Creation of a Low Power Radio Service; Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, 21002-21015 [2012-8404]
Download as PDF
21002
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, 705 Municipal Drive, Southampton, PA 17257.
Township of Washington
Maps are available for inspection at the Washington Township Building, 13013 Welty Road, Waynesboro, PA 17268.
6. On page 76059, under the
heading, the following text
should read as set forth below:
■
ADDRESSES
Borough of New Beaver
Maps are available for inspection
Borough of Wampum
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Hickory
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Mahoning
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Perry
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Pulaski
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Taylor
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Union
Maps are available for inspection
Township of Wilmington
Maps are available for inspection
at the New Beaver Borough Office, 778 Wampum New Galilee Road, New Galilee, PA 16141.
at the Borough Secretary’s Office, 355 Main Street, Wampum, PA 16157.
at the Hickory Township Hall, 127 Eastbrook-Neshannock Falls Road, New Castle, PA 16105.
at the Mahoning Township Municipal Building, 4538 West State Street, Hillsville, PA 16132.
at the Perry Township Hall, 284 Reno Road, Portersville, PA 16051.
at the Township Hall, 1172 State Route 208, Pulaski, PA 16117.
at the Taylor Township Board of Supervisors Office, 218 Industrial Street, West Pittsburg, PA 16160.
at the Union Township Board of Supervisors Office, 1910 Wilson Drive, New Castle, PA 16101.
at the Wilmington Township Hall, 669 Wilson Mill Road, New Castle, PA 16105.
[FR Doc. C1–2011–31276 Filed 4–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1501–05–D
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 99–25; MB Docket No. 07–
172, RM–11338, FCC 12–29]
Creation of a Low Power Radio
Service; Amendment of Service and
Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast
Translator Stations
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission adopts LPFM and
translator licensing policies that
conform to the Local Community Radio
Act (‘‘LCRA’’). The LCRA requires the
FCC to balance the competing demands
of LPFM and translator applicants when
making licensing decisions. Section 5 of
the Act requires the Commission to
ensure that: licenses are available for
both LPFM and translator stations;
licensing decisions are based on
community needs; and translator and
LPFM stations remain equal in status.
The item finds that a previously
adopted cap on translator applications
pending from Auction No. 83 is
inconsistent with the LCRA’s directives,
and adopts a market-specific processing
policy. The item finds that this
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
approach most faithfully implements
Section 5’s directives, and will allow
the Commission to resume the
processing of approximately 6,500
translator applications that have been
pending since 2003, while also ensuring
that the upcoming LPFM window will
provide a real opportunity for
significant community radio licensing
in major metropolitan areas.
The item also adopts national and
market caps to prevent the trafficking of
translator construction permits. Finally,
the item relaxes the May 1, 2009, date
restriction to allow pending translator
applications from Auction No. 83 that
are subsequently granted to rebroadcast
the signals of AM stations at night.
DATES: The amendment to 47 CFR
74.1232(d) of the Rules will be effective
May 9, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Doyle, (202) 418–2789. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Cathy Williams
at 202–418–2918, or via the Internet at
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Fourth
Report and Order (Fourth R&O), FCC
12–29, adopted March 19, 2012, and
released March 19, 2012. The full text
of the Fourth R&O is available for
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and may also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via
their Web site, https://www.bcpi.com, or
call 1–800–378–3160. This document is
available in alternative formats
(computer diskette, large print, audio
record, and Braille). Persons with
disabilities who need documents in
these formats may contact the FCC by
email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202–
418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
This Fourth R&O adopts new
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104–13, 109 Stat
163 (1995) (codified in 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520)). These information collection
requirements will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. The Commission will
publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register inviting comment on the new
information collection requirements
adopted in this document. The
requirements will not go into effect until
OMB has approved them and the
Commission has published a notice
announcing the effective date of the
information collection requirements. In
addition, the Commission notes that
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
it previously sought specific comment
on how the Commission might ‘‘further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.’’
Synopsis of Order
1. On July 12, 2011, the Commission
released a Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (‘‘Third Further
Notice’’) in this proceeding, seeking
comment on the impact of the
enactment of the Local Community
Radio Act of 2010 (‘‘LCRA’’) on the
procedures previously adopted to
process the approximately 6,500
applications that remain pending from
the 2003 FM translator window. There,
the Commission tentatively concluded
that the previously adopted translator
licensing procedures, which would
limit each applicant to ten pending
applications, would be inconsistent
with the LCRA’s goals. It proposed to
modify those procedures and instead
adopt a market-specific translator
application dismissal process,
dismissing pending translator
applications in identified spectrumlimited markets in order to preserve
adequate low power FM (‘‘LPFM’’)
licensing opportunities. It also sought
comment on whether, based on the
enactment of the LCRA, the Commission
should modify its rules permitting only
those translator stations authorized on
or prior to May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast
the signals of AM stations.
2. In this Fourth Report and Order, we
adopt the market-specific translator
application processing and dismissal
policies proposed in the Third Further
Notice, incorporating certain
modifications proposed by commenters.
These policies are designed to fully and
faithfully effectuate the licensing
directives set forth at section 5 of the
LCRA while also taking into account the
constraints of limited spectrum and
technical licensing requirements. We
are founding these procedures on our
extensive spectrum availability studies
set forth in Appendices A and B, which
establish that limited LPFM licensing
opportunities remain in many markets.
We have determined, based on these
studies, that the next LPFM window
presents a critical, and indeed possibly
a last, opportunity to nurture and
promote a community radio service that
can respond to unmet listener needs and
underserved communities in many
urban areas. As explained herein, we
find that it is necessary to dismiss
significant numbers of translator
applications in spectrum limited
markets to fulfill that opportunity.
Nevertheless, these procedures are also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
designed to facilitate to the maximum
extent possible the grant of the pending
translator applications in all markets—
whether spectrum is limited or
abundant. In adopting these procedures,
we note that neither the Commission
nor any commenter has identified a
fundamentally different approach that
would both satisfy section 5’s mandate
and permit the rapid and efficient
licensing of both LPFM and translator
stations. With regard to the 6,500
applications that remain pending from
the 2003 FM translator window, we also
adopt a national cap of 50 applications
and a market-based cap of one
application per applicant per market for
the 156 markets identified in Appendix
A to minimize the potential for
speculative licensing conduct. Finally,
we modify the May 1, 2009, date
restriction to allow pending FM
translator applications that are granted
to be used as cross-service translators.
3. In the Third Order on
Reconsideration, we also dismiss
petitions for reconsideration of the
Third Report and Order as they relate to
the now-abandoned ten-application cap
processing policy.
I. Discussion
A. Section 5 of the LCRA: Broad
Interpretive Principles
1. Background
4. The LCRA, signed into law by
President Obama on January 4, 2011,
expands LPFM licensing opportunities
by repealing the requirement that LPFM
stations be certain minimum distances
from nearby stations operating on
‘‘third-adjacent’’ channels. Section 5 of
the LCRA also sets forth criteria that the
Commission must take into account
when licensing FM translator, FM
booster and LPFM stations.
5. In the Third Further Notice, we
proposed to interpret section 5 to
establish the following broad principles:
D Section 5(1) requires the
Commission to adopt licensing
procedures that ensure some minimum
number of licensing opportunities for
both LPFM and translator services
across the nation;
D Read together with section 5(2),
section 5(1) requires the Commission to
provide licensing opportunities for both
services in as many local communities
as possible; and
D We tentatively concluded that our
primary focus under section 5(1) must
be to ensure that translator licensing
procedures do not foreclose or unduly
limit future LPFM licensing, because the
more flexible translator licensing
standards will make it much easier to
license new translator stations in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21003
spectrum-limited markets than new
LPFM stations.
6. In addition, we sought comment on
whether to consider existing stations in
making a ‘‘licenses are available’’
finding under section 5(1), pointing out
that because of the large number of
existing translators within the top 200
Arbitron-rated markets, ‘‘taking into
account existing translators … would
militate in favor of the dismissal of
[pending] translator applications, at
least in markets where there is little or
no remaining spectrum for future LPFM
stations or where substantially fewer
licensing opportunities remain.’’ We
tentatively concluded that the
suspended national cap of ten translator
applications per applicant in the
Auction No. 83 pool of pending
translator applications is inconsistent
with the statutory mandate to ensure
some minimum number of LPFM
licensing opportunities in as many local
communities as possible. Instead, we
proposed a market-specific process of
dismissing all pending translator
applications in certain spectrum-limited
markets in order to preserve a certain
number of LPFM licensing
opportunities, while allowing
processing of translator applications
outside those markets.
2. Comments
7. Among all the parties submitting
comments in response to the Third
Further Notice, there is broad support
for eliminating the cap of ten translator
applications and using market-specific
spectrum availability metrics to
implement section 5 requirements.
However, on the issue of interpreting
section 5, divergent arguments were
presented by translator supporters, on
the one hand, and LPFM supporters on
the other. Their positions are
summarized in the following sections,
addressing interpretive issues presented
by sections 5(1)–(3) of the LCRA. We
also note that Senators Cantwell and
McCain and Representatives Doyle and
Terry, the original sponsors of the
LCRA, submitted a letter expressing
their support for our interpretation of
section 5 of the LCRA and for our
proposed approach to effectuating the
statute.
a. Section 5(1)—Ensuring That Licenses
Are Available
8. LPFM advocates support our view
that section 5(1) of the LCRA requires
the Commission to ensure that the
processing of translator applications
does not preclude future opportunities
for new LPFM licenses. Prometheus
cites to the Congressional history of the
LCRA and the Sponsors’ Letter to
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
21004
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
support this position. LPFM supporters
contend that Congress intended that the
Commission take existing licenses into
account when assessing whether its
licensing procedures would ensure that
licenses are available rather than
establish a ‘‘going forward’’ only
standard that ignores legacy licensing.
LPFM advocates also argue that section
5(1) requires the Commission to
preserve a significant number of
licensing opportunities for new LPFM
stations in all markets where this is
possible.
9. Translator supporters disagree with
these positions. These commenters
oppose an interpretation of section 5(1)
that, in their view, would favor LPFM
stations over translators and urge the
Commission not to devise licensing
procedures to redress perceived
imbalances in past licensing. NPR
argues that our proposal unduly favors
future LPFM service at the expense of
the pending FM translator applicants by
taking into account the number of
existing LPFM and translator stations.
NPR also argues that ‘‘ensuring that
licenses are available’’ includes current
and future FM translator station
applicants. Similarly, EMF notes that
the LCRA never ‘‘directly’’ references
applications from Auction No. 83, and
emphasizes Congress’ use of ‘‘new’’ at
the beginning of section 5 to argue that
section 5(1) ‘‘requires that ‘new’ licenses
for both translators and LPFM stations
be made available.’’ NAB argues that a
policy of dismissing translator
applications where translators but not
LPFM stations could be located would
counter section 5(1)’s mandate that
licenses be available for translator
stations.
b. Section 5(2)—Assessing the ‘‘Needs of
the Local Community’’
10. Commenters are divided also in
interpreting section 5(2) of the LCRA.
LPFM advocates suggest that section
5(2) should be interpreted as a mandate
favoring localism, and in particular
LPFM stations, which they argue
provide the greatest localism benefit of
any broadcast service. Indeed,
commenters note that the LPFM service
was established in part to address the
perceived loss of local programming
during a period of significant radio
consolidation. Some parties argue that
translators, which do not originate
programming, fail to serve local
community needs and are not truly
local, while LPFM stations better serve
the goals of localism. LPFM proponents
also suggest that, when making
licensing decisions, the Commission
could address the needs of local
communities by considering
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
demographic data. Specifically, they
argue that urban communities, well
served by commercial and
noncommercial services, have less need
for translator services and more need for
local community-level programming,
while rural communities, poorly served
by full-service facilities, have need for
both translators and LPFM stations.
11. On the other hand, translator
advocates argue that translators can
serve the needs of the local community
and note that the Commission and
Congress have found that to be the case.
For example, translators can provide
emergency information, as well as
regional and state news. Translators can
also serve the local community by
providing a format not currently
available in that area. Thus, they argue
it is wrong to assume that LPFM stations
better serve local community needs than
do translators. NPR criticizes our
analysis of section 5(2) on the ground
that we focused on the differences
between translators and LPFM stations,
rather than focusing on how both
services serve the needs of the local
community by expanding the
programming choices available to
listeners. NPR also argues that some
communities might actually have a
greater need for a translator than for an
LPFM station because a translator may
be filling a coverage gap for a significant
full-power station. Common Frequency
replies that urban communities served
by multiple translators have more need
for a first LPFM station.
c. Section 5(3)—‘‘Equal in Status’’
12. The Third Further Notice noted
that section 5(3) refers specifically to
‘‘stations’’ rather than to ‘‘applications,’’
suggesting that it could be applied only
to existing stations and that future
LPFM applications could have priority
over pending FM translator
applications. However, the Third
Further Notice also recognized that the
Commission had used the terms
‘‘stations’’ and ‘‘applications’’
interchangeably in discussing the ‘‘coequal status’’ of LPFM stations and FM
translator stations and that the
Commission had framed this issue in
terms of whether to follow or waive the
current ‘‘cut-off’’ rules which protect
prior-filed Auction No. 83 translator
applications from subsequently-filed
LPFM station applications. The Third
Further Notice stated that it seems
reasonable to assume that Congress
intended the same meaning when it
used the word ‘‘station’’ in the LCRA.
13. Translator proponents argue that,
for regulatory purposes, the terms
‘‘stations’’ and ‘‘applications’’ are
interchangeable. Translator proponents
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
argue that either changing the
Commission’s market-based approach or
waiving the cut-off rules in favor of
future-filed LPFM applications would
not be consistent with section 5(3).
Mullaney Engineering argues that the
services are not ‘‘equal in status’’ if
LPFM applicants are allowed to
invalidate the cut-off protection rights of
previously-filed translator applications.
NPR likewise believes that waiving cutoff rules to give preference to later-filed
LPFM applications would violate the
‘‘equal in status’’ mandate. Other
translator supporters express concern
that this approach would
disproportionately favor the licensing of
future LPFM stations and thereby
violate section 5(3)’s equal in status
mandate. They claim that trying to make
LPFM and translators equal in numbers
would suppress translator licensing and
artificially encourage unwanted LPFMs.
14. LPFM supporters disagree, arguing
that, while the grant of a station license
conveys certain vested and statutorily
protected interests to a licensee, those
interests do not attach to a pending
application. Prometheus argues that
section 5(3) does not refer to the cut-off
rule, but instead merely requires that
translators and LPFM stations be
secondary to full-service stations and
equal to each other. Prometheus further
asserts that section 5(3) does not
prohibit the Commission from giving
LPFM applicants priority over translator
applicants, particularly when read in
the context of section 5(2)’s requirement
that licensing serve the needs of local
communities and section 307(b)’s
requirement that the Commission
distribute radio service in the public
interest. Prometheus states that the
Commission should balance the two
services by aiding in the development of
LPFM.
15. Other LPFM advocates argue that
the cut-off protection rule is a regulatory
custom that the Commission can waive
if it serves the public interest. Some
commenters argue for giving LPFM
stations priority because translators
consume valuable radio spectrum while
failing to provide original local
programming. LPFM advocates also
argue that the Commission must
compensate for the ‘‘head start’’ that the
translator service has to the
comparatively new LPFM service.
Commenters further argue that the
current rules favor translators. Some
suggest that, in order to achieve a true
equality between the LPFM service and
translators, the technical rules
governing the LPFM service should be
changed to match those of translators.
Common Frequency contends that
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
section 5(3) calls for a goal of equal
spectrum for each service.
3. Analysis
16. We adopt the interpretations of
the three section 5 licensing standards
proposed in the Third Further Notice. In
its broadest terms, section 5(1) clearly
requires the Commission to ensure that
some minimum number of FM
translator and LPFM ‘‘licenses are
available’’ throughout the nation when
licensing new FM translator and LPFM
stations. We also find that section 5 is
most reasonably interpreted to require
consideration of existing licenses. As we
observed in the Third Further Notice,
the word ‘‘new’’ appears in the first
clause of section 5 but not in
subparagraph 1, suggesting that we
should consider the availability of both
new and existing stations in ensuring
that ‘‘licenses are available’’ for both
services. In addition, our interpretation
is consistent with the title of section 5,
‘‘Ensuring Availability of Spectrum for
Low-Power FM Stations,’’ as well as the
Commission’s longstanding license
allocation policies under section 307(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (‘‘Act’’), which directs the
Commission to ensure ‘‘a fair, efficient,
and equitable distribution of radio
service’’ ‘‘among the several States and
communities.’’ In contrast, interpreting
section 5 to require us to license new
translator and LPFM stations without
regard to the number of operating
stations in each service, as EMF
advocates, would be inconsistent with
ensuring the availability of spectrum for
both services, as well as section 307(b)’s
direction. We also find support for our
interpretation in the comments of LPFM
advocates discussed above.
Accordingly, we conclude that the
mandate of section 5(1) to ensure that
‘‘licenses are available’’ is reasonably
interpreted to require consideration of
both existing and future licenses in the
translator and LPFM services when
licensing new stations in those services.
17. We reject arguments that
interpreting section 5(1) to require
consideration of existing licenses is
unreasonable because such an
interpretation would ‘‘favor’’ LPFM
licensing. The LCRA necessarily
requires the Commission to make
choices between licensing new LPFM
and translator stations in some cases,
given that the two services compete for
the same limited spectrum. Making such
choices based on the overall spectrum
available to each service does not
‘‘favor’’ one service over the other. On
the contrary, the fact that our
interpretation of section 5(1) enables us
to account for the present disparities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
between the two services in terms of the
number of licensed stations supports its
reasonableness. We also reject EMF’s
argument that the LCRA ‘‘says nothing’’
about the processing of the applications
which remain pending from the 2003
translator window because it does not
expressly address them. These
applications are unquestionably subject
to section 5 requirements which apply
‘‘when licensing new FM translator
stations * * * .’’ Rather, we agree with
NPR that the language of section 5(1)
encompasses pending as well as future
applications.
