Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MB Docket No. 07-172         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Service and         | ) | RM-11338                     |
| Eligibility Rules for FM         | * |                              |
| Broadcast Translator Stations    | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: August 7, 2007 Released: August 15, 2007**

**Comment Date: \[60 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[90 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register\]**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  On July 14, 2006, the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB")
    filed a Petition for Rulemaking proposing that the Commission amend
    its rules to allow AM broadcast stations to operate FM translator
    stations.[^1] The NAB Petition proposed that AM stations be
    permitted to license and/or use FM translator stations to retransmit
    their AM service as a fill-in service. Specifically, the NAB
    proposed that AM stations be allowed to use FM translator stations
    to rebroadcast the AM signal, provided that no portion of the 60 dBu
    contour of any such FM translator station extends beyond the smaller
    of: (a) a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site; or (b) the 2
    mV/m daytime contour of the AM station. We received over 500
    comments on the NAB Petition, with the overwhelming majority
    supporting the proposal. With this Notice of Proposed Rule Making
    ("NPRM"), we propose rules permitting the use of FM translators by
    AM stations and examine the issues related to such a rule change,
    including the issue of program origination at night over FM
    translators by AM daytime-only stations.

# Background

2.  For decades, AM radio service has been an integral part of American
    life. In 1991, the Commission observed:

    AM radio was this country's first national medium of electronic mass
    communications and, for more than half a century, its contribution
    to daily life in America was unquestioned. The AM service was a
    unifying force throughout the country, providing a wealth of news,
    information, entertainment, education, and political dialogue
    readily accessible to virtually all Americans. In the process, it
    revolutionized the fabric of our daily lives, our dialogue and our
    democracy.[^2]

3.  However, as we have recognized, the AM band's viability has been
    threatened by a well-documented shift of AM listeners to newer mass
    media services that offer higher technical quality and superior
    audio fidelity.[^3] Although the Commission has taken various steps
    to revitalize the AM band,[^4] there are inherent technical
    limitations that present challenges for which there is no easy
    solution. For example, the propagation characteristics of the AM
    band cause substantially increased interference among AM broadcasts
    at night. Accordingly, during nighttime hours, many AM stations are
    required to reduce their operating power substantially (and/or
    directionalize their signals), thereby eliminating service to
    certain swaths of their audience, while others (daytime-only
    stations) are prohibited from broadcasting at night.[^5] This
    situation will be worse as of this year, when recent actions by
    Congress to extend Daylight Savings Time ("DST") became
    effective.[^6] DST began three weeks earlier, starting on the second
    Sunday of March 2007, and will end one week later, starting on the
    first Sunday in November 2007. As a result, many AM facilities, and
    particularly daytime-only stations, will either completely lose an
    hour of early morning drive-time programming or be forced to operate
    at very low power during that important period of the broadcast day.

4.  The AM band's technical problems involve more than just this
    nighttime service issue. During all hours of operations, increasing
    electromagnetic interference to AM transmissions emanates from power
    lines, electronics equipment such as computers and televisions,
    fluorescent and neon lighting and dimmers used for incandescent
    lighting, electric motors, traffic signal sensors, RF from cable
    lines and equipment, and certain kinds of medical equipment. In
    addition, some commenters have argued that the introduction of
    in-band, on-channel ("IBOC") digital radio broadcast transmissions
    will create a new factor of interference to AM listeners,
    particularly to those tuned to low power AM stations that operate on
    channels adjacent to those of 50 kW stations which have initiated
    IBOC operations.[^7]

5.  Despite these difficulties, AM radio remains an important component
    of the mass media landscape and a vital provider of local broadcast
    service, offering programming specifically oriented to treat the
    specific needs and problems of the members of their audiences, in a
    manner consistent with the "public interest, convenience, and
    necessity."[^8] As the Commission has previously stated, AM often
    offers the only radio service to listeners in a variety of
    circumstances, particularly those living in and traveling through
    rural areas.[^9] AM radio stations commonly provide unique,
    community-responsive formats to distinguish themselves in an
    increasingly competitive media market. All-news/talk, all-sports,
    foreign language, and religious programming formats are common on
    the AM band, as are discussions of local news, politics and public
    affairs, traffic announcements and coverage of community events such
    as high school athletic events. In fact, 91.5% of all news/talk
    formats are over stations operating in the AM band.[^10] The
    Commission's commitment to localism in the broadcast service,
    including the AM service, is firmly established: "Localism is rooted
    in Congressional directives to this Commission and has been affirmed
    as a valid regulatory objective many times by the courts."[^11]

6.  In view of the undisputed importance of the AM service within the
    media landscape, we have decided to pursue the rule revisions
    proposed in the NAB Petition as a means to help ensure the continued
    viability and survival of stations in the service.[^12] The
    following sections will describe the current regulatory status of FM
    translator stations, summarize comments filed in response to the NAB
    Petition, and seek public comments on the rule revisions proposed
    herein and the questions raised by those revisions.

# NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

## Regulatory Status of FM Translators

7.  FM translator stations are low power facilities licensed for the
    limited purpose of retransmitting the signals of either an FM radio
    station or another FM translator station.[^13] FM translators were
    first authorized in 1970 to provide secondary FM service to areas
    and populations that are unable to receive satisfactory service due
    to distance or intervening terrain obstacles.[^14] To ensure that FM
    translator stations serve their intended secondary role, the
    Commission adopted rules restricting their service, ownership,
    sources of financial support, and program origination.[^15] For
    example, FM translators are limited to a maximum effective radiated
    power of 250 Watts and may not cause interference to the direct
    reception by the public of the off-the-air signal of any authorized
    broadcast station.[^16] Further, FM translators are restricted to
    retransmitting the signals of other FM stations only during periods
    during which the primary station's signal is being broadcast.[^17]
    FM translators are not permitted to originate their own programming,
    except to acknowledge or solicit financial support and to provide
    emergency warnings of imminent danger.[^18]

8.  The current rules preclude an FM translator from rebroadcasting the
    signal of any station other than that of an FM radio broadcast
    station or FM translator.[^19] The Commission has twice considered
    and rejected proposals to permit AM stations to hold the
    authorizations for and operate FM translators. In 1981, the
    Commission rejected a request by the Rocky Mountain Broadcasters
    Association to amend its rules to permit AM stations to use FM
    transmitters to retransmit their signals in areas beyond the
    predicted 1 mV/m field strength contours of existing AM and FM
    stations.[^20] The Commission found that the distinct technical
    differences between AM and FM services militated against extending
    the current FM translator authorization to include the rebroadcast
    of AM signals, as proposed. Specifically, because the groundwave
    propagation characteristics of AM signals normally do not leave
    service voids or "shadowing" similar to those in the FM band,[^21]
    the Commission found no reason for AM licensees to establish FM
    translators to provide the service proposed.

