83 FR 32255 - New FM Radio Broadcast Class C4 and To Modify the Requirements for Designating Short-Spaced Assignments
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 134 (July 12, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 134 (July 12, 2018)
| Page Range | 32255-32259 | |
| FR Document | 2018-14880 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 32255-32259] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-14880] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 18-184; FCC 18-69] New FM Radio Broadcast Class C4 and To Modify the Requirements for Designating Short-Spaced Assignments AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), based on a petition for rulemaking filed by SSR Communications, Inc., in which the Commission sought comment on a proposal to create a new class of FM radio stations, Class C4, and to establish a procedure for designating certain FM stations. DATES: Comments may be filed on or before August 13, 2018 and reply comments may be filed on or before September 10, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 18-184, by any of the following methods:Federal Communications Commission's Website: http:// [[Page 32256]] www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: 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. People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2721; James Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2739. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry, FCC 18-69, adopted June 4, 2018, and released June 5, 2018. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http:// https://www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry 1. Introduction. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission explores the possibility of amending part 73 of the Commission's Rules to create an intermediate class of FM broadcast stations in Zone II between Class A and Class C3, to be designated Class C4. Commission staff estimates that 127 Class C3 stations, or 14 percent of the total number of Class C3 stations, are operating with facilities that are less than the proposed Class C3 minimums and thus could be subject to reclassification to Class C4. It also explores the possibility of establishing a procedure whereby an FM station in the non-reserved band (Channels 221-300), regardless of Zone or station class, could be designated as a Section 73.215 facility, resulting in such station receiving interference protection based on its actual authorized operating parameters rather than the maximum permitted parameters for its station class. 2. Class C4 proposal. This proceeding was initiated by a petition for rulemaking filed by SSR Communications, Inc. (SSR). SSR advocates the creation of a new Class C4 with an effective radiated power (ERP) that must exceed 6 kilowatts, a maximum ERP of 12 kilowatts, and a reference HAAT of 100 meters. The ERP that Class C3 stations must exceed would increase from 6 kilowatts to 12 kilowatts, but the maximum ERP would remain at 25 kilowatts. In addition, under the current rules, a station can operate below the minimum ERP for its class provided its HAAT allows it to exceed the class contour distance for the next lower class (for example, a Class C3 station must exceed the Class A contour distance of 28 kilometers). Under the SSR proposal, the next lower class for a Class C3 station would be Class C4, with a contour distance of 33 kilometers. SSR proposes amending Sections 73.207(b)(1), 73.210(a), 73.210(b), 73.211(a)(1), 73.211(b), and 73.215(e) of the Rules to implement these changes. SSR argues that a new Class C4 would provide upgrade opportunities for Class A facilities, particularly minority-owned stations, and create consistent ERP intervals between FM classes. 3. Affected stations and their listeners. Would the creation of a Class C4 materially benefit existing Class A stations by providing them with an opportunity to upgrade that is not possible today based on the current Class C3 parameters? Would Class A stations and their listeners, particularly in rural or underserved areas, benefit from the new Class C4? Is there a significant demand for the rule changes proposed by SSR? How many stations are likely to be affected by such a rule change? As suggested by SSR, would the creation of a Class C4 be particularly beneficial for minority-owned Class A stations by providing them with an opportunity to upgrade? Would this action encourage diversity of ownership in the FM broadcast industry? Would there be a detrimental effect on existing stations and/or their listeners generally, either from increased interference or reclassification (upgrade or downgrade)? 4. Secondary services. How would a new Class C4 affect secondary services (FM translators and LPFM stations), as well as AM primary stations that rebroadcast on FM translator stations? Are there lawful ways to mitigate or eliminate the impact of this proposal on secondary services, and, if so, what measures would be effective or appropriate? To what extent, if any, does the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA) impact the Commission's ability to protect existing FM translator and LPFM stations? In particular, would such protections be consistent with the LCRA directive that the ``Federal Communications Commission, when licensing new FM translators, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations . . . ensure . . . that . . . (3) [these stations] remain equal in status and secondary to existing and modified full-service FM stations''? In this respect, the Commission notes that it would be reluctant to adopt any proposal in this area that would have a significantly negative impact on FM translators and LPFM stations. 5. Allocation goals. Given the maturity of the FM service, would an increased density of signals resulting from Class A stations upgrading to Class C4 provide improved FM service coverage, or merely contribute to a higher ``noise floor'' overall while only modestly benefiting individual stations? Would upgrades to Class C4 increase the overall number of radio stations available to listeners or create interference that would degrade reception for stations in areas where there is currently a listenable signal, resulting in fewer listening choices for listeners? More generally, is there a ``tipping point'' at which increasingly granular station classifications are no longer conducive to efficient signal coverage and, if so, has that point been reached? 