18. We also adopt our proposed
interpretation of sections 5(1) and (2)
together to require that LPFM and
translator licenses be available in as
many ‘‘local communit[ies]’’ as possible,
according to their needs. We recognize
that translators and LPFM stations both
serve the needs of communities, albeit
in different ways, and conclude that we
must take these factors into
consideration in implementing section
5(2). In particular, translators, which are
inexpensive to construct and operate,
can effectively bring service to rural and
under-served areas. LPFM stations, on
the other hand, which typically utilize
volunteer staffs, operate under great
budget constraints, and serve smaller
geographic areas, may be less effective
in meeting the needs of small
communities and areas of low
population density. Translators also are
essential components of local and
regional transmission systems that
efficiently deliver valued programming
to listeners. Nevertheless, as we
explained in the Third Further Notice,
the Commission has historically
accorded no weight to translators in
assessing the comparative needs of a
community for radio service under its
section 307(b) licensing policies. In
contrast, the LPFM service was created
‘‘to foster a program service responsive
to the needs and interests of small
community groups, particularly
specialized community needs that have
not been well served by commercial
broadcast stations.’’ Numerous LPFM
service and comparative licensing
criteria are designed to promote these
goals. These criteria include a
requirement that licensees be local, a
licensing preference for those applicants
with an established community
presence, and a licensing preference for
those applicants that pledge to locally
originate at least eight hours of
programming per day. In addition,
ownership restrictions and time-share
rules necessarily result in expanded
ownership diversity. Based on these
factors, we find that LPFM stations are
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21005
uniquely positioned to meet local needs,
particularly in areas of higher
population density where LPFM service
is practical and sustainable.
19. We also adopt our tentative
conclusion that our primary focus under
section 5 must be to ensure that
translator licensing procedures do not
foreclose or unduly limit future LPFM
licensing, because the more flexible
translator licensing standards will make
it much easier to license new translator
stations in spectrum-limited markets
than new LPFM stations. Our marketspecific analyses, which are set forth in
Appendices A and B, establish that few
LPFM licenses have been issued and
limited LPFM licensing opportunities
remain in many markets due to the
relatively inflexible LPFM technical
rules and high spectrum utilization. In
contrast, given the more flexible
translator licensing standards and the
limited LPFM licensing opportunities in
many markets, the next round of LPFM
licensing will have only a modest
impact on licensing opportunities for
future translator stations. Thus, our
principal challenge in effectuating the
mandates of sections 5(1) and 5(2) is to
identify and preserve LPFM licensing
opportunities where few or no LPFM
stations currently operate. We note that
this goal is fully consistent with
Congress’s decisions to eliminate third
adjacent channel distance separation
requirements and to permit second
adjacent channel spacing waivers, and
thereby, expand the LFPM service.
20. Our interpretation of section 5 has
clear implications for the translator
processing and dismissal procedures we
adopt in this proceeding. These
procedures must be responsive to two
different situations. The first concerns
markets where, taking into account both
licensed stations and the potential for
additional stations, ample LPFM
licensing opportunities are present.
Procedures in these markets must
balance translator and LPFM licensing
in a manner that ‘‘ensures’’ a level of
future LPFM licensing that the
Commission determines is sufficient to
satisfy statutory requirements.
Secondly, in markets where insufficient
spectrum remains to satisfy these
requirements, the translator processing
and dismissal procedures, including
amendment and settlement procedures,
should preserve all identified LPFM
licensing opportunities, i.e., should
facilitate the grant of only those
translator applications that would not
diminish or ‘‘block’’ future LPFM
licensing in these markets.
21. On the other hand, we agree with
NAB that, consistent with our statutory
interpretation, our policies should seek
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21006
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
to avoid the dismissal of translator
applications where LPFM stations
‘‘cannot’’ be licensed. We note that,
however, that capacity to identify such
situations is limited. The FM database is
dynamic, with LPFM filing
opportunities being created, eliminated
or modified daily due to FM application
and allotment filings. Moreover, revised
LPFM technical licensing rules that are
now under consideration will materially
affect licensing opportunities. Given the
limited LPFM licensing opportunities in
many markets, the modest impact that
LPFM licensing will have on future
translator licensing in those markets and
the difficulties in establishing with
certainty that a translator application
‘‘cannot’’ preclude an LPFM filing, we
conclude that adoption of a conservative
processing regime that fully protects
scarce spectrum for future LPFM
stations would be consistent with
section 5, read as a whole.
22. We adopt our tentative conclusion
that the nationwide ten translator
application-cap dismissal policy we
established prior to the LCRA’s
enactment is inconsistent with section 5
because it would not provide a certain
and effective way to ensure that LPFM
‘‘licenses are available’’ for local
communities in many markets. Under
that policy, translator applications that
prevent or ‘‘block’’ LPFM licensing
opportunities would likely be eligible
for processing in markets where the
need for LPFM licensing opportunities
is greatest and spectrum most limited.
Based on the market-specific analyses
set forth in Appendices A and B, we
also conclude that no or limited useful
spectrum for LPFM stations is likely to
remain in numerous specific radio
markets where typically few or no
LPFM stations now operate unless
translator dismissal procedures reliably
result in the dismissal of all ‘‘blocking’’
translator applications.
23. With regard to section 5(3), we
asked in the Third Further Notice
whether the requirement that translator
and LPFM stations remain ‘‘equal in
status’’ prohibits waivers of the LPFM
cut-off rule, which prioritizes pending
FM translator applications over laterfiled LPFM applications, explaining that
such an interpretation would require the
Commission to dismiss any pending FM
translator applications that it
determines must make way for LPFM
licensing opportunities, rather than
deferring action on such applications
and later processing any that remain
pending after the completion of
dismissal and settlement procedures
adopted to implement section 5. We
identified several factors that support
such an interpretation. The cut-off rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
are a principal characteristic of the two
services, establishing their ‘‘equal’’
status as to each other. While
acknowledging that section 5(3) refers to
‘‘stations,’’’ we noted in the Third
Further Notice that the Commission has
used ‘‘stations’’ and ‘‘applications’’
interchangeably in considering whether
to give priority to applications filed in
the upcoming LPFM window, a central
issue in this proceeding since 2005.
Thus, we explained, section 5(3) could
be reasonably interpreted to prohibit
waivers of the LPFM cut-off rule.
24. Prometheus disagrees with this
reasoning, pointing out that the ‘‘plain
language’’ of section 5(3) does not refer
to the Commission’s cut-off rules. It
contends that section 5(3) merely
‘‘authorizes the existing arrangements
between licensed LPFM and translator
stations as they relate to full-service
stations. Both can be displaced by
primary stations but neither can
displace the other; and in this sense
these stations should remain equal.’’
Prometheus concludes that section 5(3)
is not a bar to giving priority to LPFM
applications filed in the upcoming
window. Based on this interpretation,
Prometheus advocates a processing
policy under which action on certain
translator applications would be
deferred. Those applications that remain
pending would be subject to dismissal
if a conflicting LPFM application is
filed. Prometheus, however, also
recognizes that the translator dismissal
procedures proposed in the Third
Further Notice would be permissible
under Prometheus’s differing section
5(3) interpretation.
25. We are not persuaded that
Prometheus’s narrow interpretation of
section 5(3) is reasonable. For the
reasons discussed above, we believe that
the equality mandated by section 5(3)
`
for FM translator stations vis-a-vis
LPFM stations is most reasonably
interpreted to encompass applications
as well as authorized stations in order
to be meaningful. That view is
consistent with the Commission’s
treatment of the issue of the relative
status of LPFM and translator stations
prior to the LCRA’s enactment, and
nothing in the legislative history
supports a contrary interpretation. Our
interpretation also is consistent with the
fact that the section 5 mandates apply
‘‘when licensing new FM translator
stations, FM booster stations and lowpower FM stations.’’ That is, section 5
as a whole concerns the processing of
applications. Thus, we believe that
Prometheus’s interpretation is
inconsistent with section 5(3) when it is
considered in the context of section 5 as
a whole.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26. Although we find that the ‘‘equal
in status’’ requirement of section 5(3) is
most reasonably interpreted to bar
LPFM cut-off rule waivers, we need not
resolve this issue. Assuming arguendo
that we could give priority to LPFM
applications filed in the upcoming
window over pending translator
applications, we nevertheless conclude
that the processing regime we adopt
herein more rapidly and efficiently
effectuates the LCRA’s goals than would
Prometheus’s alternate approach. Most
importantly, it avoids the translator
licensing delays that would result from
a deferral approach. Under such an
approach, all translator application
processing would remain frozen until
all LPFM applications are on file and
have been analyzed. Only at that point
could the Commission attempt to
process ‘‘non-conflicting’’ translator and
LPFM applications simultaneously. In
addition to these delays, translator
grants under Prometheus’s approach
would have to be conditioned on
subsequent LPFM licensing decisions,
with the risk of displacement
potentially discouraging or delaying
construction efforts. Alternatively, the
Commission could delay translator
application processing until initial
licensing actions from the LPFM
window are substantially completed, a
process that would likely take a number
of years. In contrast, as set forth in detail
below, our tailored market-specific
processing scheme is likely to allow the
rapid licensing of at least one 1000
additional translator stations. Thus, we
agree with the sponsors of the LCRA
that the approach we adopt herein
‘‘takes into account the needs of
translator applicants’’ as well as
potential LPFM applicants.
27. We also conclude that the
approach Prometheus advocates would
be administratively burdensome and
resource intensive. Prometheus’s
approach would require the
Commission to identify with certainty
the potential preclusive impact of
pending LPFM window filings in order
to determine which deferred FM
translator applications may be acted on,
yet the potential for LPFM application
amendments and settlements would
make it difficult to identify with
certainty the breadth of the potential
preclusive impact of pending LPFM
window filings. Moreover, Prometheus’s
approach could lead to inequitable
treatment of FM translator applications
filed in the same window, with the
opportunity for technical amendments
resulting in certain translator
applications that are deemed ready for
processing before others receiving
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
preferential access to limited spectrum.
Thus, we conclude for policy reasons
that the problems associated with
deferring action on pending FM
translator applications that otherwise
would be subject to dismissal under the
policies we adopt herein substantially
outweigh any benefits.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Implementing Section 5 of the LCRA:
Proposed Market-Based Processing
Policy
1. Background
28. Having tentatively concluded that
the ten-application cap dismissal policy
would run contrary to the LCRA’s
mandate, the Commission considered
three alternative processing regimes and
tentatively concluded that a marketspecific, spectrum availability-based
translator application dismissal policy
would most faithfully implement
section 5 of the LCRA. To determine
LPFM opportunities in major markets,
the Bureau undertook a nationwide
LPFM spectrum availability analysis.
The Bureau studied all top 150 radio
markets, as defined by Arbitron, and
smaller markets where more than four
translator applications are pending. It
centered a thirty-minute latitude by
thirty-minute longitude grid over the
center-city coordinates of each studied
market. Each grid consisted of 961
points—31 points running east/west by
31 points running north/south. The
Bureau analyzed each of the 100 FM
channels (88.1 mHz—107.9 mHz) at
each grid point to determine whether
any channels remained available for
future LPFM stations at that location.
Only channels that fully satisfied co-,
first- and second adjacent channel
LPFM spacing requirements to all
authorizations and applications,
including pending translator
applications, were treated as available.
The area encompassed by the grid was
designed to approximate ‘‘core’’ market
locations that could serve significant
populations. The results of that analysis
were presented in the Third Further
Notice, and identified the number of
channels (‘‘LPFM Channels’’) currently
available for LPFM use in each studied
market. In calculating ‘‘available’’ LPFM
channels, it included both the identified
vacant channels and those channels
currently licensed to LPFM stations
which are authorized to operate at
locations within each market’s thirtyminute latitude by thirty-minute
longitude grid.
29. The Commission proposed to
dismiss all pending applications for
new FM translators in any market in
which the number of available LPFM
Channels was below a specified LPFM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
channel floor (a ‘‘dismiss all’’ market),
and to process all pending applications
for new translators in markets in which
the number of available LPFM channels
met or exceeded the applicable LPFM
channel floor (a ‘‘process all’’ market).
In proposing the channel floors, the
Commission was guided by the number
of top 150-market NCE FM full power
stations, noting that this service was
most comparable to the LPFM service.
•
•
•
•
Markets 1–20: 8 LPFM Channels
Markets 21–50: 7 LPFM Channels
Markets 51–100: 6 LPFM Channels
Markets 101–150 and, in addition, smaller
markets where more than 4 translator
applications are pending: 5 LPFM
Channels
30. The Commission sought comment
on the methodology of its study, and
whether a market-tier approach was a
reasonable means for effectuating both
section 5(1) and 5(2) directives. It also
sought comment on whether use of
Arbitron market-based assessments as
used therein was reasonable for
purposes of implementing section 5 of
the LCRA, and tentatively concluded
that a market-based analysis would
provide a reasonable ‘‘global’’
assessment of LPFM spectrum
availability in particular areas. It sought
comment on whether defining the
section 5(2) term ‘‘local community’’ in
terms of markets was reasonable and
whether it was appropriate to use the
same definition for LPFM and translator
purposes.
31. The Commission also sought
comment on whether it should impose
restrictions on the translator settlement
process in the ‘‘process all’’ markets to
ensure that engineering solutions to
resolve application conflicts would not
reduce the number of channels available
for LPFM stations in these markets.
Finally, in order to preserve the status
quo during the pendency of this
proceeding, it proposed to suspend the
processing of any translator
modification application that proposes a
transmitter site for the first time within
any market that has fewer LPFM
channels available than the proposed
channel floor. It also imposed an
immediate freeze on the filing of
translator ‘‘move-in’’ modification
applications and directed the Bureau to
dismiss any such application filed after
the adoption of the Third Further
Notice. It noted that the freeze would
continue until the close of the upcoming
LPFM filing window, but would not
apply to any translator modification
application which proposes to move its
transmitter site from one location to
another within the same spectrum-
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21007
limited market. It sought comment on
these proposals.
2. Comments
32. With a few exceptions, most
commenters generally agreed that some
form of the Commission’s market-based
approach was an acceptable
methodology to carry out the mandate of
section 5. However, many commenters
suggested modifications to the proposal.
Some commenters suggest changes that
would potentially foster more
opportunities for LPFM stations (which
could result in the dismissal of more
pending FM translator applications),
while others favor processing more
translator applications from the 2003
window (which also could result in
fewer LPFM opportunities). We discuss
them in turn below.
a. Defining the Market and Channel
Floors
33. Prometheus and other LPFM
proponents suggest that the Commission
analyze the top markets using a smaller
grid (21x21), arguing that the 31x31 grid
studies an area ‘‘far too large to
adequately evaluate spectrum
availability in most urban areas.’’
Prometheus and REC each note that
many available LPFM opportunities are
located in sparsely populated (or
unpopulated) areas on the fringe of the
31x31 grid. LPFM advocates likewise
urge the Commission to separately
evaluate named cities in hyphenated
Arbitron markets, to set higher channel
floors, to count only channels (and not
locations) as counting toward a channel
floor, and to only count new licensing
opportunities when assessing LPFM
channel availability.
34. Translator advocates largely
disagree with these suggestions. NPR
and NAB assert that a 21x21 grid
‘‘provides a skewed analysis of market
conditions’’ and would violate the
LCRA mandate that the two services
remain equal in status because it would
result in the dismissal of more translator
applications. Indeed, they maintain that
even the Commission’s proposed 31x31
grid is too small, and argue that use of
Arbitron market boundaries would
provide a more accurate measure of
current LPFM and FM translator station
locations and potential LPFM licensing
opportunities. EMF and other translator
proponents likewise disagree with
Prometheus’s view that only channels
should apply to the channel floors,
maintaining that potential ‘‘locations’’
for LPFM stations should also count. By
looking solely at channels, EMF
maintains that the Commission is
understating the number of potential
LPFM stations that could actually be
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
21008
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
constructed in the market. It argues that
if LPFM is truly a localized service to
small populations, channel re-use
within a market is ‘‘to be expected.’’
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. Translator Amendment and
Settlement Procedures
35. In ‘‘Dismiss All’’ Markets. NAB
and others assert that we should process
translator applications where an
application grant would not obstruct a
particular LPFM opportunity or where a
dismissal would not create an
additional LPFM opportunity. LPFM
advocates oppose these suggestions.
With respect to the former, they argue
that this proposal in practice would
likely result in the loss of significant
LPFM licensing opportunities. With
respect to the latter, they argue that the
second-adjacent waiver process will
create many LPFM opportunities in
markets that otherwise appear to have
no available LPFM channels (such as
New York and Chicago). Common
Frequency further urges the
Commission to take into account LP–10
availability and the potential for
intermediate frequency (‘‘I.F.’’) and
second adjacent channel waivers in
determining whether a particular
translator application could preclude an
LPFM licensing opportunity.
36. In ‘‘Process All’’ Markets. NPR and
others argue that the Commission
should not restrict the ability of pending
translator applicants to make minor
amendments to their applications,
arguing that circumstances may have
changed considerably since their
applications were filed in 2003. NAB
argues that the Commission should
allow applicants to choose other
channels as part of the settlement
process, so long as the availability of
LPFM opportunities is not reduced
below the LPFM channel floor for that
market. It does not, however, propose
procedures to select among competing
translator applicants while also
safeguarding the pertinent LPFM
channel floor. It notes that in many
‘‘process all’’ markets, the number of
available LPFM channels far exceeds the
channel floor.
37. LPFM advocates disagree, arguing
that the ‘‘availability of settlements
negates the FCC’s systemic approach to
defining clear channel floors.’’ Common
Frequency maintains that the
availability of settlements ‘‘provides for
an open-ended scenario where
translator applicants could effectively
cherry-pick the best channels, leaving
the channels at the edges of the gridarea for LPFM applicants.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
3. Analysis—Revised Translator
Application Processing and Dismissal
Policies
38. Despite the divergence of views
about interpreting the LCRA, there is
relatively broad agreement with respect
to our proposal to effectuate section 5
with market-specific spectrum
availability metrics. Significantly, no
commenter provided a comprehensive
statutory interpretation pointing to a
fundamentally different approach.
