**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 99-25          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Creation of Low                  | ) | RM-9208                      |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Power Radio Service              | * | RM-9242                      |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted:** September 20, 2000 **Released:** September 28, 2000

Before the Commission: Chairman Kennard and Commissioner Ness issuing
separate statements; Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and issuing
a statement; and Commissioner Powell concurring in part, dissenting in
part and issuing a statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

I. BACKGROUND [2](#background)

II\. ISSUE ANALYSIS [4](#issue-analysis)

A. Technical Rules [4](#technical-rules)

1\. Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection
[4](#second-and-third-adjacent-channel-protection)

Regulatory Status of LPFM Stations
[13](#regulatory-status-of-lpfm-stations)

2\. Modulation [14](#modulation)

3\. Cut-Off Date for Protection of Full Service Stations
[15](#cut-off-date-for-protection-of-full-service-stations)

4\. Protection of Cable Television Headend
[16](#protection-of-cable-television-headend)

5\. Translators [16](#translators)

6\. Spacing Table. [18](#spacing-table.)

7\. Directional Antennas [19](#directional-antennas)

8\. Service Area Issues [21](#service-area-issues)

9\. Digital Audio Broadcasting [24](#digital-audio-broadcasting)

B. Third Adjacent Channel Complaint and License Modification Procedure
[25](#third-adjacent-channel-complaint-and-license-modification-procedure)

C. Classes of Service [29](#classes-of-service)

D. Noncommercial Nature of LPFM Service
[30](#noncommercial-nature-of-lpfm-service)

E. Ownership and Eligibility [31](#ownership-and-eligibility)

1\. Local Ownership Restrictions [31](#local-ownership-restrictions)

2\. National Ownership Limit [32](#national-ownership-limit)

3\. University-Licensed Student-Run LPFM Stations
[33](#university-licensed-student-run-lpfm-stations)

4\. Time Periods for the Community-Based Requirement and for the
National Ownership Cap
[35](#time-periods-for-the-community-based-requirement-and-for-the-national-ownership-cap)

5\. Foreign Ownership and Non-Stock Entities
[36](#foreign-ownership-and-non-stock-entities)

6\. Minority Broadcast Training Institutions
[37](#minority-broadcast-training-institutions)

7\. Unlicensed Broadcasters [38](#unlicensed-broadcasters)

F. Point System For Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications
[39](#point-system-for-resolving-mutually-exclusive-applications)

G. Other Issues [41](#other-issues)

III\. CONCLUSION [42](#conclusion)

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES
[42](#procedural-matters-and-ordering-clauses)

Part 73 -- Radio Broadcast Services
[44](#part-73-radio-broadcast-services)

Note: Minimum distance separations towards "grandfathered" superpowered
Reserved Band stations, subsections (a), (b), and (c) above :
[49](#note-minimum-distance-separations-towards-grandfathered-superpowered-reserved-band-stations-subsections-a-b-and-c-above)

Part 74 -- Experimental Radio, Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other
Program Distributional Services
[59](#part-74-experimental-radio-auxiliary-special-broadcast-and-other-program-distributional-services)

Existing Stations With Radio Reading Services
[67](#existing-stations-with-radio-reading-services)

[Licensee City, State]{.underline} [67](#licensee-city-state)

Appendix E [74](#__RefHeading___Toc531749333)

Petitioners in the Creation of Low Power FM Radio Station
[74](#__RefHeading___Toc531749334)

# BACKGROUND

1.  In January, we adopted a *Report and Order* establishing a low power
    FM radio service.[^1] We authorized this new service to provide
    opportunities for new voices to be heard, while at the same time
    preserving the integrity and technical excellence of existing FM
    radio service and safeguarding its transition to a digital
    transmission mode. In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration,* we dispose of petitions for reconsideration[^2] of
    the *Report and Order*, make certain changes to our rules, and
    provide certain clarifications of our rules.[^3]

2.  In the *Report and Order*, the Commission authorized two new classes
    of FM radio service, known collectively as low power FM (LPFM). The
    LP100 class will consist of stations with a maximum power of 100
    watts effective radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters antenna height
    above average terrain (HAAT), providing a signal level equivalent to
    the FM "protected" service (1 mV/m or 60 dBu) within a radius of
    approximately 3.5 miles. After a period of time sufficient to act on
    LP100 applications that are filed, the Mass Media Bureau will accept
    applications for LP10 stations.[^4] These stations will have a
    maximum power of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT, providing the same
    signal strength out to approximately 1 or 2 miles from the station's
    antenna. To avoid compromising existing FM radio service, given the
    new nature of the LPFM service, we imposed separation requirements
    for LPFM with respect to full power stations operating on co-,
    1^st^ - and 2^nd^ - adjacent and intermediate frequency (IF)
    channels. Based on our engineers' technical analysis and careful
    review of other analyses submitted, we determined that 100-watt LPFM
    stations operating without 3^rd^ adjacent channel separation
    requirements will not result in unacceptable new interference to the
    service of existing FM stations.[^5] We decided, therefore, not to
    impose 3^rd^ adjacent channel separation requirements because doing
    so would unnecessarily and substantially restrict the number of LPFM
    stations that could be authorized, particularly in higher population
    areas.

3.  We restricted LPFM service to noncommercial operations by
    noncommercial educational entities and public safety radio services.
    With certain narrow exceptions, we decided to restrict ownership to
    entities that have no attributable interest in any other broadcast
    station or other media subject to our ownership rules. We severely
    restricted the number of LPFM stations that a single entity can own
    and limited ownership to locally-based entities for the first two
    years. We determined not to permit the sale of an LPFM station. To
    resolve mutually exclusive applications, we decided to use a point
    system that favors local ownership and locally-originated
    programming, with time-sharing and successive license terms as
    tie-breakers. Finally, we have minimized the regulatory burdens
    imposed on these stations, consistent with their size and very
    localized operation. For example we decided not to impose specific
    requirements regarding main studio staffing or location, maintenance
    of public files, and the filing of ownership reports.