9.  In 1990, the Commission rejected another proposal to allow AM
    stations to operate FM translators.[^22] Although the Commission
    recognized the possibility that permitting AM stations to use FM
    translators could resolve problems of nighttime reductions in
    service experienced by many AM licensees, the Commission was not
    persuaded that actual improvements in AM service could be gained by
    allowing FM translators to rebroadcast AM stations.[^23] Further,
    the Commission explained that it was conducting a comprehensive
    proceeding to improve the quality of AM radio service and that the
    general use of FM translators by AM stations would contravene the
    goals of that proceeding.[^24]

10. The NAB Petition asks us to revisit the issue of AM-FM cross-service
    translating and amend the Commission's rules to allow AM broadcast
    stations to operate FM translator stations.[^25] Further, another
    pending rule making petition, filed by Miller Communications, Inc.,
    *et al.,* proposes a rule change to enable FM translator stations to
    locally originate programming.[^26] As noted earlier, in this
    proceeding we will explore the issue of program origination on FM
    translators by AM daytime-only stations during the hours the AM
    station is not in operation.

## Comments on the Proposal for AM Stations' Use of FM Translators

11. As we have stated above, the comments in this proceeding are
    overwhelmingly in favor of allowing AM stations to use FM
    translators to retransmit their signals within each AM station's
    current coverage area. Many commenters took the opportunity to note
    coverage deficiencies in AM stations that they operate or listen to,
    as well as the potential to expand coverage of local news and events
    by adopting the proposal advanced by the NAB.[^27]

12. Trade associations representing minority broadcasters commented in
    favor of the NAB Petition. The National Association of Black Owned
    Broadcasters ("NABOB") and the Minority Media and Telecommunications
    Council ("MMTC"), in joint reply comments, argue that adopting the
    proposal would help reverse the sharp downward trend in minority
    ownership by improving the viability and value of AM stations.[^28]
    Their comments endorsed the following statement by the Radio
    Broadcasters Association of Puerto Rico and Independent Spanish
    Broadcasters Association in support of the NAB Petition:

    By allowing use of FM translators with AM stations to improve the
    integrity of the AM band, the Commission would enhance the ability
    of AM stations to compete with other media sources. Such
    competition, in turn, drives creativity, ingenuity and attentiveness
    to the needs of the public in the marketplace as a whole.[^29]

13. Several commenters oppose the NAB Petition. For example, Prometheus
    Radio Project asserts that the proposal would have a devastating
    impact on the development of the Low Power FM ("LPFM") radio
    service.[^30] Prometheus argues that ongoing proceedings involving
    access to the FM band, such as MM Docket No. 99-25 (our pending
    proceeding involving LPFM rules), should first be resolved before
    consideration is given to opening the FM band to AM licensees.[^31]
    Prometheus argues that, although AM licensees may face interference
    issues, they at least have a current outlet, whereas many potential
    LPFM licensees are waiting for authorizations to provide service and
    should not be pushed aside by AM licensees. However, some LPFM
    licensees supported the NAB proposal, and urged that it should be
    expanded to allow AM daytime-only stations to simulcast and/or
    originate programming over an LPFM station operating within the AM
    station's 2 mV/m daytime contour during periods in which the AM
    station is not operating at full power.[^32] NABOB and MMTC believe
    that Prometheus raises a fair point, and that the Commission should
    address the issue by repealing the third adjacent channel
    restrictions, which they describe as "outdated rules, long rendered
    irrelevant by advances in receiver technology."[^33]

14. Other commenters maintain that the NAB's proposal would not remedy
    the problems in the AM band, but would clutter up the FM band and
    perhaps ultimately undermine the AM service by shifting more
    listeners from the AM band to the FM band.[^34] Other parties argued
    that suggestions that the change would undermine AM radio are
    unfounded.[^35] Some commenters share the position of Prometheus
    that the Commission should first finalize the pending FM translator
    proceeding in MM Docket No. 99-25.[^36] In addition, National Public
    Radio, Inc., while not opposing the NAB Petition, argues that the
    Commission should first address the potential for interference to
    full-power FM stations by FM translators and finalize MM Docket No.
    99-25 to reform the Commission's procedures for issuing FM
    translator permits.[^37]

15. A number of parties addressed the FM translator program origination
    issue presented by the NAB Petition. Several supported the NAB
    Petition, but noted that they oppose "wholesale" program origination
    by FM translator stations, which we take to mean the proposal in
    RM-11331.[^38] Others argued that daytime-only AM stations should be
    provided first priority to use FM translators, presumably to
    originate programming at night.[^39]