Accordingly, we adopt, with certain
modifications, the market-specific
processing approach outlined in the
Third Further Notice. As discussed
above, our principal challenge in
effectuating section 5(1) of the LCRA is
to identify and preserve those LPFM
licensing opportunities where few or no
LPFM stations currently operate. The
processing approach we adopt today
furthers this goal by ensuring that LPFM
licensing opportunities in spectrumlimited markets remain ‘‘available.’’ At
the same time, we adopt translator
application and amendment procedures
that will permit the immediate licensing
of certain pending translator
applications in both ‘‘dismiss all’’ and
‘‘process all’’ markets, consistent with
section 5(1) and 5(2) directives and the
procedures set forth below. To conform
our terminology to the revised
processing standards, we will use the
names ‘‘spectrum limited’’ and
‘‘spectrum available’’ markets to refer to
what were previously characterized as
‘‘dismiss all’’ and ‘‘process all’’ markets,
respectively.
39. We believe certain modifications
are necessary to better ensure that our
licensing decisions are based on
community needs, as required by
section 5 of the LCRA. As we noted in
the Third Further Notice and as
discussed above, LPFM stations are best
suited to serve more densely populated
markets. We have reviewed our grid
studies and have determined that in
some smaller ‘‘spectrum available’’
markets, many of the channels
identified as available for LPFM are on
the fringe of the 31x31 grid in
unpopulated or very lightly populated
areas. Indeed, in some cases, the
population of the 21x21 grid represents
more than 90 percent of the population
of the 31x31 grid. We believe that LPFM
stations can best serve the needs of local
communities in areas with significant
populations where LPFM service is
practical and sustainable. Accordingly,
we find that adoption of a smaller grid
is appropriate in certain markets to
compensate for low population levels
on the outer fringes of the grid. We
believe that use of a smaller grid in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
these markets will more faithfully
implement section 5(2) of the LCRA
than our original proposal because it
identifies and preserves LPFM
opportunities in core city areas, where
the LPFM service can best serve
community needs. We likewise find that
this revised approach is more faithful to
our interpretation of sections 5(1) and
5(2) of the LCRA. As set forth above,
these sections, when read together,
require us to ensure a certain level of
future LPFM licensing in ‘‘spectrum
available’’ markets. However, we believe
that licensing opportunities identified
as ‘‘available’’ in these smaller markets
should be limited to those locations that
are likely to be able to support viable
LPFM stations. Our adoption of a 21x21
grid in certain markets will enable us to
more accurately identify such
opportunities.
40. Different considerations apply to
the largest markets. Our analysis
establishes that there are few or no
LPFM licensing opportunities within
the core areas of most of the top 50
markets, especially when compared to
the number of licensed translator
stations and the number of pending
translator applications in these markets.
Using the methodology set forth in
paragraph 41 below, we have
determined that only seven of the top 50
markets which are classified as
‘‘spectrum limited’’ exhibit the high
population concentrations within the
grid that occur in a number of smaller
markets. That is, based on both raw
population numbers and population
distributions, the largest markets are
more likely to include population
centers outside core market locations
that LPFM stations could serve. Thus,
we find that our translator processing
procedures must not preclude LPFM
licensing opportunities beyond the
studied 31x31 grids in the top 50
spectrum limited markets.
41. We have modified the LPFM
spectrum availability study set forth in
the Third Further Notice as follows. As
before, we identified the number of
available LPFM channels and licensed
stations within the 31x31 grid and
compared this number to each market’s
channel floor. These results are set forth
in Appendix A. We then analyzed
‘‘spectrum available’’ markets to
identify those where 75 percent or more
of the total population in the 31x31 grid
is located in the 21x21 grid. In these
markets, the smaller grid contains the
concentrated core population and, for
the reasons explained in paragraph 39
above, we used the smaller grid to
determine both the number of licensed
stations and the number of channels
available for future LPFM stations.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, ‘‘spectrum available’’ markets are
those markets in which the number of
LPFM channels within the applicable
grid meets or exceeds the market’s
channel floor. The results of our market
studies using the 21x21 grid, where
applicable, are presented in Appendix
B. We did not subject the 31x31
‘‘spectrum limited’’ markets to the
21x21 population threshold test for
several reasons. First, any such market
would necessarily remain a ‘‘spectrum
limited’’ market on the basis of a 21x21
grid analysis. More importantly, the
31x31 grid analysis in each of these
markets establishes that few
opportunities remain within the larger
grid for new LPFM stations. Thus, we
find that it is necessary that our
‘‘spectrum limited’’ market translator
application processing rules, as
described below, protect all of the
limited LPFM licensing opportunities
within the larger grid in such markets.
In addition, for the reasons stated above,
we also will require a translator
applicant in any top 50 spectrum
limited market to demonstrate that its
out-of-grid proposal would not preclude
the only LPFM station licensing
opportunity at that location (‘‘Top 50
Market Preclusion Showing’’) by making
the showing described below. We note
that the analyses in Appendices A and
B are based on updated BIA data,
resulting in several changes from the
analysis attached to the Third Further
Notice, including the addition of three
radio markets listed in the appendices
and the removal of two markets
previously listed in Appendix A.
42. We next consider other proposed
‘‘tweaks’’ to our methodology.
Prometheus and REC first urge us to set
higher channel floors, arguing that,
given the ‘‘overstatement of LPFM
availability in the Commission’s
methodology, the proposed floors are
too low to achieve the envisioned LPFM
license availability.’’ They assert that
there are a number of unknown factors
in determining LPFM availability,
including suitability and availability of
the site, population levels, and demand
for LPFM at these locations.
43. We believe that our adoption of
the smaller grid in those markets with
a core concentrated population largely
addresses these concerns because it
excludes from our analysis LPFM
opportunities in areas with little or no
population. It is also the case that our
studies demonstrate that multiple grid
points are available for many of the
identified channels and that more than
one LPFM station can operate on
identified channels in some markets.
We find that these factors adequately
counter-balance uncertainties regarding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
site availability, site suitability and local
demand for LPFM licenses. We will also
continue to count both identified vacant
channels and those channels currently
licensed to LPFM stations as
‘‘available.’’ Excluding currently
licensed LPFM channels from our
‘‘available LPFM channels’’ findings, as
proposed by Prometheus and REC,
would be inconsistent with our
interpretation of section 5(1) to require
consideration of existing licenses as part
of the ‘‘licenses are available’’ metric.
Moreover, eliminating licensed
channels from consideration would not
create many (if any) new LPFM
opportunities because it would not
convert any top 50 ‘‘spectrum available’’
market into a ‘‘spectrum limited’’
market. Finally, we decline to break out
hyphenated Arbitron markets into
separate submarkets, as suggested by
REC and others, because we believe that
ample LPFM opportunities remain in
most submarkets. Also, without clear
delineation within the markets, there
would be no reasonable way of
determining which translators would be
processed, should two cities within a
market have different spectrum
available/spectrum limited outcomes.
44. NAB does not oppose the channel
floors, per se, but urges us to count both
channels and locations toward the
channel floors. We reject this
suggestion. As Prometheus notes, the
Commission cannot determine whether
there is demand for a future LPFM
station at any identified location.
Moreover, as we have emphasized
previously, this may be the last
opportunity to meaningfully expand
opportunities to provide LPFM service
due to the combined impacts of limited
spectrum and the strict technical
licensing standards mandated by the
LCRA. In contrast, and as we also
explained in the Third Further Notice,
flexible translator licensing rules ensure
that abundant translator licensing
opportunities will remain after the
forthcoming LPFM window. Thus,
consistent with the broad interpretive
principles set forth above, we find that
it is appropriate to use conservative
techniques to assess LPFM availability
in a given market, including counting
available LPFM channels, not locations.
45. In the Third Further Notice, we
proposed ‘‘LPFM Channel Floors’’ of
potential LPFM licensing opportunities
in the 150 largest markets, as well as
smaller markets where more than four
translator applications are pending.
These channel floors range from 8
potential LPFM channels in the top 20
markets to 5 potential LPFM channels
below the top 100 markets. We based
these figures on a rough approximation
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21009
of the number of noncommercial
educational (‘‘NCE’’) stations in the top
150 markets. We selected the NCE FM
service as a point of reference because
that service is the radio service most
similar to the LPFM service and,
therefore, the best gauge of local
community needs for such service.
Commenters who addressed our
proposed channel floors disputed
neither our reasoning nor the specific
ranges of channel floors or markets
selected for those ranges. Thus, based
on our examination of the record, we
conclude that the proposed channel
floors are a reasonable standard. We
find that these floors adequately further
the development of the LPFM service in
spectrum-limited markets, as intended
by section 5(1) of the LCRA, and strike
an effective balance by ensuring that
licenses for both LPFM and translator
services are available in as many
communities as possible, as required by
our collective reading of sections 5(1)
and 5(2) of the LCRA. Accordingly, we
adopt the channel floors as proposed in
the Third Further Notice.
46. We will, however, revise our
processing approach with regard to
certain translator applications in both
‘‘spectrum limited’’ and ‘‘spectrum
available’’ markets. As an initial matter,
we recognize that our use of the 21x21
grid in certain markets has turned some
‘‘spectrum available’’ markets into
‘‘spectrum limited’’ markets. For the
reasons discussed above, we find that
translators serve community needs,
especially those in rural or underserved
areas. As such, we agree with NAB that
translator applicants in ‘‘spectrum
limited’’ markets should be given an
opportunity to demonstrate that their
applications, if granted, would not
preclude any LPFM opportunities. We
also will permit minor amendments to
meet this ‘‘no preclusion’’ test.
Translator applicants proposing ‘‘movein’’ modifications and modification
applications that propose to move into
a ‘‘spectrum limited’’ market will also
be allowed to make such a showing.
This approach is also consistent with
our combined reading of sections 5(1)
and 5(2) because it furthers the statutory
goal of ensuring that the Commission
provide licensing opportunities for both
services in as many communities as
possible. Prometheus and others fail to
explain how this narrow exception to
allow continued translator processing in
a ‘‘spectrum limited’’ market will
preclude LPFM opportunities, given
that, as described in more detail below,
we will require translator applicants to
protect all channel/point combinations
with the assumption that all LPFM
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
applicants in these markets will be
eligible for second-adjacent channel
waivers. We likewise agree that
translator applicants in ‘‘spectrum
available’’ markets should be afforded
some opportunity to amend their
applications. As noted by many
translator advocates, circumstances
have changed since 2003, and
transmitter sites may no longer be
available. As described in more detail
below, we will provide applicants with
a limited opportunity to amend their
applications so long as their proposals
do not eliminate any LPFM channel/
point combination in any of the 156
market grids and, where applicable,
satisfy the Top 50 Market Preclusion
Showing. We do not believe that
allowing translator applicants these
limited opportunities to amend their
applications will impede our ability to
guarantee licensing opportunities
equivalent to the LPFM channel floors
we adopt herein.
47. Accordingly, we direct the Bureau
to issue a public notice requiring all
applicants affected by the national
application cap and/or the one
application per applicant per market
limitation (discussed below) to identify
applications for continued processing,
consistent with these limits. The
auctions anti-collusion rule will remain
in effect during this process. Upon
completion of this selection/dismissal
process, the Bureau will process the
remaining applications in ‘‘spectrum
available’’ markets, starting with the
singletons. Mutually exclusive
applications from this group will then
be placed on public notice and afforded
a 60–90 day window to resolve their
application conflicts via settlement or
amendment. Any amendment of an
application that precludes any LPFM
channel/point combination identified in
the grid studies will result in
application dismissal. Amendments will
be processed on a first-come, firstserved basis, with all unamended
applications having cut-off protection
against amendments filed during the
settlement period.
48. Applicants with proposals in
‘‘spectrum limited’’ markets will be
given one opportunity to modify their
proposals to eliminate all preclusive
impacts on protected LPFM channel/
point combinations. An applicant in a
top 50 ‘‘spectrum limited’’ market
proposing facilities outside the studied
31x31 grid also will need to
demonstrate either that no LPFM station
could be licensed at the proposed
transmitter site or, if an LPFM station
could be licensed at the site, that an
additional channel remains available for
a future LPFM station at the same site.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
Applications that conflict with
protected channel/point combinations
or fail to make such a Top 50 Market
Preclusion Showing and that are not
amended to come into compliance with
these requirements will be dismissed.
As explained above, applications in
31x31 grid ‘‘spectrum limited’’ markets
must protect all channel/point
combinations within this grid.
Applicants in 21x21 grid ‘‘spectrum
limited’’ markets must protect all
channel/point combinations only within
this grid. We limit ‘‘spectrum limited’’
grid protection requirements in these
markets because, as noted above, we
believe that this standard will protect
those areas where LPFM stations can
best serve the needs of local
communities and, therefore, will most
faithfully implement sections 5(1) and
5(2). From this point, all remaining
applications will generally proceed
down the same singleton/MX/
settlement/auction/long form path.
Amendments will be processed on a
first-come, first-served basis, including
for the purpose of determining whether
an additional LPFM channel remains
available at a specific location outside
the grid. We terminate the freeze on the
grant of pending Auction No. 83
translator applications and direct the
Bureau to resume application
processing in accordance with these
procedures.
49. We provide the following
guidance on translator application
processing. ‘‘Protected’’ LPFM channel/
point combinations will be determined
differently in ‘‘spectrum available’’ and
‘‘spectrum limited’’ markets. In a
‘‘spectrum available’’ market, a channel/
point combination must be protected
only if LPFM operations at the site
would be fully spaced to all pending
translator applications on co-, first- and
second-adjacent channels (and, of
course, would satisfy all other spacing
requirements). Thus, a translator
applicant in a ‘‘spectrum available’’
market that does not modify its
technical proposal would always qualify
for further processing because the
proposed translator facility cannot
conflict, by definition, with any
protected channel/point combinations.
‘‘Spectrum available’’ market
amendments, however, may not conflict
with protected LPFM channel/point
combinations. ‘‘Spectrum limited’’
calculations, including Top 50 Market
Preclusion Showing calculations, will
assume the dismissal of all translator
applications in the market. This
differing treatment of pending translator
applications is based on our
determination that sufficient channels
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
are/are not available if all translator
applications remain pending. Moreover,
the ‘‘spectrum limited’’ channel/point
and Top 50 Market Preclusion Showing
calculations, will not take into account
second-adjacent channel spacings to
authorized stations and other pending
applications, i.e., will assume that an
LPFM applicant could make a sufficient
showing to obtain a second-adjacent
channel spacing waiver. Finally,
‘‘spectrum limited’’ calculations will
not take into account I.F. spacing
requirements. We find that these more
restrictive ‘‘spectrum limited’’ market
processing standards are necessary to
safeguard LPFM licensing opportunities
in these markets. As noted, the
protection scheme for ‘‘spectrum
available’’ markets 1–50 and for all
other studied markets are limited to the
particular grid used in each market.
LPFM licensing opportunities outside
the grid in these markets are not
protected in either ‘‘spectrum limited’’
or ‘‘spectrum available’’ markets. Thus,
a translator application specifying a site
at a distance equal to or greater than the
minimum LPFM-translator distance
separation requirements and otherwise
in compliance with licensing rules
would be grantable under these
processing standards in all ‘‘spectrum
limited’’ markets 51 and smaller and all
‘‘spectrum available’’ markets.
C. Prevention of Trafficking in
Translator Station Construction Permits
and Licenses
1. Background
50. The Third Further Notice
tentatively concluded that our proposed
market-based translator application
processing policy would not be
sufficient to deter speculative licensing
conduct because the remaining
translator filings present significant
issues of abuse of our licensing process.
It tentatively concluded that nothing in
the LCRA limits the Commission’s
ability to address the potential for
licensing abuses by any applicant in
Auction No. 83, and sought comment on
processing policies to deter the potential
for speculative abuses among the
remaining translator applicants.
Specifically, it sought comment on
whether to establish an application cap
for the applications that would remain
pending in non-spectrum limited
markets and unrated markets, and asked
whether a cap of 50 or 75 applications
in a window would force filers with a
large number of applications to
concentrate on those proposals and
markets where they have bona fide
service aspirations. The Third Further
Notice also asked whether applicants
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
should be limited to one or a few
applications in any particular market,
noting that a limitation of this sort could
limit substantially the opportunity to
warehouse and traffic in translator
authorizations while promoting
diversity goals. It also sought comment
on alternative approaches to protect
against abuses in the translator licensing
process.
2. Comments
51. Many commenters support some
form of cap, with several supporting a
cap of 50 or 75 per applicant nationally,
as proposed in the Third Further Notice.
Alan W. Jurison suggests that such a
high cap should be coupled with new
translator ownership rules and a waiver
system to allow bona fide applicants to
file numerous applications nationally.
Others support our suggestion of having
a cap on the number of applications per
market. Kyle Magrill suggests a tiered,
market-based cap whereby the more
applications an applicant files
nationally, the further the number of
applications per market must decrease.
52. However, EMF opposes any cap at
all, believing it will reduce translator
services to smaller markets. Other
commenters argue that caps fail to
distinguish serious applicants from
speculators and suppress competition.
Some commenters simply disagree with
the concerns over speculative filings
described in the Third Further Notice.
For example, Kyle Magrill suggests that
non-commercial applicants may have
filed large numbers of translator
applications because they believed that
it was the best way to ensure they
would obtain a permit, and even those
permits that were sold have resulted in
new facilities on the air serving the
public interest. Edgewater Broadcasting,
Inc., and Radio Assist Ministry, Inc.,
also note that applicants accused of
trafficking have not in fact violated any
of the Commission’s Rules.
53. Several commenters propose
alternatives to caps or additional
safeguards against trafficking: placing
limitations on the number of
outstanding translator construction
permits an applicant can have;
restricting sales of permits to allow
applicants to only recover costs; or
preventing outright the sale of unbuilt
construction permits. NPR suggests
establishing a holding period obligating
future translator permittees to construct
and operate newly authorized
translators.
