[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33892-33901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MM Docket No. 98-93; FCC 98-117]
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Radio Technical
Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission seeks comment on proposals that would change
fundamentally the way it evaluates proposals that would create
interference in the FM band. It also seeks comment on whether the
contingent application rule should be modified to permit coordinated
facility modifications among broadcasters. The Commission proposes a
signal propagation methodology that more accurately takes into account
terrain effects to better predict where interference would not occur;
adoption of this methodology would permit certain applicants to obtain
greater service improvements. The Commission also proposes other
changes to promote greater technical flexibility in the FM service and
to streamline and expedite the processing of applications to modify
existing facilities in several services.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 21, 1998. Reply
comments are due September 21, 1998. Written comments by the public on
the proposed information collections are due on or before August 21,
1998.
ADDRESSES: All comments and reply comments should be addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of these pleadings also
should be sent to the Mass Media Bureau, Audio Services Division (Room
302), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and the Office of
General Counsel (Room 610), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 234,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--
17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to
fain__t@al.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Doyle, Dale Bickel or William
Scher, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2780. For
additional information concerning the information collections contained
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Document) contact Judy Boley at
(202) 418-1214, or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 98-93 and FCC No. 98-117,
adopted June 11, 1998 and released June 15, 1998. The complete text of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800 (phone), (202) 857-3805
(facsimile), 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Negotiated Interference in the FM Service
A. Introduction/Background
1. The Commission frequently has used the term ``negotiated
interference'' to describe agreements between or among stations to
accept new or increased interference within their protected service
contours, typically in connection with proposals to expand service by
one or several stations. The Commission generally has rejected attempts
by applicants to negotiate interference levels on a case-by-case basis,
holding that the selection of interference standards is a non-delegable
Commission responsibility. Nevertheless, the Commission has concluded
that the public interest would be served by modifying the contingent
application rule and AM cut-off procedures to facilitate coordinated
technical changes between AM stations. No parallel changes have been
adopted for FM applications, with the exception of certain
grandfathered short-spaced stations. Thus, the Commission has condoned
the use of agreements to promote service improvements in the
technically more difficult AM service, as well as agreements between
stations that operate, axiomatically, at spacings substantially less
than current new station requirements, while consistently rejecting the
use of these same agreements between fully-spaced FM stations where
interference concerns generally would be less. In short, current
Commission policy provides the least flexibility for technical facility
improvements in mid-sized major markets where FM broadcasters face the
greatest technical constraints to undertake such improvements.
B. Specific Proposals
i. Agreements Involving Applications for Coordinated FM Station Changes
2. Background. Section 73.3517 prohibits the filing of contingent
applications in the FM broadcast services.1 As stated above,
the Commission permits the filing of contingent applications to
facilitate interference reduction and service improvements by either
separately or commonly owned AM stations. The Commission has received
similar requests from FM stations that have entered into agreements
that propose ``coordinated'' or ``interrelated'' facility
[[Page 33893]]
relocations, modifications, and ``one-step'' upgrades and
downgrades.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rule does not differentiate between major and minor
changes. Amendment of Sections 1.517 and 1.520, 61 FCC 2d 38 (1976).
\2\ The commercial FM ``one-step'' processing rules were
designed to facilitate improvements by eliminating the necessity for
a petition for rulemaking in instances where licensees seek upgrades
on adjacent and co-channels, modifications to adjacent channels of
the same class, and downgrades to adjacent channel. One-step
applications are processed as minor change applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Discussion. We propose to allow the filing of contingent minor
change FM construction applications on a limited basis. We would
require that such applications be filed on the same date, and that each
include a copy of the agreement covering all related applications.
These related minor change applications would be processed and if
grantable, granted simultaneously. The construction permits would be
conditioned as necessary to allow an orderly implementation of non-
interfering service. If any application in the group could not be
approved, we propose to dismiss all applications filed as an
interrelated group. We would reject any coordinated agreement that, in
our determination, would not serve the public interest. We seek comment
on each aspect of this proposal.
4. We also propose to permit the filing of contingent proposals
that include one-step upgrade and downgrade applications. We
tentatively conclude that this change is consistent with the rationale
underlying the one-step policy. The ``opportunity'' for filing
competing proposals in this context is wholly dependent on two stations
reaching agreement on the coordinated facility changes. However,
stations are reluctant to pursue coordinated facility changes where
there is a possibility that a competing application could be filed. We
tentatively conclude that the potential preclusion of competing
allotment and minor change proposals is consistent with the public
interest, and that the proposed procedures are consistent with section
307(b) of the Act.
5. In addition, we tentatively conclude that contingent
applications should be limited to four related, simultaneously filed
applications. We seek comment on this limitation and whether a
different policy should apply where some or all proposals involve
stations under common ownership.
6. We also propose additional requirements when the coordinated
changes include cancelling an NCE FM station license. In 1990, the
Commission decided against establishing a specific local transmission
service floor with respect to our public interest evaluation of
contingent arrangements that propose to terminate AM facilities.
Instead we adopted guidelines that permit case-by-case evaluation of
such applications. We propose to apply AM interference reduction
principles to NCE FM agreements proposing the cancellation of an NCE FM
station license. Thus, proposals could not create white or gray
areas.3 In addition, agreements to terminate a community's
only local transmission service would be considered on a case-by-case
basis and would take into account the availability of other services
and the possibility of restoring local service with either an AM or FM
station. We seek comment on whether to establish a ``local service
floor'' to ensure that the granting of contingent applications does not
result in a loss of service that would be detrimental to the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A ``white'' area receives no full-time aural service, a
``gray'' area receives one full-time aural service. We note that
case law suggests that the Commission is precluded from allowing the
creation of any white or gray areas. See, e.g., West Michigan
Television v. FCC, 460 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Agreements Involving Applications That Would Cause New or Increased
Interference
7. Background. The Commission has been extremely reluctant to
permit the creation of interference within a station's protected
service contour, particularly where none currently exists. We have been
concerned that this policy would lead to further clustering of stations
in urban areas in contravention of section 307(b) of the Act. We also
have opposed such proposals on spectrum efficiency grounds and because
grant of interference-creating applications could effectively foreclose
facility improvements by stations receiving new interference.