6. Implementation procedures. What is the appropriate balance of interests between the anticipated benefit of creating a new class of FM stations and the disruption entailed in the reclassification of existing stations? If a new class is created, should the Commission implement a blanket reclassification process, as it did in 1983 and 1989, by requiring existing Class C3 stations to file for modification to meet the proposed revised minimum facility [[Page 32257]] requirements for Class C3 stations within a set time frame or be reclassified based on their actual operating facilities? Should the mere filing for a modification be sufficient to avoid reclassification or should the Commission also require construction to be completed by a date certain? If a date certain is set for filing a modification or completing construction, what would be a reasonable amount of time for licensees to comply? Would a blanket reclassification provide more reliable and timely opportunities for upgrade than the show cause procedure outlined in the next paragraph? 7. Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a show cause procedure similar to that currently in use for Class C0, whereby a Class C3 station operating below the proposed revised minimum facility requirements for Class C3 stations would be reclassified only after the filing of a ``triggering'' application that requires it to be reclassified to Class C4? Should the affected Class C3 station have the opportunity to preserve its Class C3 status by filing a construction permit application to upgrade its facility to meet Class C3 minimums? The Commission notes that the Commission's licensing staff has found that the Class C0 show cause procedure appears to incentivize delay and contention between the parties. Have licensees experienced delay or other difficulties using the Class C0 show cause procedure? Is the blanket reclassification process described in the preceding paragraph preferable for that reason? Are there other implementation approaches the Commission should consider that might address or avoid problems identified with this show cause procedure? 8. Other issues. To what extent, if any, does the LCRA impact the Commission's creation of a new class of FM stations or reclassification of existing FM stations; in particular, the provision that the Commission ``shall not amend its rules to reduce the minimum co-channel and first- and second-adjacent channel distance separation requirements in effect on [January 4, 2011] between--(A) low-power FM stations; and (B) full-service FM stations''? Are there specific rule changes that would be necessary or advisable to implement any of the foregoing proposals? The Commission also invites commenters to make suggestions as to how the Commission's forms and databases should be modified to implement the above proposals. 9. Section 73.215 proposal. SSR argues that, by providing interference protection to a station's contours based on maximum class facilities, as opposed to the actual facilities, the Commission's rules overprotect stations operating with facilities below their class maximum. Accordingly, SSR proposes an amendment to Section 73.3573 of the Rules that would require such ``sub-maximum'' stations to be designated as Section 73.215 facilities using a procedure similar to the existing Class C0 show cause and reclassification procedure. Designation as a Section 73.215 facility would result in the sub- maximum station receiving interference protection based on its actual authorized operating parameters rather than the maximum permitted parameters for its station class. Under SSR's proposed procedure, stations not already authorized under Section 73.215 that, for ten years prior to the filing of a triggering application, have continuously operated with a HAAT or ERP below that of the class maximum (or equivalent class maximum HAAT and ERP combination in the case of station operating with a HAAT exceeding its reference HAAT) would be given an opportunity to upgrade to maximum class facilities or be subject to designation as a Section 73.215 facility. 10. SSR recommends a show cause procedure to implement its Section 73.215 proposal. Specifically, the procedure would be initiated by the filing of a ``triggering'' application that specifies facilities that require the designation of the affected sub-maximum station as a Section 73.215 facility. Triggering applications may utilize Section 73.215 and must certify that no alternative channel is available for the proposed service. Copies of a triggering application and related pleadings would be required to be served on the licensee of the affected sub-maximum station. If the staff concludes that a triggering application is acceptable for filing, it would issue an order to show cause why the affected sub-maximum station should not be designated as a Section 73.215 station. The order to show cause would provide the licensee of the sub-maximum station 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to modify its technical facilities to its maximum class HAAT and ERP (or equivalent combination thereof) or to otherwise challenge the triggering application. If no such intention is expressed and the triggering application is not challenged, the affected sub-maximum station would be designated as a Section 73.215 station and processing of the triggering application would be completed. If such intention is expressed within the 30-day period, an additional 180-day period would be provided during which the licensee of the sub-maximum station would be required to file an acceptable construction permit application to increase HAAT and/or ERP to its class maximum values (or equivalent combination thereof). Upon grant of such a construction permit application, the triggering application would be dismissed. As with Class C0 reclassifications, the licensee of the sub-maximum station would be required to serve on triggering applicants copies of any FAA submissions related to the application grant process. If the construction is not completed as authorized, the affected sub-maximum station would be automatically designated as a Section 73.215 facility. SSR's proposal raises issues similar to those posed by the Class C4 proposal, and the Commission seeks comment generally on the costs and benefits of the proposal. 