3. Analysis
54. We conclude that both a national
cap and a market-based cap for the
markets identified in Appendix A are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
appropriate to limit speculative
licensing conduct and necessary to
bolster the integrity of the remaining
Auction 83 licensing. Without such
caps, we believe that the translator
licensing process we adopt herein could
result in the prosecution of thousands of
applications for the primary purpose of
for-profit assignments of the issued
translator authorizations. If the permits
were issued in an auction, then we
would be much less concerned about
such speculation in permits. However,
as we noted in the Third Further Notice,
we expect that a substantial portion of
the remaining grants will be made
pursuant to our settlement procedures
rather than through auctions.
55. We first must address whether the
adoption of national and per-market
caps on the processing of pending
translator applications to protect the
integrity of the translator licensing
process is consistent with section 5 of
the LCRA. Although that provision
mandates that the Commission consider
the availability of translator licenses to
serve the needs of local communities in
licensing new translators, it does not
limit the Commission’s authority under
the Act to adopt measures to protect the
integrity of its licensing processes.
Accordingly, we conclude that adoption
of the caps to safeguard the integrity of
our licensing processes is consistent
with section 5’s requirement to ensure
that licenses are available to both LPFM
and translator services.
56. We next address the public
interest benefits of translator application
caps. As set forth above, the initiation
of new translator service resulting from
a grant of some of those applications
may benefit the public interest. At the
same time, we believe strongly that
remedial limits are needed to protect the
integrity of our licensing process. Nonfeeable application procedures and
flexible auction and translator
settlement rules clearly have facilitated
and encouraged the filing of speculative
proposals. Our CDBS database shows
that successful Auction 83 applicants
have sold more than 700 translator
authorizations and let almost 1000
permits expire without completing
construction. In some markets, certain
applicants have filed dozens of
applications, even though it is
inconceivable that one entity would
construct and operate all of the
proposed stations. The filers that will be
affected by our national cap and by our
per-market cap account for much of this
licensing activity. While we recognize
that high-volume filers did not violate
our rules, these types of speculative
filings are fundamentally at odds with
the core Commission broadcast
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21011
licensing policies and contrary to the
public interest.
57. Although we have considered a
number of alternatives, we find that
imposing a cap on applications is the
most administratively feasible solution
for processing this large group of longpending applications. As some
comments suggest, a longer term
solution may require structural changes
to the translator licensing process, e.g.,
holding period and/or construction
requirements, no-profit restrictions on
the assignment of authorizations, a cap
on application filings, etc. However, we
believe that the caps we adopt today
will both deter trafficking and provide
the fastest path to additional translator
and LPFM licensing in areas where the
need for additional service is greatest.
We emphasize that the cap procedures
we adopt will give applicants the
opportunity to elect which applications
will be processed toward a grant. We
expect that applicants will choose
applications that will maximize new
service to the public. Even with the
dismissal of many of the pending
translator applications pursuant to the
application caps and our market-based
processing policy, we are confident that
the same or comparable licensing
opportunities will remain available in a
future translator filing window under
our flexible translator licensing
standards. In short, these dismissals will
only delay, not deny, licenses to
applicants whose translator applications
are dismissed but who remain interested
in effectuating their proposals.
58. We believe that a national cap of
50 applications per applicant from the
pending Auction 83 applications is an
appropriate limit. Because translators
are relatively cheap to construct and
operate, we believe it is feasible for the
organizations that filed the highest
volume of applications to construct and
operate 50 additional stations.
Accordingly, in balancing the
competing goals of deterring speculation
and expanding translator service to local
communities, we conclude that a
national cap of 50 applications is
appropriate. We note that this cap is
high enough to permit all but twenty
applicants to prosecute all of their
pending applications. We also note that
even some translator advocates
commented in support of a cap of 50
applications.
59. In addition to the national cap of
50 applications, we believe that a permarket cap of one application in the
markets identified in Appendix A is
appropriate. Our translator rules
contemplate that a party may receive an
authorization for a second or third FM
translator serving substantially the same
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21012
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
area as the first only after making a
‘‘showing of technical need for such
additional stations.’’ This is a spectrum
efficiency rule based on our experience
that parties rarely need such multiple
translators. Yet in some cases,
applicants in Auction 83 submitted
dozens of applications for a particular
market. These applications were clearly
filed for speculative reasons or to skew
our auction procedures, as it is
inconceivable that a single entity would
construct so many stations in a single
market. Given the volume of pending
applications, it is not administratively
feasible to conduct a case-by-case
assessment of technical need for such
multiple applications within the
markets identified in Appendix A.
Accordingly, we will apply a cap of one
translator application per applicant in
the markets identified in Appendix A.
For applications outside those markets,
where the duplication issue is more
manageable, we will apply our technical
need rule on a case-by-case basis.
60. For translator applicants, our
revised processing policies provide a
straightforward licensing path that will
likely result in more than 1000 new
construction permits, thereby increasing
the total number of authorizations
issued out of Auction 83 to over 4500.
At the same time, the national and permarket caps will require each affected
applicant to prioritize its filings and to
focus on proposals at locations where it
has a bona fide interest in providing
service. We believe that these
restrictions are necessary to impose on
these applicants a level of discipline
similar to that which competitive
bidding procedures provide in full
service station licensing.
61. We will require parties with more
than 50 pending applications nationally
and/or more than one pending
application in the markets identified in
Appendix A to identify and affirm their
continuing interest in those pending
applications for which they seek further
Commission processing, consistent with
these limits. Both pending long form
and short form applications will be
subject to these applicant-based caps. In
the event that an applicant does not
timely comply with these dismissal
procedures, we direct the staff to first
apply the national cap, retaining on file
the first 50 filed applications and
dismissing those that were subsequently
filed. The staff will then dismiss all but
the first filed application in each of the
markets identified in Appendix A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
D. Restrictions on the Use of FM
Translators to Rebroadcast the Signals
of AM Stations
1. Background
62. In 2009, the Commission
authorized the use of FM translators
with licenses or permits in effect as of
May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast the signal of
a local AM station. The limitation of
cross-service translator usage to alreadyauthorized FM translators was adopted
with the intention of preserving
opportunities for future LPFM licensing.
Two parties filed petitions for partial
reconsideration of this aspect of the
2009 Translator Order. Both petitions
argue that the limitation of cross-service
translators does not serve the public
interest and is unfair to both AM
stations and FM translator applicants.
63. The practical effect of the date
limit imposed in the 2009 Translator
Order was to exclude pending Auction
No. 83 FM translator applications as
well as future FM translator
applications from the pool of potential
cross-service translators. In the Third
Further Notice, we asked whether it
would be appropriate to remove this
limit on cross-service translators with
respect to those pending applications.
Specifically, we asked whether the limit
should be removed for those
applications which were on file as of
May 1, 2009. We stated that resolving
this issue before processing of the
pending translator applications would
align FM translator processing outcomes
more closely with demand by enabling
applicants to take the rebroadcasting
option into account in the translator
settlement and licensing processes,
thereby advancing the goals of section
5(2) of the LCRA. We also noted that
allowing cross-service translators had
been a very successful deregulatory
policy.
2. Comments
64. Most commenters support
removing the date restriction for
pending FM translator applications.
These commenters point to the public
service benefits that FM translators have
provided to AM stations. Some argue
that the need for the date restriction is
going away now that the Commission
will be opening an LPFM window.
65. To the extent that commenters
take a contrary position, most argue for
some type of restriction or limitation on
cross-service translators in general.
Some LPFM proponents argue for
qualifying criteria for cross-service
translators, such as local ownership,
lack of in-market FM ownership by the
AM licensee, diversity of ownership,
amount of local programming, and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
quality of AM signal. REC Networks and
Prometheus argue that the 250-watt
power level allowed for ‘‘fill-in’’ AM
translators should be reduced before
cross-service translators are expanded.
NPR argues that the date restriction
should be kept in place unless the
Commission adopts strong antitrafficking rules so that traffickers in the
current pool of Auction 83 applicants
will not benefit from the change.
3. Analysis
66. We will modify the date
restriction to allow pending FM
translator applications that are granted
to be used as cross-service translators.
As we explained in the Third Further
Notice, the limitation of cross-service
translator usage to already-authorized
translators was adopted with the
intention of preserving opportunities for
future LPFM licensing. In the Third
Further Notice, we decided to revisit
this pre-LCRA policy. We proposed
changes in the FM translator application
processing rules designed to accomplish
more effectively the goal of preserving
spectrum for future LPFM licensing.
Given those proposed changes, as stated
above, we indicated that removing the
date limit, at least for the pending
translator applications, could align FM
translator licensing outcomes more
closely with demand, thereby advancing
the goals of section 5(2) of the LCRA.
67. With our adoption of the revised
translator application processing
policies described above, we believe we
have effectively addressed the LPFM
spectrum issue that prompted the preLCRA date limitation on cross-service
translators. Having done so, we believe
the translators that are put into service
from the pool of pending applications
should be put to their best use,
consistent with the directive of section
5(2) to carry out FM translator licensing
‘‘based on the needs of the local
community.’’ Our view is that, with the
FM translator processing policies
described above in effect, the public
interest benefits from expanding crossservice translator service are
considerably more significant than any
downside from allowing any
forthcoming Auction No. 83
authorizations to be used for such
service.
68. With respect to the proposed
restrictions or limitations on crossservice translators sought by LPFM
proponents, most are essentially
untimely petitions for reconsideration of
the 2009 Translator Order. Accordingly,
and because we intend to consider
modifications to our FM translator rules
and procedures more generally in a
separate proceeding, as discussed
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
below, we decline to consider these
arguments here. In any event, we
believe the LPFM proponents who argue
for such restrictions fail to recognize the
significant public interest benefits that
will accrue from expanding the pool of
potential cross-service translators. In the
2009 Translator Order, we described the
substantial benefits to local listeners
that cross-service translators were
providing, for example, providing presunrise and post-sunset coverage of
traffic, weather, news and sports
programming and improving localism,
competition and diversity in a number
of radio markets. The record here
confirms those benefits and supports a
change in the date limitation to allow
permits or licenses arising from pending
FM translator applications to be used as
cross-service translators.
69. Again, we intend to revise our FM
translator rules before the next FM
translator auction window, so parties
will have an opportunity to present
their views at that time with respect to
any appropriate modifications in our
translator rules and procedures. If
parties wish to argue that priority
should be given in future translator
auction windows to Class D AM stations
or AM stations that lack a co-owned FM
outlet, then they may do so in that
proceeding.
70. Accordingly, we grant
reconsideration of the 2009 Translator
Order to the extent of allowing
authorizations arising from pending FM
translator applications to be used as
cross-service translators. With respect to
future FM translator applications, we
will address their potential use as crossservice translators in a future
rulemaking to revise our FM translator
rules.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Third Order on Reconsideration
71. In the Third Report and Order
discussed above, the Commission
established a going-forward limit of ten
pending short-form applications per
applicant from FM translator Auction
No. 83, and directed the Bureau to
resume processing the applications of
those applicants in compliance with
this numerical cap.
72. Petitions for reconsideration
opposing the cap were filed by CSN
International, National Religious
Broadcasters, Positive Alternative
Radio, Inc., and Educational Media
Foundation et. al. In light of our
adoption of the market-specific
translator application dismissal process
described in this Fourth Report and
Order, we dismiss them as moot.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
III. Procedural Matters
73. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the
Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The FRFA
is set forth in Appendix C.
74. Paperwork Reduction Act. This
document contains new information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104–13 (U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The requirements will be
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. The
Commission will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register inviting
comments on the new information
collection requirements adopted in this
document. In addition, we note that
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we previously sought specific comment
on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees. We describe
impacts that might affect small
businesses, which includes most
businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C,
infra.
75. Congressional Review Act. The
Commission will send a copy of this
Fourth Report and Order in a report to
be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
76. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
was incorporated in the Third Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third
Further Notice) in MM Docket No. 99–
25, and MB Docket No. 07–172, RM–
11338. The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the
Third Further Notice, including
comment on the IRFA. We received no
comments specifically directed toward
the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Fourth Report and Order
77. This rulemaking proceeding was
initiated to seek comment on how the
enactment of section 5 of the Local
Community Radio Act of 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21013
(‘‘LCRA’’) would impact the procedures
previously adopted to process the
approximately 6,500 applications which
remain from the 2003 FM translator
window. The Commission previously
established a processing cap of ten
pending short-form applications per
applicant from FM translator Auction
No. 83. The Fourth Report and Order
concludes that that this cap was
inconsistent with the LCRA licensing
criteria. It further concludes that a
market-specific, spectrum availabilitybased translator application dismissal
policy most faithfully implements
section 5 of the LCRA. Specifically, it
sets forth a dismissal policy in which
the Commission will impose a national
application cap and/or a one application
per applicant per market in the markets
identified in Appendix A of the Fourth
Report and Order. It directs the Media
Bureau to issue a Public Notice asking
applicants to identify applications for
continued processing, consistent with
these limits. Upon completion of this
selection/dismissal process, the Bureau
will process the remaining applications
in ‘‘spectrum available’’ markets, as
defined in the Fourth Report and Order.
Applicants will be able to file
amendments demonstrating that their
applications will not preclude any
LPFM channel/point combination
identified in the grid studies. Those
applications that fail to do so will be
dismissed.
78. Applicants with proposals
remaining in ‘‘spectrum limited’’
markets, as defined in the Fourth Report
and Order, will also be given one
opportunity to modify their proposals to
eliminate all preclusive impacts on
protected LPFM channel/point
combinations. Applications that conflict
with protected channel/point
combinations and that are not amended
to eliminate all such conflicts will be
dismissed.
79. The Fourth Report and Order also
modifies certain recently adopted FM
translator service rule changes as a
result of the enactment of the LCRA.
Specifically, it modifies the date
restriction contained in § 74.1232(d) of
the Rules to allow pending FM
translator applications that are granted
to be used as cross-service translators.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
80. None.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
81. The RFA directs the Commission
to provide a description of and, where
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21014
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that will be affected by the
proposed rules. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
encompassing the terms ‘‘small
business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and
‘‘small governmental entity.’’ In
addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has
the same meaning as the term ‘‘small
business concern’’ under the Small
Business Act. 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’’).
82. Radio Broadcasting. The policies
adopted in the Fourth Report and Order
apply to radio broadcast licensees, and
potential licensees of radio service. The
SBA defines a radio broadcast station as
a small business if such station has no
more than $7 million in annual receipts.
Business concerns included in this
industry are those primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to
the public. According to Commission
staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc.
Master Access Radio Analyzer Database
as of January 31, 2011, about 10,820 (97
percent) of 11,100 commercial radio
stations) have revenues of $7 million or
less and thus qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. We note,
however, that, in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as small
under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations must be included.
Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates
the number of small entities that might
be affected by our action, because the
revenue figure on which it is based does
not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies.
83. In addition, an element of the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the
entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time to
define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific radio
station is dominant in its field of
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of
small businesses to which rules may
apply do not exclude any radio station
from the definition of a small business
on this basis and therefore may be overinclusive to that extent. Also, as noted,
an additional element of the definition
of ‘‘small business’’ is that the entity
must be independently owned and
operated. We note that it is difficult at
times to assess these criteria in the
context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which
they apply may be over-inclusive to this
extent.
84. FM translator stations and low
power FM stations. The policies adopted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
in the Fourth Report and Order affect
licensees of FM translator and booster
stations and low power FM (LPFM)
stations, as well as potential licensees in
these radio services. The same SBA
definition that applies to radio
broadcast licensees would apply to
these stations. The SBA defines a radio
broadcast station as a small business if
such station has no more than $7
million in annual receipts. Given the
nature of these services, we will
presume that all of these licensees
qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. Currently, there are
approximately 6131 licensed FM
translator stations and 860 licensed
LPFM stations. In addition, there are
approximately 646 applicants with
pending applications filed in the 2003
translator filing window. Given the
nature of these services, we will
presume that all of these licensees and
applicants qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
85. In the Fourth Report and Order,
we require Auction No. 83 applicants to
identify which applications they wish to
preserve to come into compliance with
the national and market-based caps.
This will enable the Commission to
move quickly through a backlog of
applications that have been pending
since 2003 and open a new filing
window for the LPFM service.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
86. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
87. The Fourth Report and Order
establishes a market-specific, spectrum
availability-based approach to the
processing of remaining translator
applications. It also establishes national
and market-specific application caps. In
adopting these policies, several
alternative approaches were considered:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
88. Size of Grid. The Commission
considered alternatives to the 31x31
market study grid proposed in the Third
Further Notice. For example, it
considered a smaller, 21x21 grid, as
well as a larger grid based on Arbitron
market boundaries. The Fourth Report
and Order adopts a 31x31 grid, but
adopts a 21x21 grid in markets where 75
percent or more of the population is
located in that smaller grid.
89. Processing of Translator
Application in Spectrum-Limited
Markets. The Third Further Notice
proposed to dismiss all applications in
certain spectrum-limited markets. One
alternative considered was to allow
continued processing of certain
translator applications in ‘‘spectrum
limited’’ markets. The Fourth Report
and Order adopts this policy.
90. We believe that the adopted
policies offer significant benefits to
small entities. The market-based
approach ensures additional spectrum
for LPFM stations in markets in which
it is most limited while also ensuring
the immediate licensing of translator
stations in communities in which ample
spectrum remains for both services,
including many major markets. Use of
the smaller grid and allowing the
processing of additional translators
benefit small entities because they will
increase licensing opportunities for both
LPFM stations and translators. Adoption
of the application caps will benefit
translator and LPFM proponents
because it will allow the Commission to
quickly act on applications that have
been pending for more than eight years
and to open an LPFM window in the
near future.
91. We likewise believe that removing
the date restriction contained in
§ 74.1232(d) of the rules to allow
pending FM translator applications that
are granted to be used as cross-service
translators will benefit small entities
because it will expand opportunities for
translator licensees to rebroadcast AM
service.
F. Report to Congress
92. The Commission will send a copy
of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be
sent to Congress pursuant to the
SBREFA. In addition, the Commission
will send a copy of the Fourth Report
and Order, including the FRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
A copy of the Fourth Report and Order
and the FRFA (or summaries thereof)
will also be published in the Federal
Register.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Ordering Clauses
93. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by
Robert A. Lynch on July 28, 2009, and
Edward A. Schober on July 28, 2009, are
granted in part to extent set forth above.
