant disparate treatment for
the purposes of that rule. We also seek comment on the applicability of
the various political programming rules to each class of low power
service we might adopt, taking into consideration our statutory
mandate.
44. We also propose to treat low power radio stations like full
power stations with respect to protection against exposure to
radiofrequency radiation. We invite comment on this matter, and
specifically on whether and how we should treat LP100 stations
differently from LP1000 stations and, if so, why. We also seek comment
on how our environmental rules should apply to microradio stations, if
this low power radio class is adopted.
45. Operating Hours. Because we intend LP1000 stations to help new
entrants eventually participate in the full power radio industry, and
because these stations may be able to compete with full power stations,
we propose to require them to maintain the same minimum hours of
operation as are required of the lowest class of full-power stations:
generally two thirds of their authorized hours between 6 a.m. and
midnight. With respect to LP100 and microradio stations, however, a
combination of their lesser spectrum utilization, the nature of the
anticipated licensees and their services, and practical enforcement
concerns suggests at this time that a minimum operating schedule should
not be established unless and until experience shows it to be
necessary. Such a determination could also be affected by whether we
designate these as secondary services.
46. Construction, License Terms, Sales, and Renewals. We initially
believe that LP1000 stations should have the same construction period
(three years), and restriction on extensions, as full-power radio
stations. We believe that LP100 and microradio stations should be able
to be constructed in much less time and propose an eighteen-month
construction limit for LP100 stations and a twelve-month limit for
microradio stations. Also, we seek comment on whether to prohibit the
transfer of low power radio construction permits.
47. We propose that LP1000 stations follow the Part 73 rules
applicable to full-power radio stations with regard to the length of
their license terms and renewal procedures. However, we ask if there is
some regard in which their renewal process could be further simplified
appropriate to their status and the nature of their service, consistent
with statutory requirements. If there is little specific regulation for
LP100 and microradio stations, we query how often and how closely we
should actively monitor their performance, within the parameters of our
statutory responsibility (47 U.S.C. 307(a)).
48. We are open to comment on whether LP100 and microradio stations
should be authorized for finite non-renewable periods, such as five or
eight years, so that others may eventually take their turns at the
microphone. Making broadcast outlets available to more speakers is a
fundamental premise of this rule making effort, and we do not expect
that such a limitation would discourage the very modest investment
required to build such a station, particularly if the assets would be
readily transferable. We also seek comment on whether nonrenewable
licenses would contravene statutory provisions providing for a
``renewal expectancy'' for broadcast stations in Sections 309(k)(1) of
the Communications Act of 1934, and the renewal provisions of Section
307(c). We question whether these provisions direct the Commission to
accept renewal applications for all broadcast services, or instead set
the standards for the Commission to follow when it chooses to have
renewable licenses.
49. Emergency Alert System. Since we expect LP1000 facilities to
reach a significant number of people, we propose to treat them like
full power FM stations for the purposes of the Emergency Alert System
(EAS). By contrast, due to their extremely small coverage areas and
probably very small audiences, as well as their limited resources, we
propose that microradio stations not be required to participate in the
EAS. We request comment on these proposals and on how LP100 stations,
with their intermediate size and
[[Page 7583]]
audience reach, should fit into the EAS structure.
50. Station Identification. We ask commenters whether we should
adopt a call sign system that would identify a low power radio station
as such. Commenters should explain whether listeners benefit by having
an LPFM station's status identified through its call sign.
51. Inspection by the Commission and Compliance with its Rules. As
with full power broadcast stations, we propose that all LPFM stations
would be made available for inspection by Commission representatives at
any time during their business hours or at any time they are in
operation. Our rules provide for the Commission to immediately shut
down FM translator and booster stations, which are secondary, if they
cause any actual impermissible interference. We seek comment on whether
similar provisions should apply to LP100 and microradio stations if
authorized as secondary services.
H. Applications
52. Electronic Filing. We propose to require that LPFM and
microradio applications be filed electronically. Without electronic
filing, the Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the
necessary data entry for hundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly,
microradio) applications.
53. We seek information from commenters regarding the experiences
in other services which have adopted electronic filing, particularly
the availability of internet access for electronic filing and the
reliability of the process, and their view of the relevance of that
experience to what we have proposed here and the likely applicants for
LPFM channels.
54. We may be able to develop a system whereby the application
could first be analyzed against existing facilities and, perhaps, even
against previously filed applications, and thus acceptable for filing
based on current data. If we use a window filing system for low power
applications, the system could allow an applicant to avoid submitting a
conflicting application and thus avoid mutual exclusivity and the delay
which resolving such exclusivity might entail. The filing system could
also be designed to assist applicants in determining HAAT or
appropriate derating of permissible transmit power. Parties wishing to
operate LPFM (or microradio) facilities would benefit substantially,
and the public would receive service far earlier than it would
otherwise.