11. Affected stations and their listeners. Would the proposed Section 73.215 mechanism materially benefit stations seeking to upgrade and their listeners? What is the demand for such upgrades? Would there be a corresponding detrimental effect on listeners regarding loss of existing interference-free service provided by sub-maximum stations? The Commission has explained that its policy of protecting all stations as if they are operating at maximum permitted height or power for their class, even if they are in fact operating at or near the minimum permitted height and power for their class, ``permits stations to improve technical facilities over time and provides a certain degree of flexibility for transmitter relocations.'' To what extent would adoption of the Section 73.215 proposal undermine this policy? Is this policy still desirable in the mature FM service? What are the relevant factors that might affect the sub-maximum station's ability to upgrade to the class maximums, and have those factors changed due to technological or other developments? If a station has operated below maximum facilities for a sufficient period of time, can the Commission conclude that the station is either unwilling or unable to operate at maximum facilities, thereby justifying protecting such station based on actual operating parameters and allowing for more efficient utilization of FM spectrum? Is ten years of continuous ``sub-maximum'' operation the appropriate period of time before a station would be subject to involuntary Section 73.215 designation, as suggested by SSR, or is another period of time [[Page 32258]] appropriate? To what extent should transfers of control or assignments of licensees impact the relevant time period? That is, should the time period apply per station or per licensee? For example, if the relevant time period is ten years and a station that has operated below class maximums for nine years is transferred or assigned to a third-party, should the new licensee have ten additional years to upgrade to class maximums free from potential designation as a Section 73.215 facility? 12. Secondary services. The Commission seeks comment on the likely impact of full service station upgrades using the proposed Section 73.215 procedure on nearby secondary services or AM primary stations that rebroadcast on FM translator stations. Are there lawful ways to mitigate or eliminate the impact of this proposal on secondary services, and, if so, what measures would be effective or appropriate? 13. Allocation goals. Would SSR's Section 73.215 proposal, if adopted, result in increased interference levels in the FM band? In particular, would the increased density of signals resulting from upgraded stations provide improved FM service coverage, or merely contribute to a higher ``noise floor'' overall while only modestly benefiting individual stations? Is this proposal in tension with the original purpose of Section 73.215 to afford applicants greater flexibility in the selection of transmitter sites? Should the Commission significantly expand the applicability of Section 73.215 as proposed by SSR, and what would be the policy and legal justifications for doing so? Does the Commission's long history of licensing thousands of stations in the reserved band--using a contour methodology based on stations' authorized facilities--show that expanding eligibility for Section 73.215 processing would result in increased or decreased services for listeners? 14. Implementation procedures. If the Section 73.215 proposal is adopted, should the Commission follow SSR's suggested procedures, which are based on those currently in use for Class C0? Should the triggering applicant be required to certify that no alternative channel is available for the proposed service? Should the Commission use a show cause procedure, and if so, what deadlines would be appropriate? 15. Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a more streamlined procedure whereby all sub-maximum stations would be provided a date certain by which they must file an upgrade application or automatically become subject to immediate designation as a Section 73.215 facility upon the filing of an acceptable application from another licensee seeking to upgrade its facilities? What would be a reasonable amount of time to allow sub-maximum stations to file upgrade applications before becoming subject to automatic designation as a Section 73.215 facility? Would such a procedure avoid unnecessary delays in providing new FM service and incentivize more stations to upgrade to their class maximums? Would there be any disadvantages with this approach? Are there other streamlined implementation approaches the Commission should consider? 16. Other issues. The Commission invites comment on other details of SSR's Section 73.215 proposal. Which applicants should be permitted to use the proposed Section 73.215 procedure? Does ``sub-maximum'' include all stations operating at less than class maximums, or should the Commission establish a cutoff whereby a station would not be subject to designation as a Section 73.215 facility if it operates at a minimal distance below its class maximum contour distance, such as two kilometers? How would the proposal affect stations that are short- spaced under Section 73.213 of the Rules? Are there specific rule changes that would be necessary to implement the proposal? The Commission also invites commenters to make suggestions as to how its forms and databases should be modified to implement the Section 73.215 proposal. 17. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule. None. Ex Parte Rules 18. Permit But Disclose. The proceeding this NOI initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making 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. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 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. Filing Procedures 19. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. [ssquf] 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. [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or [[Page 32259]] overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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. [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554. [ssquf] People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ordering Clause 20. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-14880 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32255
regulations and has fewer than 100 Executive Order 13132 establishes overbroad, and insufficiently linked to
beds. We are not preparing an analysis certain requirements that an agency the exceptions expressly permitted by
for section 1102(b) of the Act because must meet when it promulgates a the statute. Therefore, we believe
we have determined, and the Secretary proposed rule (and subsequent final removing the regulatory exception is the
proposes to certify, that this proposed rule) that imposes substantial direct best course of action.