4.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we generally affirm the
    decisions we reached in the *Report and Order*, although we make
    some changes and clarify certain aspects of our rules. As explained
    below, we reject arguments by petitioners proposing more stringent
    channel separation requirements, as well as arguments in favor of
    relaxing those requirements. We adopt complaint and license
    modification procedures to ensure that if any unexpected,
    significant 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference problems are caused
    by the operation of a particular LPFM station, it can be resolved
    expeditiously. We decline to modify the permissible power levels for
    the service. We modify the spacing standards adopted in the *Report
    and Order* to require that LPFM stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent
    channels protect stations operating radio reading services and,
    pending further study, will not authorize an LPFM station that would
    not be sufficiently geographically separated from any full-service
    FM station on a 3^rd^ adjacent channel that operates a radio reading
    service as of the date of the adoption of this *Memorandum Opinion*
    *and Order*. We also decline to alter the noncommercial nature of
    the service. We affirm our decision to apply our character
    qualifications policy with respect to former illegal broadcasters.
    We increase the flexibility of the ownership rules for certain
    specific types of applicants: government, transportation and public
    safety entities, and universities. We provide clarifications on
    eligibility issues concerning Indian tribes, student stations,
    licensees in the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), and
    schools with multiple campuses. We affirm our tie-breaker criteria,
    with certain clarifications regarding the credit for programming
    that is locally originated. Finally, we address a number of
    questions and suggestions regarding individual elements of our
    rules.

# ISSUE ANALYSIS

## Technical Rules

### Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection

5.  In the *Report and Order*, we determined that it was not necessary
    to require that LPFM stations protect other full or low power FM
    stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent channels, *i.e.*, stations +/-
    600 KHz apart.[^6] Our decision on this issue was based on our
    finding that 100-watt LPFM stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent
    channels will not result in significant new interference to the
    service of existing FM stations. We concluded that any small amount
    of interference that may occur in individual cases would be
    outweighed by the benefits of new low power FM service. We also
    determined that the risk of interference from LPFM stations on 2^nd^
    adjacent channels may be somewhat higher than that from such
    operations on 3^rd^ adjacent channels and therefore chose to retain
    2^nd^ adjacent channel protection requirements for LPFM stations.

6.  These decisions were based on the substantial record of information
    and analyses on FM receiver performance characteristics that was
    developed in response to the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in this
    proceeding.[^7] The record included three technical studies of FM
    receivers that were filed by commenting parties: 1) *FM Interference
    Tests, Laboratory Test Report,* Thomas B. Keller, Robert B.
    McCutheon, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA),
    1999, conducted under the auspices of National Public Radio (NPR),
    CEMA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) (CEMA
    study); 2) *Technical Studies and Reports* filed by the National
    Association of Broadcasters (NAB study); and 3) *Receiver Evaluation
    Project* conducted by Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP for the National
    Lawyers' Guild, Committee on Democratic Communications (NLG
    study).[^8] The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
    also conducted a study of FM receivers that was placed in the record
    of the proceeding (OET study).[^9] In addition, NAB and CEMA filed
    supplementary technical information in their reply comments and a
    *Technical Analysis of the Low Power FM Service* by Theodore S.
    Rappaport (August 26, 1999) was submitted by the Media Access
    Project as part of its replies (Rappaport study).

7.  *3^rd^ Adjacent Channel Protection*. In its petition, National
    Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) requests that we reconsider our decision
    not to apply 3^rd^ adjacent channel protection requirements to LPFM
    stations. NPR disagrees with our findings that any risk of
    interference from 100-watt LPFM stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent
    channels is small and that any such interference that does occur is,
    on balance, outweighed by the benefits of the new service. It argues
    that neither of these premises, nor our decision to reduce the
    existing FM interference protections, are supported by the record.
    To remedy its concerns, NPR requests that we revise our rules to
    provide additional measures to avoid and ameliorate the potential
    for interference by LPFM stations to the services of existing FM
    full service, translator and booster stations operating on 3^rd^
    adjacent channels. It states that imposition of 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel protections for LPFM stations is particularly justified to
    protect public radio stations. It also states that, at a minimum, we
    should amend the rules to provide a process that permits the
    challenge and denial of an LPFM application on a 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel that would be likely to cause harmful interference within
    the service area of any existing or proposed full service,
    translator or booster station.

8.  In arguing for this request, NPR contends that we justified our
    decision on 3^rd^ adjacent channel protection by disregarding those
    laboratory tests that demonstrated a likelihood of interference, and
    relying instead on our own analysis. It asserts that in so doing,
    the *Report and Order* fails to address "the numerous fundamental
    flaws in the Commission's testing and analysis."[^10] It also argues
    that our finding that any interference that may occur would be
    outweighed by the benefits of new low power FM service is flawed. As
    discussed below, we cannot concur in NPR's arguments, and are
    denying its request that we amend the rules to provide protection
    for existing FM services against potential interference from 3^rd^
    adjacent channel LPFM operations.[^11]

9.  NPR asserts that we disregarded laboratory tests that demonstrated a
    likelihood of interference from 3^rd^ adjacent channel LPFM
    operations. This is incorrect. We did, in fact, fully consider all
    of the receiver test data and evaluations presented in the record of
    this proceeding. We simply found that the test data supported
    different conclusions than those reached by NPR and other parties
    seeking to maintain 3^rd^ adjacent channel protections for LPFM
    service \-- specifically that licensing 100-watt and 10-watt LPFM
    channels on 3^rd^ adjacent channels will not result in significant
    new interference to the service of existing FM stations. This is
    plainly evident from the *Report and Order*, which first summarizes
    the major FM receiver technical studies, and then explains our
    evaluation of the potential for interference from low power FM
    stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent channels based on this
    information. For example, we examined the potential for interference
    in the immediate vicinity of a 100-watt LPFM station using the NAB's
    median receiver performance test results for its three "worst"
    performing FM receiver categories, *i.e.*, clock, personal and
    portable, and found that the area where such receivers could
    potentially experience degradation from interference is small,
    generally one kilometer or less from an LPFM antenna site.[^12]

10. NPR next contends that there are three fundamental flaws in the
    testing and analysis underlying our decision on the 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel protection issue. It first argues that we established no
    benchmark against which to determine what, if any, new interference
    might be acceptable. NPR contends that it is not enough to simply
    critique the internationally accepted benchmark, *i.e.*, ITU‑R
    Recommendation 641, proposed by others, *i.e.*, NAB and CEMA, as we
    did in the *Report and Order*. It submits that without a point of
    reference of acceptability, it is meaningless to say that any new
    interference is acceptable. Consistent with our longstanding policy
    of allowing market forces to determine the performance capabilities
    of FM receivers, we chose not to use a benchmark standard for
    evaluating the acceptability of new FM interference. We believe it
    is better to refrain from specifying standards for interference
    rejection capabilities, and as stated by UCC in its reply comments,
    instead allow the market to identify the level of interference
    rejection performance consumers find to be acceptable for different
    types of FM radios.

