20756 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 180.124 Methyl bromide; tolerance for 

residues. 

(a) General. A tolerance is established 

for residues of the fumigant methyl 

bromide, including metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodity in 

the table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance level specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only methyl 

bromide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 150 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2012–8390 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 99–25; FCC 12–28] 

Implementation of the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010; 

Revision of Service and Eligibility 

Rules for Low Power FM Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

amend its rules to implement certain 

provisions of the Local Community 

Radio Act of 2010 (‘‘LCRA’’) that are not 

already the subject of Commission 

action. It also proposes changes to its 

rules intended to promote the low 

power FM service’s localism and 

diversity goals, reduce the potential for 

licensing abuses, and clarify certain 

rules. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before May 7, 2012, and reply comments 

must be filed on or before May 21, 2012. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted by the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

June 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MM Docket No. 99–25, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Commission’s Secretary, 

Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, 

DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432). 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Doyle (202) 418–2789. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an email to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams 

on (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s document 

in MM Docket No. 99–25, FCC No. 12– 

28, adopted March 19, 2012. A synopsis 

of the order segments of this decision 

were published in a previous issue of 

the Federal Register. The full text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Comment Period and Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, 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 the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy 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. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 

must be disposed of before entering the 

building. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Paperwork Reducation Act of 1995 

This document 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 information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due June 5, 2012. 

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; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20757 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (e) way to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

To view a copy of this information 

collection request (ICR) submitted to 

OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, 

(2) look for the section of the Web page 

called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) 

click on the downward-pointing arrow 

in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the 

right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) 

when the list of FCC ICRs currently 

under review appears, look for the OMB 

control number of this ICR and then 

click on the ICR Reference Number. A 

copy of the FCC submission to OMB 

will be displayed. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0920. 

Title: Application for Construction 

Permit for a Low Power FM Broadcast 

Station; Report and Order in MM Docket 

No. 99–25 Creation of Low Power Radio 

Service; §§ 73.807, 73.809, 73.827, 

73.865, 73.870, 73.871, 73.872, 73.877, 

73.878, 73.318, 73.1030, 73.1207, 

73.1212, 73.1230, 73.1300, 73.1350, 

73.1610, 73.1620, 73.1750, 73.1943, 

73.3525, 73.3550, 73.3598, 11.61(ii), 

FCC Form 318. 

Form No.: FCC Form 318. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, local or tribal 

governments. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 21,337 respondents with 

multiple responses; 27,387 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: .0025– 

12 hours. 

Frequency of Response: 

Recordkeeping requirement; On 

occasion reporting requirement; 

monthly reporting requirement; Third 

party disclosure requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this collection of 

information is contained in sections 

154(i), 303, 308 and 325(a) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 35,146 hours. 

Total Annual Costs: $39,750. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This 

information collection does not affect 

individuals or households; thus, there 

are no impacts under the Privacy Act. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this information collection. 

Needs and Uses: On March 19, 2012, 

the FCC released a Fifth Report and 

Order, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Third Order 

on Reconsideration, Creation of a Low 

Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 

99–25, FCC 12–28. In the Fourth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth 

FNPRM), FCC 12–28, the FCC proposes 

to revise § 73.853(b) of the 

Commission’s rules (‘‘rules’’) to permit 

federally recognized Native American 

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages 

(‘‘Native Nations’’) and entities owned 

or controlled by Native Nations to hold 

LPFM licenses. We have revised FCC 

Form 318 to reflect this proposal. 

The FCC also proposes to modify its 

ownership rules. First, the FCC 

proposes to revise its cross-ownership 

rule to permit cross-ownership of an 

LPFM station and an FM translator or 

translators. Second, the FCC proposes to 

modify its cross-ownership rule to 

permit a full-service radio station 

permittee or licensee that is a Tribe or 

Tribal Organization to apply for an 

LPFM station and to hold an attributable 

interest in such station. Third, the FCC 

proposes to permit Tribes or Tribal 

Organizations to seek more than one 

LPFM construction permit to ensure 

adequate coverage of tribal lands. We 

have revised FCC Form 318 to reflect 

this proposal. 

The FCC further proposes to modify 

the point system used to select among 

mutually exclusive LPFM applicants 

and set forth in § 73.872 of the rules. 

First, the FCC proposes to modify the 

‘‘established community presence’’ 

criterion to require that an applicant 

have maintained an established local 

presence for four years instead of the 

two years currently required. Second, it 

proposes to extend the ‘‘established 

community presence’’ standard in rural 

areas. Under the current rule, an LPFM 

applicant was deemed to have an 

established community presence if it 

was physically headquartered or had a 

campus within ten miles of the 

proposed LPFM transmitter site, or if 75 

percent of its board members resided 

within ten miles of the proposed LPFM 

transmitter site. The Fourth Further 

Notice proposes to modify the ten-mile 

requirement to twenty miles for all 

LPFM applicants proposing facilities 

located outside the top fifty urban 

markets, for both the distance from 

transmitter and residence of board 

member standards. Third, the FCC 

proposes to allow local organizations, 

tribal organizations and/or tribes to file 

as consortia and receive one point under 

the established community presence 

criterion for each organization or tribe 

that qualifies for such a point. Fourth, 

the FCC proposes to award two points— 

as opposed to the one point currently 

awarded—to applicants qualifying 

under the local program origination 

criterion. Fifth, the FCC proposes to 

modify the point system to award a 

point to Native Nations and entities 

owned or controlled by Native Nations, 

when they propose to provide LPFM 

service to Native Nation communities. 

We have revised the Form 318 to reflect 

these changes to the point system. 

Finally, the FCC proposes to modify 

the manner in which it processes 

requests for waiver of the secondadjacent channel minimum distance 

separation requirement, and to amend 

the rule that sets forth the obligations of 

LPFM stations with respect to 

interference to the input signals of FM 

translator or FM booster stations. We 

have revised the Form 318 to reflect 

these proposed changes. 

FCC staff uses the data to determine 

whether an applicant meets basic 

statutory and regulatory requirements to 

become a Commission licensee and to 

ensure that the public interest would be 

served by grant of the application. In 

addition, the information contained 

within this information collection 

ensures that (1) The integrity of the FM 

spectrum is not compromised, (2) 

unacceptable interference will not be 

caused to existing radio services, (3) 

statutory requirements are met, and (4) 

the stations operate in the public 

interest. 

Summary of the Fourth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (Fourth FNPRM), 

we seek comment on proposals to 

amend our rules to implement the 

remaining provisions of LCRA and to 

promote a more sustainable community 

radio service. These changes are 

intended to advance the LCRA’s core 

goals of localism and diversity while 

preserving the technical integrity of all 

of the FM services. In addition, we seek 

comment on proposals to reduce the 

potential for licensing abuses. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20758 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

II. Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. Changes to Technical Rules Required 

by the LCRA 

2. A number of provisions of the 

LCRA require Commission action. We 

seek comment below on how to amend 

our rules to most faithfully implement 

these provisions of the LCRA. 

1. Waiver of Second-Adjacent Channel 

Minimum Distance Separation 

Requirements 

3. In 2007, the Commission 

established an interim waiver 

processing policy that permits an LPFM 

station that will receive increased 

interference or be displaced by a new or 

modified full-service FM station to seek 

waiver of the second-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements in connection 

with an application to move the LPFM 

station to a new channel. The 

Commission found that circumstances 

had changed considerably since it last 

considered the issue of protection rights 

for LPFM stations from subsequently 

authorized full-service stations. 

Specifically, in late 2006, the 

Commission had streamlined its 

licensing procedures, and announced 

the lifting of its freeze on the filing of 

community of license modification 

applications. These actions resulted in 

‘‘increased filings’’ that the Media 

Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’) estimated could 

force approximately 40 LPFM stations to 

cease operations. For many of the LPFM 

stations at risk of displacement, the 

Bureau had identified alternate 

channels that would require waivers of 

the second-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements. To avoid ‘‘potential harm 

to this small but not insignificant 

number of LPFM stations,’’ the 

Commission adopted the waiver 

processing policy. In adopting this 

policy, the Commission relied on the 

general waiver provisions set forth in 

§ 1.3 of the rules. 

4. Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA 

explicitly grants the Commission the 

authority to waive the second-adjacent 

channel spacing requirements. Section 

3(b)(2)(A) permits waivers where an 

LPFM station establishes, ‘‘using 

methods of predicting interference 

taking into account all relevant factors, 

including terrain-sensitive propagation 

models,’’ that its proposed operations 

‘‘will not result in interference to any 

authorized radio service.’’ 

5. We tentatively conclude that the 

waiver standard set forth in section 

3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA supersedes the 

interim waiver processing policy 

adopted by the Commission in 2007. We 

note that, under the interim waiver 

processing policy, when the 

Commission considers a waiver request, 

it ‘‘balance[s] the potential for new 

interference to the full-service station at 

issue against the potential loss of an 

LPFM station.’’ Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the 

LCRA, on the other hand, clearly 

requires an LPFM station to establish 

that its proposed operations ‘‘will not 

result in interference to any authorized 

radio service.’’ It leaves no room for 

balancing of the potential for 

interference with the potential for loss 

of service. We seek comment on our 

tentative conclusion and our reasoning. 

We also seek comment on whether we 

should permit LPFM applicants to make 

the sort of showings we routinely accept 

from FM translator applicants to 

establish that ‘‘no actual interference 

will occur.’’ Section 74.1204(d) of the 

rules permits a translator applicant to 

demonstrate that ‘‘no actual interference 

will occur’’ due to ‘‘lack of population’’ 

and we have permitted translator 

applicants to use an undesired/desired 

signal strength ratio methodology to 

narrowly define areas of potential 

interference when proposing to operate 

near another station operating on a 

second- or third-adjacent channel. Are 

such showings consistent with the 

statutory mandate to accept showings 

that a proposed LPFM service ‘‘will not 

result in interference to any authorized 

radio service’’? Should we permit the 

use of directional antennas in 

conjunction with proposals attempting 

to protect second-adjacent stations? 

6. We request comment on the factors 

that we should take into account and 

the showings we should require when 

considering requests for waiver of the 

second-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements. Should we require a 

showing that there are no fully-spaced 

channels available to the LPFM 

applicant? Should we take into account 

that the proposal would eliminate or 

reduce the interference received by the 

LPFM applicant? Should we consider 

whether the proposal would avoid a 

short-spacing between the proposed 

LPFM facilities and a full-service FM 

station, FM translator or FM booster 

station on a third-adjacent channel? 

Should we also take into account the 

interference protection and remediation 

obligations such short-spacing would 

trigger? Should we consider whether the 

proposal would result in superior 

spacing to full-service FM, FM 

translator or FM booster stations 

operating on co- and first-adjacent 

channels? Are there other factors or 

showings that we should consider? 