rule would not have a significant impact requirement costs on state and local
governments, preempts state law, or E. Accounting Statement
on the operations of a substantial
number of small rural hospitals. otherwise has Federalism implications.
As required by OMB Circular A–4
Since this regulation does not impose
Section 202 of the Unfunded under Executive Order 12866 (available
any costs on state or local governments,
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
the requirements of Executive Order
requires that agencies assess anticipated 13132 are not applicable. whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/
costs and benefits before issuing any a-4.pdf) in Table 1, we have prepared an
rule whose mandates require spending D. Alternatives Considered accounting statement showing the
in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 We considered issuing guidance to classification of transfers associated
dollars, updated annually for inflation. require states to formally document with the provisions in this proposed
In 2018, that threshold is approximately consent to reassign portions of a rule. The accounting statement is based
$150 million. This rule will have no provider’s payment. We also considered on estimates provided in this regulatory
consequential effect on state, local, or limiting the items for which provider impact analysis and omits categories of
tribal governments or on the private reassignment could be made. However, impacts for which partial quantification
sector. we are concerned that § 447.10(g)(4)) is has not been possible.
TABLE 1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT
Units
Category Low estimate High estimate Discount rate Period
Year dollars (%) covered
Transfers:
Annualized Monetized $ millions/year .......................... 0 $71 2017 3 2019
0 71 2017 7 2019
From whom to whom? .................................................. From third parties to home health providers.
F. Regulatory Reform Analysis Under PART 447—PAYMENTS FOR FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
E.O. 13771 SERVICES COMMISSION
Executive Order 13771, entitled
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling ■ 1. The authority citation for part 447 47 CFR Part 73
Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on continues to read as follows: [MB Docket No. 18–184; FCC 18–69]
January 30, 2017 and requires that the Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
costs associated with significant new New FM Radio Broadcast Class C4 and
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
regulations ‘‘shall, to the extent To Modify the Requirements for
permitted by law, be offset by the § 447.10 [Amended] Designating Short-Spaced
elimination of existing costs associated Assignments
with at least two prior regulations.’’ ■ 2. Section 447.10 is amended by
removing paragraph (g)(4). AGENCY: Federal Communications
This proposed rule is not expected to be
Commission.
subject to the requirements of E.O. Dated: May 3, 2018.
13771 because this proposed rule is ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
Seema Verma,
expected to result in no more than de Administrator, Centers for Medicare & SUMMARY: In this document, the
minimis costs. Medicaid Services. Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry
G. Conclusion Dated: May 7, 2018. (NOI), based on a petition for
In accordance with the provisions of Alex M. Azar II, rulemaking filed by SSR
Executive Order 12866, this proposed Communications, Inc., in which the
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
rule was reviewed by the Office of Commission sought comment on a
Services.