11. The data from the several receiver studies indicate that there is,
    in fact, considerable variation in the immunity of FM radios to
    interference across different categories of receivers, and to some
    extent, across models of receivers in the same class. These
    differences reflect manufacturers' response to the demand for
    receivers that meet varying needs, such as for automobile
    installations, high fidelity listening, and non-critical listening,
    a wide range of price points, and other design considerations. As
    indicated in the *Report and Order*, we believe that consumers
    understand that there are performance differences among the classes
    of radios and that they accept the fact that lower cost radios may
    provide more limited service capabilities. It also appears that
    market forces are providing FM receivers with levels of interference
    immunity that adequately meet consumers needs. We therefore believe
    that a benchmark immunity standard is unnecessary and could, in
    fact, be detrimental to consumer interests. Instead, we compared
    receiver performance to the same desired-to-undesired (D/U)
    protection ratios that we have traditionally used in managing
    interference between FM stations.[^13] We continue to believe that
    this is an appropriate approach for assessing the interference
    potential of low power FM stations.

12. In evaluating receiver performance, we did, however, find that the
    ITU-R Recommendation 641 50 dB S/N criterion used by NAB and the 45
    dB S/N criterion used by CEMA were not appropriate criteria for
    today's FM radio service. In making this determination, we observed
    that the majority of the radios tested by NAB did not meet its 50 dB
    criterion with *no* interference present and with the strongest
    level of desired signal. Similarly, none of the radios tested by
    CEMA came close to meeting its target 45 dB S/N criterion at the 20
    dB D/U standard for co-channel interference used in the rules. We
    further noted that while the 20 dB co-channel D/U standard yields a
    *monophonic* S/N level of about 50 dB according to an earlier study
    by NAB, for the *stereophonic* operation used by FM stations today,
    the 20 dB protection ratio yields an audio S/N of only about 30
    dB.[^14]

13. NPR next argues that we failed to include any "Category I" radios,
    *i.e.*, clock radios, shower radios, and other small, inexpensive
    radios with internal antennas, in our testing, and thereby did not
    consider the likelihood of interference to what are among the most
    inexpensive and commonly used radio receivers. Contrary to NPR's
    assertions and as UCC observes in its reply comments, we did
    consider data submitted on Category I radios by commenters in this
    proceeding. While our own initial study did not test inexpensive
    receivers with integral antennas because of the difficulty of
    providing test signals at accurately controlled levels to this type
    of device, we did rely on test data for these radios submitted by
    NAB, NPR/CEMA and NLG.[^15] As indicated above and in the *Report
    and Order*, we considered the results from all of the receivers
    tested in the studies in this proceeding, including the "Category I"
    radios tested by others, in our decision on 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    interference. For example, in the *Report and Order*, we calculated
    the radii of LPFM potential interference based on test data
    submitted by NAB for Category I radios. The results of those tests
    show that the area in which these receivers would experience any
    degradation in performance from interference from a 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel LPFM station would be small, generally 1 km or less from the
    LPFM antenna site.[^16]

14. Third, NPR argues that our examination of receiver issues was an
    interim study. It contends that while we recognized that our study
    was limited in both the size of the sample of receivers tested and
    in the range of tests performed, we conducted no further laboratory
    tests and no field tests of potential interference issues prior to
    the *Report and Order*.[^17] As explained in the OET Study, that
    phase of the FCC Laboratory's examination of FM receivers was
    limited to the issues of 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    interference performance of analog FM receivers with respect to
    analog FM interferers and was limited in size to a fairly small
    sample of 21 receivers. Additional research was anticipated to
    expand the study sample as well as to broaden the scope to include
    digital interference issues. Neither of these planned extensions of
    the OET study was essential to our decision on application of 2^nd^
    and 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference protections for LPFM
    service. Additional data on receiver performance was, in fact,
    provided through the NAB, CEMA, and NLG studies. By using the data
    from the three additional studies, we were able to evaluate
    information on a total of 75 different radio receivers. We believed
    that this additional data provided a sufficient basis, *in the
    aggregate*, for evaluating interference issues, even if each of the
    studies individually may have tested a relatively small sample of
    receivers. Thus, we found no need to expand the size of the receiver
    sample. We therefore do not find that the limits of the OET study
    impaired our ability to decide the 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    protection issues in this proceeding.[^18]

15. We also do not find it necessary to include field test information
    in our decision. The interference issues involved in this matter
    relate to receiver performance, qualities which are best examined
    through laboratory testing of a sample of receivers.[^19] There have
    been no questions raised in this proceeding that require new
    information on the propagation qualities of FM signals, and thus
    there was no reason to conduct field tests. Moreover, it would be
    difficult and costly to meaningfully conduct field tests for a
    sample of receivers, and we have no reason to believe that such
    tests would yield data on interference potential that would differ
    from that of the various laboratory studies. We therefore find no
    basis for delaying our decision on the 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    protection issue to conduct field tests ourselves or to await the
    results of field tests conducted by others.

16. With regard to our finding that any interference that may occur
    would be outweighed by the benefits of new low power FM service, NPR
    argues that we did not actually balance costs and benefits. Rather,
    it argues that we simply asserted that LPFM will be beneficial and
    then strove to minimize the technical evidence of countervailing
    interference costs. NPR then argues that we failed to account for
    the significant harm that is likely to occur to existing radio
    services, and, in particular, to public radio services, whether in
    individual cases or the aggregate.