16. Closely related to the question of program origination are certain
    eligibility issues. The NAB Petition argues that AM "stations"
    should be allowed to use FM translator stations, but it does not
    explicitly address who should be deemed eligible for such operation.
    Wisconsin Public Radio argues that only AM licensees should be
    eligible to use FM translators for the proposed fill-in
    service,[^40] and states that there should be a reasonable limit on
    the number of FM translators (perhaps 10) authorized as a fill-in
    service for any AM station.[^41] Wisconsin Public Radio also
    maintains that eligibility for reserved band FM translators as an AM
    fill-in service should be limited to noncommercial educational
    ("NCE") AM licensees.[^42] Some commenters contend that eligibility
    for FM translators providing AM fill-in service should be limited to
    licensees of daytime-only AM stations, Class C AM stations, and
    other AM facilities that either have serious nighttime coverage
    deficiencies or can convincingly demonstrate that they are subject
    to Cuban interference or other electrical interference that degrades
    their signals so as to make their transmissions unusable within the
    FM translator's fill-in service area.[^43] Others maintain that
    eligibility to operate an FM translator as a fill-in service should
    be limited to licensees of stand-alone AM stations with serious
    nighttime coverage deficiencies.[^44] A number of commenters argue
    that AM licensees should be able not only to own FM translators
    providing AM fill-in service, but also to enter into time brokerage
    agreements with FM translator licensees to provide AM fill-in
    service.[^45]

17. Several commenters propose variations on the technical component
    proposed in the NAB Petition. Some argue that the FM translator
    station should be limited to serving the area within the AM
    station's 5 mV/m daytime contour.[^46] Others suggest that the NAB
    proposal should be liberalized, by, for example, eliminating the
    25-mile restriction,[^47] or using the AM station's 1 mV/m contour
    instead of the 2 mV/m contour,[^48] or limiting the FM translator's
    primary service contour to the greater, rather than the lesser, of
    the AM station's 2 mV/m daytime contour or a 25-mile radius of its
    transmitter site.[^49] Some commenters argue that the NAB proposal
    should be liberalized slightly to allow 15-20% of the FM
    translator's primary service contour to fall outside the AM
    station's 2 mV/m daytime contour.[^50] Eastern Sierra Broadcasting
    supports the NAB's proposal, but argues that it should be
    liberalized in two respects: (a) the FM translator's primary service
    area contour should extend to the AM station's 0.5 mV/m daytime
    contour if it does not extend past the AM station's designated
    market area; and (b) for FM translators in FM Zone II, the mileage
    limitation should be 35 miles rather than 25 miles, because stations
    in FM Zone II operate in larger radio markets.[^51]

## Expansion of Purpose and Permissible Service of FM Translators

18. Based on the comments received in this proceeding, we seek comment
    on several proposed rule changes to expand the purpose and
    permissible service of FM translator stations to allow their use to
    provide fill-in service for AM radio stations. We have attached
    proposed revisions to Sections 74.1201, 74.1231, 74.1232, 74.1263,
    and 74.1284 of the Rules that would allow such service, subject to
    the limitations discussed herein, including those described
    below.[^52] We request comments on the benefits and detriments of
    these proposed rule changes, including their impact on the AM, FM,
    FM translator and LPFM radio services (particularly on small
    business entities) and the listening public. We seek comments on the
    issues discussed above in connection with these proposed rule
    changes. We seek comments as to whether, on balance, the proposed
    rule changes would serve the public interest. We also seek comments
    on the following issues:

    \(a\) If we adopt these rule changes, should the changes be made
    effective at once for all AM stations, or should they be phased in
    over time for different classes of AM stations, based on their
    specific needs or priorities?

    \(b\) If the changes are to be phased in over time, in what manner
    should the Commission phase in the new rules proposed in this NPRM?
    For example: (i) a one-year initial implementation period for
    daytime-only stations and Class C stations; (ii) a one-year initial
    implementation period for daytime-only stations, Class C stations,
    and stations that can show that their nighttime interference-free
    contour is 10 percent or less of the daytime interference-free
    contour; or (iii) a series of implementation periods based on needs
    or priorities (*e.g.*, one initial implementation period for
    stations with nighttime coverage limitations, followed by an
    implementation period for AM stand-alone stations, followed by
    all-AM implementation)? Comments should address not only the
    benefits that phased-in implementation would provide to the
    listening public, but also the cost to the listening public of
    delaying the rule changes for stations not eligible to participate
    immediately.

    \(c\) Would it be appropriate to place any limits on AM licensees'
    ability to use FM translators as a fill-in service depending on
    their ownership of FM stations in the same market as the AM station?

    \(d\) What is the appropriate limit on the number of fill-in
    translators allowed for an AM station, and should the number vary
    depending on the class of the AM station?

    \(e\) The Commission's FM translator rules generally prohibit a
    translator station from receiving any financial support from a
    commercial FM station where the translator station's coverage
    contour extends beyond the protected contour of such FM
    station.[^53] However, this prohibition does not apply to fill-in
    translators. Should this same policy apply to commercial AM
    stations, thereby permitting an AM licensee to broker time over an
    FM translator in the non-reserved band as a fill-in service? Is it
    appropriate to limit eligibility to own and to broker time over FM
    translators in the reserved band to AM licensees providing NCE
    programming service and otherwise satisfying the FM reserved band
    eligibility requirements?

    \(g\) Is it appropriate to allow licensees of AM daytime-only and
    Class C stations to simulcast and/or originate programming over an
    LPFM station as a fill-in service similar to the proposed FM
    translator fill-in service during periods during which the AM
    station is not authorized to operate at its authorized daytime
    power? If this is deemed desirable, we seek comments on how this can
    be accomplished in a manner that is consistent with the LPFM
    eligibility and service rules, including Sections 73.853, 73.858,
    and 73.860 of the Rules.[^54]

## Program Origination Issue

19. As explained above, the Commission has prohibited, with narrow
    exceptions, program origination over FM translator stations.[^55]
    Nevertheless, we tentatively conclude that daytime-only AM licensees
    should be permitted to originate programming over fill-in FM
    translators during the nighttime hours when their stations are not
    authorized to operate. There are 788 AM stations, constituting 17
    percent of all AM stations, which operate with daytime-only
    authorizations. An additional 1125 AM stations hold authorizations
    which permit secondary very low power service at night. These
    stations operate with a significant competitive disadvantage due to
    their shorter broadcast day and their inability to broadcast
    year-round during the entirety of the critical drive-time portion of
    their broadcast day. As discussed earlier, this disadvantage will be
    exacerbated by the expansion this year of Daylight Savings
    Time.[^56] Permitting these stations to use FM translators to
    operate at night would instantly and dramatically change their
    viability in their local radio markets. Importantly, imposition of
    the proposed 2 mV/m and 25-mile translator site restrictions will
    limit such operations to those areas in which, and the listeners to
    whom, these stations provide their core service. We seek comment on
    our tentative conclusion to permit AM daytime-only stations to
    originate programming in the limited circumstances described herein.
    We also seek comment on any potential abuses which could arise as a
    result of permitting such program origination and what measures the
    Commission should consider to prevent such abuses. We also seek
    comments on the impact this proposed rule change would have on the
    FM and LPFM radio services.

## Technical Issues

20. The proposed rule changes for which we seek comment are based on the
    NAB Petition's technical proposal, which would allow AM stations to
    operate FM translators to retransmit their AM programming as a
    fill-in service, as long as no portion of the 60 dBu contour of the
    FM translator exceeds the lesser of: (a) the 2 mV/m daytime contour
    of the AM station or; (b) the 25-mile radius of the AM transmitter
    site. We tentatively conclude that these are appropriate technical
    limitations, but we request comments on these limitations. We also
    seek comment on the following issues:

    \(a\) Should the proposed rule change allow some de minimis portion
    of the FM translator's 60 dBu contour to extend outside the 2 mV/m
    daytime contour of the AM station, and if so, what portion?

    \(b\) Should the proposed rule change be uniform throughout the
    country, or should the radius of the transmitter site be 35 miles
    for FM translators in Zone II, as proposed by Eastern Sierra
    Broadcasting?

    \(c\) Should measured conductivity be allowed in calculating the 2
    mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or should the Figure M-3
    benchmark for conductivity be applied in all cases?

# Procedural Matters

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

21. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is attached to this NPRM
    as Appendix B.

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

22. This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction
    Act of 1995 ("PRA"),[^57] and contains proposed information
    collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
    effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the proposed
    information collection requirements contained in this Notice, as
    required by the PRA.

23. Written comments on the PRA proposed information collection
    requirements must be submitted by the public, the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or
    before **\[60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
    REGISTER\]**. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
    collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
    the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
    shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
    burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
    clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
    burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
    including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms
    of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small
    Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,[^58] we seek specific comment
    on how we might "further reduce the information collection burden
    for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."

24. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a
    copy of any comments on the proposed information collection
    requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St, S.W., Room 1-C823,
    Washington, D.C., 20554, or via the Internet to
    [Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov;](mailto:Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov) and also to
    Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
    Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via Internet to
    Kristy_L.\_LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.

25. *Further Information.* For additional information concerning the PRA
    proposed information collection requirements contained in this NPRM,
    contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the Internet to
    <Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov>.

## Ex Parte Rules 

26. *Permit-But-Disclose.* This proceeding will be treated as a
    "permit-but-disclose" proceeding subject to the
    "permit-but-disclose" requirements under section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission's rules.[^59] *Ex parte* presentations are permissible if
    disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the
    Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise,
    are generally prohibited. Persons making oral *ex parte*
    presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a
    presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the
    presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
    More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and
    arguments presented is generally required.[^60] Additional rules
    pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in
    section 1.1206(b).

## Filing Requirements

27. *Comments and Replies*. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission's rules,[^61] interested parties may file comments and
    reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
    this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS"), (2) the Federal
    Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.[^62]

28. *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/> or
    the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or
    rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or
    rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
    transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
    Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
    rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
    Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an
    e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and include the following words in the
    body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will
    be sent in response.

29. *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
    delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
    overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to
    experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should
    be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

30. *Availability of Documents*. Comments, reply comments, and *ex
    parte* submissions will be available for public inspection during
    regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., CY-A257,
    Washington, D.C., 20554. These documents will also be available via
    ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97,
    and/or Adobe Acrobat.

31. *Accessibility Information.* To request information in accessible
    formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and
    Braille), send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the FCC's
    Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
    (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded
    in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
    [http://www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

32. *Additional Information*. For additional information on this
    proceeding, contact Tom Hutton, tom.hutton@fcc.gov, or James
    Bradshaw, james.bradshaw@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, (202)
    418-2700.

# Ordering Clauses

33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and
    (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 301,
    302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of
    the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Reference Information Center,
    Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Proposed Rule Changes**

The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 C.F.R. Part
74 as set forth below:

PART 74 -- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

### We propose to amend Section 74.1201 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g), and adding paragraph (j), as follows:

**§ 74.1201 Definitions.**

\(a\) FM translator. A station in the broadcasting service operated for
the purpose of retransmitting the signals of an AM or FM radio broadcast
station or another FM broadcast translator station without significantly
altering any characteristics of the incoming signal other than its
frequency and amplitude, in order to provide FM broadcast service to the
general public.\
\
(b) Commercial FM translator. An AM or FM broadcast translator station
which rebroadcasts the signals of a commercial FM radio broadcast
station.\
\
(c) Noncommercial FM translator. An FM broadcast translator station
which rebroadcasts the signals of a noncommercial educational AM or FM
radio broadcast station.\
\
(d) Primary station. The AM or FM radio broadcast station radiating the
signals which are retransmitted by an FM broadcast translator station or
an FM broadcast booster station.\
\
(e) AM or FM radio broadcast station. When used in this Subpart L, the
term AM broadcast station or AM radio broadcast station or FM broadcast
station or FM radio broadcast station refers to commercial and
noncommercial educational AM or FM radio broadcast stations as defined
in §2.1 of this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) Translator coverage contour. The coverage contour for an FM
translator providing \"fill-in\" service is congruent with its parent
station: For a fill-in translator for a commercial Class B station it is
the predicted 0.5 mV/m field strength contour; for a fill-in translator
for a commercial Cass B1 station it is the predicted 0.7 mV/m field
strength contour; and for a fill-in translator for all other classes of
commercial stations as well as all noncommercial educational stations it
is the predicted 1 mV/m field strength contour. A fill-in FM
translator\'s coverage contour must be contained within the primary
station\'s coverage contour. The coverage contour of an FM translator
rebroadcasting an AM radio broadcast station must be contained within
the lesser of the 2mV/m daytime contour of the AM station and a 25-mile
(40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site. The protected
contour for an FM translator station is its predicted 1 mV/m contour.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(j\) AM Fill-in area. The area within the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime
contour of the AM radio broadcast station being rebroadcast and a
25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site.

### We propose to amend Section 74.1231 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), adding new paragraph (h), and changing (h) to (i), as follows:

**§ 74.1231 Purpose and permissible service.**

\(a\) FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM
broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct
reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to
distance or intervening terrain barriers and a means for AM daytime-only
stations to continue operating at night.\
\
(b) An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the
signals of a primary AM or FM radio broadcast station or another
translator station the signal of which is received directly through
space, converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to
the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section.
However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any
terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast.
An FM booster station or a noncommercial educational FM translator
station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and
is owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial
educational station it rebroadcasts may use alternative signal delivery
means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial
microwave facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a
noncommercial educational translator operating on a reserved channel
(Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary
noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with
either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:

\(1\) The applicant demonstrates that:

\(i\) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is
within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary
station to be rebroadcast; or,

\(ii\) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is
more than 160 kilometers from the transmitter site of any authorized
full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,

\(iii\) The application is mutually exclusive with an application
containing the showing as required by § 74.1231(b)(2) (i) or (ii) of
this section; or,

\(iv\) The application is filed after October 1, 1992.

\(2\) If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is
more than 80 kilometers from the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary
station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the transmitter
site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM
station, the applicant must show that:

\(i\) An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the
proposed FM translator\'s transmitter location and can provide signal
coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant\'s proposed 1
mV/m contour; or,

\(ii\) An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can
provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant\'s
proposed 1 mV/m contour.

Note: For paragraphs 74.1231(b) and 74.1231(i) of this section,
auxiliary intercity relay station frequencies may be used to deliver
signals to FM translator and booster stations on a secondary basis only.
Such use shall not interfere with or otherwise preclude use of these
frequencies for transmitting aural programming between the studio and
transmitter location of a broadcast station, or between broadcast
stations, as provided in paragraphs 74.531 (a) and (b) of this part.
Prior to filing an application for an auxiliary intercity relay
microwave frequency, the applicant shall notify the local frequency
coordination committee, or, in the absence of a local frequency
coordination committee, any licensees assigned the use of the proposed
operating frequency in the intended location or area of operation.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) An FM translator station that rebroadcasts an AM radio broadcast
station may originate programming during the hours the AM radio
broadcast station is not authorized to operate.

\(i\) FM broadcast booster stations provide a means whereby the licensee
of an FM broadcast station may provide service to areas in any region
within the primary station\'s predicted, authorized service contours. An
FM broadcast booster station is authorized to retransmit only the
signals of its primary station which have been received directly through
space and suitably amplified, or received by alternative signal delivery
means including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave
facilities. The FM booster station shall not retransmit the signals of
any other station nor make independent transmissions, except that
locally generated signals may be used to excite the booster apparatus
for the purpose of conducting tests and measurements essential to the
proper installation and maintenance of the apparatus.

Note: In the case of an FM broadcast station authorized with facilities
in excess of those specified by § 73.211 of this chapter, an FM booster
station 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.

### We propose to amend Section 74.1232 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d), as follows:

**§ 74.1232 Eligibility and licensing requirements.**

\(c\) Only one input and one output channel or frequency will be
assigned to each FM translator. Additional FM translators may be
authorized to provide additional reception. A separate application is
required for each FM translator and each application shall be complete
in all respects.\
\
(d) 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. 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.

### We propose to amend Section 74.1263 by revising paragraph (b), as follows:

**§ 74.1263 Time of operation.**

\(b\) An FM booster or FM translator station rebroadcasting the signal
of an AM or FM primary station shall not be permitted to radiate during
extended periods when signals of the primary station are not being
retransmitted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, FM translators
rebroadcasting daytime-only AM stations may continue to operate during
nighttime hours only if the AM station has operated within the last 24
hours.

### We propose to amend Section 74.1284 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), as follows:

**§ 74.1284 Rebroadcasts**

\(b\) The licensee of an FM translator shall not rebroadcast the
programs of any AM or FM broadcast station or other FM translator
without obtaining prior consent of the primary station whose programs
are proposed to be retransmitted. The Commission shall be notified of
the call letters of each station rebroadcast and the licensee of the FM
translator shall certify that written consent has been received from the
licensee of the station whose programs are retransmitted.\
\
(c) An FM translator is not authorized to rebroadcast the transmissions
of any class of station other than an AM or FM broadcast station or
another FM translator.

**APPENDIX B**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    ("RFA")[^63] the Commission has prepared this present Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") concerning the possible
    significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and
    rules proposed in this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
    ("*Notice*"). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
    Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
    filed by the deadlines for comments provided in Section IV.D of the
    *Notice*. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice,* including
    this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^64] In addition, the *Notice* and IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^65]

## Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

35. The *Notice* proposes rules that will permit AM station licensees to
    use FM translator stations as a fill-in service within the service
    area of their daytime operating contour, to overcome nighttime
    coverage losses and daytime interference-related losses. The record
    in the proceeding demonstrates significant daytime and nighttime
    service problems in the AM band.

## Legal Basis

36. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is
    contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309,
    319, and 324 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151,
    154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

### Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules

37. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
    where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that
    will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^66] The RFA
    generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning
    as the terms "small business," small organization," and "small
    government jurisdiction."[^67] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^68] 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 SBA.[^69]

38. The proposed rules contained in this *Notice* will permit AM station
    licensees to use FM translator stations as a fill-in service within
    the service area of their daytime operating contour, to overcome
    nighttime coverage losses and daytime interference-related losses.
    We believe radio broadcast licensees will be directly affected by
    the proposed rules, if adopted. We do not believe any other types of
    entities will be directly affected by the proposed rules, but
    request comment on this tentative conclusion. Therefore, in this
    IRFA, we invite comment on the impact of the proposed rules on small
    radio broadcast stations. A description of such small entities, as
    well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is
    provided below.

39. *Radio Broadcasting.* The proposed rules and policies could 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 \$6.5 million in annual receipts.[^70]
    Business concerns included in this industry are those primarily
    engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.[^71]
    According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc.
    Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on November 2, 2006, about
    10,449 of 10,979 commercial radio stations (or about 95 percent)
    have revenues of \$6.5 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[^72] 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.

40. 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.

41. *FM translator stations and low power FM stations.* The proposed
    rules and policies could affect licensees of FM translator and
    booster stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as to
    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 \$6.5 million in annual
    receipts.[^73]

42. Currently, there are approximately 4131 licensed FM translator and
    booster stations and 771 licensed LPFM stations.[^74] Given the
    nature of these services, we will presume that all of these
    licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    Representatives of LPFM broadcasters have commented that the
    proposed expansion of eligibility for, and service by, FM
    translators may have a detrimental effect on the development of the
    LPFM service by limiting the availability of frequencies remaining
    for LPFM service. We seek comments on the impact the proposed rule
    changes would have on LPFM and other stations, as well as on parties
    seeking to obtain authorizations to operate such stations.

### Entities Believed To Be Not Directly Affected By Proposed Rules

43. Because the rules proposed in the *Notice* only expand the
    eligibility and purpose of service of FM translator stations as
    fill-in stations for AM stations already in operation, we do not
    believe the rules will directly affect program supply or demand and,
    therefore, we do not believe that our proposed rules will directly
    affect program suppliers or companies that provide services to radio
    stations. Nevertheless, we seek comment on this tentative conclusion
    and, although such comment is not required by the RFA, we invite
    comment from any small program suppliers or service suppliers who
    believe they might be directly affected by our proposed rules
    contained in the Notice.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance Requirements

44. The *Notice* proposes rules that will permit AM station licensees to
    use FM translator stations as a fill-in service within the service
    area of their daytime operating contour, to overcome nighttime
    coverage losses and daytime interference-related losses. Use of an
    FM translator is at the option of the broadcast licensee. The
    *Notice* would not impose any mandatory reporting, recordkeeping and
    other compliance requirements, unless the licensee chooses to use an
    FM translator as a fill-in service. The proposed rule changes that
    we believe will directly affect reporting, recordkeeping and other
    compliance requirements are described below.[^75]

45. The *Notice* proposes to expand the purpose and eligibility rules by
    which FM translator stations are authorized. The *Notice* provides
    for no changes in the current application filing and processing
    procedures for FM translator stations, except that FCC Forms 303-S,
    345, 349 and 350 (including related instructions) will be modified
    to reflect the revised purpose and eligibility changes in the rules
    applicable to FM translator stations. Unless otherwise indicated,
    the *Notice* provides for no changes in the reporting, recordkeeping
    and other compliance requirements for FM translator stations.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

46. 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.[^76]

47. The use of FM translator stations by AM radio stations is not
    mandatory. Therefore, with respect to the issue of the impact of the
    proposed rules on smaller entities, we believe small business
    broadcasters will benefit from the opportunities offered by the
    proposed rule changes. The record in the proceeding suggests many
    potential benefits in service improvements for AM radio stations
    operated by smaller as well as larger entities. Nevertheless, in the
    *Notice*, comment is sought concerning on the impact of the proposed
    rule changes on small business broadcasters, including FM and LPFM
    stations.[^77]

## Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Commission's Proposals

48. None.

## Report to Congress

49. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including this
    IRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.[^78] In
    addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including
    the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration. A copy of the *Notice* and IRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^79]

[^1]: "Petition for Rulemaking of the National Association of
    Broadcasters," RM-11338, filed on July 14, 2006 (the "NAB
    Petition"). We solicited comments and reply comments on the NAB
    Petition by public notice. *See* Public Notice, Report No. 2782
    (rel. July 25, 2006). *See* Sections 1.4 and 1.405 of the
    Commission's Rules (the "Rules"), 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4, 1.405.

[^2]: *Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast
    Service*, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 6273, 6274-5 (1991), *recon.
    granted in part and denied in part*, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993)
    ("*Expanded Band R&O*").

[^3]: *Id*., 6 FCC Rcd at 6275.

[^4]: *Id*., 6 FCC Rcd at 6275-76.

[^5]: *See* NAB Petition at 3-4 (some stations lose 80-95% of their
    coverage area to protect clear channel AM stations often located
    hundreds of miles away). Some daytime-only stations are permitted to
    operate during sunrise and sunset hours at extremely low power
    levels.

[^6]: *See* Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58.

[^7]: *See* "Comments of Baraboo Broadcasting Corporation" at 1-3;
    "Comments of Romar Communications Inc." at 5.

[^8]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

[^9]: *See* *Expanded Band R&O*, 6 FCC Rcd at 6276.

[^10]: *See* NAB Petition at 2.

[^11]: *2002 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of the Commission's
    Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to
    Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, 18 FCC Rcd
    13620, 13711-47 (2003), *aff'd in part and remanded in part*,
    *Prometheus Radio Project, et al. v. FCC*, 373 F.3d 372 (2004),
    *stay modified on rehearing*, No. 03-3388 (3d Cir. Sep. 3, 2004),
    *cert. denied*, 73 U.S.L.W. 3466 (U.S. June 13, 2005) (Nos. 04-1020,
    04-1033, 04-1045, 04-1168, and 04-1177).

[^12]: A similar, but broader, petition for rule making was filed
    earlier by the American Community AM Broadcasters Association
    ("ACAMBA"). *See* "Petition for Rulemaking of the American Community
    AM Broadcasters Association," RM-9419 (filed Aug. 13, 1997). Based
    on comments filed in that proceeding and in this proceeding, we have
    decided to consider rule changes pursuant to the NAB Petition.
    Similarly, we note that another pending rule making petition seeks a
    rule change to allow FM translators to offer locally-originated
    programming. *See* "Petition to Allow FM Translator Licensees to
    Locally Originate Programming," RM-11331 (Miller Communications,
    Inc., *et al*., filed April 27, 2006). As we note herein, we will
    explore the issue of program origination on FM translators by AM
    daytime-only stations during the hours the AM station is not in
    operation in this proceeding. We will not consider in this
    proceeding whether a broader rule change involving program
    origination on FM translators is warranted. *See* ¶ 19 *infra*.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(a).

[^14]: *See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules and
    Regulations to Permit the Operation of Low Power FM Broadcasting
    Translator and Booster Stations*, Report and Order, 20 RR 2d 1538
    (1970); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(a) and (b). Translator
    stations which provide service within the primary FM station's
    protected service area are classified as "fill-in" stations and may
    use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being
    rebroadcast. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(b). A fill-in FM translator's
    coverage contour must be contained within the primary station's
    coverage contour. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(g).

[^15]: *Id. See also Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning FM Translator Stations*, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7212
    (1990) ("*Translator R&0")*, *recon. denied and clarified*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5093 (1993) (tightening and
    clarifying a number of translator rules in order to return the
    service to its original secondary role).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1203(a) and 74.1235. The signals of the
    primary station may not be altered significantly in any way except
    for frequency and amplitude. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(a).

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1263(b).

[^18]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(f) and (g).

[^19]: The Media Bureau has granted rule waivers to allow FM translators
    to rebroadcast AM station signals in 11 cases. The Bureau may
    continue to waive the rules and issue special temporary
    authorizations on a case-by-case basis to permit the rebroadcast of
    AM station signals on already-authorized FM translators consistent
    with the parameters of the Petition discussed herein. Any
    authorizations issued pursuant to these procedures will be subject
    to the outcome of this proceeding.

[^20]: *See Amendment of Part 74, Subpart L of the Commission's Rules*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 RR 2d 1499 (1981). Petitioner stated
    that granting its request would enable rural communities where there
    was no local service to obtain a primary reception service.

[^21]: *Id.* at ¶ 4. FM stations propagate in a line-of-sight pattern
    such that man-made and other obstructions interfere with reception.
    AM stations, in contrast, propagate along the surface of the earth
    and are not impeded by irregular terrain in the manner of FM
    signals.

[^22]: *See Translator R&O*.

[^23]: *Translator R&O*, 5 FCC Rcd at 7224. The Commission again
    emphasized the unique propagation characteristics of AM signals
    which normally do not result in voids in AM service like that in FM
    service.

[^24]: *See Expanded Band R&O*.

[^25]: NAB Petition at 12-15. As we noted above, ACAMBA has filed a
    similar petition for rule making. *See* note 12 *supra*. ACAMBA
    seeks to modify Section 74.1231 of the Rules to allow for use of FM
    translator stations as a fill-in service for AM stations with a
    licensed daytime power not exceeding 2,500 watts and nighttime power
    not exceeding 500 Watts.

[^26]: *See* note 12 *supra*.

[^27]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of the AM Daytimers Association" at 1-2;
    "Comments of Community First Broadcasters" at 1; "Comments of Don
    Moore, WAWK Radio" at 2-3; "Comments of Jane Elizabeth Davis Pigg,
    WCRE(AM)" at 1; "Comments of Debbie Beal, WRGS(AM)" at 1; "Comments
    of Our Three Sons Broadcasting" at 1-3; "Comments of Chris McGinnis,
    WRUS(AM)" at 1; "Comments of C.R. Communications, Inc." at 1-3;
    "Comments of Richard A. Ford, WERT(AM)" at 1; "Comments of Mark and
    Arlene Bohach, WLOH(AM)" at 1; "Comments of Beverly Broadcasting
    Company, LLC" at 1-2; "Comments of Paul Hayden" at 1; "Comments of
    La Porte County Broadcasting Co." at 1; "Comments of Jerdon
    Broadcasting" at 1; "Comments of Miller Communications, Inc., *et
    al."* at 1-2.

[^28]: *See* "Reply Comments of the National Association of Black Owned
    Broadcasters and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council"
    ("NABOB and MMTC Comments") at 3-4.

[^29]: *Id*. at 1.

[^30]: *See* "Comments in Opposition to Petition for Rulemaking" by
    Prometheus Radio Project" ("Prometheus").

[^31]: *Id*. at 4 (citing the proceedings discussed above, as well as
    Prometheus's Comments and Emergency Freeze request in MM Docket
    99-25).

[^32]: *See* "Comments of Prayer Tower Mission" at 1-2; "Comments of the
    Vandalia Citizens Council" at 1-3. *See also* "Comments of REC
    Networks" at 1-2 (operator of Internet-only radio stations and
    representative of LPFM interests supports the NAB Petition for
    stand-alone AM stations).

[^33]: *See* NABOB and MMTC Comments at 4 n. 11.

[^34]: *See, e.g.,* "Comments of Station Resource Group" at 1-2 and 4-5;
    "Comments of Grant County Broadcasters, Inc." at 1-2; "Comments of
    George McLam"; "Comments of the Catholic Radio Association" at 1-2;
    "Comments of Gary L. Kneisely" at 1-2; "Comments of Hans Laetz" at
    1.

[^35]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of Holston Valley Broadcasting
    Corporation" at 7 (comparing the proposal to the change that allowed
    UHF TV stations to operate VHF TV translator stations, to the
    benefit of the viewing public); "Comments of Withers Broadcasting
    Companies" at 2.

[^36]: *Id*. at 3-4.

[^37]: *See* "Statement of National Public Radio, Inc." *See also*
    Comments filed by Wisconsin Public Radio ("WPR Comments").