Management and Budget. proposal to create a new class of FM
[FR Doc. 2018–14786 Filed 7–10–18; 11:15 am]
radio stations, Class C4, and to establish
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 447 BILLING CODE 4120–01–P a procedure for designating certain FM
Accounting, Administrative practice stations.
and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs— DATES: Comments may be filed on or
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
health, Health facilities, Health before August 13, 2018 and reply
professions, Medicaid, Reporting and comments may be filed on or before
recordkeeping requirements, Rural September 10, 2018.
areas. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
For the reasons set forth in the identified by MB Docket No. 18–184, by
preamble, the Centers for Medicare & any of the following methods:
Medicaid Services proposes to amend • Federal Communications
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below: Commission’s Website: http://
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM 12JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32389/page/1.svg)
![32256 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the stations in Zone II between Class A and stations by providing them with an
instructions for submitting comments. Class C3, to be designated Class C4. opportunity to upgrade? Would this
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or Commission staff estimates that 127 action encourage diversity of ownership
messenger delivery, by commercial Class C3 stations, or 14 percent of the in the FM broadcast industry? Would
overnight courier, or by first-class or total number of Class C3 stations, are there be a detrimental effect on existing
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All operating with facilities that are less stations and/or their listeners generally,
filings must be addressed to the than the proposed Class C3 minimums either from increased interference or
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the and thus could be subject to reclassification (upgrade or downgrade)?
Secretary, Federal Communications reclassification to Class C4. It also 4. Secondary services. How would a
Commission. explores the possibility of establishing a new Class C4 affect secondary services
• People With Disabilities: Contact procedure whereby an FM station in the (FM translators and LPFM stations), as
the FCC to request reasonable non-reserved band (Channels 221–300), well as AM primary stations that
accommodations (accessible format regardless of Zone or station class, could rebroadcast on FM translator stations?
documents, sign language interpreters, be designated as a Section 73.215 Are there lawful ways to mitigate or
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov facility, resulting in such station eliminate the impact of this proposal on
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) receiving interference protection based secondary services, and, if so, what
418–0432. For detailed instructions for on its actual authorized operating measures would be effective or
submitting comments and additional parameters rather than the maximum appropriate? To what extent, if any,
information on the rulemaking process, permitted parameters for its station does the Local Community Radio Act of
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION class. 2010 (LCRA) impact the Commission’s
section of this document. 2. Class C4 proposal. This proceeding ability to protect existing FM translator
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
was initiated by a petition for and LPFM stations? In particular, would
Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, rulemaking filed by SSR such protections be consistent with the
Audio Division, (202) 418–2721; James Communications, Inc. (SSR). SSR LCRA directive that the ‘‘Federal
advocates the creation of a new Class C4 Communications Commission, when
Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief,
with an effective radiated power (ERP) licensing new FM translators, FM
Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202)
that must exceed 6 kilowatts, a booster stations, and low-power FM
418–2739. Direct press inquiries to
maximum ERP of 12 kilowatts, and a stations . . . ensure . . . that . . . (3)
Janice Wise at (202) 418–8165.
reference HAAT of 100 meters. The ERP [these stations] remain equal in status
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a that Class C3 stations must exceed and secondary to existing and modified
summary of the Commission’s Notice of would increase from 6 kilowatts to 12 full-service FM stations’’? In this
Inquiry, FCC 18–69, adopted June 4, kilowatts, but the maximum ERP would respect, the Commission notes that it
2018, and released June 5, 2018. The remain at 25 kilowatts. In addition, would be reluctant to adopt any
full text of this document is available under the current rules, a station can proposal in this area that would have a
electronically via the FCC’s Electronic operate below the minimum ERP for its significantly negative impact on FM
Document Management System class provided its HAAT allows it to translators and LPFM stations.
(EDOCS) website at http://https:// exceed the class contour distance for the 5. Allocation goals. Given the
www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s next lower class (for example, a Class C3 maturity of the FM service, would an
Electronic Comment Filing System station must exceed the Class A contour increased density of signals resulting
(ECFS) website at http://https:// distance of 28 kilometers). Under the from Class A stations upgrading to Class
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. (Documents will be SSR proposal, the next lower class for C4 provide improved FM service
available electronically in ASCII, a Class C3 station would be Class C4, coverage, or merely contribute to a
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) with a contour distance of 33 higher ‘‘noise floor’’ overall while only
This document is also available for kilometers. SSR proposes amending modestly benefiting individual stations?