Nevertheless, we believe that this technical streamlining initiative
provides an opportunity to reconsider our policy options in the context
of the technically simpler NCE FM and commercial FM services. Radio is
truly a mature service. Congestion in the FM band provides a major
technical impediment to the further ``urban clustering'' of stations.
Moreover, a station's core obligation to serve its community of license
will continue to limit transmitter relocations and service area
modifications. As a result, measures designed to give broadcasters
additional flexibility may raise lesser concerns at this time regarding
the ``fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service * *
*.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 U.S.C. 307(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. There are additional reasons to reconsider these policies at
this time. The financial and management sophistication of the radio
broadcast industry has grown dramatically in recent years, spurred by
fundamental changes in local ownership and the elimination of national
ownership restrictions. Moreover, both Congress and the Commission are
committed to relying to the greatest extent possible on competitive
communications markets rather than resource-intensive regulatory
policies to safeguard the public interest. In this environment, we seek
comment on whether it is possible to provide broadcasters some
additional flexibility under our technical rules to expand service
while at the same time establishing requirements to ensure that
negotiated interference agreements are limited to situations where
service gains would outweigh service losses and the creation of new
and/or expanded areas of interference.
9. Discussion. We seek comment on whether we should amend
Secs. 73.215(a) and 73.509 to permit applications that would result in
prohibited overlap and, therefore, interference based on the following
four criteria:
(1) Total interference received by any station from all interfering
stations must be no greater than five percent of the area and
population within each affected station's protected service contour;
(2) Total service gain must be at least five times as great as the
increase in total interference, in terms of both area and population.
Service gain would be defined as the difference between the current
service contour area and population, and the proposed service contour
area and population. Total service gain would be the sum of all service
gains for all stations included in the agreement. Interference increase
would be defined as the difference between the current interference
area and population, and the proposed interference area and population.
Total interference would be the sum of all interference increases and
decreases received by all affected stations and applicants, in terms of
area and population. Interference calculations would include
interference received by a proposal even if it occured beyond that
station's current service contour. If interference calculations made in
accordance with this criterion established that total interference
would be decreased, an applicant would be exempt from any service gain
requirement;
(3) No predicted interference can occur within the boundaries of
any
[[Page 33894]]
affected station's community of license; and
(4) Any application causing or receiving interference in an area
that previously received interference-free service would be required to
demonstrate the existence of at least five remaining aural services
within each interference area.
We request comment on each of these factors, including whether the
interference cap and gain/loss ratio strike an appropriate public
interest balance. Should the Commission adopt additional or fewer
restrictions? Should the Commission adopt separate service floor
requirements for commercial and NCE FM stations?
10. If a rule change is adopted, applicants would be required to
file coordinated facility modifications on the same date and clearly
cross-reference all associated applications. A copy of the written
consent of all stations receiving interference within their protected
service contour as a result of proposed facility modification(s) would
be submitted with the applications. Under this approach, we would amend
Form 301 to require applicants to certify compliance with these
negotiated interference standards and to submit supporting materials in
exhibit form. We believe that careful review of interference-creating
proposals filed pursuant to novel procedures would be particularly
warranted. We seek comment on this conclusion and whether the
Commission should rely on applicant certifications without supporting
exhibits. All non-reserved band applications would be required to
satisfy the less stringent Sec. 73.215(e) spacing requirements and all
construction permits granted to FM non-reserved band applicants would
be granted as Sec. 73.215 proposals. In addition, we would amend
Sec. 73.509 to prohibit second- and third-adjacent channel NCE FM
stations from proposing transmitter sites within an affected station's
63 dBu contour. This would prevent interference areas deep within a
station's service contour, and assure minimum distance separations
between stations, thus promoting fair and equitable distribution of
stations as required by section 307(b) of the Communications Act. We
seek comment on whether this NCE FM restriction is necessary to prevent
a deluge of modification applications that would shift service away
from less well-served areas. All construction permits granted pursuant
to these procedures would be conditioned on the simultaneous
implementation of all related proposals. We invite comment on each
aspect of this proposal.
11. To the extent that these procedures would result in the
favorable consideration of applications that propose new areas of
caused interference, they would also support changes in the way we
treat interference received. New areas of received interference can
result from a station's unilateral proposal to extend its own service
contour so that it overlaps the interfering contour of an authorized
station. In effect, such a proposal reflects a station's determination
that increased potential listenership outweighs a certain amount of
interference within its (expanded) service area. Typically, the new
area of interference affects potential listeners who were not predicted
to receive service previously. We seek comment on whether we should
permit such modifications provided that an applicant demonstrates
compliance with each of these requirements. However, no consent from
any other station would be required where the proposal would not result
in interference occurring within the service contour of any reserved
band station, any Sec. 73.215 station or any station operating with the
equivalent of maximum class facilities. Applicants that propose a
short-spacing to any other type of station would have to obtain consent
from such affected station to receive interference. If the affected
station chooses not to increase power simultaneously to a full-class
facility as part of the agreement with the applicant, the affected
station must request reclassification as a Sec. 73.215 licensee/
permittee. This ``Sec. 73.215 condition'' on the affected station's
authorization effectively would limit that station to its current
facilities (with regard to the applicant's proposal) and would prevent
subsequent unilateral increases by the affected station resulting in
interference caused to the applicant's improved facilities.
12. We seek comment on whether we should follow the methodology
adopted in the recent grandfathered short-spaced FM station proceeding
to determine areas of interference using the desired-to-undesired
signal strength ratio analysis and the standard F(50,50) and F(50,10)
propagation curves. Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM Stations, Report and
Order, 62 FR 50518, September 26, 1997. As noted therein, the ratio
method is the most appropriate method for determining areas of
interference. We seek comments on this view. Cochannel interference
would be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired
station's coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10)
field strength exceeds a value 20 dB below the desired (protected)
F(50,50) field strength. First-adjacent channel interference would be
predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's
coverage contour where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field
strength exceed a value 6 dB below the desired (protected) F(50,50)
field strength. Second- and third-adjacent channel interference would
be predicted to exist at all locations within the desired station's
coverage area where the undesired (interfering) F(50,10) field strength
exceeds a value 40 dB above the desired (protected) F(50,50) field
strength. We invite comment on these standards and the use of this
methodology.
13. We believe that consideration is warranted in this document of
the standards that would apply to waiver requests of the interference
rules proposed herein. Section 73.215 codifies a relief mechanism for
applicants to specify sub-standard spacings provided that certain
criteria are met. If an applicant cannot meet these standards, then
Sec. 73.207 distance separation requirements must control. We propose
to continue to follow this same procedure with regard to any
interference-related rule changes adopted pursuant to this document.
Specifically, in analyzing a request for waiver of Sec. 73.215(e), we
propose to measure the short-spacing in accordance with Sec. 73.207 and
to apply the traditional threshold three-part and public interest tests
developed in Sec. 73.207 jurisprudence. Similarly, with regard to
interference-creating proposals between or among consenting
broadcasters, the Commission would consider prohibited overlap in
accordance with established precedent. In no event would such an
applicant be entitled to a presumption that creating any interference--
much less five percent--within any station's protected service contour
would be in the public interest. We seek comment on these proposed
waiver policies.
14. A broadcaster's obligations to accurately prepare each facility
application, to truthfully complete each application certification, to
construct and operate facilities in accordance with its authorization,
and, generally, to adhere to the Commission's technical rules become
particularly significant where stations may create small amounts of
interference and where several facility modifications may be mutually
interdependent. We are fully committed to exercising our plenary
enforcement powers against applicants that enter into negotiated
interference
[[Page 33895]]
agreements where we find that application showings and/or
certifications have fallen short of Commission standards, regardless of
the time at which the application errors are brought to the
Commission's attention. In the event we adopt negotiated interference
procedures for FM stations, we propose to publish, as necessary,
decisions that explain or clarify these new procedures. We believe that
a program that combines strict enforcement and broad information
dissemination would promote full and candid disclosure of material
technical information in applications and compliance with our rules and
policies. We seek comment on this enforcement approach for negotiated
interference agreements. We also request that commenters identify
specific enforcement procedures that the Commission should follow and
the sort of sanctions that it should impose where an applicant provides
false or incomplete information in its application or where
construction is at variance to an authorization.
15. We seek comment on whether this proposal to permit small
amounts of interference in limited circumstances would protect service
to a station's community of license and would help preserve an adequate
service floor for all listeners. In particular, we invite public
comment on the following issues to help develop a better record on the
technical and policy issues that these proposals raise: (1) Would these
negotiated interference procedures sufficiently protect the interests
of listeners and licensees not party to an agreement?; (2) Could this
proposal result in service losses to smaller communities and/or less
desirable demographic audiences?; (3) Should negotiated interference
agreements between commercial stations be treated differently from
agreements between noncommercial educational stations?; (4) How might
this proposal affect the development and implementation of in-band on-
channel (IBOC) digital radio systems?; (5) Is there a danger that
negotiated interference agreements over time may lead to less
flexibility to make future changes when, for example, a transmitter
site is lost and a station must relocate?; (6) Is there reason to
believe that the accumulation of negotiated interference agreements
over a period of years could lead to a general degradation of FM
service in the United States?; (7) Is this negotiated interference
proposal consistent with section 307(b) of the Communications Act?; (8)
To what extent should the Commission rely on applicant certifications
to ensure compliance with negotiated interference agreement
requirements?; (9) Should the Commission require licensees to maintain
negotiated interference agreements in their local public inspection
files? Should they be filed with the Commission?; (10) Should the
Commission limit agreements to one or several license terms? Should an
agreement be terminable following the transfer of a station that
previously consented to interference within its service contour?; (11)
What remedies should the Commission and affected licensees have if a
station breaches its negotiated interference agreement?
II. Other Proposals To Give Stations Greater Technical Flexibility
A. The Point-to-Point Prediction Methodology
16. Background. Interference between FM stations is defined in
terms of protected and interfering contours. Because of the limited
length (3 to 16 kilometers) of the radials used to determine antenna
height above average terrain, the Commission's standard propagation
methodology does not accurately account for all terrain effects. In
1975, the Commission adopted a limited correction factor to measure
``terrain roughness'' to overcome the effects of terrain beyond 16
kilometers.5 However, the Commission later stayed the
general use of the terrain roughness factor (contained in Sec. 73.313
(f) through (j) and Figures 4 and 5 of Sec. 73.333) because of
difficulties with ``atypical terrain configurations.'' 6
Presently, the Commission does not accept supplemental terrain analyses
to determine predicted interference between FM stations. Thus,
applications proposing new or expanded service may be precluded
unreasonably where interference is predicted although, in fact,
unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Field Strength Curves, Report and Order in Dockets 16004 and
18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, 863 (1975).