17. We disagree with NPR that we did not balance the costs of any new
    interference expected from low power FM stations with the benefits
    these stations will provide. In the *Report and Order*, we indicated
    that low power radio stations will serve the public interest by
    providing opportunities for new voices to be heard, and in
    particular will enhance opportunities for locally focused
    community-oriented radio broadcasting.[^20] We observed that the
    comments in this proceeding \-- from churches and other religious
    organizations, students, labor unions, community organizations and
    activists, musicians, and other citizens \-- reflected a broad
    interest in the establishment of highly local radio stations
    strongly grounded in their communities, providing locally-based
    programming for listeners in those communities. We therefore believe
    that the low power FM service will provide substantial and important
    benefits to local radio audiences. We expect that LPFM stations will
    be technically able to serve significant local audiences, even in
    the presence of interfering signals from full-service FM stations.
    The 60 dBu service contour of a 100-watt LPFM station with an
    antenna height of 30 meters above average terrain (HAAT) extends 5.6
    kilometers from the transmitting antenna site and encloses an area
    of 98.5 square kilometers. Without interference or other impairments
    to its signal, the non-directional LPFM facility could be expected
    to provide satisfactory signal coverage throughout this area. LPFM
    stations must be sufficiently geographically separated from
    full-service FM radio stations to prevent interference to any area
    within the FM station's protected service contour. For example, a
    separation of 67 kilometers is required to protect a Class A FM
    station at maximum permissible facilities; this distance includes
    the 20 kilometer interference buffer. LPFM stations, however, are
    not protected against receiving interference from existing or future
    FM stations.[^21] A separation of 92 kilometers from a Class A FM
    station (which does not include a buffer distance) is necessary to
    prevent interference within an LP100 station's 60 dBu contour. Thus,
    an LP100 station located at the minimum required separation to
    protect the Class A FM station would be predicted to receive some
    interference within its 5.6 kilometer service contour. On average,
    the interference-free distance from the LP100 antenna site would be
    reduced to approximately 4 kilometers from the transmitting antenna
    site and the corresponding interference-free service area would be
    reduced to about 50 square kilometers. Thus, even in this worst-case
    example, the LP100 station could be expected to provide
    interference-free service within half of the area within its 60 dBu
    contour, an area that might well be large enough to include the
    station's intended audience, such as residents of a college campus,
    local school district, or a neighborhood.

18. In deciding to authorize LPFM stations, we also affirmed our
    intention to preserve the integrity and technical excellence of the
    existing FM service and not to impede its transition to a digital
    future.[^22] To this end, we carefully considered the interference
    potential of LPFM operations to both existing FM stations and their
    future digital operations and adopted appropriate technical rules to
    minimize such interference. In the case of 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    interference, we found that any interference that would occur from a
    low power station to an existing station's service would be limited
    to areas very close to the low power stations transmitter.[^23] In
    addition, the required minimum spacings between low power stations
    will greatly limit the maximum number of such stations that can
    operate within an existing station's service area on the 3^rd^
    adjacent channel. Thus, the level of new interference from LPFM
    stations will be very small. Accordingly, we have found, and
    continue to maintain, that the benefits of this new service outweigh
    the costs of any small amounts of interference that may occur.

19. We also disagree with NPR that interference from LPFM stations will
    be particularly harmful to public radio stations. NPR contends that
    we failed to account for the particular susceptibility of public
    radio stations to interference, especially in the case of
    reserved-spectrum stations. It submits that public radio stations
    are more likely to be affected by LPFM interference for a number of
    reasons. NPR first argues that stations in the reserved spectrum are
    more tightly "packed" together, and that our LPFM rules do not
    adequately address this congestion.[^24] However, NPR provides no
    specific information in support of its contention. Our conclusion
    that LPFM stations would not create unacceptable interference to
    existing full power stations is in no way undermined by the
    differing allocation methodologies used in the reserved and
    non-reserved bands. Since the minimum LPFM distance separation
    requirements are applied uniformly throughout the entire FM band, a
    full power station that operates in a crowded portion of the
    reserved band would be no more likely to receive interference from
    an LPFM station than would a station operating in the non-reserved
    band. Furthermore, the plan is conservative in that LPFM station
    separation requirements are based on the assumption that
    full-service stations operate with the maximum permissible
    facilities for their station class. In any event, as noted by UCC,
    our plan for authorizing low power FM service automatically
    mitigates any such differential effect on public stations by
    allowing fewer low power stations where existing stations are more
    closely spaced. In other words, fewer low power stations will fit
    into the reserved band in areas where noncommercial stations are
    more tightly packed.

20. NPR next argues that public radio stations are particularly
    vulnerable to interference because their signals typically use
    minimum "loudness" processing to preserve the natural dynamic range
    of the programming. It states that the heavy processing used with
    Top 40 stations limits the dynamic range to emphasize loudness and
    that this processing tends to mask the effect of interfering
    signals. We recognize that many public broadcasting stations
    minimize their use of loudness processing in order to provide
    quality service to their listeners. At the same time, we observe
    that it is generally necessary to use a higher quality receiver,
    such as a home stereo system, in order to actually experience the
    broader dynamic range audio provided by these stations. As indicated
    by the various receiver tests, home stereo receivers, car radios,
    and other high fidelity FM receivers generally are also able to
    adequately reject signals on 3^rd^ adjacent channels at the levels
    to be transmitted by LPFM stations. We conclude that the audio
    experience of public radio station listeners generally will not be
    degraded by the operation of LPFM stations.

21. NPR further argues that we failed to address the potential harm of
    LPFM operations to statewide radio networks. Individual stations in
    a statewide network are typically sited to achieve maximum signal
    coverage to the maximum population based on actual receipt of a
    quality signal, rather than a predicted contour overlap. NPR
    contends that LPFM stations are likely to pose a significant threat
    to such operations. As indicated above, our plan for the LPFM
    service will tend to limit the number of LPFM operations in
    locations where noncommercial stations are more closely spaced. In
    such locations, to the extent that a small amount of interference
    would occur, in many instances the programming provided by the
    noncommercial station would be available from another station in the
    network. We therefore do not believe that LPFM stations on 3^rd^
    adjacent channels will have harmful consequences for statewide radio
    networks.

22. Finally, NPR states that interference from television service on TV
    channel 6 and the need to avoid interference to such service reduces
    the amount of reserved FM-band spectrum that might otherwise be
    available. It contends that the new LPFM rules introduce new sources
    of interference in a portion of the FM spectrum that is already
    significantly compromised. We believe that channel 6 operations will
    limit the opportunities for low power stations in that area. In
    addition, we recently expanded the opportunities for allocating
    additional reserved channels in the non-reserved portion of the FM
    band in areas where there are TV channel 6 transmissions.[^25] We
    therefore find that allowing 3^rd^ adjacent channel LPFM stations to
    operate in areas where noncommercial stations must be concerned with
    TV channel 6 signals will not have any significant effect on the
    amount of reserved FM-band spectrum that is otherwise available.

23. *Radio Reading Services*. In its petition, NPR requests that we
    provide additional interference protection for FM stations that
    operate radio reading services. Radio reading services, which
    provide access to printed news and other information sources for
    blind or print-disabled persons, are transmitted via FM station
    subcarrier (SCA) facilities. NPR asserts that the majority of these
    services are provided on public radio stations. Special radios that
    tune subcarrier signals are used to receive these services. NPR
    states that radio reading services are threatened by the new rules
    because subcarrier receivers are more vulnerable to interference
    than mass marketed receivers. It indicates that this is because
    subcarrier receivers are designed for wide-band reception, which
    makes them less selective in rejecting adjacent channel signals. It
    further states that because these receivers are designed to be
    modest in cost to meet the needs of the disabled constituency, their
    manufacture necessarily uses components that offer limited overload
    rejection and IF selectivity. It therefore asks that we revise the
    rules to apply the existing 3^rd^ adjacent channel protection to
    those radio stations that offer radio reading services.