55. Filing Windows/Mutual Exclusivity. We propose to adopt a
processing system with short windows of only a few days each for the
filing of applications. We ask whether this would have advantages over
longer windows and over a first-come, first-serve procedure. We also
request comment on the optimal duration of any window that might be
adopted. We expect that short filing windows would lessen the
occurrence of mutually exclusive applications and speed service to the
public. We are concerned, however, about whether short filing windows
would result in a flood of applications in a short period that would be
so great as to overwhelm any filing system we might be reasonably able
to devise.
56. We note that electronic filing might give us the capacity to
ascertain the precise sequence in which applications are submitted by
different parties. This would allow us to use a first-come, first-serve
filing system, thereby preventing the accumulation of numerous mutually
exclusive applications. Such a process might avoid imposing a
considerable burden and expense on the Commission and the applicants,
and very greatly speed the initiation of new service. However, such a
system may have costs, limitations, and inequities that might be
avoided by the use of filing windows. Our consideration of this matter
would include our statutory ``obligation in the public interest to
continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold
qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid
mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.'' 47 USC
309(j)(6)(E).
57. Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications. We tentatively
conclude that auctions would be required if mutually exclusive
applications for commercial LPFM facilities were filed. See 47 USC
309(j). Commenters are welcome to address whether LPFM stations could
be excluded from the auctions requirement of Section 309(j) consistent
with legislative intent.
58. We seek comment on alternatives or modifications to the auction
procedure which could promote localism and community involvement by low
power and microradio stations. The Auctions Order, 63 FR 48615 (Sep.
11, 1998), sets forth new filing requirements for broadcast stations
which replace the previous filing procedures with a specific time
period, or auction window, during which all applicants seeking to
participate in an auction must file their applications. Prior to any
broadcast auction, we will release an initial public notice announcing
an upcoming auction and specifying when the filing window will open and
how long it will remain open. Initially, prospective bidders will
electronically file a short-form application, along with any
engineering data necessary to determine mutual exclusivity in a
particular service. Once the auction is completed, a long-form
application will be filed. We seek comment on the extent to which these
procedures are appropriate for LPFM.
59. Licenses for noncommercial stations are specifically exempted
from auction by the statute. We seek comment on the appropriate
selection methodology for applications for such channels. We have the
authority to resolve mutually exclusive noncommercial broadcast
applications by lottery. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in
MM Docket No. 95-31, 63 FR 58358 (Oct. 30, 1998), we explored possible
selection criteria and procedures for noncommercial educational
applicants for full-power FM service, including use of lotteries or of
a point system, and commenters are invited to address the issues raised
in that Further Notice. Commenters should provide a rationale for
disparate treatment of full-power and low power applicants.
III. Administrative Matters
60. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Notice proposes
the creation of a new, low power FM radio broadcast service.
Implementation of this service (e.g., issuing construction permits,
granting license assignment applications) may involve an information
collection requirement. We estimate that at least several hundred
parties may apply to construct LPFM facilities, and we may in the
future receive numerous license renewal and sales applications. In
addition, depending on the rules ultimately adopted, at least some
licensees may be required to complete several forms that full power
radio broadcasters submit, such as Forms 323 and 323-E (Ownership).
61. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collection that might be required, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice (i.e., April
12, 1999); OMB comments are also due April 12, 1999. Comments should
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
[[Page 7584]]
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to
Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov
and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
62. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before April 12, 1999, and
reply comments on or before May 12, 1999. Comments may be filed using
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
63. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. In
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full
name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
64. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,
TW-A306, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. The Mass Media Bureau contacts for this
proceeding are Paul Gordon and Bruce Romano at (202) 418-2120, or
pgordon@fcc.gov or bromano@fcc.gov, or Keith A. Larson at (202) 418-
2600, or klarson@fcc.gov.
65. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Paul
Gordon, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room
2C223, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1
for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied
by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The
diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name,
proceeding (including the docket number in this case (MM Docket No. 99-
25), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission,
and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should
also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a
single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette
copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
66. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. It is
anticipated that the Reference Center will be relocated to the
Commission's Portals Building during the late spring or early summer of
1999. Accordingly, and especially after March 1, 1999, interested
parties are advised to contact the FCC Reference Center at (202) 418-
0270 to determine its location. Written comments by the public on the
proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or before
April 12, 1999. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information
collections on or before April 12, 1999. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
67. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose''
requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as
revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in
accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally
prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of
the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the
views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR
1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and
written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).
68. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this
Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, is provided below and in
Appendix E of the Notice. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA, and must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
comments on the Notice, with a distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
69. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, please contact Keith A. Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief,
Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2600, or Bruce Romano or Paul Gordon,
Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1
the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the present Notice of
Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the IRFA provided above in
paragraph 95. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
[[Page 7585]]
Business Administration. See 5 USC 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 USC 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been
amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA
is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes
The Commission received petitions for rulemaking asking for the
creation of a low power radio service. Because they raised similar or
identical issues, the Commission coordinated its responses to them. The
Commission released Public Notices of its receipt of three of the
proposals and invited public comment on them.
In response to significant public support, the Commission is now
proposing to create a new, low power FM service. Specifically, it is
proposing two classes of LPFM service, a 1000-watt maximum class
(``LP1000'') and a 100-watt maximum class (``LP100''). We are also
asking whether to create a third class (called ``microradio''), which
would have a maximum power output of one to ten watts. Because of the
predicted lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations as
opposed to full power facilities, we expect that small entities would
be expected to have few economic obstacles to becoming LPFM licensees.
Therefore, this proposed new service may serve as a vehicle for small
entities and under-represented groups (including women and minorities)
to gain valuable broadcast experience and to add their voices to their
local communities.
Legal Basis
Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in
Secs. 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
USC 154(i), 303.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Rules Would Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.2 The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' 3 In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.4 A small business concern is
one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).5 A
small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
6 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.7 ``Small governmental jurisdiction''
generally means ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.'' 8 As of 1992, there were approximately
85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.9 This number
includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96
percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.10 The Census
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we
estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 5 USC 603(b)(3).
\3\ 5 USC 601(6).
\4\ 5 USC 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 USC 601(3).
\5\ Small Business Act, 15 USC 632 (1996).
\6\ 5 USC 601(4).
\7\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
\8\ 5 USC 601(5).
\9\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census
of Governments.''
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting
station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small
business.11 A radio broadcasting station is an establishment
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public.12 Included in this industry are commercial,
religious, educational, and other radio stations.13 The 1992
Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station
establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.
Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio
stations were operating in 1992.14 As of December 31, 1998,
Commission records indicate that 12,472 radio stations were operating,
of which 7,679 were FM stations.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4832.
\12\ 1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1, at Appendix A-9.
\13\ Id. The definition used by the SBA also includes radio
broadcasting stations which also produce radio program materials.
Separate establishments that are primarily engaged in producing
radio program material are classified under another SIC number,
however. Id.
\14\ FCC News Release, No. 31327 (Jan. 13, 1993).
\15\ FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of December
31, 1998'' (Jan. 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rules, if adopted, would apply to a new category of FM
radio broadcasting service. For the proposed service, the number of
stations that could be licensed without causing unacceptable
interference would depend on the interference criteria that we will
apply to the various classes of low power radio service. Should we
determine that second-and/or third-adjacent channel interference
protection would not be necessary to prevent unacceptable interference
to full power stations, then far more LPFM facilities could be
authorized. The number of stations that we could authorize is also
dependent upon the ratio of LP1000, LP100, and microradio stations for
which we would accept applications. For instance, the greater the
number of LP1000 stations, the less spectrum would remain available to
accommodate other LPFM facilities. This, in turn, would affect how many
new stations would be available to small entities.
The number of entities that may seek to obtain a low power radio
license is currently unknown. We note, however, that the Commission has
received over 13,000 inquiries in the past year from individuals and
groups interested in operating such a facility. In addition, we expect
that, due to the small size of low power FM stations, small entities
would generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring
them.
We seek comment and data regarding the number of small entities
that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
The Commission is proposing to create a new broadcasting service
that may allow hundreds or thousands of small entities to become
broadcast licensees for the first time. This endeavor would require the
collection of information for the purposes of processing applications
for (among other things) initial construction permits, assignments and
transfers, and renewals. Given the power levels and purposes of LP1000
stations (such as their potential to be an entry-level radio service),
we would likely require the same or similar reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements as full power radio broadcasters.
However, recognizing that LPFM 100 and microradio licensees may be
small, inexperienced operators who would be serving fairly limited
[[Page 7586]]
areas and audiences, we intend to keep this service as simple as
possible. Accordingly, we intend to keep reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements to a minimum. The Notice seeks comment on
these issues, including comment specifically directed toward the
possible effects of such requirements on small entities.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
We are proposing a low power radio service that is divided into
subclasses, defined by their power output (in watts): LP1000 and LP100.
We are also requesting comment on a possible microradio class of 1-10
watts. With this subdivision, small entities would be able to apply for
stations in the class that is most appropriate for their interests and
their ability to construct and operate a station. The Notice asks for
comment on the proposed classes and asks whether an alternative system
would better serve the public interest.
The Notice proposes ownership rules intended to assist small
entities construct or acquire LPFM stations. Parties with attributable
interests in any full power broadcast facilities would not be eligible
to have any ownership interest in any low power radio stations; this
would prevent large group owners (or even large single-station owners)
from constructing and operating LPFM facilities that might otherwise be
available to small entities. The proposed local and national ownership
restrictions of one station per community and five or ten nationwide
similarly would be intended to ensure that ample LPFM stations are
available for small entities. However, the ownership rules would also
prohibit small entity full power broadcasters from acquiring LPFM
licenses.
The Notice does not propose a local residency requirement on LPFM
licensees. Regarding LP1000 stations, it notes that full power stations
require neither local residency nor integration between ownership and
management to assess and address local needs and interests. Such a
restriction would also frustrate any attempt at achieving certain
efficiencies from national multiple ownership long recognized as
beneficial for full-power stations. Additionally, because the service
areas for LP1000 stations will be relatively small, a potential new
entrant might hold residency in a location where no LP1000 channels can
be found, so such a residency requirement might frustrate one of the
significant potentials of LP1000 stations. The same rationale can be
applied to LP100 and microradio stations. Moreover, we expect that the
nature of the service provided by the two smaller classes of stations
would attract primarily local or nearby residents. The Notice seeks
comment on these assumptions and resulting proposal.
The Notice requests comment on whether unlicensed operators, who
have broadcasted illegally, should be considered eligible to hold LPFM
licensees. Although we do not have data on this issue, we presume that
most of these illegal operators are individuals, small groups, or small
entities. As a result, our disposition of this issue could be of great
concern to this relatively small group, should they desire to operate
LPFM stations within the legal framework we are proposing. The Notice
asks whether unlicensed operators have the requisite character
qualifications to be Commission licensees. It also asks whether those
who have promptly ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do
so, or who voluntarily cease operations within ten days of the
publication of the summary of this Notice in the Federal Register,
should be considered differently in this regard.
The Notice also asks whether LPFM stations of each class should be
subject to the variety of other rules in Part 73 with which full power
stations must comply, such as the main studio rule, the public file
rule, and the periodic ownership reporting requirements. Given the
purposes and power levels of LP1000 stations, we tentatively conclude
that LP1000 licensees should generally meet the Part 73 rules
applicable to full power FM stations. However, we seek comment on
whether sufficient useful purpose would be served in applying each rule
to these licensees. The Notice states that we would be disinclined to
apply most of these service rules to microradio stations, and we
particularly seek comment with regard to the rules appropriate for
LP100 stations. Commenters are invited to discuss which existing rules
should apply or what new or modified rules would be more appropriate.
Because of the costs of complying with Commission rules, this issue
could be of importance in determining whether a small entity could
afford to operate an LPFM station.
The Notice proposes a mandatory electronic filing system,
envisioning an internet-based system that would provide substantial
assistance to potential applicants with little technical or legal
background. For example, we may be able to develop a system that could
inform a potential applicant what frequencies are available before an
application is filed. The Commission notes the increasing ease of
accessibility to the internet through private homes, public libraries,
and other publicly accessible places. Without electronic filing, the
Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the necessary
data entry for hundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly,
microradio) applications. A manual filing system might result in
applicants' not learning for many months (at least) whether their
applications were acceptable for filing. As a result, electronic filing
would provide superior service to LPFM applicants and speed service to
the public.
The Commission proposes to adopt a window filing system with short
filing periods of only a few days each, and it asks commenters to
address if that would have advantages over a first-come, first-served
system. One of the Commission's concerns is to reduce the number of
mutually exclusive applications, due to the resulting delay in service
implementation, and because Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, requires mutual exclusivity between or among
commercial broadcast applications to be resolved through auctions.
Also, Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, states that the Commission has the ``obligation, in the public
interest, to continue to use engineering solutions, threshold
qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid
mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.'' With
auctions, receiving an LPFM construction permit could become too
expensive for many of the people this service is intended to serve.
With regard to a first-come system, the Notice questions the fairness
of rejecting an application as unacceptable for filing because it would
be mutually exclusive with one filed only a moment earlier, possibly
solely because the latter party may have had a poor internet
connection.
Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules
The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not
overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.
Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules
The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not
overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.
[[Page 7587]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio Broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-3569 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