public inspection and copying during Sections 73.207(b)(1), 73.210(a), Would upgrades to Class C4 increase the
regular business hours in the FCC 73.210(b), 73.211(a)(1), 73.211(b), and overall number of radio stations
Reference Information Center, which is 73.215(e) of the Rules to implement available to listeners or create
located in Room CY–A257 at FCC these changes. SSR argues that a new interference that would degrade
Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Class C4 would provide upgrade reception for stations in areas where
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference opportunities for Class A facilities, there is currently a listenable signal,
Information Center is open to the public particularly minority-owned stations, resulting in fewer listening choices for
Monday through Thursday from 8:00 and create consistent ERP intervals listeners? More generally, is there a
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 between FM classes. ‘‘tipping point’’ at which increasingly
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Alternative formats 3. Affected stations and their granular station classifications are no
are available for people with disabilities listeners. Would the creation of a Class longer conducive to efficient signal
(braille, large print, electronic files, C4 materially benefit existing Class A coverage and, if so, has that point been
audio format), by sending an email to stations by providing them with an reached?
fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the opportunity to upgrade that is not 6. Implementation procedures. What
Commission’s Consumer and possible today based on the current is the appropriate balance of interests
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) Class C3 parameters? Would Class A between the anticipated benefit of
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 stations and their listeners, particularly creating a new class of FM stations and
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
(TTY). in rural or underserved areas, benefit the disruption entailed in the
from the new Class C4? Is there a reclassification of existing stations? If a
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry significant demand for the rule changes new class is created, should the
1. Introduction. In this Notice of proposed by SSR? How many stations Commission implement a blanket
Inquiry (NOI), the Commission explores are likely to be affected by such a rule reclassification process, as it did in 1983
the possibility of amending part 73 of change? As suggested by SSR, would the and 1989, by requiring existing Class C3
the Commission’s Rules to create an creation of a Class C4 be particularly stations to file for modification to meet
intermediate class of FM broadcast beneficial for minority-owned Class A the proposed revised minimum facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM 12JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32389/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32257
requirements for Class C3 stations on maximum class facilities, as opposed would be provided during which the
within a set time frame or be reclassified to the actual facilities, the Commission’s licensee of the sub-maximum station
based on their actual operating rules overprotect stations operating with would be required to file an acceptable
facilities? Should the mere filing for a facilities below their class maximum. construction permit application to
modification be sufficient to avoid Accordingly, SSR proposes an increase HAAT and/or ERP to its class
reclassification or should the amendment to Section 73.3573 of the maximum values (or equivalent
Commission also require construction to Rules that would require such ‘‘sub- combination thereof). Upon grant of
be completed by a date certain? If a date maximum’’ stations to be designated as such a construction permit application,
certain is set for filing a modification or Section 73.215 facilities using a the triggering application would be
completing construction, what would be procedure similar to the existing Class dismissed. As with Class C0
a reasonable amount of time for C0 show cause and reclassification reclassifications, the licensee of the sub-
licensees to comply? Would a blanket procedure. Designation as a Section maximum station would be required to
reclassification provide more reliable 73.215 facility would result in the sub- serve on triggering applicants copies of
and timely opportunities for upgrade maximum station receiving interference any FAA submissions related to the
than the show cause procedure outlined protection based on its actual application grant process. If the
in the next paragraph? authorized operating parameters rather construction is not completed as
7. Alternatively, should the than the maximum permitted authorized, the affected sub-maximum
Commission adopt a show cause parameters for its station class. Under station would be automatically
procedure similar to that currently in SSR’s proposed procedure, stations not designated as a Section 73.215 facility.
use for Class C0, whereby a Class C3 already authorized under Section 73.215 SSR’s proposal raises issues similar to
station operating below the proposed that, for ten years prior to the filing of those posed by the Class C4 proposal,
revised minimum facility requirements a triggering application, have and the Commission seeks comment
for Class C3 stations would be continuously operated with a HAAT or generally on the costs and benefits of
reclassified only after the filing of a ERP below that of the class maximum the proposal.