\6\ Temporary Suspension of Certain Portions of Sections 73.313,
73.333, 73.684, and 73.699, FCC 75-1226, 56 FCC 2d 749 (1975), stay
extended indefinitely, 40 Rad. Reg. 2d 965 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Discussion. In Appendix B of this document, we set forth a
supplemental point-to-point (``PTP'') prediction model which under many
circumstances would provide for a more accurate prediction of
interfering contours. We propose that an applicant may use the PTP
method to calculate interfering contours for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance with the Commission's various overlap/
interference requirements.7 Such showings would be limited
to the relationships between the PTP predicted interfering contours and
the affected station's standard F(50,50) curve predicted protected
service contour. We also propose to permit the use of PTP methodology
to demonstrate compliance with the interference area and population
limits set forth above for negotiated interference agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Specifically, we refer to interfering contours calculated in
association with the Commission's overlap requirements for FM
commercial, NCE FM, and FM Translator stations (47 CFR 73.215,
73.509, 73.1204, respectively); overlap of the interfering contours
of intermediate frequency (IF) grandfathered short-spaced stations
(Sec. 73.213(b)); and the interfering contours utilized in showings
that involve undesired- to-desired (U/D) signal ratios in
conjunction with FM to TV Channel Six interference showings
(Sec. 73.525) and public interest showings related to pre-1964
grandfathered short-spaced stations (Sec. 73.213(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. We tentatively conclude that applicants should be permitted to
use the PTP methodology for certain other purposes. All commercial FM
stations must demonstrate compliance with the community of license city
grade coverage requirements of Sec. 73.315. Since the PTP methodology
more accurately incorporates the effects of terrain into the prediction
of coverage, we propose to permit the use of PTP calculations by both
applicants and objectors to resolve any questions raised regarding
compliance with Sec. 73.315 and to treat the PTP calculations as
controlling. We propose to require applicants to submit a PTP contour
study where terrain between a transmitter site and a community of
license could put in issue either the use of the standard methodology
or the station's compliance with city grade coverage requirements.
Existing stations that currently cover their community based on the
standard prediction method, but fail to satisfy the PTP methodology,
would be exempt from a PTP determination provided they do not propose
to relocate transmission facilities or withdraw coverage towards the
community of license. Additionally, we propose to allow PTP methodology
in two specific instances that require the calculation of 3.16 mV/m
coverage: (1) compliance with main studio requirements of Sec. 73.1125;
8 and (2) demonstration that an allotment, when
[[Page 33896]]
considered at maximum Class facilities, would comply with Sec. 73.315
with respect to the community of license (if use of a supplemental
method is warranted consistent with existing precedents). We seek
comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The staff currently entertains alternate prediction methods
in the context of main studio locations. However, in order to
warrant study, current commercial FM processing policy requires that
such showings may be submitted if they alter the 3.16 mV/m contour
by at least ten percent when compared to the standard prediction
method. In contrast, the staff can efficiently confirm that an
applicant has properly used the PTP methodology. Accordingly, we
propose to eliminate the ten percent method for PTP contour studies
that establish compliance with the Commission's main studio location
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.The PTP methodology is proposed in this document for the primary
purpose of demonstrating that the standard prediction method overstates
the area encompassed by a station's interfering contour. Thus, we
propose to prohibit the use of the PTP methodology to extend
interfering contours beyond the standard F(50,10) predicted curves for
the purpose of demonstrating harmful interference received. PTP
showings are not permitted in any of our international agreements and
thus could not be used to demonstrate compliance with international
requirements. We also propose not to permit the use of this methodology
to calculate protected service contours for the purposes of
demonstrating: (1) the lack or existence of overlap; or (2) compliance
or non-compliance with contour limitations for boosters, fill-in
translators, or auxiliary facilities. In addition, we propose not to
consider PTP showings in the context of demonstrating compliance with
the multiple ownership requirements of Sec. 73.3555. We seek comments
on each aspect of this proposal regarding the adoption and use of the
PTP methodology.
20. As noted above, we stayed the terrain roughness provision
because of difficulties with atypical terrain configurations. However,
this adjustment and the PTP prediction method would provide a more
sophisticated and not unduly burdensome method of assessing the effects
of a variety of terrain anomalies. Therefore, we propose to delete the
long-stayed terrain roughness provisions from Sec. 73.313(f) though (j)
and Figure 4 of Sec. 73.333 from the Commission's rules as they apply
to FM broadcast stations. We seek comment on these proposals.
B. Commercial FM Technical Requirements: Amendments to Sec. 73.215
i. Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements in Sec. 73.215(e) for
Second-and Third-Adjacent Channel Stations
21. Background. In 1989, the Commission adopted Sec. 73.215 to
afford FM applicants some additional flexibility in locating potential
transmitter sites. In response to concerns of spectrum overcrowding,
the Commission retained minimum but lesser spacing requirements for
Sec. 73.215 applicants. For second- and third-adjacent channel
stations, Sec. 73.215(e) generally limits the amount of relief from
Sec. 73.207 minimum distance separation requirements to no more than
three kilometers and in some cases provides no relief.9 As a
result, stations with second-and third-adjacent channel spacing
problems have, in many cases, less flexibility to relocate facilities
under Sec. 73.215(e) than under the former Sec. 73.207 waiver policies
that permitted the staff to grant spacing waivers of up to six
kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Specifically, out of 28 possible combinations between the
second-and third-adjacent channel stations, Sec. 73.215 provides 10
km relief to Class B1--C stations, and 9 km relief to Class C2-C
stations. In addition, four combinations have 3 km of relief, 14
combinations have 2 km of relief, five combinations have 1 km of
relief, and three combinations have no relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Discussion. We propose to revise the Sec. 73.215(e) spacing
table to afford all FM commercial stations a minimum of 6 kilometers of
relief from the applicable Sec. 73.207(a) standards. We also propose
that grants under this proposal would continue to be listed as a
contour protection construction permit. We seek comment on these
proposals.
ii. Additional Flexibility for Stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands
23. In 1993, the staff granted a request for waiver of
Sec. 73.215(a)(1) to permit an alternate method to define the protected
and interfering contours of certain stations in the Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico.10 We propose revising Sec. 73.215 to
incorporate the actual protected and interfering contours for Class A,
B1 and B stations set forth in St Croix Wireless Co. The proposed
modifications take into account the higher HAAT limits specified in the
rules for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, while affording stations
additional site location flexibility. We believe that this revision
would protect other stations from interference in excess of that which
may occur under our spacing rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See St. Croix Wireless Co., Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7329 (1993). In
St. Croix Wireless, Co., the permittee requested a waiver of
Sec. 73.215 as it defined the protected contour of a Class B station
as the 54 dBu contour. The permittee demonstrated that use of the 54
dBu contour for Class B stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands produced an anomalous result, affording vastly more
protection than the spacings provide. Instead, the permittee showed
that given the spacings and maximum facilities permitted in this
region, the normally protected contour of such stations is the 63
dBu contour, and the use of this contour for Caribbean stations
produces a result equivalent to that on the mainland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. New Class C Height Above Average Terrain Requirements
24. Background. A recent staff study reveals that many Class C
stations operate with facilities that are significantly less than
maximum. Specifically, the study reveals that 519 of the 863 FM
stations presently occupying Class C assignments, or approximately 60
percent, operate with facilities less than 450 meters HAAT. The fact
that such a large percentage of Class C stations are operating more
than 150 meters below one-half the maximum antenna height limitation of
600 meters HAAT indicates that the Commission's present allotment
structure overprotects a substantial number of Class C stations and,
therefore, may unnecessarily preclude proposals to introduce new and/or
expand existing services.
25. Discussion. We propose to create an additional intermediate
class of stations between Class C and Class C1, to be designated Class
C0 (Class C zero). Class C0 stations would have a maximum height
limitation of 450 meters HAAT and a minimum antenna height requirement
of 300 meters HAAT. Both classes of stations would be required to
maintain a power level of 100 kW, the present value for Class C
stations. Under this proposal, Class C stations would be required to
operate at a minimum antenna height of no less than 451 meters HAAT. We
would amend the FM distance separation tables to include the reduced
spacing requirements for the new station class. In order to provide a
reasonable opportunity for existing Class C stations not operating at
the proposed antenna height minimum to maintain their full Class C
status, we propose a three-year transition period to obtain a
construction permit specifying an antenna HAAT of at least 451 meters.
During the three-year period, each such station would be renewed on a
conditional basis. If the station has not obtained the necessary
authorization within the three-year period, then the station would be
reclassified as a Class C0 station. We seek comments regarding this
proposal, including comments that may shed light on the additional
service the proposed additional station class could create, the effect
of the loss of primary service areas for reclassified Class C0
stations, and whether creation of a temporary ``buffer zone'' to
protect the ability of existing Class C stations to upgrade during the
three-year transition period would be appropriate.
[[Page 33897]]
D. Streamlined Application Processing Changes
i. Extending First Come/First Served Processing to AM, NCE FM and FM
Translator Minor Change Applications
26. Background. Under our present rules, minor change applications
for non-reserved FM band broadcast stations are subject to ``first
come/first served'' processing, whereby a first-filed application cuts
off the filing rights of subsequent, mutually exclusive proposals.
Minor changes for AM, reserved FM band and FM translator stations do
not receive such cut-off protection, but remain subject to competing
proposals until the staff disposes of the applications. This policy
imposes significant uncertainty and delay on minor change applicants in
these services: at any time during the pendency of an application, a
conflicting proposal may be filed that could halt further processing of
the application and necessitate a technical amendment, settlement
between the parties or designation of the mutually exclusive
applications for comparative hearing.
27. Discussion. We propose to extend application of the first come/
first served processing system to AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor
change applications. We believe that the unlimited exposure to
conflicting applications and the concomitant expense and delay under
the current policy is both inequitable and inconsistent with our
treatment of minor changes for FM commercial band stations. We
anticipate that this proposal would effectively remedy the uncertainty
and delay presently associated with AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor
change applications. We invite comment on this proposal.
ii. Revisions to the Definition of ``Minor'' Change in AM, NCE FM, and
FM Translator Services
28. Background. Under our present rules, a proposed change in the
facilities of an existing commercial FM band station is classified as a
major change only if it involves a change in community of license and/
or certain changes in frequency and/or class. For AM, NCE FM and FM
translator stations, however, various other facility changes also are
classified as major changes: (1) for AM stations, most proposed
increases in power; (2) for NCE FM stations, any proposed change of 50
percent or more in the station's predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) coverage
area; and (3) for FM translators, any proposed change or increase of
over 10 percent in the 1 mV/m coverage area. Accordingly, facility
modification applications in these services may be subject to
additional administrative procedures.
29. We propose to expand the definition of minor change for the AM,
NCE FM and FM translator services to conform to the commercial FM
``minor change'' definition. Thus, only applications to change
community of license and to change to a non-mutually exclusive channel
and class would be classified as ``major'' changes.11 To
prevent NCE FM and FM translator stations from abandoning their present
service areas, however, we propose to require these stations to
continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of their presently
authorized 1 mV/m service areas in order for their applications to be
classified as minor changes. We tentatively conclude that this proposal
would eliminate the present inconsistent treatment of proposed
facilities increases for different radio services without undermining
the administration of any Commission rule or policy. We invite comment
on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We propose to continue to treat AM applications to change
from Class B to Class D as ``minor'' changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Coordinate Corrections by Single Application for Licensed Stations
30. Background. Presently, broadcast stations seeking to correct
coordinates must file a construction permit application, and after
grant, a license application.12 Coordinate corrections,
however, are generally considered to be minor changes to broadcast
facilities because they do not involve physical changes to the
facilities or a change in licensed parameters. We believe that for many
coordinate corrections the two-application procedure is unduly
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 47 CFR 73.1690(b)(2) and 73.3536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Discussion. We propose to adopt new provisions in Parts 73 and
74 to allow corrections of coordinates for broadcast facilities, where
no other licensed parameters are changed, via a single license
application. We also propose to require the applicant to certify that
all licensed parameters not altered in the license application would
remain unchanged. Under our proposal, the applicant would not be
required to file a separate construction permit. We propose to make
this procedure available where the correction would be less than 3
seconds latitude and 3 seconds longitude, provided that the applicant
has sought FAA clearance and antenna structure
registration.13 We seek comment on this proposal and whether
an alternative standard should be adopted. We also propose to continue
our policy of issuing public notices announcing the receipt of the
application, and the processing of the coordinate correction as if it
were a routine minor change application. However, in the event the
coordinate correction establishes a violation of our technical rules,
the Commission would retain a full range of options including the
designation of the license application for hearing and the issuance of
an order to show cause why the construction permit should not be
revoked. We propose to require any permittee that discovers an antenna
structure coordinate error to file an application to modify its
outstanding construction permit. We tentatively conclude that the
Commission may adopt this change in licensing procedures pursuant to
section 319(d) of the Communications Act. We seek comment on these
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In 1996, the Commission received comments in response to
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 96-58 requesting that
a rule be adopted to allow a coordinate correction in a modification
of license application, thereby eliminating the requirement for a
construction permit. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast
Facilities Without a Construction Permit, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 61 FR 15439, April 8, 1996. The Commission denied the
request stating that the proposed one-step procedure could invite
abuse by applicants ``correcting'' coordinates to a short-spaced
transmitter site or a site involving prohibited contour overlap. By
retaining the construction permit process, the Commission indicated
that the safeguards against abuse inherent in the construction
permit process would be not be lost. See Certain Minor Changes in
Broadcast Facilities without a Construction Permit, Report and
Order, 62 FR 51052, September 30, 1997. We now believe that limiting
one-step license application coordinate corrections to situations
involving less than 3 seconds of longitude and latitude would
provide adequate safeguards. We seek comment on this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. FM Translator and Booster Station Power Reductions by Single
Application
32. Background. We have found when reviewing license renewals that
many FM translator and booster stations are actually operating at a
power less than that specified in their license. In order to authorize
the reduced power operation, we now require licensees to go through the
two-step process. In addition, FM translator licensees may resolve an
interference complaint by a reduction in power. In this instance, the
two-step process delays the resolution of the interference problem.
33. Discussion. In order to expedite FM station license
modifications in these circumstances, we propose to eliminate the two-
step application process for FM translator and booster stations seeking
to decrease ERP. We tentatively conclude that recent changes
[[Page 33898]]
in section 319 of the Communications Act permit the Commission to adopt
this one step licensing procedure.14 We seek comment on this
view. In these instances, we would permit licensees to decrease their
ERP after the filing of a license application proposing the power
decrease. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In 1996, Congress amended section 319 of the Act to
authorize the Commission to waive the requirement for a construction
permit for minor changes in the facilities of authorized broadcast
stations. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,
Sec. 403(m), 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Relaxed NCE FM and Translator Technical Requirements
i. Second-Adjacent Channel Interference Ratios for Predicting
Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band
34. Background. The Commission's commercial FM station interference
protection standards require stations operating on the same channel or
any of the first three adjacent channels to meet certain minimum
distance standards. Like commercial FM stations, NCE FM stations are
protected from interference by stations operating on co- and the first
three adjacent channels under the rules. The NCE FM rules do not
specify minimum distance separation requirements. Actual, rather than
maximum class facilities are used to calculate whether prohibited
contour overlap would occur. Thus, the location of a station's service
and interfering contours determines the preclusionary impact of such
stations on other potential cochannel and adjacent channel facilities.
Although both commercial and NCE FM interference standards are derived
from a common methodology, the commercial rules use a less preclusive
100 dBu interfering contour to calculate minimum distance separations
for stations operating on second-adjacent frequencies.
35. Discussion. We propose to eliminate the inconsistency between
the commercial and NCE FM station interference protection standards.
Specifically, we propose to modify Secs. 73.509 and 74.1204(a) to
specify a 100 dBu interfering contour for second-adjacent channel NCE
FM and FM translator stations.15 We seek comment on this
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The 97 and 94 dBu interfering contours will be specified
for second-adjacent channel FM translator stations protecting class
B1 and B stations in the reserved band, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Minimum Coverage of the Community of License by NCE FM Stations
36. Background. The Commission's rules do not require NCE FM
stations operating in the reserved band (Channels 201 to 220) to place
a minimum field strength signal over their communities of license,
unlike their commercial counterparts. The Commission enacted this
policy based on the fact that many NCE FM stations operate at low power
levels and simply could not provide coverage to the entire area within
the legal boundaries of its community of license. The Commission also
recognized that NCE FM stations are generally dependent on listener
support, and may not have the financial resources to construct
facilities that serve the entire community of license. However, public
interest concerns are raised where an NCE FM station covers no portion
of its community of license with its 60 dBu contour. The association of
a broadcast station with a community of license is a basic tenet of the
Commission's allocation scheme for broadcast stations.