[^38]: *S**ee* note 12 *supra*. *See, e.g.*, "Comments of GA-MEX
    Broadcasting, Inc., *et al.*" ("GA-MEX Comments") at 3; "Comments of
    Handsome Brothers, Inc." at 2-3; "Comments of Sutton Radiocasting
    Corporation" at 7-8; "Comments of Wilson Broadcasting, Inc." at 2-3;
    "Comments of Union-Carolina Broadcasting Company, Inc." at 6-7;
    "Comments of Proctor-Williams Broadcasting, Inc." at 2. These
    comments generally favor a preference for daytime-only AM stations
    in any auction process for FM translators, so they apparently
    support program origination on FM translators at night by
    daytime-only AM stations.

[^39]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of the Fifteen Fifty Corporation" at 3;
    "Comments of Priority Radio, Inc." at 3; "Consolidated Comments of
    Big River Radio, Inc., *et al.*" at 4; "Comments of Sheyenne Valley
    Broadcasting, Inc." at 4; Comments of Eastern Shore Radio, Inc." at
    4; "Comments of Broadcast Towers, Inc."; "Comments of WYGR
    Broadcasting" at 3-4; "Comments of Crossroads Investments, LLC" at
    3; "Comments of Emerald Wave Media" at 3; "Comments of Five Towns
    College" at 4; "Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company of New
    Jersey, Inc." at 4-5; GA-MEX Comments at 2; "Comments of Handsome
    Brothers, Inc." at 2; "Comments of Monstermedia, LLC" at 4; Comments
    of Sutton Radiocasting Corporation" at 6-7; "Comments of Wilson
    Broadcasting, Inc." at 2; "Comments of Union-Carolina Broadcasting
    Company, Inc." at 5-6; "Comments of Proctor-Williams Broadcasting,
    Inc." at 2.

[^40]: WPR Comments at 4.

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: "Comments of Saga Communications, Inc." at 1-2; "Comments of
    InterMart Broadcasting Southwest Florida, Inc. and InterMart
    Broadcasting Collier County, Inc." at 1-2; *see also* "Comments of
    L. William Langford" (series of comments urging restriction of FM
    translators as a fill-in service for AM daytime-only stations, Class
    C stations, and Class B stations with serious nighttime coverage
    deficiencies).

[^44]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of John Pavlica, Jr." at 3-4; "Comments of
    Central Seminary" at 1; "Comments of Prayer Tower Mission" at 1-2.
    *See also* "Comments of REC Networks" at 2.

[^45]: *See, e.g.*, GA-MEX Comments at 3; "Comments of Handsome
    Brothers, Inc." at 3; "Comments of Sutton Radiocasting Corporation"
    at 8; "Comments of Wilson Broadcasting, Inc." at 3; "Comments of
    Union-Carolina Broadcasting Company, Inc." at 7; "Comments of
    Proctor-Williams Broadcasting, Inc." at 3.

[^46]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of Broadcast Towers, Inc." at 3; "Comments
    of Five Towns College" at 5 (supporting the 5 mV/m contour as a
    service limit, but arguing that the Commission should waive this
    limit in special circumstances); "Comments of Morris Broadcasting
    Company of New Jersey, Inc." at 5 (same).

[^47]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of Andrew W. Hilger" at 3-4.

[^48]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of John Pavlica, Jr." at 2; "Comments of
    WOLF Radio, Inc." at 2-3 (the former not supporting a separate
    mileage limitation, but the latter endorsing the NAB's proposed
    25-mile limitation in addition to the service contour limitation).

[^49]: *See* "Comments of United Ministries" at 1.

[^50]: *See, e.g.*, "Comments of Holston Valley Broadcasting
    Corporation" at 9 (either allow waivers of the 2 mV/m contour
    limitation for *de minimis* situations, or require that 80% of the
    primary service contour of the FM translator be within the 2 mV/m
    daytime contour of the AM station); "Comments of Withers
    Broadcasting Companies" at 4-5 (same); "Comments of Romar
    Communications Inc." at 6-7 (require that 85% of the primary service
    contour of the FM translator be within the 2 mV/m daytime contour of
    the AM station).

[^51]: "Comments of Eastern Sierra Broadcasting" at 2-3.

[^52]: A number of parties have expressed opinions on issues involving
    eligibility for auctions for FM translators, priorities in such
    auctions, and bidding credits in such auctions. In addition, several
    expressed views about taking action in MM Docket No. 99-25 or
    otherwise addressing pending FM translator issues. We view these
    matters as beyond the scope of this proceeding.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1232(e).

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.853, 73.858, and 73.860.

[^55]: *See* ¶ 7 *supra.*

[^56]: *See* ¶ 3 *supra*.

[^57]: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-13,
    109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).

[^58]: The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 ("SBPRA"), Pub.
    L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title
    44 U.S.C.); *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

[^59]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b); *see also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,
    1.1203.

[^60]: *See id.* § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^61]: *See* *id*. §§ 1.415, 1419.

[^62]: *See* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^63]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110
    Stat. 847 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract
    With America Advancement Act of 1996 ("CWAAA").

[^64]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^65]: *See* *id*. § 603(a).

[^66]: *Id*. § 603(b)(3).

[^67]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^68]: *Id*. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
    601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless
    an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^69]: 15 U.S.C. § 632. Application of the statutory criteria of
    dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes
    difficult to apply in the context of broadcast radio. Accordingly,
    the Commission's statistical account of radio stations may be
    over-inclusive.

[^70]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.

[^71]: *Id*.

[^72]: "\[Business concerns\] are affiliates of each other when one
    concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third
    party or parties controls or has to power to control both." 13
    C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).

[^73]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.

[^74]: *See* *News Release*, "Broadcast Station Totals as of December
    31, 2006" (rel. Jan. 26, 2007)
    (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269784A1.doc).

[^75]: *See* proposed rules contained in Appendix A to this *Notice*.

[^76]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4)

[^77]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 18.

[^78]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^79]: *See* *id*. § 604(b).