24. Like NPR, the Commission is concerned about the differential
    vulnerability of radio reading service receivers to 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel interference. In this regard, we recognize the important and
    unique services that radio reading operations provide to blind and
    other print-disabled persons and the unique role of each radio
    reading service in its community. Accordingly, we are continuing to
    study how to best protect these services while preserving LPFM
    opportunities for as many applicants as is practical. For the
    immediate future we will require that LPFM stations operating on
    3^rd^ adjacent channels protect the SCA operations of stations
    operating radio reading services. Until our studies are completed,
    we will not authorize an LPFM station that would not be sufficiently
    geographically separated from any full-service FM station on a 3^rd^
    adjacent channel that operated a radio reading service as of the
    date of adoption of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*. [^26] If
    the studies determine that these receivers are uniquely vulnerable
    to 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference, prior to the second round of
    100 watt filing windows we will protect stations that have added a
    radio reading service after the effective date of this *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order* and LPFM applications filed thereafter will be
    required to provide 3rd adjacent channel protection to those
    stations. In this regard, we will apply the minimum distance
    separations used for interference protection from LPFM stations on
    the 2^nd^ adjacent channel, which is based on a desired-to-undesired
    signal strength ratio of --40 dB. This protection ratio also
    underlies station separation requirements between full-service NCE
    stations on 3^rd^ adjacent channels. We believe that this approach
    will adequately protect existing radio reading services while we
    confirm whether radio reading service receivers are uniquely
    vulnerable to 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference.

25. *2^nd^ Adjacent Channel Operation*. J. Rodger Skinner and UCC
    request that we reconsider our decision to apply 2^nd^ adjacent
    channel protection requirements to LPFM stations and revise the
    rules to allow operation of LPFM stations without regard to 2^nd^
    adjacent channel separation. They argue that maintaining 2^nd^
    adjacent channel protections for LPFM service will preclude the
    establishment of hundreds of new LPFM stations, mostly in major
    markets where they are needed. Skinner submits that our recent
    receiver tests, and the fact that no interference has been reported
    during the many years when short-spaced grandfathered full service
    stations were allowed to relocate without regard to 2^nd^ or 3^rd^
    adjacent channel restrictions, are indicative that low power
    stations could operate on such channels without causing
    interference. UCC submits that, based on the findings of the
    Rappaport study, we could have relaxed 2^nd^ adjacent channel
    protections for stations of 100 watts or less.

26. Skinner and UCC petitioners have not provided any new information on
    the 2^nd^ adjacent channel issue that we did not have available and
    consider in deciding to retain 2^nd^ adjacent channel protections
    for LPFM service. As we observed in the *Report and Order*, the
    receiver test data for 2^nd^ adjacent channel interference rejection
    performance was generally on the order of 8-10 dB poorer than for
    3^rd^ adjacent channel performance. We therefore indicated that it
    appears that the risk of interference from 2^nd^ adjacent channel
    LPFM operation may be somewhat higher. While the Rappaport study
    generally argues that elimination of 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel protections would result in a small potential for
    interference and therefore affect few FM listeners, the study's
    simulation results do indicate that in many situations there would
    be increased interference if 2^nd^ adjacent channel protections were
    eliminated.[^27] In addition, applying 2^nd^ adjacent channel
    protection requirements to LPFM stations will preserve flexibility
    for the development of in-band, on-channel (IBOC) digital audio
    systems for FM stations, as discussed in paragraphs 55-56.
    Accordingly, we are denying the petitioners' request that we
    eliminate 2^nd^ adjacent channel protection requirements for LPFM
    stations.

### Regulatory Status of LPFM Stations {#regulatory-status-of-lpfm-stations .unnumbered}

27. We decided in the *Report and Orde*r to require LPFM stations to
    protect existing full-power FM stations, translator, boosters, and
    vacant allotments, according to the separation requirements adopted,
    and not to protect LPFM stations from interference introduced by new
    or modified FM stations. We also decided that LPFM stations will be
    required to cease operation if they cause interference within the
    3.16 mV/m contour of a subsequently authorized or modified FM
    station.

28. The general manager of a student radio station at the University of
    Wisconsin (Black), urges us to reconsider this status for LPFM
    stations, arguing that it will discourage investment in LPFM
    stations, as their signals can be subsequently overpowered by
    full-power FM stations.[^28] We decline to reconsider our decision
    on this issue. One of our paramount goals in introducing LPFM
    service was that it not interfere with existing service.[^29] We
    continue to believe that the rules we adopted strike a reasonable
    balance between the need to foster new service and our
    responsibility both to maintain the integrity of existing FM service
    and to allow for its expansion to better serve the public.

29. For the same reasons, we will not adopt the proposal in the Amherst
    Petition that we use a "modified primary" status for LPFM or that we
    establish "endangered species" or "demonstration" stations.[^30]
    Each of these proposals would diminish interference protection to
    existing stations in the interest of creating more LPFM stations
    than would be allowed under our current rules. Amherst proposed that
    we establish "endangered species" exemptions where LPFM stations are
    few in number and face a high risk of displacement. This exception
    would, under Amherst's proposal, automatically be extended to an
    LPFM applicant who applied for an LP10 license and who seeks that
    license where no more than three LPFM licenses are available.
    Amherst's proposed demonstration stations would be permitted where
    there is no room for any LPFM stations under the current rules; they
    would be sited without 2^nd^ adjacent channel separations and
    provide actual experience with such LPFM operations. "Modified
    primary status" would, like the other two proposals, diminish the
    protection we have granted to existing stations. We remain convinced
    that our analysis in the *Report & Order* struck an appropriate
    balance between the interest of new entrants and the importance of
    protection of existing broadcasters, and we decline to modify that
    balance.

30. *Translators*. FM translator stations may not continue to operate if
    any interference occurs in areas where a full service FM station has
    a "regularly used" signal, including locations beyond the full
    service station's applicable protected contour.[^31] However, LPFM
    stations are only required to protect subsequently authorized full
    service FM stations if interference is created within the full
    service station's 70 dBu principal community contour.[^32] The
    Commission's decision permitting LPFM stations to continue operation
    if overlap occurs in an FM station's service area outside its 70 dBu
    contour was an attempt to balance the service needs of full service
    stations with the need for stability in the LPFM service. FM
    translators provide full service FM stations with a means of
    supplementing signal coverage made deficient due to terrain or other
    transmission issues, while LPFM stations will provide a new program
    origination service. Given the differing purposes of the LPFM and FM
    translator services we do not feel that it is necessary for both
    services to have identical interference protection requirements.

### Modulation

31. In order to minimize the potential for interference from LPFM
    stations, the Commission concluded that LPFM stations would be
    required to meet current FM transmission standards. Additionally, in
    order to ensure that these standards are met, the *Report and Order*
    restricted LPFM stations to the use of FCC "type certified"
    transmitters.[^33]

32. Craig L. Fox (Fox) argues that the rules adopted by the Commission
    are not sufficient to avoid the creation of interference via
    improper operation.[^34] Specifically, Fox argues that the adopted
    rules do not address the problem of overmodulation caused by a high
    audio feed. Fox states that overmodulation was a common problem
    among "unlicensed operators" and that excessive frequency deviation
    in the signals of these stations resulted in additional
    interference. Accordingly, Fox concludes that the Commission should
    require LPFM stations to use calibrated modulation monitors. We
    believe this additional safeguard is unwarranted. We do not believe
    that unsupported anecdotal evidence regarding unauthorized
    broadcasters is a sufficient justification for placing additional
    burdens on legitimate LPFM licensees. Thus, we find Fox's arguments
    unpersuasive and do not modify our prior determination to require
    full service and LPFM stations to meet the same transmission
    standards.

### Cut-Off Date for Protection of Full Service Stations

33. The *Report and Order* adopted a nationwide filing window for LP100
    applications and tentatively set the first window for May 2000. The
    Commission directed the Mass Media Bureau to announce by Public
    Notice the opening of the first national window and to release this
    notice at least 30 days in advance. Subsequently, the Mass Media
    Bureau decided to accept LPFM applications in five separate filing
    windows to "ensure the expeditious implementation of the LPFM
    service and to promote the efficient use of Commission
    resources."[^35] The *Report and Order* also established protection
    rights for both full service and low power stations. LPFM
    applications must protect all full service FM station applications
    on file as of the date of the public notice in accordance with the
    minimum distance separation requirements adopted in the *Report and
    Order.* Full service FM applications filed on or after the public
    notice date would be protected only to the extent that the
    applicant's 3.16 mV/m contour is affected by an LPFM facility.[^36]

34. Amherst Alliance concurs with our decision that LPFM applications
    must protect full service station applications on file as of a
    certain filing date. However, it disagrees with the date selected by
    the Commission. Specifically, Amherst argues that existing
    broadcasters will attempt to "warehouse" the spectrum by filing
    applications for the sole purpose of blocking LPFM applicants.
    Accordingly, Amherst suggests we change the "grandfathered" date to
    either February 26, 1999, the date the Commission required
    unlicensed broadcasters to cease operation if they wished to retain
    filing eligibility or, alternatively, January 20, 2000, the date of
    the adoption of the *Report and Order.*[^37] We decline to adopt a
    different "cut-off" date based on Amherst's speculative spectrum
    warehousing contention. We believe that we have adequate remedies to
    ensure that there will not be warehousing of spectrum.[^38] We have
    seen no evidence that broadcasters have chosen to circumvent
    Commission rules and policies by warehousing spectrum. Moreover, we
    conclude that imposing an extended freeze on full service
    applications would result in significant hardships to many stations
    without any countervailing benefits. We therefore reject this
    Amherst proposal.

35. However, in light of our decision to use multiple filing windows to
    implement the LPFM service, we clarify our LPFM cut-off rules. We
    will use the release date of each public notice announcing the
    opening of the next LP100 window as the "cut-off" date for
    protection of pending full service FM applications. Thus, LPFM
    applicants in subsequent filing windows will be required to protect
    all full service applications on file as of the date of the public
    notice for their particular window. This includes applications that
    may not have been protected in previous windows.

### Protection of Cable Television Headend

36. NPR argues that the Commission should revise the LPFM rules to
    require that LPFM stations correct any interference that may occur
    in the vicinity of a cable television headend as a result of LPFM
    broadcasts. Of major concern to NPR are listeners that receive radio
    programming, including radio reading services which are typically
    transmitted on a radio station's subcarrier frequency, as part of
    their cable service.[^39] In the *Report and Order*, the Commission
    made LPFM stations subject to the existing full service station
    requirements regarding the amelioration of blanketing
    interference.[^40] Cable headends are among the facilities covered
    by this rule. To the extent NPR refers to off-air reception problems
    caused by interference other than blanketing, we note that cable
    headend facilities receive no such specific protection from full
    service FM or FM translator stations. We are not persuaded that LPFM
    stations should be subject to more stringent requirements in this
    regard than other FM stations.

### Translators

37. As part of its overall plan to protect FM stations from
    interference, the Commission adopted FM translator/booster-LPFM
    station minimum distance separation requirements. Because FM
    translator and booster stations generally do not have specific class
    limitations, the separation requirements were determined by
    analyzing the 60 dBu contours of authorized stations and grouping
    them into three cohorts based on station power and height.
    Additionally, we also amended Part 74 rules to require that FM
    translator and booster stations protect the 1 mV/m contour of LP100
    stations.[^41]

38. NPR complains that the Commission has adopted rules that have
    rendered FM translators "secondary" to LPFM stations. NPR cites the
    numerous federal Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP)
    grants awarded to FM translator licensees each year as evidence of
    the recognized public interest benefits of translator service.
    According to NPR, this funding is provided because in many instances
    a translator station is the only source of public radio service in a
    given area.[^42] NPR argues that FM translator applicants that
    receive PTFP funding should not be required to protect LPFM
    stations. Additionally, NPR argues that LPFM station protection
    requirements may limit the ability of translators to relocate or
    change output frequencies when displaced by full service FM
    stations. It objects to this policy, contending that it could result
    in the potential loss of FM translator service. NPR requests that FM
    translators in this situation be allowed to make modifications that
    may result in interference to authorized LPFM stations.

39. We do not agree with NPR's characterization that the separation
    requirements adopted in the *Report and Order* make FM translators
    "secondary" to LPFM stations. The interference protections that were
    added to the translator and LPFM service rules place LPFM stations
    and FM translators on essentially equal footing in providing
    reciprocal interference protection. LPFM stations must meet FM
    translator distance separation minimums and FM translators must
    protect the 60 dBu contour of LP100 stations. We wish to clarify the
    application of 47 C.F.R. § 74.1204(a)(4), the rule section requiring
    FM translators to protect the 60 dBu contour of co- and 1^st^
    adjacent channel LP100 stations. In issuing LPFM construction
    permits we will specify an acceptable range of ERP based on the
    proposed antenna HAAT. Any subsequently filed license authorization
    will include a specific operating ERP. An FM translator application
    must protect the maximum facility authorized in an LP100
    construction permit until the LP100 station is licensed. In fact,
    some aspects of the rules provide greater protections for FM
    translator stations. For example, FM translators were divided into
    three broad categories based upon coverage area, with the same LPFM
    spacing applied to the smallest and largest facility in each
    category. Thus, with the exception of the largest authorized FM
    translator facilities, the spacing rules adopted for LPFM stations
    will usually result in an FM translator receiving more protection
    than an LP100 station which receives protection based on its actual
    contours. Additionally, FM translator stations are not required to
    protect LP10 stations. We believe that NPR's proposal to make LPFM
    stations secondary to translators is fundamentally contrary to
    current Commission policy, which treats translators as a secondary
    service. "The proper role of FM translators among aural services to
    the public is to provide secondary service to areas in which direct
    reception of signals from FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory
    due to distance or intervening terrain obstructions." [^43] We
    acknowledge that FM translators have provided useful service to
    unserved or underserved areas, but we believe that our LPFM rules
    adequately protect operating translator stations. We are not
    persuaded that our technical rules should be modified to eliminate
    the protections afforded LP100 stations -- essentially rendering
    LPFM stations "secondary" to translators -- either with respect to
    subsequently filed FM translator applications generally or with
    respect to the narrower class of translator stations that receive
    PTFP funding.

40. Nonetheless, we agree with NPR that maintaining translator-based
    delivery of broadcast programming is an important objective. We
    invite parties concerned with this issue to submit suggested
    improvements in these areas to the staff of the Mass Media Bureau's
    Audio Service Division, so that we can facilitate relocation of
    displaced translators when necessary. Based on the comments received
    the Bureau is authorized to reexamine our rules, filing procedures
    and processing standards and to suggest what steps the Commission
    can take to increase the flexibility accorded to displaced
    translator licensees seeking replacement facilities, if necessary.

41. NPR and the National Translator Association (NTA) state that the
    Commission should modify its rules to protect the input signals of
    FM translators that receive the signal of their primary stations via
    direct off-air reception.[^44] NPR is particularly concerned about
    the effects upon translator network "chains" in which each
    translator station output signal provides the input signal to the
    next. In this regard, we concur with the petitioners that protecting
    the input signals of FM translator stations is an important
    component of our overall policy goal of developing LPFM technical
    rules that protect existing FM translator service. We conclude that
    we should follow the procedures currently used to resolve
    allegations of interference caused by one FM translator to the input
    signal of another FM translator to resolve such interference caused
    by an LPFM station.[^45] However, contrary to NTA's suggestion, we
    will not make such interference a routine consideration prior to the
    grant of an application. Where a translator station demonstrates
    that an LPFM station is interfering with the translator station's
    input signal in use at the time the LPFM station is authorized, the
    LPFM station will be required immediately to cease operation until
    appropriate remedial actions have been taken.

42. *Protection of Class A TV, Low Power Television and Television
    Translator Stations Operating on TV Channel 6**. ***In order to
    protect TV Channel 6 stations from LPFM station interference, we
    adopted a rule (47 C.F.R. § 73.825) requiring LPFM stations
    proposing operation in the NCE portion of the FM Band (Channels
    201-220) to meet minimum distance separation requirements with
    respect to TV Channel 6 stations[^46] [^47] Section 73.825 does not
    specifically address Class A TV, low power television (LPTV) and
    television translator stations operating on TV Channel 6.
    Accordingly, we will amend § 73.825 to include additional minimum
    distance separation requirements which we believe will be adequate
    to protect the service provided by the Class A TV, LPTV and
    television translator facilities[^48] [^49]

### Spacing Table.

43. An anomaly in the minimum distance separation requirements of 47
    C.F.R. § 73.807(g) has come to our attention. Specifically, the
    tables specify greater 2^nd^ adjacent channel spacing requirements
    to Canadian stations from LP10 stations than from LP100 stations.
    When considering low-powered facilities at very high signal
    strengths, the Commission's F(50,50) curves often must be used
    instead of its F(50,10) curves. However, in some cases the staff
    must utilize the "free space equation" formula to determine contour
    distances. "In those cases where the distance calculated from the
    free space equation is greater than 5280 feet \[one mile\], but the
    F(50,50) curves show a distance of less than one mile, we use a
    distance of one mile."[^50] Although the staff properly used the
    treaty-required +20 dBu undesired-to-desired signal radio to
    determine 2^nd^ adjacent channel interfering contours near the
    Canadian border area, the staff failed to account for the fact that,
    in cases where the free space equation yields a result greater than
    1.6 kilometers (one mile), 1.6 kilometers must be used as the
    contour distance. We have recalculated the minimum separation
    distances for 2^nd^ adjacent channel LP10 stations near the Canadian
    border and are amending § 73.807 accordingly.[^51] For the same
    reason, we are also amending the IF frequency separation
    requirements for Class LP100 stations with respect to Class A and
    Class D stations, and Class B stations in Puerto Rico and the US
    Virgin Islands.

44. In addition to the anomaly in 47 C.F.R. § 73.807(g), we have
    determined that low power FM stations within Canada and Mexico [^52]
    had not been specifically protected from new domestic LPFM stations
    in the *Report and Order.* While these stations are protected by
    treaty, the *Report and Order* failed to include spacing tables
    explicitly protecting Canadian and Mexican low power FM Stations. To
    eliminate any uncertainty with respect to Canadian and Mexican
    stations, we are supplementing the international spacing tables
    specified in 47 C.F.R. § 73.807 to include specific distance
    separation requirements. To determine the spacings, we took the
    maximum facilities allowed for Canadian and Mexican FM translator
    stations, calculated the distance to the F(50,50) protected contour,
    and added the distance to the F(50,10) interfering curve from the
    domestic LPFM station required to protect those stations. In doing
    so, we determined that Canadian low power FM stations should receive
    the same protections provided to Canadian Class A1 facilities.
    Therefore, the Class A1 spacings in 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.807(g)(1) &
    (g)(3) will also be used for protecting Canadian low power FM
    Stations. However, due to the differences in treaty requirements,
    Mexican low power FM stations require unique spacing distances, and
    47 C.F.R. §§ 73.807(g)(2) & (g)(4) are amended accordingly.