94. It is further ordered that the
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by
CSN International on February 4, 2008;
National Religious Broadcasters on
February 15, 2008; and Positive
Alternative Radio, Inc. and Educational
Media Foundation on February 19,
2008, are dismissed as moot.
95. It is further ordered that pursuant
to the authority contained in sections
4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C, 154(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), and the Local
Community Radio Act of 2010, Public
Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011), this
Fourth Report and Order is hereby
adopted and Part 74 of the
Commission’s rules are amended as set
forth in Appendix D, effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal
Register.
96. It is further ordered that the rules
adopted herein will become effective
thirty (30) days after publication in the
Federal Register, except for any rules or
requirements involving Paperwork
Reduction Act burdens, which shall
become effective upon announcement in
the Federal Register of OMB approval
and an effective date of the rule(s).
97. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Fourth Report and Order, including
the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
Rule changes
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 to
read as follows:
PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO,
AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST
AND OTHER PROGRAM
DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 74
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309,
336, and 554.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 Apr 06, 2012
2. Section 74.1232(d) is revised to
read as follows:
■
Jkt 226001
§ 74.1232 Eligibility and licensing
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) An authorization for an FM
translator whose coverage contour
extends beyond the protected contour of
the commercial primary station will not
be granted to the licensee or permittee
of a commercial FM radio broadcast
station. Similarly, such authorization
will not be granted to any person or
entity having any interest whatsoever,
or any connection with a primary FM
station. Interested and connected parties
extend to group owners, corporate
parents, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, general and limited
partners, family members and business
associates. For the purposes of this
paragraph, the protected contour of the
primary station shall be defined as
follows: the predicted 0.5mV/m contour
for commercial Class B stations, the
predicted 0.7 mV/m contour for
commercial Class B1 stations and the
predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour
for all other FM radio broadcast stations.
The contours shall be as predicted in
accordance with § 73.313(a) through (d)
of this chapter. In the case of an FM
radio broadcast station authorized with
facilities in excess of those specified by
§ 73.211 of this chapter, a co-owned
commercial FM translator will only be
authorized within the protected contour
of the class of station being rebroadcast,
as predicted on the basis of the
maximum powers and heights set forth
in that section for the applicable class
of FM broadcast station concerned. An
FM translator station in operation prior
to March 1, 1991, which is owned by a
commercial FM (primary) station and
whose coverage contour extends beyond
the protected contour of the primary
station, may continue to be owned by
such primary station until March 1,
1994. Thereafter, any such FM translator
station must be owned by independent
parties. An FM translator station in
operation prior to June 1, 1991, which
is owned by a commercial FM radio
broadcast station and whose coverage
contour extends beyond the protected
contour of the primary station, may
continue to be owned by a commercial
FM radio broadcast station until June 1,
1994. Thereafter, any such FM translator
station must be owned by independent
parties. An FM translator providing
service to an AM fill-in area will be
authorized only to the permittee or
licensee of the AM radio broadcast
station being rebroadcast, or, in the case
of an FM translator authorized to
operate on an unreserved channel, to a
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21015
party with a valid rebroadcast consent
agreement with such a permittee or
licensee to rebroadcast that station as
the translator’s primary station. In
addition, any FM translator providing
service to an AM fill-in area must have
been authorized by a license or
construction permit in effect as of May
1, 2009, or pursuant to an application
that was pending as of May 1, 2009. A
subsequent modification of any such
FM translator will not affect its
eligibility to rebroadcast an AM signal.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–8404 Filed 4–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 110210132–1275–02]
RIN 0648–XB116
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason
Angling category retention limit
adjustment; southern area trophy fishery
closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS has determined that
the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) daily
retention limit that applies to vessels
permitted in the Highly Migratory
Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat
category (when fishing recreationally for
BFT) should be adjusted for the
remainder of 2012, based on
consideration of the regulatory
determination criteria regarding
inseason adjustments and based on
preliminary 2012 landings data. NMFS
also closes the southern area Angling
category fishery for large medium and
giant (‘‘trophy’’) BFT. These actions are
being taken consistent with the BFT
fishery management objectives of the
2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery
Management Plan (Consolidated HMS
FMP) and to prevent overharvest of the
2012 Angling category quota.
DATES: Effective April 7, 2012, through
December 31, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale,
978–281–9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implemented under the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21002-21015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8404]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 74
[MB Docket No. 99-25; MB Docket No. 07-172, RM-11338, FCC 12-29]
Creation of a Low Power Radio Service; Amendment of Service and
Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts LPFM and translator
licensing policies that conform to the Local Community Radio Act
(``LCRA''). The LCRA requires the FCC to balance the competing demands
of LPFM and translator applicants when making licensing decisions.
Section 5 of the Act requires the Commission to ensure that: licenses
are available for both LPFM and translator stations; licensing
decisions are based on community needs; and translator and LPFM
stations remain equal in status.
The item finds that a previously adopted cap on translator
applications pending from Auction No. 83 is inconsistent with the
LCRA's directives, and adopts a market-specific processing policy. The
item finds that this approach most faithfully implements Section 5's
directives, and will allow the Commission to resume the processing of
approximately 6,500 translator applications that have been pending
since 2003, while also ensuring that the upcoming LPFM window will
provide a real opportunity for significant community radio licensing in
major metropolitan areas.
The item also adopts national and market caps to prevent the
trafficking of translator construction permits. Finally, the item
relaxes the May 1, 2009, date restriction to allow pending translator
applications from Auction No. 83 that are subsequently granted to
rebroadcast the signals of AM stations at night.
DATES: The amendment to 47 CFR 74.1232(d) of the Rules will be
effective May 9, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Doyle, (202) 418-2789. For
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the Internet at
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Fourth Report and Order (Fourth R&O), FCC 12-29, adopted March 19,
2012, and released March 19, 2012. The full text of the Fourth R&O is
available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals
II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI,
Inc. via their Web site, https://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160.
This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette,
large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who
need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email:
FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Fourth R&O adopts new information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13,
109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)). These
information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register inviting comment on the new information collection
requirements adopted in this document. The requirements will not go
into effect until OMB has approved them and the Commission has
published a notice announcing the effective date of the information
collection requirements. In addition, the Commission notes that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
[[Page 21003]]
Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific
comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
Synopsis of Order
1. On July 12, 2011, the Commission released a Third Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making (``Third Further Notice'') in this proceeding,
seeking comment on the impact of the enactment of the Local Community
Radio Act of 2010 (``LCRA'') on the procedures previously adopted to
process the approximately 6,500 applications that remain pending from
the 2003 FM translator window. There, the Commission tentatively
concluded that the previously adopted translator licensing procedures,
which would limit each applicant to ten pending applications, would be
inconsistent with the LCRA's goals. It proposed to modify those
procedures and instead adopt a market-specific translator application
dismissal process, dismissing pending translator applications in
identified spectrum-limited markets in order to preserve adequate low
power FM (``LPFM'') licensing opportunities. It also sought comment on
whether, based on the enactment of the LCRA, the Commission should
modify its rules permitting only those translator stations authorized
on or prior to May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations.
2. In this Fourth Report and Order, we adopt the market-specific
translator application processing and dismissal policies proposed in
the Third Further Notice, incorporating certain modifications proposed
by commenters. These policies are designed to fully and faithfully
effectuate the licensing directives set forth at section 5 of the LCRA
while also taking into account the constraints of limited spectrum and
technical licensing requirements. We are founding these procedures on
our extensive spectrum availability studies set forth in Appendices A
and B, which establish that limited LPFM licensing opportunities remain
in many markets. We have determined, based on these studies, that the
next LPFM window presents a critical, and indeed possibly a last,
opportunity to nurture and promote a community radio service that can
respond to unmet listener needs and underserved communities in many
urban areas. As explained herein, we find that it is necessary to
dismiss significant numbers of translator applications in spectrum
limited markets to fulfill that opportunity. Nevertheless, these
procedures are also designed to facilitate to the maximum extent
possible the grant of the pending translator applications in all
markets--whether spectrum is limited or abundant. In adopting these
procedures, we note that neither the Commission nor any commenter has
identified a fundamentally different approach that would both satisfy
section 5's mandate and permit the rapid and efficient licensing of
both LPFM and translator stations. With regard to the 6,500
applications that remain pending from the 2003 FM translator window, we
also adopt a national cap of 50 applications and a market-based cap of
one application per applicant per market for the 156 markets identified
in Appendix A to minimize the potential for speculative licensing
conduct. Finally, we modify the May 1, 2009, date restriction to allow
pending FM translator applications that are granted to be used as
cross-service translators.
3. In the Third Order on Reconsideration, we also dismiss petitions
for reconsideration of the Third Report and Order as they relate to the
now-abandoned ten-application cap processing policy.
I. Discussion
A. Section 5 of the LCRA: Broad Interpretive Principles
1. Background
4. The LCRA, signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011,
expands LPFM licensing opportunities by repealing the requirement that
LPFM stations be certain minimum distances from nearby stations
operating on ``third-adjacent'' channels. Section 5 of the LCRA also
sets forth criteria that the Commission must take into account when
licensing FM translator, FM booster and LPFM stations.
5. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed to interpret section 5
to establish the following broad principles:
[ssquf] Section 5(1) requires the Commission to adopt licensing
procedures that ensure some minimum number of licensing opportunities
for both LPFM and translator services across the nation;
[ssquf] Read together with section 5(2), section 5(1) requires the
Commission to provide licensing opportunities for both services in as
many local communities as possible; and
[ssquf] We tentatively concluded that our primary focus under
section 5(1) must be to ensure that translator licensing procedures do
not foreclose or unduly limit future LPFM licensing, because the more
flexible translator licensing standards will make it much easier to
license new translator stations in spectrum-limited markets than new
LPFM stations.
6. In addition, we sought comment on whether to consider existing
stations in making a ``licenses are available'' finding under section
5(1), pointing out that because of the large number of existing
translators within the top 200 Arbitron-rated markets, ``taking into
account existing translators [hellip] would militate in favor of the
dismissal of [pending] translator applications, at least in markets
where there is little or no remaining spectrum for future LPFM stations
or where substantially fewer licensing opportunities remain.'' We
tentatively concluded that the suspended national cap of ten translator
applications per applicant in the Auction No. 83 pool of pending
translator applications is inconsistent with the statutory mandate to
ensure some minimum number of LPFM licensing opportunities in as many
local communities as possible. Instead, we proposed a market-specific
process of dismissing all pending translator applications in certain
spectrum-limited markets in order to preserve a certain number of LPFM
licensing opportunities, while allowing processing of translator
applications outside those markets.
2. Comments
7. Among all the parties submitting comments in response to the
Third Further Notice, there is broad support for eliminating the cap of
ten translator applications and using market-specific spectrum
availability metrics to implement section 5 requirements. However, on
the issue of interpreting section 5, divergent arguments were presented
by translator supporters, on the one hand, and LPFM supporters on the
other. Their positions are summarized in the following sections,
addressing interpretive issues presented by sections 5(1)-(3) of the
LCRA. We also note that Senators Cantwell and McCain and
Representatives Doyle and Terry, the original sponsors of the LCRA,
submitted a letter expressing their support for our interpretation of
section 5 of the LCRA and for our proposed approach to effectuating the
statute.
a. Section 5(1)--Ensuring That Licenses Are Available
8. LPFM advocates support our view that section 5(1) of the LCRA
requires the Commission to ensure that the processing of translator
applications does not preclude future opportunities for new LPFM
licenses. Prometheus cites to the Congressional history of the LCRA and
the Sponsors' Letter to
[[Page 21004]]
support this position. LPFM supporters contend that Congress intended
that the Commission take existing licenses into account when assessing
whether its licensing procedures would ensure that licenses are
available rather than establish a ``going forward'' only standard that
ignores legacy licensing. LPFM advocates also argue that section 5(1)
requires the Commission to preserve a significant number of licensing
opportunities for new LPFM stations in all markets where this is
possible.
9. Translator supporters disagree with these positions. These
commenters oppose an interpretation of section 5(1) that, in their
view, would favor LPFM stations over translators and urge the
Commission not to devise licensing procedures to redress perceived
imbalances in past licensing. NPR argues that our proposal unduly
favors future LPFM service at the expense of the pending FM translator
applicants by taking into account the number of existing LPFM and
translator stations. NPR also argues that ``ensuring that licenses are
available'' includes current and future FM translator station
applicants. Similarly, EMF notes that the LCRA never ``directly''
references applications from Auction No. 83, and emphasizes Congress'
use of ``new'' at the beginning of section 5 to argue that section 5(1)
``requires that `new' licenses for both translators and LPFM stations
be made available.'' NAB argues that a policy of dismissing translator
applications where translators but not LPFM stations could be located
would counter section 5(1)'s mandate that licenses be available for
translator stations.
b. Section 5(2)--Assessing the ``Needs of the Local Community''
10. Commenters are divided also in interpreting section 5(2) of the
LCRA. LPFM advocates suggest that section 5(2) should be interpreted as
a mandate favoring localism, and in particular LPFM stations, which
they argue provide the greatest localism benefit of any broadcast
service. Indeed, commenters note that the LPFM service was established
in part to address the perceived loss of local programming during a
period of significant radio consolidation. Some parties argue that
translators, which do not originate programming, fail to serve local
community needs and are not truly local, while LPFM stations better
serve the goals of localism. LPFM proponents also suggest that, when
making licensing decisions, the Commission could address the needs of
local communities by considering demographic data. Specifically, they
argue that urban communities, well served by commercial and
noncommercial services, have less need for translator services and more
need for local community-level programming, while rural communities,
poorly served by full-service facilities, have need for both
translators and LPFM stations.
11. On the other hand, translator advocates argue that translators
can serve the needs of the local community and note that the Commission
and Congress have found that to be the case. For example, translators
can provide emergency information, as well as regional and state news.
Translators can also serve the local community by providing a format
not currently available in that area. Thus, they argue it is wrong to
assume that LPFM stations better serve local community needs than do
translators. NPR criticizes our analysis of section 5(2) on the ground
that we focused on the differences between translators and LPFM
stations, rather than focusing on how both services serve the needs of
the local community by expanding the programming choices available to
listeners. NPR also argues that some communities might actually have a
greater need for a translator than for an LPFM station because a
translator may be filling a coverage gap for a significant full-power
station. Common Frequency replies that urban communities served by
multiple translators have more need for a first LPFM station.
c. Section 5(3)--``Equal in Status''
12. The Third Further Notice noted that section 5(3) refers
specifically to ``stations'' rather than to ``applications,''
suggesting that it could be applied only to existing stations and that
future LPFM applications could have priority over pending FM translator
applications. However, the Third Further Notice also recognized that
the Commission had used the terms ``stations'' and ``applications''
interchangeably in discussing the ``co-equal status'' of LPFM stations
and FM translator stations and that the Commission had framed this
issue in terms of whether to follow or waive the current ``cut-off''
rules which protect prior-filed Auction No. 83 translator applications
from subsequently-filed LPFM station applications. The Third Further
Notice stated that it seems reasonable to assume that Congress intended
the same meaning when it used the word ``station'' in the LCRA.
13. Translator proponents argue that, for regulatory purposes, the
terms ``stations'' and ``applications'' are interchangeable. Translator
proponents argue that either changing the Commission's market-based
approach or waiving the cut-off rules in favor of future-filed LPFM
applications would not be consistent with section 5(3). Mullaney
Engineering argues that the services are not ``equal in status'' if
LPFM applicants are allowed to invalidate the cut-off protection rights
of previously-filed translator applications. NPR likewise believes that
waiving cut-off rules to give preference to later-filed LPFM
applications would violate the ``equal in status'' mandate. Other
translator supporters express concern that this approach would
disproportionately favor the licensing of future LPFM stations and
thereby violate section 5(3)'s equal in status mandate. They claim that
trying to make LPFM and translators equal in numbers would suppress
translator licensing and artificially encourage unwanted LPFMs.
14. LPFM supporters disagree, arguing that, while the grant of a
station license conveys certain vested and statutorily protected
interests to a licensee, those interests do not attach to a pending
application. Prometheus argues that section 5(3) does not refer to the
cut-off rule, but instead merely requires that translators and LPFM
stations be secondary to full-service stations and equal to each other.
Prometheus further asserts that section 5(3) does not prohibit the
Commission from giving LPFM applicants priority over translator
applicants, particularly when read in the context of section 5(2)'s
requirement that licensing serve the needs of local communities and
section 307(b)'s requirement that the Commission distribute radio
service in the public interest. Prometheus states that the Commission
should balance the two services by aiding in the development of LPFM.
15. Other LPFM advocates argue that the cut-off protection rule is
a regulatory custom that the Commission can waive if it serves the
public interest. Some commenters argue for giving LPFM stations
priority because translators consume valuable radio spectrum while
failing to provide original local programming. LPFM advocates also
argue that the Commission must compensate for the ``head start'' that
the translator service has to the comparatively new LPFM service.
Commenters further argue that the current rules favor translators. Some
suggest that, in order to achieve a true equality between the LPFM
service and translators, the technical rules governing the LPFM service
should be changed to match those of translators. Common Frequency
contends that
[[Page 21005]]
section 5(3) calls for a goal of equal spectrum for each service.
3. Analysis
16. We adopt the interpretations of the three section 5 licensing
standards proposed in the Third Further Notice. In its broadest terms,
section 5(1) clearly requires the Commission to ensure that some
minimum number of FM translator and LPFM ``licenses are available''
throughout the nation when licensing new FM translator and LPFM
stations. We also find that section 5 is most reasonably interpreted to
require consideration of existing licenses. As we observed in the Third
Further Notice, the word ``new'' appears in the first clause of section
5 but not in subparagraph 1, suggesting that we should consider the
availability of both new and existing stations in ensuring that
``licenses are available'' for both services. In addition, our
interpretation is consistent with the title of section 5, ``Ensuring
Availability of Spectrum for Low-Power FM Stations,'' as well as the
Commission's longstanding license allocation policies under section
307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
directs the Commission to ensure ``a fair, efficient, and equitable
distribution of radio service'' ``among the several States and
communities.'' In contrast, interpreting section 5 to require us to
license new translator and LPFM stations without regard to the number
of operating stations in each service, as EMF advocates, would be
inconsistent with ensuring the availability of spectrum for both
services, as well as section 307(b)'s direction. We also find support
for our interpretation in the comments of LPFM advocates discussed
above. Accordingly, we conclude that the mandate of section 5(1) to
ensure that ``licenses are available'' is reasonably interpreted to
require consideration of both existing and future licenses in the
translator and LPFM services when licensing new stations in those
services.
17. We reject arguments that interpreting section 5(1) to require
consideration of existing licenses is unreasonable because such an
interpretation would ``favor'' LPFM licensing. The LCRA necessarily
requires the Commission to make choices between licensing new LPFM and
translator stations in some cases, given that the two services compete
for the same limited spectrum. Making such choices based on the overall
spectrum available to each service does not ``favor'' one service over
the other. On the contrary, the fact that our interpretation of section
5(1) enables us to account for the present disparities between the two
services in terms of the number of licensed stations supports its
reasonableness. We also reject EMF's argument that the LCRA ``says
nothing'' about the processing of the applications which remain pending
from the 2003 translator window because it does not expressly address
them. These applications are unquestionably subject to section 5
requirements which apply ``when licensing new FM translator stations *
* * .'' Rather, we agree with NPR that the language of section 5(1)
encompasses pending as well as future applications.
18. We also adopt our proposed interpretation of sections 5(1) and
(2) together to require that LPFM and translator licenses be available
in as many ``local communit[ies]'' as possible, according to their
needs. We recognize that translators and LPFM stations both serve the
needs of communities, albeit in different ways, and conclude that we
must take these factors into consideration in implementing section
5(2). In particular, translators, which are inexpensive to construct
and operate, can effectively bring service to rural and under-served
areas. LPFM stations, on the other hand, which typically utilize
volunteer staffs, operate under great budget constraints, and serve
smaller geographic areas, may be less effective in meeting the needs of
small communities and areas of low population density. Translators also
are essential components of local and regional transmission systems
that efficiently deliver valued programming to listeners. Nevertheless,
as we explained in the Third Further Notice, the Commission has
historically accorded no weight to translators in assessing the
comparative needs of a community for radio service under its section
307(b) licensing policies. In contrast, the LPFM service was created
``to foster a program service responsive to the needs and interests of
small community groups, particularly specialized community needs that
have not been well served by commercial broadcast stations.'' Numerous
LPFM service and comparative licensing criteria are designed to promote
these goals. These criteria include a requirement that licensees be
local, a licensing preference for those applicants with an established
community presence, and a licensing preference for those applicants
that pledge to locally originate at least eight hours of programming
per day. In addition, ownership restrictions and time-share rules
necessarily result in expanded ownership diversity. Based on these
factors, we find that LPFM stations are uniquely positioned to meet
local needs, particularly in areas of higher population density where
LPFM service is practical and sustainable.
19. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that our primary focus
under section 5 must be to ensure that translator licensing procedures
do not foreclose or unduly limit future LPFM licensing, because the
more flexible translator licensing standards will make it much easier
to license new translator stations in spectrum-limited markets than new
LPFM stations. Our market-specific analyses, which are set forth in
Appendices A and B, establish that few LPFM licenses have been issued
and limited LPFM licensing opportunities remain in many markets due to
the relatively inflexible LPFM technical rules and high spectrum
utilization. In contrast, given the more flexible translator licensing
standards and the limited LPFM licensing opportunities in many markets,
the next round of LPFM licensing will have only a modest impact on
licensing opportunities for future translator stations. Thus, our
principal challenge in effectuating the mandates of sections 5(1) and
5(2) is to identify and preserve LPFM licensing opportunities where few
or no LPFM stations currently operate. We note that this goal is fully
consistent with Congress's decisions to eliminate third adjacent
channel distance separation requirements and to permit second adjacent
channel spacing waivers, and thereby, expand the LFPM service.
20. Our interpretation of section 5 has clear implications for the
translator processing and dismissal procedures we adopt in this
proceeding. These procedures must be responsive to two different
situations. The first concerns markets where, taking into account both
licensed stations and the potential for additional stations, ample LPFM
licensing opportunities are present. Procedures in these markets must
balance translator and LPFM licensing in a manner that ``ensures'' a
level of future LPFM licensing that the Commission determines is
sufficient to satisfy statutory requirements. Secondly, in markets
where insufficient spectrum remains to satisfy these requirements, the
translator processing and dismissal procedures, including amendment and
settlement procedures, should preserve all identified LPFM licensing
opportunities, i.e., should facilitate the grant of only those
translator applications that would not diminish or ``block'' future
LPFM licensing in these markets.
21. On the other hand, we agree with NAB that, consistent with our
statutory interpretation, our policies should seek
[[Page 21006]]
to avoid the dismissal of translator applications where LPFM stations
``cannot'' be licensed. We note that, however, that capacity to
identify such situations is limited. The FM database is dynamic, with
LPFM filing opportunities being created, eliminated or modified daily
due to FM application and allotment filings. Moreover, revised LPFM
technical licensing rules that are now under consideration will
materially affect licensing opportunities. Given the limited LPFM
licensing opportunities in many markets, the modest impact that LPFM
licensing will have on future translator licensing in those markets and
the difficulties in establishing with certainty that a translator
application ``cannot'' preclude an LPFM filing, we conclude that
adoption of a conservative processing regime that fully protects scarce
spectrum for future LPFM stations would be consistent with section 5,
read as a whole.
22. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the nationwide ten
translator application-cap dismissal policy we established prior to the
LCRA's enactment is inconsistent with section 5 because it would not
provide a certain and effective way to ensure that LPFM ``licenses are
available'' for local communities in many markets. Under that policy,
translator applications that prevent or ``block'' LPFM licensing
opportunities would likely be eligible for processing in markets where
the need for LPFM licensing opportunities is greatest and spectrum most
limited. Based on the market-specific analyses set forth in Appendices
A and B, we also conclude that no or limited useful spectrum for LPFM
stations is likely to remain in numerous specific radio markets where
typically few or no LPFM stations now operate unless translator
dismissal procedures reliably result in the dismissal of all
``blocking'' translator applications.
23. With regard to section 5(3), we asked in the Third Further
Notice whether the requirement that translator and LPFM stations remain
``equal in status'' prohibits waivers of the LPFM cut-off rule, which
prioritizes pending FM translator applications over later-filed LPFM
applications, explaining that such an interpretation would require the
Commission to dismiss any pending FM translator applications that it
determines must make way for LPFM licensing opportunities, rather than
deferring action on such applications and later processing any that
remain pending after the completion of dismissal and settlement
procedures adopted to implement section 5. We identified several
factors that support such an interpretation. The cut-off rules are a
principal characteristic of the two services, establishing their
``equal'' status as to each other. While acknowledging that section
5(3) refers to ``stations,''' we noted in the Third Further Notice that
the Commission has used ``stations'' and ``applications''
interchangeably in considering whether to give priority to applications
filed in the upcoming LPFM window, a central issue in this proceeding
since 2005. Thus, we explained, section 5(3) could be reasonably
interpreted to prohibit waivers of the LPFM cut-off rule.
24. Prometheus disagrees with this reasoning, pointing out that the
``plain language'' of section 5(3) does not refer to the Commission's
cut-off rules. It contends that section 5(3) merely ``authorizes the
existing arrangements between licensed LPFM and translator stations as
they relate to full-service stations. Both can be displaced by primary
stations but neither can displace the other; and in this sense these
stations should remain equal.'' Prometheus concludes that section 5(3)
is not a bar to giving priority to LPFM applications filed in the
upcoming window. Based on this interpretation, Prometheus advocates a
processing policy under which action on certain translator applications
would be deferred. Those applications that remain pending would be
subject to dismissal if a conflicting LPFM application is filed.
Prometheus, however, also recognizes that the translator dismissal
procedures proposed in the Third Further Notice would be permissible
under Prometheus's differing section 5(3) interpretation.
25. We are not persuaded that Prometheus's narrow interpretation of
section 5(3) is reasonable. For the reasons discussed above, we believe
that the equality mandated by section 5(3) for FM translator stations
vis-[agrave]-vis LPFM stations is most reasonably interpreted to
encompass applications as well as authorized stations in order to be
meaningful. That view is consistent with the Commission's treatment of
the issue of the relative status of LPFM and translator stations prior
to the LCRA's enactment, and nothing in the legislative history
supports a contrary interpretation. Our interpretation also is
consistent with the fact that the section 5 mandates apply ``when
licensing new FM translator stations, FM booster stations and low-power
FM stations.'' That is, section 5 as a whole concerns the processing of
applications. Thus, we believe that Prometheus's interpretation is
inconsistent with section 5(3) when it is considered in the context of
section 5 as a whole.
26. Although we find that the ``equal in status'' requirement of
section 5(3) is most reasonably interpreted to bar LPFM cut-off rule
waivers, we need not resolve this issue. Assuming arguendo that we
could give priority to LPFM applications filed in the upcoming window
over pending translator applications, we nevertheless conclude that the
processing regime we adopt herein more rapidly and efficiently
effectuates the LCRA's goals than would Prometheus's alternate
approach. Most importantly, it avoids the translator licensing delays
that would result from a deferral approach. Under such an approach, all
translator application processing would remain frozen until all LPFM
applications are on file and have been analyzed. Only at that point
could the Commission attempt to process ``non-conflicting'' translator
and LPFM applications simultaneously. In addition to these delays,
translator grants under Prometheus's approach would have to be
conditioned on subsequent LPFM licensing decisions, with the risk of
displacement potentially discouraging or delaying construction efforts.
Alternatively, the Commission could delay translator application
processing until initial licensing actions from the LPFM window are
substantially completed, a process that would likely take a number of
years. In contrast, as set forth in detail below, our tailored market-
specific processing scheme is likely to allow the rapid licensing of at
least one 1000 additional translator stations. Thus, we agree with the
sponsors of the LCRA that the approach we adopt herein ``takes into
account the needs of translator applicants'' as well as potential LPFM
applicants.
27. We also conclude that the approach Prometheus advocates would
be administratively burdensome and resource intensive. Prometheus's
approach would require the Commission to identify with certainty the
potential preclusive impact of pending LPFM window filings in order to
determine which deferred FM translator applications may be acted on,
yet the potential for LPFM application amendments and settlements would
make it difficult to identify with certainty the breadth of the
potential preclusive impact of pending LPFM window filings. Moreover,
Prometheus's approach could lead to inequitable treatment of FM
translator applications filed in the same window, with the opportunity
for technical amendments resulting in certain translator applications
that are deemed ready for processing before others receiving
[[Page 21007]]
preferential access to limited spectrum. Thus, we conclude for policy
reasons that the problems associated with deferring action on pending
FM translator applications that otherwise would be subject to dismissal
under the policies we adopt herein substantially outweigh any benefits.
B. Implementing Section 5 of the LCRA: Proposed Market-Based Processing
Policy
1. Background
28. Having tentatively concluded that the ten-application cap
dismissal policy would run contrary to the LCRA's mandate, the
Commission considered three alternative processing regimes and
tentatively concluded that a market-specific, spectrum availability-
based translator application dismissal policy would most faithfully
implement section 5 of the LCRA. To determine LPFM opportunities in
major markets, the Bureau undertook a nationwide LPFM spectrum
availability analysis. The Bureau studied all top 150 radio markets, as
defined by Arbitron, and smaller markets where more than four
translator applications are pending. It centered a thirty-minute
latitude by thirty-minute longitude grid over the center-city
coordinates of each studied market. Each grid consisted of 961 points--
31 points running east/west by 31 points running north/south. The
Bureau analyzed each of the 100 FM channels (88.1 mHz--107.9 mHz) at
each grid point to determine whether any channels remained available
for future LPFM stations at that location. Only channels that fully
satisfied co-, first- and second adjacent channel LPFM spacing
requirements to all authorizations and applications, including pending
translator applications, were treated as available. The area
encompassed by the grid was designed to approximate ``core'' market
locations that could serve significant populations. The results of that
analysis were presented in the Third Further Notice, and identified the
number of channels (``LPFM Channels'') currently available for LPFM use
in each studied market. In calculating ``available'' LPFM channels, it
included both the identified vacant channels and those channels
currently licensed to LPFM stations which are authorized to operate at
locations within each market's thirty-minute latitude by thirty-minute
longitude grid.
29. The Commission proposed to dismiss all pending applications for
new FM translators in any market in which the number of available LPFM
Channels was below a specified LPFM channel floor (a ``dismiss all''
market), and to process all pending applications for new translators in
markets in which the number of available LPFM channels met or exceeded
the applicable LPFM channel floor (a ``process all'' market). In
proposing the channel floors, the Commission was guided by the number
of top 150-market NCE FM full power stations, noting that this service
was most comparable to the LPFM service.
Markets 1-20: 8 LPFM Channels
Markets 21-50: 7 LPFM Channels
Markets 51-100: 6 LPFM Channels
Markets 101-150 and, in addition, smaller markets where
more than 4 translator applications are pending: 5 LPFM Channels
30. The Commission sought comment on the methodology of its study,
and whether a market-tier approach was a reasonable means for
effectuating both section 5(1) and 5(2) directives. It also sought
comment on whether use of Arbitron market-based assessments as used
therein was reasonable for purposes of implementing section 5 of the
LCRA, and tentatively concluded that a market-based analysis would
provide a reasonable ``global'' assessment of LPFM spectrum
availability in particular areas. It sought comment on whether defining
the section 5(2) term ``local community'' in terms of markets was
reasonable and whether it was appropriate to use the same definition
for LPFM and translator purposes.
31. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should impose
restrictions on the translator settlement process in the ``process
all'' markets to ensure that engineering solutions to resolve
application conflicts would not reduce the number of channels available
for LPFM stations in these markets. Finally, in order to preserve the
status quo during the pendency of this proceeding, it proposed to
suspend the processing of any translator modification application that
proposes a transmitter site for the first time within any market that
has fewer LPFM channels available than the proposed channel floor. It
also imposed an immediate freeze on the filing of translator ``move-
in'' modification applications and directed the Bureau to dismiss any
such application filed after the adoption of the Third Further Notice.
It noted that the freeze would continue until the close of the upcoming
LPFM filing window, but would not apply to any translator modification
application which proposes to move its transmitter site from one
location to another within the same spectrum-limited market. It sought
comment on these proposals.
2. Comments
32. With a few exceptions, most commenters generally agreed that
some form of the Commission's market-based approach was an acceptable
methodology to carry out the mandate of section 5. However, many
commenters suggested modifications to the proposal. Some commenters
suggest changes that would potentially foster more opportunities for
LPFM stations (which could result in the dismissal of more pending FM
translator applications), while others favor processing more translator
applications from the 2003 window (which also could result in fewer
LPFM opportunities). We discuss them in turn below.
a. Defining the Market and Channel Floors
33. Prometheus and other LPFM proponents suggest that the
Commission analyze the top markets using a smaller grid (21x21),
arguing that the 31x31 grid studies an area ``far too large to
adequately evaluate spectrum availability in most urban areas.''
Prometheus and REC each note that many available LPFM opportunities are
located in sparsely populated (or unpopulated) areas on the fringe of
the 31x31 grid. LPFM advocates likewise urge the Commission to
separately evaluate named cities in hyphenated Arbitron markets, to set
higher channel floors, to count only channels (and not locations) as
counting toward a channel floor, and to only count new licensing
opportunities when assessing LPFM channel availability.
34. Translator advocates largely disagree with these suggestions.
NPR and NAB assert that a 21x21 grid ``provides a skewed analysis of
market conditions'' and would violate the LCRA mandate that the two
services remain equal in status because it would result in the
dismissal of more translator applications. Indeed, they maintain that
even the Commission's proposed 31x31 grid is too small, and argue that
use of Arbitron market boundaries would provide a more accurate measure
of current LPFM and FM translator station locations and potential LPFM
licensing opportunities. EMF and other translator proponents likewise
disagree with Prometheus's view that only channels should apply to the
channel floors, maintaining that potential ``locations'' for LPFM
stations should also count. By looking solely at channels, EMF
maintains that the Commission is understating the number of potential
LPFM stations that could actually be
[[Page 21008]]
constructed in the market. It argues that if LPFM is truly a localized
service to small populations, channel re-use within a market is ``to be
expected.''
b. Translator Amendment and Settlement Procedures
35. In ``Dismiss All'' Markets. NAB and others assert that we
should process translator applications where an application grant would
not obstruct a particular LPFM opportunity or where a dismissal would
not create an additional LPFM opportunity. LPFM advocates oppose these
suggestions. With respect to the former, they argue that this proposal
in practice would likely result in the loss of significant LPFM
licensing opportunities. With respect to the latter, they argue that
the second-adjacent waiver process will create many LPFM opportunities
in markets that otherwise appear to have no available LPFM channels
(such as New York and Chicago). Common Frequency further urges the
Commission to take into account LP-10 availability and the potential
for intermediate frequency (``I.F.'') and second adjacent channel
waivers in determining whether a particular translator application
could preclude an LPFM licensing opportunity.
36. In ``Process All'' Markets. NPR and others argue that the
Commission should not restrict the ability of pending translator
applicants to make minor amendments to their applications, arguing that
circumstances may have changed considerably since their applications
were filed in 2003. NAB argues that the Commission should allow
applicants to choose other channels as part of the settlement process,
so long as the availability of LPFM opportunities is not reduced below
the LPFM channel floor for that market. It does not, however, propose
procedures to select among competing translator applicants while also
safeguarding the pertinent LPFM channel floor. It notes that in many
``process all'' markets, the number of available LPFM channels far
exceeds the channel floor.
37. LPFM advocates disagree, arguing that the ``availability of
settlements negates the FCC's systemic approach to defining clear
channel floors.'' Common Frequency maintains that the availability of
settlements ``provides for an open-ended scenario where translator
applicants could effectively cherry-pick the best channels, leaving the
channels at the edges of the grid-area for LPFM applicants.''