‘‘triggering’’ application that requires it (or equivalent class maximum HAAT 11. Affected stations and their
to be reclassified to Class C4? Should and ERP combination in the case of listeners. Would the proposed Section
the affected Class C3 station have the station operating with a HAAT 73.215 mechanism materially benefit
opportunity to preserve its Class C3 exceeding its reference HAAT) would be stations seeking to upgrade and their
status by filing a construction permit given an opportunity to upgrade to listeners? What is the demand for such
application to upgrade its facility to maximum class facilities or be subject to
meet Class C3 minimums? The upgrades? Would there be a
designation as a Section 73.215 facility. corresponding detrimental effect on
Commission notes that the
Commission’s licensing staff has found 10. SSR recommends a show cause listeners regarding loss of existing
that the Class C0 show cause procedure procedure to implement its Section interference-free service provided by
appears to incentivize delay and 73.215 proposal. Specifically, the sub-maximum stations? The
contention between the parties. Have procedure would be initiated by the Commission has explained that its
licensees experienced delay or other filing of a ‘‘triggering’’ application that policy of protecting all stations as if
difficulties using the Class C0 show specifies facilities that require the they are operating at maximum
cause procedure? Is the blanket designation of the affected sub- permitted height or power for their
reclassification process described in the maximum station as a Section 73.215 class, even if they are in fact operating
preceding paragraph preferable for that facility. Triggering applications may at or near the minimum permitted
reason? Are there other implementation utilize Section 73.215 and must certify height and power for their class,
approaches the Commission should that no alternative channel is available ‘‘permits stations to improve technical
consider that might address or avoid for the proposed service. Copies of a facilities over time and provides a
problems identified with this show triggering application and related certain degree of flexibility for
cause procedure? pleadings would be required to be transmitter relocations.’’ To what extent
8. Other issues. To what extent, if any, served on the licensee of the affected would adoption of the Section 73.215
does the LCRA impact the sub-maximum station. If the staff proposal undermine this policy? Is this
Commission’s creation of a new class of concludes that a triggering application policy still desirable in the mature FM
FM stations or reclassification of is acceptable for filing, it would issue an service? What are the relevant factors
existing FM stations; in particular, the order to show cause why the affected that might affect the sub-maximum
provision that the Commission ‘‘shall sub-maximum station should not be station’s ability to upgrade to the class
not amend its rules to reduce the designated as a Section 73.215 station. maximums, and have those factors
minimum co-channel and first- and The order to show cause would provide changed due to technological or other
second-adjacent channel distance the licensee of the sub-maximum station developments? If a station has operated
separation requirements in effect on 30 days to express in writing an below maximum facilities for a
[January 4, 2011] between—(A) low- intention to seek authority to modify its sufficient period of time, can the
power FM stations; and (B) full-service technical facilities to its maximum class Commission conclude that the station is
FM stations’’? Are there specific rule HAAT and ERP (or equivalent either unwilling or unable to operate at
changes that would be necessary or combination thereof) or to otherwise maximum facilities, thereby justifying
advisable to implement any of the challenge the triggering application. If protecting such station based on actual
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
foregoing proposals? The Commission no such intention is expressed and the operating parameters and allowing for
also invites commenters to make triggering application is not challenged, more efficient utilization of FM
suggestions as to how the Commission’s the affected sub-maximum station spectrum? Is ten years of continuous
forms and databases should be modified would be designated as a Section 73.215 ‘‘sub-maximum’’ operation the
to implement the above proposals. station and processing of the triggering appropriate period of time before a
9. Section 73.215 proposal. SSR application would be completed. If such station would be subject to involuntary
argues that, by providing interference intention is expressed within the 30-day Section 73.215 designation, as suggested
protection to a station’s contours based period, an additional 180-day period by SSR, or is another period of time
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM 12JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32389/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32259
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All D Commercial overnight mail (other Ordering Clause
filings must be addressed to the than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 20. It is further ordered that, pursuant
Secretary, Federal Communications Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD to the authority contained in Sections 1,
Commission. 20701. 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316,
D U.S. Postal Service first-class, and 319 of the Communications Act of
D All hand-delivered or messenger- Express, and Priority mail must be 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
delivered paper filings for the addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and
Commission’s Secretary must be Washington DC 20554. 319, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 D People with Disabilities: To request
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, materials in accessible formats for Federal Communications Commission.
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours people with disabilities (braille, large Marlene Dortch,
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand print, electronic files, audio format), Secretary.
deliveries must be held together with send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call [FR Doc. 2018–14880 Filed 7–11–18; 8:45 am]
rubber bands or fasteners. Any the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
envelopes and boxes must be disposed Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
of before entering the building. 418–0432 (tty).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Jul 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM 12JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32389/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-06 10:22:50
Document Modified: 2018-11-06 10:22:50
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of inquiry. | |
| Dates | Comments may be filed on or before August 13, 2018 and reply comments may be filed on or before September 10, 2018. | |
| Contact | Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2721; James Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2739. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 32255 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR