Today, the Federal Register has published the FCC's inquiry in CB Docket 24-245 regarding the various regulations that the FCC adopted within approximately the past 10 years in order to determine if they should be continued without change, amended or rescinded in order to minimize any significant impacts that the rules may have on a substantial number of entities.
This review is required by law under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC §610).
The FCC will need to consider the following factors in reviewing each rule in a manner consistent with §610(b) of the RFA:
- The continued need for the rule;
- The nature of complaints or comments from the public regarding the rule;
- The complexity of the rule;
- The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
- The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree in which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
Comments in CB Docket 24-245 are due by November 18, 2024.
Below, we will provide a list of the various new rules and rule changes that were adopted in broadcasting, especially LPFM. During this evaluation, we only need to be concerned with the aspects of a rule that changed during the evaluation period and not necessarily the overall rule itself. Proposing changes that are not directly related to the proceedings in the evaluation period could be considered outside of the scope of the proceeding and would require a Petition for Rulemaking to facilitate a change. Proceedings not directly related to broadcasting will be omitted.
Here are some of the broadcasting related proceedings that will be impacted by this (name in parenthesis is how we refer to the proceeding in the grid further below:
| Docket Number(s) | Reference Name | Proceeding Title | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| ET 10-236, 06-155 | Part 5 Experimental | Radio Experimentation and Market Trials | This proceeding created a new Part 5 of the FCC Rules to encompass all experimental licensing and use of radio services including the relocation of experimental broadcasting facilities from Part 74 to Part. 5. |
| MM 93-177 | AM Towers Third R&O | FCC Policies and Rules Regarding AM Radio Service Directional Antenna Performance Verification | This proceeding created a new Part 1, Subpart BB, which combines regulations from various parts regarding towers located near live AM broadcast towers or FM and TV antennas mounted on an AM broadcast tower. |
| MM 99-25 | LPFM Sixth Order | Creation of a Low Power Radio Service | This proceeding is one of several that enacts the Local Community Radio Act of 2010. |
| MM 99-25 | LPFM Sixth Recon | Creation of a Low Power Radio Service | Reconsideration of the Sixth Order regarding interference to FM translator inputs. |
| PS 09-19 | TIS Order | Travelers' Information Stations | In consideration to the requested changes in scope of the Travelers' Information Service. |
List of regulations being considered:
| Rule Section | Paragraph(s) | Proceeding | Nature of Change | REC Comments and previously established positions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| §1.77 | (d) | Part 5 Experimental | This paragraph simply provides a cross-reference to the Experimental Radio Service rules in Part 5. | (none) |
| §1.30000 | AM Towers Third R&O | Discusses the overall purpose of the subpart. | (none) | |
| §1.30001 | AM Towers Third R&O | Definitions of terms used in this subpart. | (none) | |
| §1.30002 | AM Towers Third R&O | Provides the procedures for identifying nearby AM stations that may be impacted by a new tower and provides information on notification and if necessary, the applicaiton process. | (none) | |
| §1.30003 | AM Towers Third R&O | Provides the procedures involved in mounting an FM, TV or wireless service antenna on an existing live AM tower structure. | (none) | |
| §1.30004 | AM Towers Third R&O | Spells out the process for a tower proponent to notify the nearby AM station(s). | (none) | |
| Part 5 Subpart A | Part 5 Experimental | Provides basic information about the Experimental service including basis, scope and definitions. | (none) | |
| Part 5 Subpart D | Part 5 Experimental | Provides special rules regarding Broadcast Experimental Licenses | (none) | |
| §73.45 | (c) intro | AM Towers Third R&O | Should any changes that would possibly alter the resistance of the AM antenna system be made, the licensee must commence the determination of the operating power by a method described in §73.51(a)(1) or (d), etc. | (none) |
| §73.316 | (e) | AM Towers Third R&O | Makes references to the new Part 1, Subpart BB rules in the event that an FM licensee or permittee proposes to mount antenna on or near an AM tower. | (none) |
| §73.807 | (a), (b), (c), (g) | LPFM Sixth Order | Eliminates the LP-10 service class. | No LPFM stations were ever granted as LP-10. It is REC's position that a radio service at such a low power and in a LCRA environment would not be an effective use of spectrum. Originally, REC proposed the creation of a lower LP-50 service class. However at this time, due to spectrum crowding, that was especially frustrated by the AM Revitalization "250 mile move" proceeding, along with Auctions 99 & 100, there are very few opportunities for new LP-50 or LP-10 stations where LP-100 stations are not available. |
| §73.807 | (a) | LPFM Sixth Order | Applications for new and existing LPFM stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM window period are protected by new and modified LPFMs. | This rule was not properly followed by Staff in the 2023 Third Generation LPFM Window. |
| §73.807 | (a), (b), (c), (g) | LPFM Sixth Order | Renaming "LP100" as LPFM. | This is to reflect a single service class for LPFM. The FCC still uses "LP100" internally in LMS (and L1 in legacy CDBS records). The name should be changed back to LP100 as to better accommodate new LPFM service classes in the future. |
| §73.807 | (e) | LPFM Sixth Order | Second-adjacent channel waiver and remediation policies. | The process for waivers is consistent with the process recognized, but not codified for FM Translator stations. Since enactment, we have seen some abuse of the remediation policies. It is REC's position that in order for remediation to be triggered, the complaining parties must be located inside the 40 dB U/D area of the LPFM station (commonly known as the "overlap zone"). LCRA's "any radio service" language may preclude us from desiring multiple complaints and we do note that since the enactment of the second-adjacent channel policy for LPFM, there has not been one well-known case where an LPFM station has created bona-fide second-adjacent channel interference to the point where they did not prevail in a challenge. |
| §73.827 | (a), (a)(1) and (b) | LPFM Sixth Recon | Clarifies that translator inputs are protected regardless of whether the other input station is a primary station or another translator carrying the primary station. Also extends the protection of the input from the time that the LPFM station as authorized, to the time that the LPFM station was proposed. | The issue of translator input interference from proposed LPFM facilities has played out in the past, especially in numerous cases where 91.9 was proposed in Orlando, FL. The FCC recently denied an objection against a 2023 LPFM application filed by the applicant of a translator that has been pending for over 25 years (they filed under the pre point-system policy, were dismissed along with other pending translators and was reinstated on reconsideration). The LCRA also contains language regarding translator input protection in Section 6. |
| §73.850 | (c) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds language that allows for challenges to be made against LPFM stations that do not operate at least 12 hours per day to allow another applicant to reach a voluntary or involuntary time sharing arrangement with the existing station and the existing station may protest any action. | This policy has never been utilized in the past as most LPFM stations are capable of providing 24x7 service through the use of automation. This policy is consistent with full-service NCE rule §73.561(b)(2) and I believe predates a lot of the modern automation systems and when it was more likely that a NCE station would be in an academic environment where the station may not be attended more than 12 hours per day. We do believe this is a good rule, but it is difficult to prove and enforce. |
| §73.853 | (a)(3), (b)(4) and (c) | LPFM Sixth Order | Extends eligibility of LPFM stations to include Tribal entities. | This rule resolves the question of whether a Tribe is an educational or public safety entity. REC supports Tribal eligibility for LPFM. |
| §73.855 | (b) & (c) | LPFM Sixth Order | Permits Tribal entities to have up to two LPFM stations. | On Tribal lands, there is normally no ability for those entities that are not Tribal to establish an LPFM station. Some Tribal territories, especially in the west are considerably large. We also recognize that a Tribal LPFM station may preclude new or modified LPFM stations located off-Tribal land. REC would support the ability of Tribal entities to exceed more than 2 LPFM stations without having to use the Public Safety protocols if they can demonstrate that 100% of the area located within 24 km of the transmitting antenna is on Tribal lands. |
| §73.860 | (b) and (c) | LPFM Sixth Order | Permits the cross-ownership of FM Translators by LPFM stations. Up to 4 for Tribal entities and up to 2 for all others. Proposes restrictions on the placement of translators. |
While REC does not necessarily oppose the 2 and 4 caps for common translator ownership, we note that LPFM stations have never been given an opportunity to apply for a new FM translator since the time that this rule has been enacted. While the lack of auction authority precludes any window for commercial facilities, we are almost ripe for a translator window for the reserved band (88.1~91.9), but only after specific reforms are made to the FM Translator service has proposed by REC in RM-11952. It is also REC's separate position that the restrictions in (b)(1) and (b)(4) are redundant where (b)(1) is very restrictive. This can be evidenced by several FM non-commonly-owned translators that are rebroadcasting a LPFM station that is (allegedly) being received over the air and does not have an overlapping contour and in a few cases, may be more than 10 miles away. In a separate position, partially outside the scope of this proceeding, REC feels that because of the evolution of the LPFM service, the nature of LPFM stations in urban areas and the boundaries of the markets themselves, the time is ripe to eliminate the 10-mile urban restriction and make the localism area of all LPFM stations 20 miles across the board. |
| §73.870 | (a) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds language to permit, as a minor move, a waiver of the (then) 5.6 km move distance to accommodate moving a station very close to a third-adjacent channel station in order to remediate interference with that third-adjacent channel station. |
The whole issue of third-adjacent channel interference is, in our opinion, nothing more than just rhetoric and conspiracy theory in order to block the advancement of LPFM. The FCC took a bold step in 2000, when it declared that LPFM facilities did not have to protect third-adjacent. The NAB and their members, fearing the sky was going to fall, fought this tooth and nail, even to the point of making deceptive and false statements to Congress to get the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 passed and enacted. Many of the fears of third-adjacent channel interference were debunked in the infamous MITRE Report. There has never been, in the 24 year history of LPFM, a bona-fide third-adjacent channel interference case. Some remediation policies, mainly to satisfy the New Jersey Broadcasters Association still exist in Section 7 of the LCRA. We also note that the ITU, which set recommendations and standards for the rest of the world on FM does not even have a suggested separation for 600 kHz (third-adjacent) spacing. It would take an act of Congress to eliminate the remaining third-adjacent channel insanity that exists. As such, this rule exists only as a "feel good". It's never been used (though attempted) but here is no reason for it to go away. |
| §73.871 | (c)(5, 6 & 7) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds language to permit, as a minor amendment, a waiver of the (then) 5.6 km move distance to accommodate moving a station very close to a third-adjacent channel station in order to remediate interference with that third-adjacent channel station. | See §73.870 above for comments. |
| §73.872 | (b)(1) | LPFM Sixth Order | Moves the definition of local from §73.872 and refers to the rules in §73.853. | This was likely to make things simpler with the addition of Tribal. This was also to clarify that the board members or headquarters can be up to 20 miles away in non-top 50 areas. The previous rule read 10 miles overall. That rule was a remnant from prior to the Third Report and Order when the FCC established the 20 mile localism limit in all areas except Top-50. As previously noted, it is time for the FCC to remove the 10 mile barrier because of how the LPFM service has progressed since 2000. REC supports an overall 20 mile barrier and we do feel that it would be in scope to propose this here. |
| §73.872 | (b)(1) | LPFM Sixth Order | Allows for board members to be up to 20 miles away to still qualify for local, but only if outside the Top-50 market boundaries. |
As previously mentioned, we feel that these top-50 boundaries are obsolete given how LPFM ended up being deployed inside those top-50 areas (mainly in the more rural or deep suburban areas). It is time for a change. 20 miles across the board. |
| §73.872 | (b)(2) | LPFM Sixth Order | Clarifies the definition of "local program origination" | The FCC's definition of local programming does not take into consideration the advancements in voice tracking where voice tracks can be recorded and music tracks curated all without the need for talent to be at a live microphone. The FCC's definition needs to better reflect the "new normals" that many stations have put in place during and after COVID. The rule needs to recognize locally produced programing, even if pre-recorded. As long as it is locally produced and first-run, we feel that it should be eligible for this point criterion. |
| §73.872 | (b)(3) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds a new "Main Studio" point criterion. | We will reserve our judgment on this point until after Staff starts handling the 2023 MX applications. |
| §73.872 | (b)(4) | LPFM Sixth Order | "Bonus point" for claiming both local program origination and main studio points. | (none) |
| §73.872 | (b)(5) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds a new "diveristy of ownership" point. | Requires that the LPFM station does not have any other attributable interests. With the ability for public safety entities to have more than one station, Tribes having up to two stations, all LPFM stations being able to own translators and/or boosters and universities that have a full-service that is not student programmed wanting to add an LPFM for the students, very few applicants would not qualify for this point. |
| §73.872 | (b)(6) | LPFM Sixth Order | Adds a "Tribal priority" like point. | (none) |
| §73.872 | (c) intro | LPFM Sixth Order | Extends the time share settlement window from 30 to 90 days. | This was very successful in 2013. We have yet to experience it for 2023. |
| §73.872 | (c)(4) | LPFM Sixth Order | Changing the default outcome of an MX Group from successive license terms to involuntary time sharing. |
This goes back to a day when there was no third-adjacent channel, more channels available and more LPFM stations on rooftops of urban buildings. In this day and age, the idea of being only able to put a station up for four years and then getting your license cancelled, did absolutely nothing to promote localism. The current default process gives each tied applicant an opportunity at the microphone on day one. Given the non-renewable nature of involuntary time share, the FCC has given the ability for a group of applicants in an involuntary time share to be able to subsequently reach a voluntary universal time share, even if it is for the same hours in order to remove the non-renewable status. This is just the FCC's way to encouraging stations to talk with their neighbors, especially if they want to keep their licenses 8 years later. |
| §73.872 | (d) | LPFM Sixth Order | Explains the involuntary time share policy. | See §73.872(c)(4) comment above. |
| §73.872 | (e) | LPFM Sixth Order | Removing the requirement that settlement agreements must be universal (between all applicants) but can now involve only a sub-group. | (none) |
| §73.873 | LPFM Sixth Order | Removes language related to successive license terms. | (none) | |
| §73.875 | (c) intro | AM Towers Third R&O | Non-substantive change that refers to the new Part 1, Subpart BB in relation to stations near or on AM towers. | (none) |
| §73.1675 | (c)(1) | AM Towers Third R&O | Non-substantive change that refers to the new Part 1, Subpart BB in relation to stations near or on AM towers. | (none) |
| §73.1690 | (c) intro | AM Towers Third R&O | Non-substantive change that refers to the new Part 1, Subpart BB in relation to stations near or on AM towers. | (none) |
| §73.6025 | (c) | AM Towers Third R&O | Non-substantive change that refers to the new Part 1, Subpart BB in relation to stations near or on AM towers. | (none) |
| §74.1 | (b) | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) |
| §74.5 | intro | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) |
| §74.15 | (f) | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) |
| §74.16 | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) | |
| §74.28 | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) | |
| §74.780 | (a) | Part 5 Experimental | Non-substantive change to reflect that Experimental Broadcast Stations has moved from Part 74 to Part 5. | (none) |
| §74.1237 | (e) | AM Towers Third R&O | Non-substantive change that refers to the new Part 1, Subpart BB in relation to stations near or on AM towers. | (none) |
| §90.7 | TIS Order | Removes reference to the former "Local Government Radio Service". | (none) | |
| §90.242 | (a)(7) | TIS Order | Adds a reference that communications allowed under §§90.405(a)(1) and 90.407. | This language extends the scope of TIS stations to be able to transmit "any communications related to the imminent safety-of-life or property" and for emergency communications "during a period of emergency which normal communication facilities have been disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake or other similar disaster. This does not extend the eligibility for a station and the nexus of the station must be travel related outside of emergencies. |