3. Analysis--Revised Translator Application Processing and Dismissal
Policies
38. Despite the divergence of views about interpreting the LCRA,
there is relatively broad agreement with respect to our proposal to
effectuate section 5 with market-specific spectrum availability
metrics. Significantly, no commenter provided a comprehensive statutory
interpretation pointing to a fundamentally different approach.
Accordingly, we adopt, with certain modifications, the market-specific
processing approach outlined in the Third Further Notice. As discussed
above, our principal challenge in effectuating section 5(1) of the LCRA
is to identify and preserve those LPFM licensing opportunities where
few or no LPFM stations currently operate. The processing approach we
adopt today furthers this goal by ensuring that LPFM licensing
opportunities in spectrum-limited markets remain ``available.'' At the
same time, we adopt translator application and amendment procedures
that will permit the immediate licensing of certain pending translator
applications in both ``dismiss all'' and ``process all'' markets,
consistent with section 5(1) and 5(2) directives and the procedures set
forth below. To conform our terminology to the revised processing
standards, we will use the names ``spectrum limited'' and ``spectrum
available'' markets to refer to what were previously characterized as
``dismiss all'' and ``process all'' markets, respectively.
39. We believe certain modifications are necessary to better ensure
that our licensing decisions are based on community needs, as required
by section 5 of the LCRA. As we noted in the Third Further Notice and
as discussed above, LPFM stations are best suited to serve more densely
populated markets. We have reviewed our grid studies and have
determined that in some smaller ``spectrum available'' markets, many of
the channels identified as available for LPFM are on the fringe of the
31x31 grid in unpopulated or very lightly populated areas. Indeed, in
some cases, the population of the 21x21 grid represents more than 90
percent of the population of the 31x31 grid. We believe that LPFM
stations can best serve the needs of local communities in areas with
significant populations where LPFM service is practical and
sustainable. Accordingly, we find that adoption of a smaller grid is
appropriate in certain markets to compensate for low population levels
on the outer fringes of the grid. We believe that use of a smaller grid
in these markets will more faithfully implement section 5(2) of the
LCRA than our original proposal because it identifies and preserves
LPFM opportunities in core city areas, where the LPFM service can best
serve community needs. We likewise find that this revised approach is
more faithful to our interpretation of sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the
LCRA. As set forth above, these sections, when read together, require
us to ensure a certain level of future LPFM licensing in ``spectrum
available'' markets. However, we believe that licensing opportunities
identified as ``available'' in these smaller markets should be limited
to those locations that are likely to be able to support viable LPFM
stations. Our adoption of a 21x21 grid in certain markets will enable
us to more accurately identify such opportunities.
40. Different considerations apply to the largest markets. Our
analysis establishes that there are few or no LPFM licensing
opportunities within the core areas of most of the top 50 markets,
especially when compared to the number of licensed translator stations
and the number of pending translator applications in these markets.
Using the methodology set forth in paragraph 41 below, we have
determined that only seven of the top 50 markets which are classified
as ``spectrum limited'' exhibit the high population concentrations
within the grid that occur in a number of smaller markets. That is,
based on both raw population numbers and population distributions, the
largest markets are more likely to include population centers outside
core market locations that LPFM stations could serve. Thus, we find
that our translator processing procedures must not preclude LPFM
licensing opportunities beyond the studied 31x31 grids in the top 50
spectrum limited markets.
41. We have modified the LPFM spectrum availability study set forth
in the Third Further Notice as follows. As before, we identified the
number of available LPFM channels and licensed stations within the
31x31 grid and compared this number to each market's channel floor.
These results are set forth in Appendix A. We then analyzed ``spectrum
available'' markets to identify those where 75 percent or more of the
total population in the 31x31 grid is located in the 21x21 grid. In
these markets, the smaller grid contains the concentrated core
population and, for the reasons explained in paragraph 39 above, we
used the smaller grid to determine both the number of licensed stations
and the number of channels available for future LPFM stations.
[[Page 21009]]
Thus, ``spectrum available'' markets are those markets in which the
number of LPFM channels within the applicable grid meets or exceeds the
market's channel floor. The results of our market studies using the
21x21 grid, where applicable, are presented in Appendix B. We did not
subject the 31x31 ``spectrum limited'' markets to the 21x21 population
threshold test for several reasons. First, any such market would
necessarily remain a ``spectrum limited'' market on the basis of a
21x21 grid analysis. More importantly, the 31x31 grid analysis in each
of these markets establishes that few opportunities remain within the
larger grid for new LPFM stations. Thus, we find that it is necessary
that our ``spectrum limited'' market translator application processing
rules, as described below, protect all of the limited LPFM licensing
opportunities within the larger grid in such markets. In addition, for
the reasons stated above, we also will require a translator applicant
in any top 50 spectrum limited market to demonstrate that its out-of-
grid proposal would not preclude the only LPFM station licensing
opportunity at that location (``Top 50 Market Preclusion Showing'') by
making the showing described below. We note that the analyses in
Appendices A and B are based on updated BIA data, resulting in several
changes from the analysis attached to the Third Further Notice,
including the addition of three radio markets listed in the appendices
and the removal of two markets previously listed in Appendix A.
42. We next consider other proposed ``tweaks'' to our methodology.
Prometheus and REC first urge us to set higher channel floors, arguing
that, given the ``overstatement of LPFM availability in the
Commission's methodology, the proposed floors are too low to achieve
the envisioned LPFM license availability.'' They assert that there are
a number of unknown factors in determining LPFM availability, including
suitability and availability of the site, population levels, and demand
for LPFM at these locations.
43. We believe that our adoption of the smaller grid in those
markets with a core concentrated population largely addresses these
concerns because it excludes from our analysis LPFM opportunities in
areas with little or no population. It is also the case that our
studies demonstrate that multiple grid points are available for many of
the identified channels and that more than one LPFM station can operate
on identified channels in some markets. We find that these factors
adequately counter-balance uncertainties regarding site availability,
site suitability and local demand for LPFM licenses. We will also
continue to count both identified vacant channels and those channels
currently licensed to LPFM stations as ``available.'' Excluding
currently licensed LPFM channels from our ``available LPFM channels''
findings, as proposed by Prometheus and REC, would be inconsistent with
our interpretation of section 5(1) to require consideration of existing
licenses as part of the ``licenses are available'' metric. Moreover,
eliminating licensed channels from consideration would not create many
(if any) new LPFM opportunities because it would not convert any top 50
``spectrum available'' market into a ``spectrum limited'' market.
Finally, we decline to break out hyphenated Arbitron markets into
separate submarkets, as suggested by REC and others, because we believe
that ample LPFM opportunities remain in most submarkets. Also, without
clear delineation within the markets, there would be no reasonable way
of determining which translators would be processed, should two cities
within a market have different spectrum available/spectrum limited
outcomes.
44. NAB does not oppose the channel floors, per se, but urges us to
count both channels and locations toward the channel floors. We reject
this suggestion. As Prometheus notes, the Commission cannot determine
whether there is demand for a future LPFM station at any identified
location. Moreover, as we have emphasized previously, this may be the
last opportunity to meaningfully expand opportunities to provide LPFM
service due to the combined impacts of limited spectrum and the strict
technical licensing standards mandated by the LCRA. In contrast, and as
we also explained in the Third Further Notice, flexible translator
licensing rules ensure that abundant translator licensing opportunities
will remain after the forthcoming LPFM window. Thus, consistent with
the broad interpretive principles set forth above, we find that it is
appropriate to use conservative techniques to assess LPFM availability
in a given market, including counting available LPFM channels, not
locations.
45. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed ``LPFM Channel
Floors'' of potential LPFM licensing opportunities in the 150 largest
markets, as well as smaller markets where more than four translator
applications are pending. These channel floors range from 8 potential
LPFM channels in the top 20 markets to 5 potential LPFM channels below
the top 100 markets. We based these figures on a rough approximation of
the number of noncommercial educational (``NCE'') stations in the top
150 markets. We selected the NCE FM service as a point of reference
because that service is the radio service most similar to the LPFM
service and, therefore, the best gauge of local community needs for
such service. Commenters who addressed our proposed channel floors
disputed neither our reasoning nor the specific ranges of channel
floors or markets selected for those ranges. Thus, based on our
examination of the record, we conclude that the proposed channel floors
are a reasonable standard. We find that these floors adequately further
the development of the LPFM service in spectrum-limited markets, as
intended by section 5(1) of the LCRA, and strike an effective balance
by ensuring that licenses for both LPFM and translator services are
available in as many communities as possible, as required by our
collective reading of sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the LCRA. Accordingly,
we adopt the channel floors as proposed in the Third Further Notice.
46. We will, however, revise our processing approach with regard to
certain translator applications in both ``spectrum limited'' and
``spectrum available'' markets. As an initial matter, we recognize that
our use of the 21x21 grid in certain markets has turned some ``spectrum
available'' markets into ``spectrum limited'' markets. For the reasons
discussed above, we find that translators serve community needs,
especially those in rural or underserved areas. As such, we agree with
NAB that translator applicants in ``spectrum limited'' markets should
be given an opportunity to demonstrate that their applications, if
granted, would not preclude any LPFM opportunities. We also will permit
minor amendments to meet this ``no preclusion'' test. Translator
applicants proposing ``move-in'' modifications and modification
applications that propose to move into a ``spectrum limited'' market
will also be allowed to make such a showing. This approach is also
consistent with our combined reading of sections 5(1) and 5(2) because
it furthers the statutory goal of ensuring that the Commission provide
licensing opportunities for both services in as many communities as
possible. Prometheus and others fail to explain how this narrow
exception to allow continued translator processing in a ``spectrum
limited'' market will preclude LPFM opportunities, given that, as
described in more detail below, we will require translator applicants
to protect all channel/point combinations with the assumption that all
LPFM
[[Page 21010]]
applicants in these markets will be eligible for second-adjacent
channel waivers. We likewise agree that translator applicants in
``spectrum available'' markets should be afforded some opportunity to
amend their applications. As noted by many translator advocates,
circumstances have changed since 2003, and transmitter sites may no
longer be available. As described in more detail below, we will provide
applicants with a limited opportunity to amend their applications so
long as their proposals do not eliminate any LPFM channel/point
combination in any of the 156 market grids and, where applicable,
satisfy the Top 50 Market Preclusion Showing. We do not believe that
allowing translator applicants these limited opportunities to amend
their applications will impede our ability to guarantee licensing
opportunities equivalent to the LPFM channel floors we adopt herein.
47. Accordingly, we direct the Bureau to issue a public notice
requiring all applicants affected by the national application cap and/
or the one application per applicant per market limitation (discussed
below) to identify applications for continued processing, consistent
with these limits. The auctions anti-collusion rule will remain in
effect during this process. Upon completion of this selection/dismissal
process, the Bureau will process the remaining applications in
``spectrum available'' markets, starting with the singletons. Mutually
exclusive applications from this group will then be placed on public
notice and afforded a 60-90 day window to resolve their application
conflicts via settlement or amendment. Any amendment of an application
that precludes any LPFM channel/point combination identified in the
grid studies will result in application dismissal. Amendments will be
processed on a first-come, first-served basis, with all unamended
applications having cut-off protection against amendments filed during
the settlement period.
48. Applicants with proposals in ``spectrum limited'' markets will
be given one opportunity to modify their proposals to eliminate all
preclusive impacts on protected LPFM channel/point combinations. An
applicant in a top 50 ``spectrum limited'' market proposing facilities
outside the studied 31x31 grid also will need to demonstrate either
that no LPFM station could be licensed at the proposed transmitter site
or, if an LPFM station could be licensed at the site, that an
additional channel remains available for a future LPFM station at the
same site. Applications that conflict with protected channel/point
combinations or fail to make such a Top 50 Market Preclusion Showing
and that are not amended to come into compliance with these
requirements will be dismissed. As explained above, applications in
31x31 grid ``spectrum limited'' markets must protect all channel/point
combinations within this grid. Applicants in 21x21 grid ``spectrum
limited'' markets must protect all channel/point combinations only
within this grid. We limit ``spectrum limited'' grid protection
requirements in these markets because, as noted above, we believe that
this standard will protect those areas where LPFM stations can best
serve the needs of local communities and, therefore, will most
faithfully implement sections 5(1) and 5(2). From this point, all
remaining applications will generally proceed down the same singleton/
MX/settlement/auction/long form path. Amendments will be processed on a
first-come, first-served basis, including for the purpose of
determining whether an additional LPFM channel remains available at a
specific location outside the grid. We terminate the freeze on the
grant of pending Auction No. 83 translator applications and direct the
Bureau to resume application processing in accordance with these
procedures.
49. We provide the following guidance on translator application
processing. ``Protected'' LPFM channel/point combinations will be
determined differently in ``spectrum available'' and ``spectrum
limited'' markets. In a ``spectrum available'' market, a channel/point
combination must be protected only if LPFM operations at the site would
be fully spaced to all pending translator applications on co-, first-
and second-adjacent channels (and, of course, would satisfy all other
spacing requirements). Thus, a translator applicant in a ``spectrum
available'' market that does not modify its technical proposal would
always qualify for further processing because the proposed translator
facility cannot conflict, by definition, with any protected channel/
point combinations. ``Spectrum available'' market amendments, however,
may not conflict with protected LPFM channel/point combinations.
``Spectrum limited'' calculations, including Top 50 Market Preclusion
Showing calculations, will assume the dismissal of all translator
applications in the market. This differing treatment of pending
translator applications is based on our determination that sufficient
channels are/are not available if all translator applications remain
pending. Moreover, the ``spectrum limited'' channel/point and Top 50
Market Preclusion Showing calculations, will not take into account
second-adjacent channel spacings to authorized stations and other
pending applications, i.e., will assume that an LPFM applicant could
make a sufficient showing to obtain a second-adjacent channel spacing
waiver. Finally, ``spectrum limited'' calculations will not take into
account I.F. spacing requirements. We find that these more restrictive
``spectrum limited'' market processing standards are necessary to
safeguard LPFM licensing opportunities in these markets. As noted, the
protection scheme for ``spectrum available'' markets 1-50 and for all
other studied markets are limited to the particular grid used in each
market. LPFM licensing opportunities outside the grid in these markets
are not protected in either ``spectrum limited'' or ``spectrum
available'' markets. Thus, a translator application specifying a site
at a distance equal to or greater than the minimum LPFM-translator
distance separation requirements and otherwise in compliance with
licensing rules would be grantable under these processing standards in
all ``spectrum limited'' markets 51 and smaller and all ``spectrum
available'' markets.
C. Prevention of Trafficking in Translator Station Construction Permits
and Licenses
1. Background
50. The Third Further Notice tentatively concluded that our
proposed market-based translator application processing policy would
not be sufficient to deter speculative licensing conduct because the
remaining translator filings present significant issues of abuse of our
licensing process. It tentatively concluded that nothing in the LCRA
limits the Commission's ability to address the potential for licensing
abuses by any applicant in Auction No. 83, and sought comment on
processing policies to deter the potential for speculative abuses among
the remaining translator applicants. Specifically, it sought comment on
whether to establish an application cap for the applications that would
remain pending in non-spectrum limited markets and unrated markets, and
asked whether a cap of 50 or 75 applications in a window would force
filers with a large number of applications to concentrate on those
proposals and markets where they have bona fide service aspirations.
The Third Further Notice also asked whether applicants
[[Page 21011]]
should be limited to one or a few applications in any particular
market, noting that a limitation of this sort could limit substantially
the opportunity to warehouse and traffic in translator authorizations
while promoting diversity goals. It also sought comment on alternative
approaches to protect against abuses in the translator licensing
process.
2. Comments
51. Many commenters support some form of cap, with several
supporting a cap of 50 or 75 per applicant nationally, as proposed in
the Third Further Notice. Alan W. Jurison suggests that such a high cap
should be coupled with new translator ownership rules and a waiver
system to allow bona fide applicants to file numerous applications
nationally. Others support our suggestion of having a cap on the number
of applications per market. Kyle Magrill suggests a tiered, market-
based cap whereby the more applications an applicant files nationally,
the further the number of applications per market must decrease.
52. However, EMF opposes any cap at all, believing it will reduce
translator services to smaller markets. Other commenters argue that
caps fail to distinguish serious applicants from speculators and
suppress competition. Some commenters simply disagree with the concerns
over speculative filings described in the Third Further Notice. For
example, Kyle Magrill suggests that non-commercial applicants may have
filed large numbers of translator applications because they believed
that it was the best way to ensure they would obtain a permit, and even
those permits that were sold have resulted in new facilities on the air
serving the public interest. Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc., and Radio
Assist Ministry, Inc., also note that applicants accused of trafficking
have not in fact violated any of the Commission's Rules.
53. Several commenters propose alternatives to caps or additional
safeguards against trafficking: placing limitations on the number of
outstanding translator construction permits an applicant can have;
restricting sales of permits to allow applicants to only recover costs;
or preventing outright the sale of unbuilt construction permits. NPR
suggests establishing a holding period obligating future translator
permittees to construct and operate newly authorized translators.
3. Analysis
54. We conclude that both a national cap and a market-based cap for
the markets identified in Appendix A are appropriate to limit
speculative licensing conduct and necessary to bolster the integrity of
the remaining Auction 83 licensing. Without such caps, we believe that
the translator licensing process we adopt herein could result in the
prosecution of thousands of applications for the primary purpose of
for-profit assignments of the issued translator authorizations. If the
permits were issued in an auction, then we would be much less concerned
about such speculation in permits. However, as we noted in the Third
Further Notice, we expect that a substantial portion of the remaining
grants will be made pursuant to our settlement procedures rather than
through auctions.
55. We first must address whether the adoption of national and per-
market caps on the processing of pending translator applications to
protect the integrity of the translator licensing process is consistent
with section 5 of the LCRA. Although that provision mandates that the
Commission consider the availability of translator licenses to serve
the needs of local communities in licensing new translators, it does
not limit the Commission's authority under the Act to adopt measures to
protect the integrity of its licensing processes. Accordingly, we
conclude that adoption of the caps to safeguard the integrity of our
licensing processes is consistent with section 5's requirement to
ensure that licenses are available to both LPFM and translator
services.
56. We next address the public interest benefits of translator
application caps. As set forth above, the initiation of new translator
service resulting from a grant of some of those applications may
benefit the public interest. At the same time, we believe strongly that
remedial limits are needed to protect the integrity of our licensing
process. Non-feeable application procedures and flexible auction and
translator settlement rules clearly have facilitated and encouraged the
filing of speculative proposals. Our CDBS database shows that
successful Auction 83 applicants have sold more than 700 translator
authorizations and let almost 1000 permits expire without completing
construction. In some markets, certain applicants have filed dozens of
applications, even though it is inconceivable that one entity would
construct and operate all of the proposed stations. The filers that
will be affected by our national cap and by our per-market cap account
for much of this licensing activity. While we recognize that high-
volume filers did not violate our rules, these types of speculative
filings are fundamentally at odds with the core Commission broadcast
licensing policies and contrary to the public interest.
57. Although we have considered a number of alternatives, we find
that imposing a cap on applications is the most administratively
feasible solution for processing this large group of long-pending
applications. As some comments suggest, a longer term solution may
require structural changes to the translator licensing process, e.g.,
holding period and/or construction requirements, no-profit restrictions
on the assignment of authorizations, a cap on application filings, etc.
However, we believe that the caps we adopt today will both deter
trafficking and provide the fastest path to additional translator and
LPFM licensing in areas where the need for additional service is
greatest. We emphasize that the cap procedures we adopt will give
applicants the opportunity to elect which applications will be
processed toward a grant. We expect that applicants will choose
applications that will maximize new service to the public. Even with
the dismissal of many of the pending translator applications pursuant
to the application caps and our market-based processing policy, we are
confident that the same or comparable licensing opportunities will
remain available in a future translator filing window under our
flexible translator licensing standards. In short, these dismissals
will only delay, not deny, licenses to applicants whose translator
applications are dismissed but who remain interested in effectuating
their proposals.
58. We believe that a national cap of 50 applications per applicant
from the pending Auction 83 applications is an appropriate limit.
Because translators are relatively cheap to construct and operate, we
believe it is feasible for the organizations that filed the highest
volume of applications to construct and operate 50 additional stations.
Accordingly, in balancing the competing goals of deterring speculation
and expanding translator service to local communities, we conclude that
a national cap of 50 applications is appropriate. We note that this cap
is high enough to permit all but twenty applicants to prosecute all of
their pending applications. We also note that even some translator
advocates commented in support of a cap of 50 applications.
59. In addition to the national cap of 50 applications, we believe
that a per-market cap of one application in the markets identified in
Appendix A is appropriate. Our translator rules contemplate that a
party may receive an authorization for a second or third FM translator
serving substantially the same
[[Page 21012]]
area as the first only after making a ``showing of technical need for
such additional stations.'' This is a spectrum efficiency rule based on
our experience that parties rarely need such multiple translators. Yet
in some cases, applicants in Auction 83 submitted dozens of
applications for a particular market. These applications were clearly
filed for speculative reasons or to skew our auction procedures, as it
is inconceivable that a single entity would construct so many stations
in a single market. Given the volume of pending applications, it is not
administratively feasible to conduct a case-by-case assessment of
technical need for such multiple applications within the markets
identified in Appendix A. Accordingly, we will apply a cap of one
translator application per applicant in the markets identified in
Appendix A. For applications outside those markets, where the
duplication issue is more manageable, we will apply our technical need
rule on a case-by-case basis.
60. For translator applicants, our revised processing policies
provide a straightforward licensing path that will likely result in
more than 1000 new construction permits, thereby increasing the total
number of authorizations issued out of Auction 83 to over 4500. At the
same time, the national and per-market caps will require each affected
applicant to prioritize its filings and to focus on proposals at
locations where it has a bona fide interest in providing service. We
believe that these restrictions are necessary to impose on these
applicants a level of discipline similar to that which competitive
bidding procedures provide in full service station licensing.
61. We will require parties with more than 50 pending applications
nationally and/or more than one pending application in the markets
identified in Appendix A to identify and affirm their continuing
interest in those pending applications for which they seek further
Commission processing, consistent with these limits. Both pending long
form and short form applications will be subject to these applicant-
based caps. In the event that an applicant does not timely comply with
these dismissal procedures, we direct the staff to first apply the
national cap, retaining on file the first 50 filed applications and
dismissing those that were subsequently filed. The staff will then
dismiss all but the first filed application in each of the markets
identified in Appendix A.
D. Restrictions on the Use of FM Translators to Rebroadcast the Signals
of AM Stations
1. Background
62. In 2009, the Commission authorized the use of FM translators
with licenses or permits in effect as of May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast
the signal of a local AM station. The limitation of cross-service
translator usage to already-authorized FM translators was adopted with
the intention of preserving opportunities for future LPFM licensing.
Two parties filed petitions for partial reconsideration of this aspect
of the 2009 Translator Order. Both petitions argue that the limitation
of cross-service translators does not serve the public interest and is
unfair to both AM stations and FM translator applicants.
63. The practical effect of the date limit imposed in the 2009
Translator Order was to exclude pending Auction No. 83 FM translator
applications as well as future FM translator applications from the pool
of potential cross-service translators. In the Third Further Notice, we
asked whether it would be appropriate to remove this limit on cross-
service translators with respect to those pending applications.
Specifically, we asked whether the limit should be removed for those
applications which were on file as of May 1, 2009. We stated that
resolving this issue before processing of the pending translator
applications would align FM translator processing outcomes more closely
with demand by enabling applicants to take the rebroadcasting option
into account in the translator settlement and licensing processes,
thereby advancing the goals of section 5(2) of the LCRA. We also noted
that allowing cross-service translators had been a very successful
deregulatory policy.
2. Comments
64. Most commenters support removing the date restriction for
pending FM translator applications. These commenters point to the
public service benefits that FM translators have provided to AM
stations. Some argue that the need for the date restriction is going
away now that the Commission will be opening an LPFM window.
65. To the extent that commenters take a contrary position, most
argue for some type of restriction or limitation on cross-service
translators in general. Some LPFM proponents argue for qualifying
criteria for cross-service translators, such as local ownership, lack
of in-market FM ownership by the AM licensee, diversity of ownership,
amount of local programming, and quality of AM signal. REC Networks and
Prometheus argue that the 250-watt power level allowed for ``fill-in''
AM translators should be reduced before cross-service translators are
expanded. NPR argues that the date restriction should be kept in place
unless the Commission adopts strong anti-trafficking rules so that
traffickers in the current pool of Auction 83 applicants will not
benefit from the change.
3. Analysis
66. We will modify the date restriction to allow pending FM
translator applications that are granted to be used as cross-service
translators. As we explained in the Third Further Notice, the
limitation of cross-service translator usage to already-authorized
translators was adopted with the intention of preserving opportunities
for future LPFM licensing. In the Third Further Notice, we decided to
revisit this pre-LCRA policy. We proposed changes in the FM translator
application processing rules designed to accomplish more effectively
the goal of preserving spectrum for future LPFM licensing. Given those
proposed changes, as stated above, we indicated that removing the date
limit, at least for the pending translator applications, could align FM
translator licensing outcomes more closely with demand, thereby
advancing the goals of section 5(2) of the LCRA.
67. With our adoption of the revised translator application
processing policies described above, we believe we have effectively
addressed the LPFM spectrum issue that prompted the pre-LCRA date
limitation on cross-service translators. Having done so, we believe the
translators that are put into service from the pool of pending
applications should be put to their best use, consistent with the
directive of section 5(2) to carry out FM translator licensing ``based
on the needs of the local community.'' Our view is that, with the FM
translator processing policies described above in effect, the public
interest benefits from expanding cross-service translator service are
considerably more significant than any downside from allowing any
forthcoming Auction No. 83 authorizations to be used for such service.
68. With respect to the proposed restrictions or limitations on
cross-service translators sought by LPFM proponents, most are
essentially untimely petitions for reconsideration of the 2009
Translator Order. Accordingly, and because we intend to consider
modifications to our FM translator rules and procedures more generally
in a separate proceeding, as discussed
[[Page 21013]]
below, we decline to consider these arguments here. In any event, we
believe the LPFM proponents who argue for such restrictions fail to
recognize the significant public interest benefits that will accrue
from expanding the pool of potential cross-service translators. In the
2009 Translator Order, we described the substantial benefits to local
listeners that cross-service translators were providing, for example,
providing pre-sunrise and post-sunset coverage of traffic, weather,
news and sports programming and improving localism, competition and
diversity in a number of radio markets. The record here confirms those
benefits and supports a change in the date limitation to allow permits
or licenses arising from pending FM translator applications to be used
as cross-service translators.
69. Again, we intend to revise our FM translator rules before the
next FM translator auction window, so parties will have an opportunity
to present their views at that time with respect to any appropriate
modifications in our translator rules and procedures. If parties wish
to argue that priority should be given in future translator auction
windows to Class D AM stations or AM stations that lack a co-owned FM
outlet, then they may do so in that proceeding.
70. Accordingly, we grant reconsideration of the 2009 Translator
Order to the extent of allowing authorizations arising from pending FM
translator applications to be used as cross-service translators. With
respect to future FM translator applications, we will address their
potential use as cross-service translators in a future rulemaking to
revise our FM translator rules.
II. Third Order on Reconsideration
71. In the Third Report and Order discussed above, the Commission
established a going-forward limit of ten pending short-form
applications per applicant from FM translator Auction No. 83, and
directed the Bureau to resume processing the applications of those
applicants in compliance with this numerical cap.
72. Petitions for reconsideration opposing the cap were filed by
CSN International, National Religious Broadcasters, Positive
Alternative Radio, Inc., and Educational Media Foundation et. al. In
light of our adoption of the market-specific translator application
dismissal process described in this Fourth Report and Order, we dismiss
them as moot.
III. Procedural Matters
73. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.
74. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13 (U.S.C. 3501-3520). The requirements will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register inviting comments on the new information
collection requirements adopted in this document. In addition, we note
that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees. We describe impacts that might affect small
businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C, infra.
75. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of
this Fourth Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Further Notice) in MM
Docket No. 99-25, and MB Docket No. 07-172, RM-11338. The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Third Further
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. We received no comments
specifically directed toward the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order
77. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated to seek comment on how
the enactment of section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010
(``LCRA'') would impact the procedures previously adopted to process
the approximately 6,500 applications which remain from the 2003 FM
translator window. The Commission previously established a processing
cap of ten pending short-form applications per applicant from FM
translator Auction No. 83. The Fourth Report and Order concludes that
that this cap was inconsistent with the LCRA licensing criteria. It
further concludes that a market-specific, spectrum availability-based
translator application dismissal policy most faithfully implements
section 5 of the LCRA. Specifically, it sets forth a dismissal policy
in which the Commission will impose a national application cap and/or a
one application per applicant per market in the markets identified in
Appendix A of the Fourth Report and Order. It directs the Media Bureau
to issue a Public Notice asking applicants to identify applications for
continued processing, consistent with these limits. Upon completion of
this selection/dismissal process, the Bureau will process the remaining
applications in ``spectrum available'' markets, as defined in the
Fourth Report and Order. Applicants will be able to file amendments
demonstrating that their applications will not preclude any LPFM
channel/point combination identified in the grid studies. Those
applications that fail to do so will be dismissed.
78. Applicants with proposals remaining in ``spectrum limited''
markets, as defined in the Fourth Report and Order, will also be given
one opportunity to modify their proposals to eliminate all preclusive
impacts on protected LPFM channel/point combinations. Applications that
conflict with protected channel/point combinations and that are not
amended to eliminate all such conflicts will be dismissed.
79. The Fourth Report and Order also modifies certain recently
adopted FM translator service rule changes as a result of the enactment
of the LCRA. Specifically, it modifies the date restriction contained
in Sec. 74.1232(d) of the Rules to allow pending FM translator
applications that are granted to be used as cross-service translators.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
80. None.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
81. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where
[[Page 21014]]
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as encompassing the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental entity.'' In addition, the
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 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'').
82. Radio Broadcasting. The policies adopted in the Fourth Report
and Order apply to radio broadcast licensees, and potential licensees
of radio service. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small
business if such station has no more than $7 million in annual
receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications,
Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of January 31, 2011,
about 10,820 (97 percent) of 11,100 commercial radio stations) have
revenues of $7 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as small under the above definition,
business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based
does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
83. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules
may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a
small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to
that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of
``small business'' is that the entity must be independently owned and
operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these
criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small
businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
84. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. The policies
adopted in the Fourth Report and Order affect licensees of FM
translator and booster stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as
well as potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA
definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to
these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small
business if such station has no more than $7 million in annual
receipts. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all
of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
Currently, there are approximately 6131 licensed FM translator stations
and 860 licensed LPFM stations. In addition, there are approximately
646 applicants with pending applications filed in the 2003 translator
filing window. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that
all of these licensees and applicants qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
85. In the Fourth Report and Order, we require Auction No. 83
applicants to identify which applications they wish to preserve to come
into compliance with the national and market-based caps. This will
enable the Commission to move quickly through a backlog of applications
that have been pending since 2003 and open a new filing window for the
LPFM service.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
86. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
87. The Fourth Report and Order establishes a market-specific,
spectrum availability-based approach to the processing of remaining
translator applications. It also establishes national and market-
specific application caps. In adopting these policies, several
alternative approaches were considered:
88. Size of Grid. The Commission considered alternatives to the
31x31 market study grid proposed in the Third Further Notice. For
example, it considered a smaller, 21x21 grid, as well as a larger grid
based on Arbitron market boundaries. The Fourth Report and Order adopts
a 31x31 grid, but adopts a 21x21 grid in markets where 75 percent or
more of the population is located in that smaller grid.
89. Processing of Translator Application in Spectrum-Limited
Markets. The Third Further Notice proposed to dismiss all applications
in certain spectrum-limited markets. One alternative considered was to
allow continued processing of certain translator applications in
``spectrum limited'' markets. The Fourth Report and Order adopts this
policy.
90. We believe that the adopted policies offer significant benefits
to small entities. The market-based approach ensures additional
spectrum for LPFM stations in markets in which it is most limited while
also ensuring the immediate licensing of translator stations in
communities in which ample spectrum remains for both services,
including many major markets. Use of the smaller grid and allowing the
processing of additional translators benefit small entities because
they will increase licensing opportunities for both LPFM stations and
translators. Adoption of the application caps will benefit translator
and LPFM proponents because it will allow the Commission to quickly act
on applications that have been pending for more than eight years and to
open an LPFM window in the near future.
91. We likewise believe that removing the date restriction
contained in Sec. 74.1232(d) of the rules to allow pending FM
translator applications that are granted to be used as cross-service
translators will benefit small entities because it will expand
opportunities for translator licensees to rebroadcast AM service.
F. Report to Congress
92. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
SBREFA. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Fourth
Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report and Order and the FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
[[Page 21015]]
Ordering Clauses
93. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Petitions for
Reconsideration filed by Robert A. Lynch on July 28, 2009, and Edward
A. Schober on July 28, 2009, are granted in part to extent set forth
above.
94. It is further ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration
filed by CSN International on February 4, 2008; National Religious
Broadcasters on February 15, 2008; and Positive Alternative Radio, Inc.
and Educational Media Foundation on February 19, 2008, are dismissed as
moot.
95. It is further ordered that pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C, 154(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), and the Local Community Radio Act of 2010,
Public Law 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011), this Fourth Report and Order
is hereby adopted and Part 74 of the Commission's rules are amended as
set forth in Appendix D, effective 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.
96. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will become
effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register,
except for any rules or requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act
burdens, which shall become effective upon announcement in the Federal
Register of OMB approval and an effective date of the rule(s).
97. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Fourth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
Rule changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 to read as follows:
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309, 336, and 554.
0
2. Section 74.1232(d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1232 Eligibility and licensing requirements.
* * * * *
(d) An authorization for an FM translator whose coverage contour
extends beyond the protected contour of the commercial primary station
will not be granted to the licensee or permittee of a commercial FM
radio broadcast station. Similarly, such authorization will not be
granted to any person or entity having any interest whatsoever, or any
connection with a primary FM station. Interested and connected parties
extend to group owners, corporate parents, shareholders, officers,
directors, employees, general and limited partners, family members and
business associates. For the purposes of this paragraph, the protected
contour of the primary station shall be defined as follows: the
predicted 0.5mV/m contour for commercial Class B stations, the
predicted 0.7 mV/m contour for commercial Class B1 stations and the
predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour for all other FM radio
broadcast stations. The contours shall be as predicted in accordance
with Sec. 73.313(a) through (d) of this chapter. In the case of an FM
radio broadcast station authorized with facilities in excess of those
specified by Sec. 73.211 of this chapter, a co-owned commercial FM
translator will only be authorized within the protected contour of the
class of station being rebroadcast, as predicted on the basis of the
maximum powers and heights set forth in that section for the applicable
class of FM broadcast station concerned. An FM translator station in
operation prior to March 1, 1991, which is owned by a commercial FM
(primary) station and whose coverage contour extends beyond the
protected contour of the primary station, may continue to be owned by
such primary station until March 1, 1994. Thereafter, any such FM
translator station must be owned by independent parties. An FM
translator station in operation prior to June 1, 1991, which is owned
by a commercial FM radio broadcast station and whose coverage contour
extends beyond the protected contour of the primary station, may
continue to be owned by a commercial FM radio broadcast station until
June 1, 1994. Thereafter, any such FM translator station must be owned
by independent parties. An FM translator providing service to an AM
fill-in area will be authorized only to the permittee or licensee of
the AM radio broadcast station being rebroadcast, or, in the case of an
FM translator authorized to operate on an unreserved channel, to a
party with a valid rebroadcast consent agreement with such a permittee
or licensee to rebroadcast that station as the translator's primary
station. In addition, any FM translator providing service to an AM
fill-in area must have been authorized by a license or construction
permit in effect as of May 1, 2009, or pursuant to an application that
was pending as of May 1, 2009. A subsequent modification of any such FM
translator will not affect its eligibility to rebroadcast an AM signal.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-8404 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P