37. Discussion. We propose to delete the Note to Sec. 73.315(a) and
to add a provision requiring NCE FM stations to provide 60 dBu (1 mV/m)
service to at least a portion of the community of license. We believe
this proposal would give NCE FM applicants significant flexibility to
locate technical facilities, consistent with the Commission's statutory
licensing requirements. We seek comment on this proposal and on the
percentage of the population and/or area of the community that should
be covered. In the event that an NCE FM community coverage standard is
adopted, we propose to apply the rule only to new station and
modification applications filed after the effective date of this new
rule. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
iii. Revisions to Class D Rules
38. Background. The Commission created a low power NCE FM Class D
service in 1948, as an inexpensive means of encouraging the FM
broadcasting service and as a substitute for the ``campus broadcasting
systems'' then in use. By 1976, however, the demand for NCE FM licenses
had increased dramatically, prompting the Commission to initiate a rule
making proceeding to determine how to foster the most effective use of
NCE FM spectrum. The Commission concluded that Class D stations
constituted an inefficient use of spectrum, and adopted measures to
minimize their negative impact on the development of the NCE FM radio
service. Specifically, the Commission encouraged Class D stations to
upgrade to Class A status. It required Class D stations that did not
upgrade to migrate to a commercial FM channel or Channel 200, where
they would have secondary status. Those stations unable to migrate
would be required to move to the reserved band channel with ``the least
preclusionary impact on other potential stations[.]'' In addition, the
Commission ended Class D stations' protection against interference and
imposed a permanent freeze on applications for new Class D
stations.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This notice neither makes nor proposes any change to this
permanent freeze policy. We note that the Commission has requested
public comment on two rulemaking petitions to establish a low power
or microbroadcasting service. See Public Notice, Report No. 2254
(released February 5, 1998) (RM # 9208); Public Notice, Report No.
2262 (released March 12, 1998) (RM # 9242) (erratum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39.The Commission remains committed to promoting the full use of
the NCE FM channels. Congestion in the reserved band has increased
during the past twenty years, and demand for NCE FM licenses remains
high. Furthermore, a recent staff study reveals that a number of the
remaining Class D stations with reserved band authorizations are
causing interference to full service NCE FM stations.17 We
believe, therefore, that certain modifications to our Class D policies
are appropriate. We anticipate that the changes proposed herein would
serve the Commission's original objective while avoiding the
unnecessary cancellation of Class D licenses. In addition, we believe
that the proposed changes would simplify and expedite Class D station
licensing and renewal procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The study reveals that 38 of the 70 Class D stations with
reserved band licenses are causing interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Discussion. Under Sec. 73.512(a), Class D stations are required
with each renewal cycle to migrate to an available commercial channel
or Channel 200, or demonstrate the unavailability of such channels. We
do not believe the administrative burdens these requirements impose on
both licensees and the Commission staff are warranted where an existing
Class D station is operating on an NCE FM channel without objectionable
interference. Accordingly, we propose to permit Class D stations to
operate on any channel where no interference (as defined by
Sec. 73.509(b)) would be caused to any broadcast station, and to
eliminate the requirement that Class D licensees with reserved band
authorizations demonstrate the unavailability of any commercial FM
channel or Channel 200 in their license renewal applications. Under
this proposal, the staff would handle channel location issues as they
arise rather than addressing them as license renewal issues.
Furthermore, whereas the current rules require Class D stations to
migrate to available
[[Page 33899]]
commercial channels or Channel 200 and contain no provision for such
stations to move back to the reserved band, the proposed new rules
would allow existing Class D stations to relocate to any available
interference-free reserved or nonreserved channel in order to avoid
receiving interference from full power FM stations, or for any other
reason.
41. With regard to Class D stations that are causing or are
predicted to cause interference (as defined by Sec. 73.509(b)) on their
current channel, we propose to apply the following standards: first,
stations would be required to move to an available interference-free
channel; second, if no interference-free channel is available, stations
would be required to move to an NCE FM channel that would result in
only second- and/or third-adjacent channel contour overlap;
18 and third, if no channel is available that would be
either interference-free or create only second-and/or third-adjacent
channel interference, the station would be required to obtain the
consent of each affected NCE FM station subject to co- or first-
adjacent channel interference as a condition for continued operation.
Should there be a number of potential channels for an existing Class D
station in this situation to choose from, we propose to require
applicants to adhere to the following frequency selection criteria:
first, we would prefer overlap beyond an affected station's community
of license to overlap within the licensed community; second, we would
prefer third to second adjacent channel overlap; and third, we would
prefer overlap involving the smallest percentage of population in a
station's coverage area, so that there would be the least possible
adverse impact on the affected station. In conjunction with these
changes, we also propose to eliminate the ``least preclusion''
requirement, which is inadequately defined in the existing rules and
has proved impracticable. With regard to Class D stations presently
causing second or third adjacent channel overlap in the NCE FM band, we
invite comment as to whether such stations should be allowed to remain
on their present channels absent actual complaints of interference or
required to move in accordance with the standards proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The current rules define Class D stations operating in the
non-reserved band as ``secondary,'' and we propose no change in this
definition. See 47 CFR 73.506(a). For purposes of this Class D
channel displacement discussion, Channel 200 is treated as an NCE FM
channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. A recent staff study reveals that every Class D station
authorized to operate on a reserved band frequency has available at the
present time an NCE FM channel on which it could operate free of co- or
first-adjacent channel contour overlap. However, in the event that
changes in NCE FM authorizations create a situation where no channel
free of co- and first-adjacent channel interference is available, we
propose to require the Class D station to obtain the consent of the
affected NCE FM station(s) as a condition for continued
operation.19 In the event that no agreement is reached, the
Class D station would be required to cease operation when program tests
for the affected station commence, and would have up to one year to
obtain the required consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We would allow Class D licensees to obtain such consent not
only for the channel they are currently operating on but for any NCE
FM channel or Channel 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Revise Class D Definition Based on Transmitter Power Output.
The current rules define Class D stations as stations with transmitter
power output (``TPO'') of 10 watts or less. Higher class NCE FM
stations, however, are defined by their predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu)
contour distances, as determined by power and antenna height in
accordance with Sec. 73.211(b). We propose to conform the definition of
Class D stations to that of higher class NCE FM stations, by
eliminating the TPO restriction and instead defining Class D stations
as stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances not exceeding five
kilometers, as determined in accordance with Sec. 73.211(b). We are
aware of five Class D stations with predicted 60 dBu contour distances
exceeding the proposed five kilometer restriction. We propose to
grandfather such ``superpowered'' Class D facilities, permitting them
to continue to operate as Class D stations at their present power and
antenna height and to modify their facilities provided they do not
extend their predicted 60 dBu contour distances.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In this regard, we also propose to grandfather
``underpowered'' Class A facilities: Class A stations authorized
prior to the adoption of the Class A minimum power and antenna
height requirements in Sec. 73.511 which do not meet such
requirements. 47 CFR 73.211(a)(3). In practice, such stations
currently are treated as Class A facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Classify Construction Permit Applications as Minor Changes.
Certain Class D construction permit applications, including those
proposing operation on a new channel, are treated as major change
applications. We propose to consider all Class D facility applications
as minor change applications that would be processed under our more
efficient ``first come/first served'' procedures. In light of the
unprotected status of Class D stations, only other Class D applications
would be affected by this proposal, and mutually exclusive Class D
applications are extremely unlikely due to the low power and relatively
small number of Class D stations. By eliminating the 30-day public
notice period for Class D permit applications, we anticipate that this
proposal would expedite processing of such applications, conferring an
important benefit on displaced Class D stations.21
Consistent with the above, we propose to permit Class D stations to
propose changes of licensed community or of 50 percent or more of the
area within their predicted 1 mV/m contour areas provided their
applications demonstrate that they would maintain continuity of service
to their core audience. The present rules prohibit such changes in
order to prevent the establishment of ``new'' Class D stations. We seek
comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ We invite comment as to whether an application by a Class D
station proposing to upgrade to Class A status should be classified
as a major change. Arguably, a Class D to A upgrade should be
classified as a major change because it would confer protected
status on the subject station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Revise Contour Protection Requirements for Class B and B1
Stations. Section 73.509(b) requires Class D stations to protect the 1
mV/m (60 dBu) contour of all other broadcast stations, regardless of
class or location on the FM band. Commercial Class B and B1 FM
stations, however, traditionally have received greater protection to
their 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) and 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) contours, respectively.
Accordingly, we propose to modify Sec. 73.509(b) to require Class D
stations to protect commercial Class B and B1 stations, as well as NCE
FM Class B and B1 stations operating on commercial channels, to their
respective 54 dBu and 57 dBu contours. We invite comment as to whether
Class D stations that currently are required to protect the 60 dBu
contours of Class B or B1 stations but would not comply with the
proposed new standard should be permitted to continue to operate at
their present powers and antenna heights absent actual interference
complaints.
46. We invite comment on these Class D station proposals. Are they
warranted in the interest of improved NCE FM channel use? Would they
promote more efficient use of NCE FM channels? Should we apply to Class
D stations the ``actual interference'' standard applicable to FM
translators? Would the proposed changes sufficiently protect the
ability of Class D stations to continue to operate?
[[Page 33900]]
III. Procedural Matters
47. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Notice proposes rule and
procedural revisions that may contain information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under Sec. 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the
information collection requirements proposed in this proceeding. Public
and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments in this
Notice; OMB comments are due August 21, 1998. Comments should address:
(a) whether the proposed collection of 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
collection requirements proposed herein should be submitted to Judy
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,
N.W., 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.
48. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose''
requirements under Sec. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b).
49. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice.
A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
50. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain comments
concerning the Commission's proposed amendment of certain technical
rules and policies governing the radio broadcast services.
B. Legal Basis
51. Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice document may
be found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,
308, 309, and 310.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
52. RFA generally defines the term ``small entity `` as having the
same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,''
and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.22 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). A small
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 601(3). While we
tentatively believe that the SBA's definition of ``small business''
greatly overstates the number of radio broadcast stations that are
small businesses and is not suitable for purposes of determining the
impact of the proposals on small radio stations, for purposes of
this document, we utilize the SBA's definition in determining the
number of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply,
but we reserve the right to adopt a more suitable definition of
``small business'' as applied to radio broadcast stations subject to
the proposed rules in this document and to consider further the
issue of the number of small entities that are radio broadcasters or
other small media entities in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. The proposed rules and policies will apply to radio
broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The Small Business
Administration defines a radio broadcasting station that has no more
than $5 million in annual receipts as a small business. A radio
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. As of January 31,
1998, official Commission records indicate that 12,241 radio stations
were operating, of which 7,488 were FM stations. Thus, the proposed
rules will affect some of the 12,241 radio stations, approximately
11,751 of which are small businesses. These estimates may overstate the
number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are
based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-radio affiliated
companies.
54. In addition to owners of operating radio stations, any entity
who seeks or desires to obtain a radio broadcast license may be
affected by the proposals contained in this item. The number of
entities that may seek to obtain a radio broadcast license is unknown.
We invite comment as to such number.
D. Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
55. In addition to enhancing opportunities for improvement of radio
broadcast technical facilities and service, a number of the measures
proposed in this notice document would reduce the reporting required of
prospective and current applicants, permittees and licensees.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
56. This notice document solicits comment on a variety of
alternatives discussed herein. These alternatives are intended to
enhance opportunities for improvement of technical facilities and
service and eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens and delays
associated with our radio broadcast licensing processes. Any
significant alternatives presented in the comments will be considered.
[[Page 33901]]
F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
57. None.
Ordering Clauses
58. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309 and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,
308, 309 and 310, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order is
adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Radio, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 74
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16514 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