7. Section 3(b)(2)(B) of the LCRA also 

sets out a framework for handling 

complaints when an LPFM station 

operating pursuant to a second-adjacent 

channel waiver has caused interference 

to the reception of any existing or 

modified full-service FM station 

‘‘without regard to the location of the 

station receiving interference.’’ Upon 

receipt of a complaint of interference 

caused by an LPFM station operating 

pursuant to a second-adjacent channel 

waiver, the Commission must notify the 

LPFM station ‘‘by telephone or other 

electronic communication within 1 

business day.’’ The LPFM station must 

‘‘suspend operation immediately upon 

notification’’ by the Commission that it 

is ‘‘causing interference to the reception 

of any existing or modified full-service 

FM station.’’ It may not resume 

operations ‘‘until such interference has 

been eliminated or it can demonstrate 

* * * that the interference was not due 

to [its] emissions.’’ The LPFM station, 

however, may ‘‘make short test 

transmissions during the period of 

suspended operation to check the 

efficacy of remedial measures.’’ We 

propose to incorporate this framework 

for handling complaints into the rules. 

We seek comment on this proposal. We 

also request comment on whether and 

how we should define what constitutes 

a bona fide complaint that would trigger 

the Commission’s obligation to notify 

the LPFM station at issue and that 

station’s obligation to suspend 

operations. Finally, we solicit comment 

on whether and how to specify the 

showing an LPFM station operating 

pursuant to a second-adjacent channel 

waiver must make to demonstrate that it 

was not the source of the interference at 

issue. 

2. Third-Adjacent Channel Interference 

Complaints and Remediation 

8. When the Commission created the 

LPFM service in 2000, it declined to 

impose third-adjacent channel distance 

separation requirements, stating ‘‘our 

own technical studies and our review of 

the record persuade us that 100-watt 

LPFM stations operating without [third]- 

adjacent channel separation 

requirements will not result in 

unacceptable new interference to the 

service of existing FM stations.’’ The 

Commission also noted that ‘‘imposing 

[third]-adjacent channel separation 

requirements on LPFM stations would 

unnecessarily impede the opportunities 

for stations in this new service, 

particularly in highly populated areas 

where there is a great demand for 

alternative forms of radio service.’’ 

9. Subsequently, on reconsideration, 

the Commission again declined to 

impose third-adjacent channel 

separation requirements. However, it 

did establish complaint and license 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20759 

modification procedures for thirdadjacent channel interference. In doing 

so, the Commission stated: 

Although we expect it to be the rare case 

where an LPFM station operating on a [third- 

]adjacent channel causes more than a de 

minimis level of interference within the 

service area of a full power station protected 

by the distance separation requirements for 

other channel relationships, such a result 

would be unacceptable if it were to occur. 

Accordingly, we conclude on reconsideration 

that it would be prudent to establish 

procedures that would encourage 

cooperation between the parties and permit 

the Commission to take prompt remedial 

action where a significant level of 

interference can be traced to the 

commencement of broadcasts by a new LPFM 

station. 

The procedures are set forth in § 73.810 

of the rules. 

10. As noted, in 2001, we adopted 

third-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements at the direction of 

Congress. While we did not delete the 

third-adjacent channel complaint and 

license modification procedures from 

our rules, with the adoption of the 

spacing requirements, the procedures 

became irrelevant. Now, however, with 

the elimination of the third-adjacent 

spacing requirements under section 3 of 

the LCRA, a process for handling 

complaints of third-adjacent channel 

interference again has relevance. 

Congress has recognized this. 

11. Rather than simply utilize the 

procedures set forth in § 73.810 of the 

rules, though, Congress has opted to 

impose broader remediation obligations, 

which are set forth in section 7 of the 

LCRA. Specifically, section 7 sets forth 

the following requirements: 

• Section 7(1) of the LCRA requires 

the Commission to adopt ‘‘the same 

interference protections that FM 

translator stations and FM booster 

stations are required to provide as set 

forth in [§ ] 74.1203 of [the] rules.’’ 

These obligations apply to LPFM 

stations that would be considered shortspaced under the existing third-adjacent 

channel spacing requirements (‘‘Section 

7(1) Stations’’). 

• Section 7(2) requires that a new 

LPFM station ‘‘constructed on a thirdadjacent channel’’ must ‘‘broadcast 

periodic announcements’’ that alert 

listeners that any interference they are 

experiencing could be the result of the 

station’s operations and that instruct 

affected listeners to contact the station 

to report any interference. 

• Section 7(3) directs the Commission 

to modify § 73.810 of the rules to require 

‘‘[LPFM] stations on third-adjacent 

channels * * * to address interference 

complaints within the protected contour 

of an affected station’’ and encourage 

them to address ‘‘all other interference 

complaints.’’ 

• Section 7(4) requires the 

Commission, to the extent possible, to 

‘‘grant low-power FM stations on thirdadjacent channels the technical 

flexibility to remediate interference 

through the collocation of the 

transmission facilities of the low-power 

FM station and any stations on thirdadjacent channels.’’ 

• Section 7(5) requires the 

Commission to ‘‘permit the submission 

of informal evidence of interference, 

including any engineering analysis that 

an affected station may commission,’’ 

‘‘accept complaints based on 

interference to a full-service FM station, 

FM translator station, or FM booster 

station by the transmitter site of a lowpower FM station on a third-adjacent 

channel at any distance from the fullservice FM station, FM translator 

station, or FM booster station,’’ and 

‘‘accept complaints of interference to 

mobile reception.’’ 

• Section 7(6) requires the 

Commission to impose additional 

interference protection and remediation 

obligations on one class of LPFM 

stations. 

12. Below, we discuss certain 

preliminary issues and tentatively 

conclude that section 7 of the LCRA 

creates two different LPFM interference 

protection and remediation regimes, one 

for LPFM stations that would be 

considered short-spaced under thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements, 

and one for LPFM stations that would 

not be considered short-spaced under 

those requirements. Then, we proceed 

to discuss each of those regimes. Given 

the comprehensive nature of the regimes 

created by section 7, we propose to 

eliminate the existing interference 

complaint and remediation procedures 

set forth in § 73.810 of the rules and 

replace them with those set forth below. 

a. LPFM Interference Protection and 

Remediation Requirements 

13. Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the LCRA 

both address the interference protection 

and remediation obligations of LPFM 

stations on third-adjacent channels. 

Only section 7(1) specifies requirements 

for ‘‘low-power FM stations licensed at 

locations that do not satisfy thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements 

* * *’’ With regard to such stations, 

Section 7(1) instructs the Commission to 

adopt ‘‘the same interference 

protections that FM translator stations 

and FM booster stations are required to 

provide as set forth in § 74.1203 of [the] 

rules.’’ Section 7(3), in contrast, directs 

the Commission to modify § 73.810 of 

the rules to require ‘‘[LPFM] stations on 

third-adjacent channels * * * to 

address interference complaints within 

the protected contour of an affected 

station’’ and encourage them to address 

‘‘all other interference complaints.’’ We 

tentatively conclude that, through these 

two provisions, Congress has created 

two different interference protection 

and remediation regimes—one that 

applies to Section 7(1) Stations and one 

that applies to all other LPFM stations 

(‘‘Section 7(3) Stations’’). We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

14. We note that, were we to conclude 

otherwise, Section 7(1) Stations would 

be subject to different and conflicting 

interference protection and remediation 

obligations. Specifically, under section 

7(1), LPFM stations that would be 

considered short-spaced under thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements 

must ‘‘eliminate’’ any actual 

interference they cause to the signal of 

any authorized station in areas where 

that station’s signal is ‘‘regularly used.’’ 

This requirement encompasses locations 

beyond the authorized station’s 

protected contour. In contrast, section 

7(3) merely requires LPFM stations to 

‘‘address’’ complaints of interference 

occurring within a full-service FM 

station’s protected contour. To conclude 

that sections 7(1) and (3) both apply to 

Section 7(1) Stations would run afoul of 

one of the cardinal rules of statutory 

construction—a statute should be read 

as a harmonious whole. We believe our 

conclusion that Congress has created 

two different interference protection 

and remediation regimes is the most 

reasonable reading of section 7 of the 

LCRA as a whole. It makes sense that 

Congress would impose more stringent 

interference protection and remediation 

obligations on stations that are located 

nearest to full-service FM stations and 

have the greatest potential to cause 

interference. Moreover, our reading is 

consistent with the general rule that, 

where a protection approach offers 

greater flexibility, that flexibility is 

counter-balanced by more stringent 

interference remediation and protection 

requirements. The LCRA provides 

greater flexibility by eliminating thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements 

for LPFM stations, but counter-balances 

that flexibility with a prohibition on 

LPFM stations that would be shortspaced under such requirements 

causing any actual interference to other 

stations. 

15. Based on the text of section 7(1) 

of the LCRA, we tentatively conclude 

that, although section 3(a) of the LCRA 

mandates the elimination of the thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements, 

we should retain them solely for 

purposes of reference in order to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20760 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

implement that section. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion 

and also on whether ultimately to retain 

the third-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements in § 73.807 for purposes of 

reference or transfer them to another 

section of the rules. 

16. Sections 7(4) and (5) of the LCRA 

establish a number of requirements 

related to interference protection and 

remediation. These range from a 

requirement that the Commission allow 

LPFM stations on third-adjacent 

channels to remediate interference 

through collocation to requirements 

related to what constitutes a bona fide 

complaint of interference. We 

tentatively conclude these sections 

apply only to Section 7(3) Stations. We 

seek comment on our tentative 

conclusion. We believe this is the most 

reasonable reading of these provisions. 

We note that these provisions use the 

same ‘‘low-power FM stations on thirdadjacent channels’’ language as section 

7(3), not the more specific ‘‘low-power 

FM stations licensed at locations that do 

not satisfy third-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements’’ language set 

forth in section 7(1). In addition, as 

discussed above, section 7(1) subjects 

LPFM stations licensed at locations that 

would be considered short-spaced 

under third-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements to the interference 

protection and remediation regime set 

forth in § 74.1203 of the rules. Thus, 

Section 7(1) Stations must remediate 

any actual interference caused by their 

operations or go off the air; must 

respond to all complaints meeting the 

specifications set forth in § 74.1203; 

and, must do so in the manner 

described in that section. That Congress 

required our wholesale adoption of the 

well-established and comprehensive 

regime in § 74.1203 of the rules bolsters 

our tentative conclusion that sections 

7(4) and 7(5), which establish discrete 

requirements inconsistent with the 

§ 74.1203 regime, do not apply to 

Section 7(1) Stations. 

17. Finally, we tentatively conclude 

that sections 7(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of 

the LCRA apply only to third-adjacent 

channel interference. While Congress 

did not specify the type of interference 

to which these provisions apply, we 

believe this is the most reasonable 

reading of them. We note that, in each 

of these provisions, Congress refers 

specifically to LPFM stations on thirdadjacent channels or LPFM stations that 

do not satisfy the third-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements. These references 

reflect a focus on those stations located 

on third-adjacent channels to LPFM 

stations and any interference caused to 

them, which necessarily would be thirdadjacent channel interference. We 

believe that our conclusion is further 

supported by the fact that Congress 

separately addressed the possibility of 

second-adjacent channel interference in 

section 3 of the LCRA. We seek 

comment on our tentative conclusion. 

b. Regime Applicable to Section 7(1) 

Stations 

18. Section 7(1) Stations are subject to 

the same interference protection regime 

applicable to FM translator and booster 

stations, which is set forth in § 74.1203 

of the rules. As indicated above, this 

regime is more stringent than that 

currently set forth in § 73.810. Section 

74.1203(a) prohibits ‘‘actual interference 

to * * * [t]he direct reception by the 

public of the off-the-air signals of any 

authorized broadcast station. * * *’’ It 

specifies that ‘‘[i]nterference will be 

considered to occur whenever reception 

of a regularly used signal is impaired by 

the signals radiated by’’ the interfering 

FM translator station. An interfering FM 

translator station must remedy the 

interference or cease operation. The rule 

has been interpreted broadly. It places 

no geographic or temporal limitation on 

complaints. It covers all types of 

interference. The reception affected can 

be that of a fixed or mobile receiver. The 

Commission also has interpreted ‘‘direct 

reception by the public’’ to limit 

actionable complaints to those that are 

made by bona fide listeners. Thus, it has 

declined to credit claims of interference 

or lack of interference from station 

personnel involved in an interference 

dispute. More generally, the 

Commission requires that a complainant 

‘‘be ‘disinterested,’ e.g., a person or 

entity without a legal stake in the 

outcome of the translator station 

licensing proceeding.’’ The staff has 

routinely required a complainant to 

provide his/her name, address, 

location(s) at which interference occurs, 

and a statement that the listener is, in 

fact, a listener of the affected station. 

Moreover, as is the case with other types 

of interference complaints, the staff has 

considered only those complaints where 

the complainant cooperates in efforts to 

identify the source of interference and 

accepts reasonable corrective measures. 

Accordingly, when the Commission 

concludes that a bona fide listener has 

made an actionable complaint of 

uncorrected interference, it will notify 

the station that ‘‘interference is being 

caused’’ and direct the station to 

discontinue operations. We seek 

comment on whether it would be 

appropriate to modify the regime set 

forth in § 74.1203 in any way in order 

to apply it to Section 7(1) Stations and, 

if so, whether we have authority to 

make any such changes in light of the 

statutory mandate to adopt ‘‘the same 

interference protections that FM 

translator stations and FM booster 

stations are required to provide as set 

forth in [§ ] 74.1203 of [the] rules.’’ 

19. We also request comment on 

requiring newly constructed LPFM 

stations that would be considered shortspaced under third-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements to make the same 

periodic announcements required of 

third-adjacent channel LPFM stations 

that would not be considered shortspaced under section 7(2) of the LCRA. 

We see no reason to distinguish between 

listeners of stations that may experience 

interference as a result of the operations 

of Section 7(1) Stations and those that 

may experience interference as a result 

of the operations of Section 7(3) Stations 

for such purposes. Indeed, there will be 

less distance separating Section 7(1) 

Stations and full-service FM stations on 

third-adjacent channels and thus a 

greater potential for these stations to 

cause such interference, so that we 

believe requiring announcements would 

serve the public interest. We note, 

however, that section 7(1) explicitly 

requires the Commission to ‘‘provide 

the same [LPFM] interference 

protections that FM translator stations 

* * * are required to provide as set 

forth in § 74.1203 of its rules.’’ Section 

74.1203 does not require an FM 

translator station to notify either the 

Commission or an affected station of an 

interference complaint within 48 hours 

of the receipt of such a complaint. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether we may impose this 

requirement on Section 7(1) Stations 

and, if so, whether we should. 

c. Regime Applicable to Section 7(3) 

Stations 

20. Section 7(3) of the LCRA requires 

the Commission to modify § 73.810 of 

the rules to require Section 7(3) Stations 

‘‘to address interference complaints 

within the protected contour of an 

affected station’’ and encourage them to 

address all other interference 

complaints, including complaints 

‘‘based on interference to a full-service 

FM station, an FM translator station or 

an FM booster station by the transmitter 

site of a low-power FM station on a 

third-adjacent channel at any distance 

from the full-service FM station, FM 

translator station or FM booster station.’’ 

As noted above, we tentatively conclude 

that sections 7(2), (4) and (5) apply only 

to Section 7(3) Stations. We discuss the 

general interference remediation 

requirements set forth in section 7(3) 

and the additional provisions below. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20761 

21. General Requirements. Unlike 

section 7(1), section 7(3) does not 

specifically refer to § 74.1203 of the 

rules. We request comment on whether 

the more lenient interference protection 

obligations currently set forth in 

§ 73.810 should continue to apply to 

fully-spaced LPFM stations. We note 

that, while section 7(1) instructs the 

Commission to require Section 7(1) 

Stations ‘‘to provide’’ interference 

protections, section 7(3) merely 

instructs the Commission to require 

Section 7(3) Stations ‘‘to address’’ 

complaints of interference. What must a 

Section 7(3) Station do to ‘‘address’’ a 

complaint of third-adjacent channel 

interference? Finally, we observe that 

section 7(3) requires the Commission to 

provide notice to the licensee of a 

Section 7(3) Station of the existence of 

interference within 7 calendar days of 

the receipt of a complaint from a 

listener or another station. We seek 

comment on whether to establish 

certain basic requirements for such 

complaints. For instance, should we 

require copies of such complaints to be 

filed with the Bureau’s Audio Division? 

Should we require such complaints to 

specify the call sign of the LPFM and/ 

or affected full-service FM, FM 

translator or FM booster station? Should 

we require the complainant to provide 

contact information? 

22. Periodic Broadcast 

Announcements. Section 7(2) of the 

LCRA directs the Commission to amend 

§ 73.810 of the rules to include certain 

requirements related to periodic 

broadcast announcements. Section 7(2) 

instructs the Commission to require a 

newly constructed Section 7(3) Station 

to broadcast periodic announcements 

that alert listeners to the potential for 

interference and instruct them to 

contact the LPFM station to report any 

interference. These announcements 

must be broadcast for a period of one 

year after construction. We seek 

comment on whether we should specify 

the language to be used in these 

announcements and, if so, what to 

specify. We also seek comment on 

whether we should mandate when and 

how often the announcements must be 

aired. We note that we have done so 

with respect to other required 

announcements and that ensuring 

uniformity may reduce listener 

confusion and provide regulatory 

certainty by allowing LPFM stations to 

be confident that they have satisfied the 

requirements of section 7(2). 

23. Section 7(2) also directs the 

Commission to require newly 

constructed Section 7(3) Stations to 

notify the Commission and all affected 

stations on third-adjacent channels of an 

interference complaint by electronic 

communication within 48 hours of 

receipt of such complaint. Finally, 

section 7(2) mandates that we require 

newly constructed Section 7(3) Stations 

on third-adjacent channels to cooperate 

in addressing any such interference 

complaints. We seek comment on 

whether to specify the scope of efforts 

which a Section 7(3) Station must 

undertake, and whether to relieve newly 

constructed Section 7(3) Stations on 

third-adjacent channels of their 

obligations to cooperate in instances 

where the complainant does not 

reasonably cooperate with the LPFM 

stations’ remedial efforts. 

24. Bona Fide Complaints. Section 

7(5) of the LCRA expands the universe 

of interference complaints which 

Section 7(3) Stations must remediate. 

Section 7(5) states: 

The Federal Communications Commission 

shall—(A) permit the submission of informal 

evidence of interference, including any 

engineering analysis that an affected station 

may commission; (B) accept complaints 

based on interference to a full-service FM 

station, FM translator station, or FM booster 

station by the transmitter site of a low-power 

FM station on a third-adjacent channel at any 

distance from the full-service FM station, FM 

translator station, or FM booster station; and 

(C) accept complaints of interference to 

mobile reception. 

25. We request comment on whether 

any of the four criteria set forth in 

§ 73.810(b)(1) of the rules remain 

relevant. We tentatively conclude that 

section 7(5) requires us to delete 

§ 73.810(b)(1) (bona fide complaint must 

allege interference caused by LPFM 

station that has its transmitter site 

located within the predicted 60 dBu 

contour of the affected station), (2) (bona 

fide complaint must be in form of 

affidavit and state the nature and 

location of the alleged interference) and 

(3) (bona fide complaint must involve a 

fixed receiver located within the 60 dBu 

contour of the affected station and not 

more than 1 kilometer from the LPFM 

transmitter site). We solicit comment on 

whether we should retain the remaining 

criterion, which requires a bona fide 

complaint to be received within one 

year of the date an LPFM station 

commenced broadcasts. 

26. Technical Flexibility. Section 7(4) 

of the LCRA requires the Commission, 

to the extent possible, to ‘‘grant lowpower FM stations on third-adjacent 

channels the technical flexibility to 

remediate interference through the 

collocation of the transmission facilities 

of the low-power FM station and any 

stations on third-adjacent channels.’’ 

We note that, per section 3 of the LCRA, 

we are eliminating the third-adjacent 

channel spacing requirements set forth 

in § 73.807. We have identified no other 

provision of our rules that would hinder 

our ability to offer the flexibility 

specified in section 7(4) of the LCRA. 

Accordingly, we tentatively conclude 

that we need not modify or eliminate 

any other provisions of our rules to 

implement section 7(4). We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

d. Additional Interference Protection 

and Remediation Obligations 

27. One additional provision of 

section 7—section 7(6)—requires the 

Commission to impose additional 

interference protection and remediation 

obligations on one class of LPFM 

stations. Specifically, section 7(6) of the 

LCRA directs the Commission to create 

special interference protections for 

‘‘full-service FM stations that are 

licensed in significantly populated 

States with more than 3,000,000 

population and a population density 

greater than 1,000 people per square 

mile land area.’’ The obligations apply 

only to LPFM stations licensed after the 

enactment of the LCRA. Such stations 

must remediate actual interference to 

full-service FM stations licensed to the 

significantly populated states specified 

in section 7(6) and ‘‘located on thirdadjacent, second-adjacent, first-adjacent 

or co-channels’’ to the LPFM station and 

must do so under the interference and 

complaint procedures set forth in 

§ 74.1203 of the rules. However, 

Congress has created an outer limit to 

the interference protection obligations 

in section 7(6). That outer limit is the 

co-channel spacing distance set forth in 

§ 73.807 of the rules for the affected fullservice station’s class. 

28. This statutory requirement is 

different than current policy. Today, if 

an LPFM station meets the spacing 

requirements, it is ‘‘not required to 

eliminate interference caused to existing 

FM stations.’’ With the enactment of 

LCRA, at least with respect to fullservice FM stations licensed to the 

significantly populated states that meet 

the criteria set forth in section 7(6), 

LPFM stations licensed after its effective 

date must remediate any actual 

interference that occurs. We note that 

the section 7(6) interference 

requirements are, with one exception, 

unambiguous. We seek comment on 

how to interpret the term—‘‘States.’’ 

Only New Jersey and Puerto Rico satisfy 

the population and population density 

thresholds set forth in section 7(6). This 

raises the question of whether Congress 

intended the term ‘‘States’’ to include 

the territories and possessions of the 

United States. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20762 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3. Translator Input Signals Complaint 

Procedure 

29. Section 6 of the LCRA requires the 

Commission to ‘‘modify its rules to 

address the potential for predicted 

interference to FM translator input 

signals on third-adjacent channels set 

forth in Section 2.7 of the technical 

report entitled ‘Experimental 

Measurements of the Third-Adjacent 

Channel Impacts of Low Power FM 

Stations, Volume One—Final Report 

(May 2003)’’’ (‘‘Final Report’’). Section 

2.7 of the Final Report finds that 

significant interference to translator 

input signals does not occur for 

undesired/desired ratio values below 34 

dB at the translator input. Section 2.7 

sets out a formula (the ‘‘Mitre Formula’’) 

that allows calculation of the minimum 

LPFM-to-translator separation that will 

ensure a undesired/desired ratio of 34 

dB. 

30. The Commission currently 

requires LPFM stations to remediate 

actual interference to the input signal of 

an FM translator station but has not 

established any minimum distance 

separation requirements or other 

preventative measures. Based on the 

language of section 6, which requires 

the Commission to ‘‘address the 

potential for predicted interference,’’ we 

tentatively conclude that our existing 

requirements regarding remediation of 

actual interference must be recast as 

licensing rules designed to prevent any 

predicted interference. 

31. We propose to adopt a basic 

threshold test. This test is designed to 

closely track the interference standard 

developed by Mitre, without necessarily 

requiring LPFM applicants to obtain the 

receive antenna technical characteristics 

that are incorporated into the Mitre 

Formula. We propose that any 

application for a new or modified LPFM 

station construction permit may not use 

a transmitter site within the ‘‘potential 

interference area’’ of any FM translator 

station that receives directly off-air, the 

signal of a third-adjacent channel FM 

station. For these purposes, we define 

the ‘‘potential interference area’’ to be 

any area within 2 km of the translator 

site or any area within 10 km of the 

translator site within the azimuths from 

¥30 degrees to +30 degrees of the 

azimuth from the translator site to the 

site of the station being rebroadcast by 

the translator. For example, if the 

primary station is located at 280 degrees 

true (from the translator site), the LPFM 

station must not be within 10 km of the 

translator between the azimuths 250 to 

310 degrees true (from the translator 

site), and must be at least 2 km from the 

translator tower site in all other 

directions. If an LPFM application 

proposes a transmitter site within the 

potential interference area and fails to 

include an exhibit demonstrating lack of 

interference to the off-air reception, we 

would dismiss the application as 

defective. 

32. We propose two ways for an 

LPFM applicant within the potential 

interference area to show lack of 

interference to the input signal of a 

potentially affected translator. First, we 

propose, as indicated in section 2.7 of 

the Final Report, that LPFM applicants 

may show that the ratio of the signal 

strength of the LPFM (undesired) 

proposal to the signal strength of the FM 

(desired) station is below 34 dB at all 

locations. Second, we propose to allow 

use of the equation provided in Section 

2.7 of the Final Report to demonstrate 

lack of interference to the reception of 

the FM station at the translator 

transmitter site. Because we do not 

authorize translator receive antenna 

locations, we propose to assume that the 

translator receive antenna is co-located 

with its associated translator transmit 

antenna. In addition, this equation 

would require the horizontal plane 

pattern of the translator’s receive 

antenna. This information is not 

typically available publicly or in the 

Consolidated Database System 

(‘‘CDBS’’). Therefore, we propose to 

allow the use of a ‘‘typical’’ pattern in 

situations where an LPFM applicant is 

not able to obtain information from the 

translator licensee, despite reasonable 

efforts to do so. We seek comment on 

this proposal. 

33. As with similar situations 

involving dismissals for violation of 

interference protection requirements, 

we propose to permit LPFM applicants 

to seek reconsideration of a dismissal 

and reinstatement nunc pro tunc by 

demonstrating that their proposals will 

not cause any actual interference to the 

input signal of any FM translator station 

using either the ratio or the Mitre 

Formula. Furthermore, we seek 

comment on whether this process 

should be applicable to only translators 

receiving FM station signals, or also 

include those that receive third-adjacent 

channel translator signals directly offair. 

B. Other Rule Changes 

34. In this Fourth FNPRM, we also 

propose changes to our rules intended 

to promote the LPFM service’s localism 

and diversity goals, reduce the potential 

for licensing abuses, and clarify certain 

rules. We discuss these proposed 

changes below. We seek comment on 

whether these proposed changes are 

consistent with the LCRA and whether 

they will promote the public interest. 

1. Classes of Service 

35. There are two classes of LPFM 

facilities: LP100 and LP10. The 

Commission permits LP100 stations to 

operate with a maximum power of 100 

watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. LP10 

stations may operate with a maximum 

power of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters 

HAAT. To date, the Commission has 

issued construction permits and 

licenses only for LP100 class facilities. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether to eliminate the LP10 class of 

service. 

36. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether to permit LPFM stations in 

smaller communities, rural areas or 

‘‘non-core’’ locations (i.e., areas outside 

population centers) in larger markets to 

increase power levels to a maximum 

ERP of 250 watts at 30 meters HAAT, as 

urged by both the Amherst Alliance 

(‘‘Amherst’’) and the Catholic Radio 

Association (‘‘CRA’’). Both Amherst and 

CRA support permitting LPFM stations 

to operate with up to 250 watts ERP. 

They focus on the particular challenges 

of maintaining economically viable 

LPFM stations in rural areas where 

population densities are low and larger 

coverage areas are possible. 

37. We seek comment on whether 

increased power levels could offset 

limited potential audiences, promote 

LPFM station viability and expand radio 

service to areas where full service 

operations may not be economically 

feasible. Such an approach would be 

consistent with the Commission’s 

decision to adopt a more flexible 

definition of ‘‘local’’ applicant in nonurban areas. We note that this potential 

revised maximum operating limit would 

put LPFM stations on similar footing to 

FM translator stations which may 

operate with a maximum power of 250 

watts ERP. 

38. We seek comment on whether 

establishing a higher power level for 

certain LPFM stations would allow 

these stations to better meet the needs 

of their local communities. 

Notwithstanding the potential service 

benefits, we also seek comment on 

whether an increase in the maximum 

LPFM power level can be implemented 

in a manner that would not undermine 

the detailed LCRA protection standards 

and interference remediation 

procedures, which are presumably 

grounded on the current LPFM 

maximum power level. Such an increase 

in power for certain LPFM stations may 

be possible as we will be maintaining or 

increasing the spacing requirements, not 

decreasing them. We also seek comment 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20763 

on appropriate geographical restrictions 

for the higher powered LPFM 

operations. For example, should we 

permit increased power levels anywhere 

outside the top 100 markets and limit 

higher powered operations in the top 20 

markets to transmitter locations more 

than thirty kilometers from the center 

city coordinates, in markets 21–50, to 

locations more than twenty kilometers 

from center city coordinates and in 

markets 51–100, to locations more than 

ten kilometers from center city 

coordinates. Alternatively, we seek 

comment on whether power limit 

increases should not be permitted 

anywhere in the top 50 markets where 

we believe that licensing opportunities 

to be limited because of spectrum 

constraints and where there may be 

population centers outside core market 

locations. We ask that commenters 

address whether we should limit 

eligibility to operate in excess of the 

current 100 watts/30 meters maximum 

to previously licensed LPFM facilities in 

order to provide those LPFM licensees 

that have demonstrated their ability to 

construct and operate a limited 

opportunity to expand their 

listenership. Finally, we ask that 

commenters address whether increasing 

the maximum LPFM power level could 

result in an increased potential for 

interference. Specifically, should 

eligibility to increase power to 250 watts 

be limited to only those stations that can 

fully satisfy co-, first-, and secondadjacent channel spacing requirements? 

2. Removal of I.F. Channel Minimum 

Distance Separation Requirements 

39. LPFM stations are currently 

required to protect full-service stations 

on their intermediate frequencies 

(‘‘I.F.’’), while translator stations 

operating with less than 100 watts ERP 

are not. We recognize this disparity and 

propose to remove I.F. protection 

requirements for LPFM stations 

operating with less than 100 watts. We 

believe the same reasoning that the 

Commission applied in exempting FM 

translator stations operating with less 

than 100 watts ERP from the I.F. 

protection requirements applies for 

LPFM stations operating at less than 100 

watts ERP. These stations too are the 

equivalent of Class D FM stations, 

which are not subject to I.F. protection 

requirements. We note that FM 

allotments would continue to be 

protected on the I.F. channels based on 

existing international agreements. We 

seek comment on this proposal. 

3. Eligibility and Ownership 

a. Requirement That Applicant Be 

Community-Based 

40. The LPFM service is reserved 

solely to non-profit, community-based 

entities. However, we believe that the 

wording of § 73.853 of the rules is 

unclear and could be read to require 

that an applicant be ‘‘local’’ only at the 

time of application. Such a reading 

would contravene our intent in 

adopting—and reinstating—the local 

ownership requirement, which rested 

on our predictive judgment that ‘‘local 

entities with their roots in the 

community will be more attuned and 

responsive to the needs of that 

community, which have heretofore been 

underserved by commercial 

broadcasters.’’ We therefore propose to 

clarify this requirement by revising 

§ 73.853(b) to read: ‘‘Only local 

applicants will be permitted to submit 

applications. For the purposes of this 

paragraph, an applicant will be deemed 

local if it can certify, at the time of 

application, that it meets the criteria 

listed below and if such applicant 

continues to satisfy the criteria at all 

times thereafter. * * *’’ We seek 

comment on this proposed requirement. 

b. Eligibility of Native Nations 

41. The current version of § 73.853 of 

the rules does not include federally 

recognized American Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Villages (‘‘Native 

Nations’’), consortia of Native Nations, 

or entities majority owned by Native 

Nations or consortia, among the 

categories of eligible applicants for 

stations in the LPFM service. We have 

recently expressed our commitment to 

assisting Native Nations in establishing 

radio service to their members living on 

tribal lands, including a Tribal Priority 

that we incorporated into the threshold 

fair distribution analysis performed 

pursuant to section 307(b) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), when comparing 

mutually exclusive applications for 

permits to construct new or modified 

full-service NCE FM stations that 

propose service to different 

communities. In keeping with this 

commitment, we seek comment in this 

Fourth FNPRM, inter alia, on whether to 

modify the LPFM point system to award 

a point to a Native Nation proposing 

LPFM service to its community. 

However, before we seek comment on 

Native Nation participation in LPFM 

application proceedings, we must first 

ensure that, under our rules, Native 

Nations are eligible to apply for stations 

in the LPFM service. 

42. Accordingly, we propose to revise 

§ 73.853(a) of the rules by adding the 

following: ‘‘(3) Tribal Applicants, as 

defined in [§ ] 73.7000 of this [p]art, that 

will provide non-commercial radio 

services.’’ We further propose to revise 

§ 73.853(b) of the rules by adding the 

following: ‘‘(4) In the case of a Tribal 

Applicant, as defined in [§ ]73.7000 of 

this [p]art, the proposed site for the 

transmitting antenna is located on that 

Tribal Applicant’s ‘Tribal Lands,’ as 

defined in [§ ] 73.7000 of this [p]art.’’ 

We believe that allowing Native Nations 

to hold LPFM licenses will be consistent 

with the localism and diversity goals of 

the LPFM service and will further our 

goal of assisting Native Nations in 

establishing radio service to their 

members on tribal lands. 

c. Cross-Ownership 

43. From the outset, the Commission 

has prohibited common ownership of an 

LPFM station and any other broadcast 

station, as well as other media subject 

to the Commission’s ownership rules. 

This prohibition furthers one of the 

most important purposes of establishing 

the LPFM service—‘‘to afford small, 

community-based organizations an 

opportunity to communicate over the 

airwaves and thus expand diversity of 

ownership.’’ We seek comment on 

whether to revise our rules to permit 

cross-ownership of an LPFM station and 

an FM translator or translators. We note 

that this revision could enable LPFM 

stations to expand their listenership and 

provide another way in which 

translators could serve the needs of a 

community. We do not believe allowing 

limited cross-ownership of LPFM 

stations and FM translators will have a 

negative effect on the diversity of 

ownership. However, we solicit 

comment on this issue. In addition, we 

request comment on how crossownership of an LPFM station and an 

FM translator station would impact the 

extremely localized service that LPFM 

stations provide. Finally, we solicit 

input on whether to authorize such 

cross-ownership only if the FM 

translator rebroadcasts the programming 

of its co-owned LPFM station; whether 

we should require some overlap of the 

60 dBu contours of the cross-owned 

stations; whether to set some distance or 

geographic limits on the crossownership; and whether to permit an 

LPFM station to use an alternative 

signal delivery mechanism to deliver its 

signal to a commonly owned FM 

translator. 

44. We also seek comment on whether 

to modify our cross-ownership rule to 

permit a full-service radio station 

permittee or licensee that is a Native 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20764 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Nation or an entity owned or controlled 

by a Native Nation to apply for an LPFM 

station and to hold an attributable 

interest in such station. We believe this 

modification would enhance the ability 

of Native Nations to provide 

communications services to their 

members on tribal lands without 

significantly undermining diversity of 

ownership. We seek comment on 

whether this exception to the general 

cross-ownership prohibition should be 

limited to situations where the Native 

Nation or Native Nation-controlled 

applicant demonstrates that it will serve 

currently unserved tribal lands or 

populations. 

d. Multiple Ownership 

45. To further its diversity goals and 

foster local, community-based service, 

the Commission prohibits entities from 

owning more than one LPFM station in 

the same community. We seek comment 

on whether we should permit Native 

Nations and entities owned or 

controlled by Native Nations to seek 

more than one LPFM construction 

permit to ensure adequate coverage of 

tribal lands. For instance, we could 

permit this when Native Nations and 

entities owned or controlled by Native 

Nations seek to serve large, irregularly 

shaped or rural areas. Where this is the 

case, an applicant may be unable to 

ensure adequate coverage of tribal 

members and tribal lands with one 

LPFM station. We also could permit 

multiple ownership only when there are 

available channels for other applicants. 

In such instances, there would be no 

risk that a new entrant would be 

precluded from offering service. We 

believe permitting Native Nations to 

hold more than one LPFM license 

would advance the Commission’s efforts 

to enhance the ability of Native Nations 

not only to receive radio service tailored 

to their specific needs and cultures, but 

to increase ownership of such radio 

stations by Native Nations and entities 

owned or controlled by Native Nations. 

We seek comment on whether to 

accomplish this through amendment of 

§ 73.855(a) of the rules or through 

waiver. 

4. Selection Among Mutually Exclusive 

Applicants 

46. Below, we propose certain 

changes to the manner in which we 

process mutually exclusive LPFM 

applications. These changes are 

intended to better ensure that we award 

LPFM licenses to those organizations 

most capable of serving the very 

localized communities and 

underrepresented groups the LPFM 

service was designed to serve, and to 

improve the efficiency of the selection 

process. 

a. Point System 

(i) Established Community Presence 

47. Currently, under the LPFM 

selection procedures for mutually 

exclusive LPFM applications set forth in 

§ 73.872 of the rules, the Commission 

awards one point to an applicant that 

has an established community presence. 

The Commission deems an applicant to 

have such a presence if, for at least two 

years prior to application filing, the 

applicant has been headquartered, has 

maintained a campus or has had threequarters of its board members residing 

within ten miles of the proposed 

station’s transmitter site. In adopting 

this criterion, the Commission intended 

to ‘‘favor organizations that have been 

operating in the communities where 

they propose to construct an LPFM 

station and thus have ‘track records’ of 

community-service and established 

constituencies in their communities.’’ 

The Commission believed that, because 

of their longstanding organizational ties 

to their communities, applicants with 

established community presences were 

likely to be ‘‘more attuned to, and have 

organizational experience addressing, 

the needs and interests of their 

communities.’’ 

48. We propose to revise the language 

of § 73.872(b)(1) to clarify that an 

applicant must have had an established 

local presence for a specified period of 

time prior to filing its application and 

must maintain that local presence at all 

times thereafter. We note that, while 

Section 73.872(b)(1) currently does not 

include the requirement that an 

applicant maintain its local presence, 

we believe that is the only reasonable 

interpretation of the rule. We seek 

comment on this proposed change to 

§ 73.872(b)(1). 

49. In addition, we seek comment on 

three additional changes to the rule. 

First, we request comment on whether 

to revise our definition of ‘‘established 

community presence’’ to require that an 

applicant have maintained such a 

presence for a longer period of time, 

such as four years. While this change in 

the rules would result in a smaller pool 

of organizations that could earn this 

comparative point, we believe it would 

better ensure that LPFM licensees are 

attuned to the local interests of the 

communities they seek to serve. 

Alternatively, should we maintain the 

two-year threshold but also award an 

additional point to applicants that have 

a substantially longer established 

community presence (e.g., four years)? 

Second, we solicit comment on whether 

we should modify § 73.872(b)(1) to 

extend the ‘‘established community 

presence’’ standard to 20 miles in rural 

areas. We note that such a change would 

bring § 73.872(b)(1) in line with 

§ 73.853(b). Finally, we seek comment 

on whether to allow local organizations 

filing as consortia to receive one point 

under the established community 

presence criterion for each organization 

that qualifies for such a point. If we 

were to revise § 73.872(b)(1) in this 

fashion, should we cap the number of 

points awarded to consortia at three? 

We note that, currently, applicants tied 

with the highest number of points may 

enter into time-share agreements. In 

such a situation, their points are 

aggregated. This proposal would operate 

in a similar fashion, except that it would 

precede and potentially preclude postfiling point aggregation settlements. We 

believe this proposed change could 

significantly promote diversity, speed 

the licensing process and provide 

further incentive for applicants to enter 

into voluntary time-sharing 

arrangements in spectrum-limited areas. 

However, we seek comment on whether 

there is any potential for abuse of such 

a change in the rules and, if so, how we 

can prevent it. For instance, could this 

proposed rule change lead local 

organizations interested in constructing 

and operating an LPFM station to recruit 

other local organizations that have no 

interest in doing so to participate in a 

consortium in order to inflate the 

consortium’s point total? 

(ii) Local Program Origination 

50. The Commission currently 

encourages LPFM stations to locally 

originate programming. It does so by 

incorporating local program origination 

as one of the three one-point criteria 

used to select among mutually exclusive 

applicants. In adopting the local 

program origination criterion, the 

Commission reasoned that ‘‘local 

program origination can advance the 

Commission’s policy goal of addressing 

unmet needs for community-oriented 

radio broadcasting’’ and concluded that 

‘‘an applicant’s intent to provide 

locally-originated programming is a 

reasonable gauge of whether the LPFM 

station will function as an outlet for 

community self-expression.’’ We seek 

comment on whether to place greater 

emphasis on this selection factor by 

awarding two points—instead of the one 

point currently awarded—to an 

applicant that pledges to originate at 

least eight hours of programming each 

day. Do the limited licensing 

opportunities for LPFM stations in 

major markets support giving greater 

weight to this criterion? Does the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20765 

potential for awarding up to three points 

to a consortium under the established 

community presence criterion justify an 

increase in the points awarded under 

this criterion? Should we modify the 

definition of local program origination 

for LPFM stations that serve rural areas? 

We request that commenters specifically 

address whether increasing the weight 

of this criterion is warranted in light of 

our previous finding that local 

programming is not the only 

programming of interest or value to 

listeners in a particular locale. 

Alternately, should we impose a 

specific requirement that all new LPFM 

licensees provide locally-originated 

programming? Parties supporting this 

proposal are requested to show that the 

Commission’s prior finding is no longer 

valid and identify problems or shortcomings in the current LPFM licensing 

and service rules that this change would 

remedy. Parties supporting this proposal 

also are requested to address any 

constitutional issues that it raises. 

(iii) Additional Selection Criteria 

51. We seek comment on whether to 

develop additional selection criteria for 

the LPFM point system in order to limit 

the number of involuntary time-share 

licensing outcomes. Specifically, we 

seek comment on whether we should 

modify our point system to award a 

point to Native Nations and entities 

owned or controlled by Native Nations, 

when they propose to provide LPFM 

service to Native Nation communities. 

We note that this criterion would be 

similar to the ‘‘Tribal Priority’’ that we 

incorporated into the threshold fair 

distribution analysis that we perform 

pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act, 

when we are faced with mutually 

exclusive applications for permits to 

construct new or modified full-service 

FM, AM, or NCE FM stations that 

propose service to different 

communities. We also note that we 

believe adoption of a Native Nation 

selection criterion would further our 

efforts to increase ownership of radio 

stations by Native Nations and entities 

owned or controlled by Native Nations 

and to enable Native Nations and such 

entities to serve the unique needs and 

interests of their communities. Finally, 

in addition to seeking comment on this 

‘‘Native Nation’’ criterion, we invite the 

submission of additional proposals for 

new selection criteria, provided they are 

(a) specifically linked to Commission 

policy, and (b) structured to withstand 

scrutiny under applicable legal 

standards. 

b. First Tiebreaker, Voluntary Time 

Sharing 

52. In the event the point analysis 

results in a tie, the Commission employs 

voluntary time-sharing as the initial tiebreaker. In these circumstances, the 

Commission releases a public notice 

announcing the tie and gives the tied 

applicants the opportunity to propose 

voluntary time-sharing arrangements. 

Currently, following the award of 

voluntary time-share construction 

permits, if one of the participants in a 

voluntary time-sharing arrangement 

does not construct or surrenders its 

station license after commencing 

operations, the remaining time-share 

participants are free to apportion the 

vacant air-time as they see fit. We seek 

comment on the procedures we should 

adopt to address the surrender or 

expiration of a construction permit—or 

the surrender of a license—issued to a 

participant in a voluntary time-sharing 

arrangement. We note that the current 

policy regarding air-time 

reapportionment presents the potential 

for abuse in the LPFM licensing process. 

For instance, out of a group of tied 

mutually exclusive applicants, some 

could enter into a time-share 

arrangement in order to aggregate their 

points and prevail over others with the 

knowledge that not all of the prevailing 

applicants intend to build and operate 

their LPFM stations. We solicit 

comment on ways to reduce the 

potential for abuse of the air-time 

reapportionment policy. Should we 

open a ‘‘mini-window’’ for the filing of 

applications for the abandoned air-time? 

Could we limit eligibility to 

unsuccessful applicants from the same 

mutually exclusive group in the initial 

window? Is such an approach consistent 

with Ashbacker requirements? We 

believe limiting the applicant pool for a 

‘‘mini-window’’ to unsuccessful 

applications from the same mutually 

exclusive group will provide 

organizations with an incentive to 

participate in the LPFM licensing 

process at the earliest opportunity (i.e., 

during the initial filing window). It also 

will expedite the filling of dead air-time 

and promote the goal of reducing the 

potential for abuse of the air-time 

reapportionment policy while 

minimizing the administrative 

complexities involved. In this regard, 

we believe that the procedures we 

develop to select successor permittees 

and licensees must operate efficiently. 

The air-time being filled will cover only 

a limited portion of each broadcast day. 

We must balance our desire to fill airtime with the need for administrative 

efficiency, particularly as we anticipate 

the considerable licensing burdens that 

are likely to result from the upcoming 

LPFM window. Under another 

approach, a non-prevailing applicant 

could express its interest in being 

selected as a successor time share 

permittee in the event that the 

tentatively selected applications are 

granted and either a permittee fails to 

construct or a licensee abandons its 

time. One option would be to require 

the filing of such expressions of interest 

by the deadline for filing of petitions to 

deny the applications of the tentative 

selectees. The staff then could identify 

the applicant with the highest point 

total among those filing an expression of 

interest and retain this application in 

pending status. If we modify our airtime reapportionment policy in 

voluntary time sharing situations to 

reduce the potential for abuse, we 

propose that the changes would apply 

only during the first four years of 

licensed station operations, as they do 

in the NCE FM licensing context. If a 

time share licensee abandons its airtime after the first four years of licensed 

station operations, we propose to allow 

the remaining time-share participants to 

apportion the vacant air-time as they see 

fit just as they do under the current airtime reapportionment policy. We seek 

comment on these proposals. Finally, 

we seek comment on whether, if we 

modify the established community 

presence criterion to award additional 

points to consortia, these new 

procedures also should apply to permits 

awarded under this modified criterion. 

5. Operating Schedule, Time Sharing 

53. Currently, the Commission 

requires LPFM stations to meet the same 

minimum operating hour requirements 

as full-service NCE FM stations. Like 

NCE FM stations, LPFM stations must 

operate at least 36 hours per week, 

consisting of at least 5 hours of 

operation per day on at least 6 days of 

the week. However, while the 

Commission has mandated time sharing 

for NCE FM stations that meet the 

Commission’s minimum operating 

requirements but do not operate 12 

hours per day each day of the year, it 

has not done so for LPFM stations. We 

seek comment on whether we should 

extend this mandatory time-sharing to 

the LPFM service. We believe that doing 

so could increase the number of 

broadcast voices and promote additional 

diversity in radio voices and program 

services. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20766 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

III. Administrative Matters 

A. Filing Requirements 

54. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding 

this Notice initiates shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) 

of the rules. In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

55. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (‘‘RFA’’), requires that 

a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice and comment rule 

making proceedings, unless the agency 

certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. 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). 

56. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘Fourth FNPRM’’). Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

Fourth FNPRM provided in paragraph 

74. The Commission will send a copy of 

this entire Fourth FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). In addition, 

the Fourth FNPRM and the IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

57. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. This rulemaking 

proceeding is initiated to seek comment 

on how to implement the provisions of 

the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 

(‘‘LCRA’’) discussed below. The Fourth 

FNPRM tentatively concludes that the 

second-adjacent channel spacing waiver 

standard set forth in section 3(b)(2) of 

the LCRA supersedes the interim waiver 

processing policy currently in place and 

seeks comment on this tentative 

conclusion and on what factors the 

Commission should take into account in 

considering waiver requests. The Fourth 

FNPRM also proposes to implement 

section 3(b)(2)(B), which provides a 

framework for handling complaints of 

interference from low-power FM 

(‘‘LPFM’’) stations operating pursuant to 

second-adjacent channel waivers. 

Similarly the Fourth FNPRM also 

proposes to amend the Commission’s 

rules to implement section 7 of the 

LCRA, which creates two different 

LPFM interference protection and 

remediation regimes, one for LPFM 

stations that would be considered shortspaced under third-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements, and one for LPFM 

stations that would not be considered 

short-spaced under those requirements. 

Lastly, the Fourth FNPRM takes up 

implementation of section 6 of the 

LCRA, which requires the Commission 

to modify its rules to address the 

potential for predicted interference to 

translator input signals on thirdadjacent channels. The Fourth FNPRM 

proposes to adopt a basic threshold test 

to determine whether a proposed LPFM 

station will cause such predicted 

interference. Specifically, the Fourth 

FNPRM proposes to prohibit an 

applicant for a new or modified LPFM 

station construction permit from 

specifying a transmitter site within the 

‘‘potential interference area’’ of any FM 

translator station that receives directly 

off-air, the signal of a third-adjacent 

channel FM station. The Fourth FNPRM 

would define the ‘‘potential interference 

area’’ to be any area within 2 km of the 

translator site or any area within 10 km 

of the translator site within the 

azimuths from ¥30 degrees to +30 

degrees of the azimuth from the 

translator site to the site of the station 

being rebroadcast by the translator. 

58. The Fourth FNPRM also proposes 

changes to our rules intended to 

promote the LPFM service’s localism 

and diversity goals, reduce the potential 

for licensing abuses, and clarify certain 

rules. First, the Fourth FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether to increase the 

maximum facilities for LPFM stations. 

Second, the Fourth FNPRM seeks 

comment on proposed rule changes that 

will clarify that an LPFM applicant 

must satisfy the local ownership 

requirement at all times. Third, it also 

requests comment on whether to allow 

cross-ownership of an LPFM station and 

FM translator stations and whether to 

allow federally recognized Native 

American Tribes and Alaska Native 

Villages (‘‘Native Nations’’) to own 

multiple LPFM stations. Fourth, the 

Fourth FNPRM proposes to modify the 

criteria used in the point system, add an 

additional criterion to the point system, 

and revise the voluntary time-sharing 

tie-breaker used for selecting among 

mutually exclusive LPFM applications 

when the point analysis results in a tie. 

Fifth, the Fourth FNPRM seeks comment 

on whether to extend to the LPFM 

service the mandatory time-sharing 

requirements that currently apply to FM 

translators that meet the Commission’s 

minimum operating requirements but 

do not operate 12 hours per day each 

day of the year. Finally, noting that 

LPFM stations are currently required to 

protect full-service stations on their 

intermediate frequencies (‘‘I.F.’’), while 

translator stations operating with less 

than 100 watts ERP are not, the Fourth 

FNPRM proposes to eliminate the 

spacing requirements related to 

Intermediate Frequency channels. 

59. Legal Basis. The authority for this 

proposed rulemaking is contained in the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20767 

Local Community Radio Act of 2010, 

Public Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 4072 

(2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 307, 

and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 

1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 

307, and 309(j). 

60. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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. 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 SBA. 

61. Radio Broadcasting. The proposed 

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 $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 

September 15, 2011, about 10,960 (97 

percent) of 11,300 commercial radio 

station 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. 

62. 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. 

63. FM translator stations and low 

power FM stations. The proposed 

policies could 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. 

Currently, there are approximately 6,131 

licensed FM translator stations and 859 

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. 

64. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements. None. 

65. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Impact on Small Entities, 

and Significant Alternatives Considered. 

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. 

66. The passage of the LCRA required 

the Commission to propose certain 

changes to its technical rules. The 

Commission considered maintaining the 

status quo regarding the proposed 

changes to its non-technical rules, but 

concluded that these proposed rule 

changes will benefit small businesses 

and existing LPFM licensees. 

67. The LPFM service has created and 

will continue to create significant 

opportunities for new small businesses 

by allowing small businesses to develop 

LPFM service in their communities. In 

addition, the Commission generally has 

taken steps to minimize the impact on 

existing small broadcasters. To the 

extent that rules proposed in the Fourth 

FNPRM would impose any burdens on 

small entities, we believe that the 

resulting impact on small entities would 

be favorable because the proposed rules, 

if adopted, would expand opportunities 

for LPFM applicants, permittees, and 

licensees to commence broadcasting and 

stay on the air. Among other things, the 

Fourth FNPRM proposes to allow FM 

translator licensees to own or hold 

attributable interests in LPFM stations. 

This is prohibited under the current 

rules. Likewise, the Fourth FNPRM 

proposes to permit Native Nations and 

entities owned or controlled by Native 

Nations to seek more than one LPFM 

construction permit to ensure adequate 

coverage of tribal lands. Today, multiple 

ownership of LPFM stations is 

prohibited. 

68. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals. None. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

69. Accordingly, It is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

the Local Community Radio Act of 

2010, Public Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 

4072 (2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 

307, and 309(j) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 151, 152, 154(i), 

303, 307, and 309(j), that this Fifth 

Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth 

Order on Reconsideration is adopted. 

70. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Fifth Report 

and Order, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth Order 

on Reconsideration, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and shall 

cause it to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 part 

73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority for part 73 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

2. Revise § 73.807 to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 73.807 Minimum distance separation 

between stations. 

Minimum separation requirements for 

LP250 and LP100 stations, as defined in 

§§ 73.811 and 73.853, are listed in the 

following paragraphs. Except as noted 

below, an LPFM station will not be 

authorized unless the co-channel, firstand second-adjacent and I.F. channel 

separations are met. An LPFM station 

need not satisfy the third-adjacent 

channel separations listed in paragraphs 

(a) through (d) in order to be authorized. 

These third-adjacent channel 

separations are included for 

informational purposes only. 

Minimum distances for co-channel 

and first-adjacent channel are separated 

into two columns. The left-hand column 

lists the required minimum separation 

to protect other stations and the righthand column lists (for informational 

purposes only) the minimum distance 

necessary for the LPFM station to 

receive no interference from other 

stations assumed to be operating at the 

maximum permitted facilities for the 

station class. For second-adjacent 

channel and intermediate frequency 

(I.F.) channels, the required minimum 

distance separation is sufficient to avoid 

interference received from other 

stations. 

(a)(1) An LP100 station will not be 

authorized initially unless the minimum 

distance separations in the following 

table are met with respect to authorized 

FM stations, applications for new and 

existing FM stations filed prior to the 

release of the public notice announcing 

an LPFM window period for LP100 

stations, authorized LP250 and LP100 

stations, LP250 and LP100 station 

applications that were timely-filed 

within a previous window, and vacant 

FM allotments. LPFM modification 

applications must either meet the 

distance separations in the following 

table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the 

spacing to subsequently authorized 

stations. 

Station class protected by 

LP100 

Co-channel minimum separation 

(km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation 

(km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations—10.6 or 

10.8 

MHz Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

LP100 ............................... 24 24 14 14 (1) (1) 

LP250 ............................... 26 29 15 16 (1) (1) 

D ....................................... 24 24 13 13 6 3 

A ....................................... 67 92 56 56 29 6 

B1 ..................................... 87 119 74 74 46 9 

B ....................................... 112 143 97 97 67 12 

C3 ..................................... 78 119 67 67 40 9 

C2 ..................................... 91 143 80 84 53 12 

C1 ..................................... 111 178 100 111 73 20 

C0 ..................................... 122 193 111 130 84 22 

C ....................................... 130 203 120 142 93 28 

(1) None. 

(2) LP100 stations must satisfy the 

second-adjacent channel minimum 

distance separation requirements of 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section with 

respect to any third-adjacent channel 

FM station that, as of September 20, 

2000, broadcasts a radio reading service 

via a subcarrier frequency. 

(3) An LP250 station will not be 

authorized initially unless the minimum 

distance separations in the following 

table are met with respect to authorized 

FM stations, applications for new and 

existing FM stations filed prior to the 

release of the public notice announcing 

an LPFM window period for LP250 

stations, authorized LP250 and LP100 

stations, LP250 and LP100 station 

applications that were timely-filed 

within a previous window, and vacant 

FM allotments. LPFM modification 

applications must either meet the 

distance separations in the following 

table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the 

spacing to subsequently authorized 

stations. 

Station class protected by 

LP250 

Co-channel minimum 

separation (km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation 

(km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations—10.6 or 

10.8 

MHz Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

LP100 ............................... 29 26 16 15 (1) (1) 

LP250 ............................... 31 31 17 17 (1) (1) 

D ....................................... 29 26 16 15 7 3 

A ....................................... 67 92 56 56 30 6 

B1 ..................................... 87 119 74 74 47 9 

B ....................................... 112 143 97 97 68 12 

C3 ..................................... 78 119 67 67 41 9 

C2 ..................................... 91 143 80 84 54 12 

C1 ..................................... 111 178 100 111 74 20 

C0 ..................................... 122 193 111 130 85 22 

C ....................................... 130 203 120 142 94 28 

(1) None. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20769 

(4) LP250 stations must satisfy the 

second-adjacent channel minimum 

distance separation requirements of 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section with 

respect to any third-adjacent channel 

FM station that, as of September 20, 

2000, broadcasts a radio reading service 

via a subcarrier frequency. 

(5) LP100 stations operating with less 

than 100 watts effective radiated power 

(ERP) need not satisfy the I.F. channel 

minimum separations requirements. 

(b)(1) In addition to meeting or 

exceeding the minimum separations in 

paragraph (a), new LP100 stations will 

not be authorized in Puerto Rico or the 

Virgin Islands unless the minimum 

distance separations in the following 

tables are met with respect to authorized 

or proposed FM stations: 

Station class protected by 

LP100 

Co-channel minimum separation 

(km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation (km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations—10.6 or 

Required 10.8 MHz 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

A ....................................... 80 111 70 70 42 9 

B1 ..................................... 95 128 82 82 53 11 

B ....................................... 138 179 123 123 92 19 

(2) In addition to meeting or 

exceeding the minimum separations in 

paragraph (a), new LP250 stations will 

not be authorized in Puerto Rico or the 

Virgin Islands unless the minimum 

distance separations in the following 

tables are met with respect to authorized 

or proposed FM stations: 

Station class protected by 

LP250 

Co-channel minimum separation 

(km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation (km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations—10.6 or 

Required 10.8 MHz 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

Required 

For no interference received 

from max. class 

facility 

A ....................................... 80 111 70 70 43 9 

B1 ..................................... 95 128 82 82 54 11 

B ....................................... 138 179 123 123 93 19 

(3) LP 100 stations operating with less 

than 100 watts ERP need not satisfy the 

I.F. channel minimum separations 

requirements. 

Note to paragraphs (a) and (b): Minimum 

distance separations towards 

‘‘grandfathered’’ superpowered Reserved 

Band stations are as specified. 

Full service FM stations operating 

within the reserved band (Channels 

201–220) with facilities in excess of 

those permitted in § 73.211(b)(1) or 

§ 73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by 

LPFM stations in accordance with the 

minimum distance separations for the 

nearest class as determined under 

§ 73.211. For example, a Class B1 station 

operating with facilities that result in a 

60 dBu contour that exceeds 39 

kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers 

would be protected by the Class B 

minimum distance separations. Class D 

stations with 60 dBu contours that 

exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by 

the Class A minimum distance 

separations. Class B stations with 60 

dBu contours that exceed 52 kilometers 

will be protected as Class C1 or Class C 

stations depending upon the distance to 

the 60 dBu contour. No stations will be 

protected beyond Class C separations. 

(c)(1) In addition to meeting the 

separations specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b), LP100 applications must meet 

the minimum separation requirements 

in the following table with respect to 

authorized FM translator stations, cutoff 

FM translator applications, and FM 

translator applications filed prior to the 

release of the Public Notice announcing 

the LPFM window period. 

Distance to FM translator 

60 dBu contour 

Co-channel minimum separation 

(km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) 

Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation (km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations (km)—10.6 

Required or 10.8 MHz For no interference received Required For no interference received 

13.3 km or greater ........... 39 67 28 35 21 5 

Greater than 7.3 km, but 

less than 13.3 km ......... 32 51 21 26 14 5 

7.3 km or less .................. 26 30 15 16 8 5 

(2) In addition to meeting the 

separations specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b), LP250 applications must meet 

the minimum separation requirements 

in the following table with respect to 

authorized FM translator stations, cutoff 

FM translator applications, and FM 

translator applications filed prior to the 

release of the Public Notice announcing 

the LPFM window period: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Distance to FM translator 

60 dBu contour 

Co-channel minimum separation 

(km) 

First-adjacent channel minimum 

separation (km) 

Second and third 

adjacent channel 

minimum separation (km)—required 

I.F. channel minimum separations (km)—10.6 

Required or 10.8 MHz For no interference received Required For no interference received 

13.3 km or greater ........... 44 67 30 37 22 4 

Greater than 7.3 km, but 

less than 13.3 km ......... 37 51 23 27 15 4 

7.3 km or less .................. 31 30 17 18 9 3 

(3) LP100 stations operating with less 

than 100 watts ERP need not satisfy the 

I.F. channel minimum separations 

requirements. 

(d) Existing LP250 and LP100 stations 

which do not meet the separations in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

may be relocated provided that the 

separation to any short-spaced station is 

not reduced. 

(e) Commercial and noncommercial 

educational stations authorized under 

subparts B and C of this part, as well as 

new or modified commercial FM 

allotments, are not required to adhere to 

the separations specified in this rule 

section, even where new or increased 

interference would be created. 

(f) International considerations within 

the border zones. 

(1) Within 320 km of the Canadian 

border, LP100 stations must meet the 

following minimum separations with 

respect to any Canadian stations: 

Canadian station class Co-channel 

(km) 

First-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Second-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Third-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Intermediate 

frequency (IF) 

channel 

(km) 

A1 & Low Power .............................................. 45 30 21 20 4 

A ....................................................................... 66 50 41 40 7 

B1 ..................................................................... 78 62 53 52 9 

B ....................................................................... 92 76 68 66 12 

C1 ..................................................................... 113 98 89 88 19 

C ....................................................................... 124 108 99 98 28 

(2) Within 320 km of the Canadian 

border, LP250 stations must meet the 

following minimum separations with 

respect to any Canadian stations: 

Canadian station class Co-channel 

(km) 

First-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Second-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Third-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Intermediate 

frequency (IF) 

channel 

(km) 

A1 & Low Power .............................................. 54 33 22 20 4 

A ....................................................................... 74 53 42 40 6 

B1 ..................................................................... 86 65 54 52 9 

B ....................................................................... 101 79 68 67 12 

C1 ..................................................................... 122 101 90 88 19 

C ....................................................................... 132 111 100 98 26 

(3) Within 320 km of the Mexican 

border, LP100 stations must meet the 

following separations with respect to 

any Mexican stations: 

Mexican station class Co-channel 

(km) 

First-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Second- and 

third-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Intermediate 

frequency (IF) 

channel 

(km) 

Low Power ....................................................................................... 27 17 9 3 

A ....................................................................................................... 43 32 25 5 

AA .................................................................................................... 47 36 29 6 

B1 ..................................................................................................... 67 54 45 8 

B ....................................................................................................... 91 76 66 11 

C1 .................................................................................................... 91 80 73 19 

C ...................................................................................................... 110 100 92 27 

(4) Within 320 km of the Mexican 

border, LP250 stations must meet the 

following separations with respect to 

any Mexican stations: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20771 

Mexican station class Co-channel 

(km) 

First-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Second- and 

third-adjacent 

channel 

(km) 

Intermediate 

frequency (IF) 

channel 

(km) 

Low Power ....................................................................................... 33 19 10 3 

A ....................................................................................................... 48 34 26 6 

AA .................................................................................................... 52 38 30 6 

B1 ..................................................................................................... 73 57 46 9 

B ....................................................................................................... 101 79 68 12 

C1 .................................................................................................... 96 83 74 19 

C ...................................................................................................... 116 102 93 26 

(5) The Commission will notify the 

International Telecommunications 

Union (ITU) of any LPFM authorizations 

in the US Virgin Islands. Any 

authorization issued for a US Virgin 

Islands LPFM station will include a 

condition that permits the Commission 

to modify, suspend or terminate without 

right to a hearing if found by the 

Commission to be necessary to conform 

to any international regulations or 

agreements. 

(6) The Commission will initiate 

international coordination of a LPFM 

proposal even where the above 

Canadian and Mexican spacing tables 

are met, if it appears that such 

coordination is necessary to maintain 

compliance with international 

agreements. 

3. Section 73.809 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 73.809 Interference protection to full 

service FM stations. 

(a) If a full service commercial or NCE 

FM facility application is filed 

subsequent to the filing of an LPFM 

station facility application, such full 

service station is protected against any 

condition of interference to the direct 

reception of its signal that is caused by 

such LPFM station operating on the 

same channel or first-adjacent channel 

and is protected from any condition of 

interference to the direct reception of its 

signal caused by such LPFM station 

operating on an intermediate frequency 

(IF) channel with more than 100 watts 

ERP, provided that the interference is 

predicted to occur and actually occurs 

within: 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 73.811 to read as follows: 

§ 73.811 LPFM power and antenna height 

requirements. 

(a) LP250 stations: 

(1) Maximum facilities. LP250 stations 

will be authorized to operate with 

maximum facilities of 250 watts 

effective radiated power (ERP) at 30 

meters antenna height above average 

terrain (HAAT). An LP250 station with 

a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will not 

be permitted to operate with an ERP 

greater than that which would result in 

a 60 dBu contour of 7.1 kilometers. In 

no event will an ERP less than one watt 

be authorized. 

(2) Minimum facilities. LP250 stations 

may not operate with facilities less than 

101 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT or the 

equivalent necessary to produce a 60 

dBu contour that extends at least 5.7 

kilometers. 

(b) LP100 stations: 

(1) Maximum facilities. LP100 stations 

will be authorized to operate with 

maximum facilities of 100 watts ERP at 

30 meters HAAT. An LP100 station with 

a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will not 

be permitted to operate with an ERP 

greater than that which would result in 

a 60 dBu contour of 5.6 kilometers. In 

no event will an ERP less than one watt 

be authorized. No facility will be 

authorized in excess of one watt ERP at 

450 meters HAAT. 

(2) Minimum facilities. LP100 stations 

may not operate with facilities less than 

50 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT or the 

equivalent necessary to produce a 60 

dBu contour that extends at least 4.7 

kilometers. 

5. Section 73.816 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 73.816 Antennas. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Public safety and transportation 

permittees and licensees, eligible 

pursuant to § 73.853(a)(ii), may utilize 

directional antennas in connection with 

the operation of a Travelers’ Information 

Service (TIS) provided each LPFM TIS 

station utilizes only a single antenna 

with standard pattern characteristics 

that are predetermined by the 

manufacturer. In no event may 

composite antennas (i.e., antennas that 

consist of multiple stacked and/or 

phased discrete transmitting antennas) 

and/or transmitters be employed. 

(2) LPFM permittees and licensees 

may utilize directional antennas for the 

purpose of preventing interference to a 

second-adjacent channel station when 

requesting a waiver of the secondadjacent channel minimum distance 

separations set forth in § 73.807. 

* * * * * 

6. Revise § 73.825 to read as follows: 

§ 73.825 Protection to reception of TV 

channel 6. 

(a) LPFM stations will be authorized 

on Channels 201 through 220 only if the 

pertinent minimum separation distances 

in the following table are met with 

respect to all full power TV Channel 6 

stations. 

FM channel No. 

Class 

LP100 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

Class 

LP250 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

201 .................... 140 143 

202 .................... 138 141 

203 .................... 137 139 

204 .................... 136 138 

205 .................... 135 136 

206 .................... 133 135 

207 .................... 133 133 

208 .................... 133 133 

209 .................... 133 133 

210 .................... 133 133 

211 .................... 133 133 

212 .................... 132 133 

213 .................... 132 133 

214 .................... 132 132 

215 .................... 131 132 

216 .................... 131 132 

217 .................... 131 132 

218 .................... 131 131 

219 .................... 130 131 

220 .................... 130 130 

(b) LPFM stations will be authorized 

on Channels 201 through 220 only if the 

pertinent minimum separation distances 

in the following table are met with 

respect to all low power TV, TV 

translator, and Class A TV stations 

authorized on TV Channel 6. 

FM channel No. 

Class 

LP100 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

Class 

LP250 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

201 .................... 98 101 

202 .................... 97 99 

203 .................... 95 97 

204 .................... 94 96 

205 .................... 93 94 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

FM channel No. 

Class 

LP100 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

Class 

LP250 to 

TV channel 

6 

(km) 

206 .................... 91 93 

207 .................... 91 92 

208 .................... 91 92 

209 .................... 91 92 

210 .................... 91 92 

211 .................... 91 92 

212 .................... 90 91 

213 .................... 90 91 

214 .................... 90 91 

215 .................... 90 90 

216 .................... 89 90 

217 .................... 89 90 

218 .................... 89 89 

219 .................... 89 89 

220 .................... 89 89 

7. Section 73.827 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as 

paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding new 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 73.827 Interference to the input signals 

of FM translator or FM booster stations. 

(a) Interference to the direct reception 

of FM signals at a translator input. An 

LPFM station will not be authorized 

unless it remains at least 2 km from a 

translator receiving a third-adjacent 

channel FM station (as compared to the 

LPFM) directly off-air, and unless it 

remains at least 10 km from the 

translator site within the azimuths from 

¥30 degrees to +30 degrees of the 

azimuth from the translator site to the 

site of the station being rebroadcast by 

the translator. The provisions of this 

subsection will not apply if it can be 

demonstrated that no actual interference 

will occur due to an undesired (LPFM) 

to desired (FM) ratio below 34 dB at all 

locations, or due to a location at a 

distance from the translator that satisfies 

the following: du = 133.5 antilog [(Peu + 

Gru ¥ Grd ¥ Ed)/20], where du = the 

minimum allowed separation in km, Peu

= LPFM ERP in dBW, Gru = gain (dBd) 

of the translator receive antenna in the 

direction of the LPFM site, Grd = gain 

(dBd) of the translator receive antenna 

in the direction of the FM site, Ed = 

predicted field strength (dBu) of the FM 

station at the translator site. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 73.850 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 73.850 Operating schedule. 

* * * * * 

(c) All LPFM stations, including those 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(b) of this section, but which do not 

operate 12 hours per day each day of the 

year, will be required to share use of the 

frequency upon the grant of an 

appropriate application proposing such 

share time arrangement. Such 

applications must set forth the intent to 

share time and must be filed in the same 

manner as are applications for new 

stations. They may be filed at any time, 

but in cases where the parties are unable 

to agree on time sharing, action on the 

application will be taken only in 

connection with a renewal application 

for the existing station filed on or after 

June 1, 2019. In order to be considered 

for this purpose, such an application to 

share time must be filed no later than 

the deadline for filing petitions to deny 

the renewal application of the existing 

licensee. 

(1) The licensee and the prospective 

licensee(s) shall endeavor to reach an 

agreement for a definite schedule of 

periods of time to be used by each. Such 

agreement must be in writing and must 

set forth which licensee is to operate on 

each of the hours of the day throughout 

the year. Such agreement must not 

include simultaneous operation of the 

stations. Each licensee must file the 

same in triplicate with each application 

to the Commission for initial 

construction permit or renewal of 

license. Such written agreements shall 

become part of the terms of each 

station’s license. 

(2) The Commission desires to 

facilitate the reaching of agreements on 

time sharing. However, if the licensees 

of stations authorized to share time are 

unable to agree on a division of time, 

the prospective licensee(s) must submit 

a statement with the Commission to that 

effect filed with the application(s) 

proposing time sharing. 

(3) After receipt of the type of 

application(s) described in subsection 

(c)(2), the Commission will process such 

application(s) pursuant to §§ 73.3561 

through 73.3568 of this part. If any such 

application is not dismissed pursuant to 

those provisions, the Commission will 

issue a notice to the parties proposing 

a time-sharing arrangement and a grant 

of the time-sharing application(s). The 

licensee may protest the proposed 

action, the prospective licensee(s) may 

oppose the protest and/or the proposed 

action, and the licensee may reply 

within the time limits delineated in the 

notice. All such pleadings must satisfy 

the requirements of section 309(d) of the 

Act. Based on those pleadings and the 

requirements of section 309 of the Act, 

the Commission will then act on the 

time-sharing application(s) and the 

licensee’s renewal application. 

(4) A departure from the regular 

schedule set forth in a time-sharing 

agreement will be permitted only in 

cases where a written agreement to that 

effect is reduced to writing, is signed by 

the licensees of the stations affected 

thereby, and is filed in triplicate by each 

licensee with the Commission, 

Attention: Audio Division, Media 

Bureau, prior to the time of the 

proposed change. If time is of the 

essence, the actual departure in 

operating schedule may precede the 

actual filing of the written agreement, 

provided that appropriate notice is sent 

to the Commission in Washington, DC, 

Attention: Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

9. Section 73.853 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(3), revising 

paragraph (b) introductory text and 

adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 73.853 Licensing requirements and 

service. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Tribal Applicants, as defined in 

§ 73.7000 of this part, that will provide 

non-commercial radio services. 

(b) Only local applicants will be 

permitted to submit applications. For 

the purposes of this paragraph, an 

applicant will be deemed local if it can 

certify, at the time of application, that 

it meets the criteria listed below and if 

such applicant continues to satisfy the 

criteria at all times thereafter. 

* * * * * 

(4) In the case of a Tribal Applicant, 

as defined in § 73.7000 of this part, the 

proposed site for the transmitting 

antenna is located on that Tribal 

Applicant’s ‘‘Tribal Lands,’’ as defined 

in § 73.7000 of this part. 

(c) An LP250 station will be licensed 

only to applicants that: 

(1) Propose transmitter sites located at 

least 30 kilometers from the reference 

coordinates for the top 100 radio 

markets; and (2) currently operate an 

LP100 station serving the community of 

license proposed to be served by the 

LP250 station. 

10. Section 73.870 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast 

station applications. 

(a) A minor change for an LP250 

station authorized under this subpart is 

limited to transmitter site relocations of 

7.1 kilometers or less. A minor change 

for an LP100 station authorized under 

this subpart is limited to transmitter site 

relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less. 

These distance limitations do not apply 

to amendments or applications 

proposing transmitter site relocation to 

a common location filed by applicants 

that are parties to a voluntary timesharing agreement with regard to their 

stations pursuant to § 73.872 paragraphs 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20773 

(c) and (e). Minor changes of LPFM 

stations may include: 

* * * * * 

11. Section 73.871 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 73.871 Amendment of LPFM broadcast 

station applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * (1) Filings subject to 

paragraph (c)(5) of this section, site 

relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less for 

LP100 stations; 

(2) Filings subject to paragraph (c)(5) 

of this section, site relocations of 7.1 

kilometers or less for LP250 stations; 

* * * * * 

12. Section 73.872 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) introductory text 

and (b)(1), and adding paragraph (b)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually 

exclusive LPFM applications. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) below, each mutually exclusive 

application will be awarded one point 

for each of the following criteria, based 

on application certification that the 

qualifying conditions are met: 

(1) Established community presence. 

An applicant must, for a period of at 

least 4 years prior to application and at 

all times thereafter, have been 

physically headquartered, have had a 

campus or have had seventy-five 

percent of its board members residing 

within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the 

coordinates of the proposed transmitting 

antenna for applicants in the top 50 

urban markets, and 32.1 km (20 miles) 

for applicants outside of the top 50 

urban markets. If an applicant does not 

satisfy the requirements of the 

preceding sentence but was formed 

jointly by two or more organizations 

that do meet such requirements and 

maintains representation on its 

governing board by at least one member 

from each such organization, that 

applicant will be awarded one point for 

each such formative organization. 

Applicants claiming a point or more for 

this criterion must submit the 

documentation set forth in the 

application form at the time of filing 

their applications. 

* * * * * 

(4) Tribal applicants serving Tribal 

Lands. The applicant must be a Tribal 

Applicant, as defined in § 73.7000 of 

this part, and the proposed site for the 

transmitting antenna must be located on 

that Tribal Applicant’s ‘‘Tribal Lands,’’ 

as defined in § 73.7000 of this part. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8239 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

RIN 0648–XZ59 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Threatened Status for 

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability and opening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has conducted special 

independent peer review of the 

December 2010 status review report of 

the ringed seal (Phoca hispida) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). This notice announces 

availability of a peer review report that 

consolidates the comments received 

from the reviewers and the opening of 

a 30-day public comment period on that 

report. Please note that comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted since they are already part 

of the record and will be considered 

when NMFS makes its final 

determination. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received by May 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Jon 

Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by FDMS Docket 

Number NOAA–NMFS–2010–0258, by 

any one of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2010–0258 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

Mail: Submit written comments to 

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. 

Fax: (907) 586–7557. 

Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 

709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 

Juneau, AK. 

Comments must be submitted by one 

of the above methods to ensure that the 

comments are received, documented, 

and considered by NMFS. Comments 

sent by any other method, to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the end of the comment period, may not 

be considered. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

For information on obtaining a copy 

of the peer review report, see the 

‘‘Obtaining a Copy of the Peer Review 

Report’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–5006; Jon Kurland, NMFS 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638; or Marta 

Nammack, Office of Protected 

Resources, Silver Spring, MD (301) 713– 

1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 10, 2010, NMFS made 

a 12-month petition finding and 

proposed to list the Arctic (Phoca 

hispida hispida), Baltic (Phoca hispida 

botnica), Okhotsk (Phoca hispida 

ochotensis), and Ladoga (Phoca hispida 

ladogensis) subspecies of ringed seals as 

threatened (75 FR 77476). On December 

13, 2011, in consideration of substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of the model projections 

and analysis of future sea ice habitat, in 

particular snow cover, for Arctic ringed 

seals, NMFS announced a 6-month 

extension of the deadline for the final 

listing determination to June 10, 2012 

(FR 77466). At that time, we also 

announced that we were conducting 

special independent peer review of the 

sections of the status review report of 

the ringed seal (Kelly et al., 2010) 

related to the disagreement, and that the 

resulting peer review report would be 

made available for public comment. 

We have conducted this special peer 

review, and are notifying the public of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1