### Directional Antennas

45. In the *Report and Order* we determined not to authorize directional
    antennas for LPFM stations.[^53] We concluded that directional
    antennas are unnecessary due to our reliance on a minimum distance
    separation methodology for interference protection, which assumes
    the use of a non-directional antenna. We also reasoned that
    authorizing only nondirectional antennas would simplify the
    preparation and processing of applications, thereby facilitating the
    expeditious implementation of the service.

46. The New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) and the consulting
    engineering firm of Lohnes and Culver request that LPFM stations be
    permitted to operate with directional antennas.[^54] They contend
    that directional antennas are useful engineering tools for enhancing
    a station's ability to avoid interference and for allowing more
    efficient operation by not wasting signal energy over unpopulated
    areas or areas where service is not intended. As suggested by Lohnes
    and Culver, use of a higher gain directional antenna to achieve a
    station's effective radiated power could reduce station costs by
    permitting the use of a lower power transmitter. NYSTA asserts that
    use of directional antennas would enable more opportunities for LPFM
    service, and that a blanket prohibition against directional antennas
    is not sufficiently justified on the ground that it would simplify
    application requirements.

47. As we stated in the *Report and Order*, there are compelling needs
    for the services that will be provided by LPFM stations. As part of
    a streamlined application process to expedite the authorization and
    implementation of the service, we prohibited the use of directional
    antennas by LPFM stations. We continue to believe that given the low
    power levels in the LPFM service, authorizing stations to limit
    power in particular directions would not generally yield benefits
    sufficient to offset our concerns about the complexities of
    directional antenna authorizations. As noted by NYSTA, applicants
    seeking directional full service FM radio facilities are subject to
    strict requirements involving radiation pattern and antenna
    installation.[^55] Authorization of directional antennas entails the
    submission and staff evaluation of radiation patterns and related
    information. Applicants for directional FM station licenses are
    required to submit measurement data to verify the radiation
    characteristics of directional antennas, as installed. Station
    proposals involving non-directional antennas can be authorized more
    quickly and with much less information from applicants. Such
    antennas will also facilitate uniform signal coverage within an LPFM
    station's service contour. Moreover, the conservative distance
    separation requirements established for LPFM stations will ensure
    that other stations are adequately protected against interference
    without the use of directional antennas. For these reasons, we
    generally affirm our determination not to authorize directional
    antennas for LPFM stations.

48. As noted by the petitioners, however, we recognize that there could
    be tangible benefits to allowing the use of directional antennas,
    particularly for licensees whose service is generally tailored to
    directional signal paths. NYSTA notes that it, as well as
    transportation agencies of other states, operates a Traveler's
    Information Service (TIS) that provides travel advisory and public
    safety information to motorists. TIS systems include numerous
    stations strategically located to provide signal coverage along
    roadways. NYSTA seeks to replace AM radio TIS facilities with LPFM
    stations. According to NYSTA, use of directional antennas would
    "focus coverage along the Thruway's right-of-way, thereby minimizing
    the stations' coverage contours and potential for interference,
    while still allowing the Thruway to ensure that its public safety
    information reaches the motorists using the roadway."[^56] As
    suggested by Lohnes and Culver, directional antennas in such systems
    could reduce system costs and minimize environmental impact.[^57]

49. For these reasons, we will make a limited exception to the
    prohibition of LPFM directional antennas and permit such antennas to
    be used only by public safety and transportation entities in
    connection with the operation of TIS services.[^58] However, under
    no circumstances will a specific antenna pattern be considered when
    determining compliance with our LPFM interference requirements with
    respect to other stations. Thus, we affirm that all such applicants
    must propose LPFM locations that comply with the LPFM distance
    separation requirements; requirements which assume use of a
    nondirectional antenna. Additionally, the use of a directional
    antenna will not affect a licensee's obligation to operate at its
    authorized ERP and will therefore not result in any extension of
    predicted coverage. Use of a high gain directional antenna will
    require a corresponding transmitter output power and transmission
    line loss that produces the authorized ERP.

50. TIS applicants wishing to utilize directional antennas will be
    limited to the use of a single "off-the-shelf" antenna with pattern
    characteristics pre-set by the manufacturer. A composite antenna
    consisting of more than one antenna mounted together may not be
    utilized. Nor will we permit multiple directional antennas and
    transmitters to be used from a single licensed facility. When filing
    an application for license to cover a construction permit (FCC Form
    319), permittees will be required to certify that the gain of the
    specified antenna and transmitter power output (TPO), coupled with
    the necessary transmission line, produces the licensed ERP.[^59] For
    the purposes of station authorizations and our engineering database,
    all LPFM stations, including those of TIS stations, will be
    considered "non-directional." Thus, we will not require applicants
    for station licenses to submit any data beyond antenna make and
    model. We will expect all licensees to install their antennas in
    accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

### Service Area Issues

51. In order to avoid the creation of interference to existing FM
    broadcast stations, the *Report and Order* adopted minimum distance
    separation requirements that were premised on the lack of prohibited
    overlap to each station class' maximum protected contour.[^60] In
    addition, in an effort to account for modifications to existing full
    service stations, and minimize interference, an additional 20
    kilometer "buffer" was added to the co- and 1^st^ adjacent channel
    separation requirements. Greater protection still was given to
    several superpowered stations operating within the reserved portion
    of the FM band.[^61] Finally, although a full service station
    proposing a facility modification could potentially be required to
    accept some interference from an operating LPFM station, the rules
    require that LPFM stations fully protect FM station modifications to
    their principal community (70 dBu) contours.[^62]

52. Alan W. Jurison (Jurison) and NPR allege that the rules adopted by
    the Commission do not adequately protect the service areas of full
    service licensees.[^63] Both petitioners state that the modification
    rule that requires LPFM stations to protect the 70 dBu contour of
    full power station modifications from interference appears to fall
    short of the Commission's stated intention of protecting the service
    areas of existing stations.[^64] We do not believe that
    reconsideration of these complementary policies is warranted. New
    LPFM station separation requirements and the protection afforded to
    full service modifications are intended to serve different aspects
    of our overall interference policy. The spacing rules require the
    full protection of all full power authorizations and prior-filed
    applications in order to minimize the potential for interference
    that could result from an initial LPFM station authorization. The
    Commission adopted a different approach to subsequently-filed
    modifications of full service stations in order to provide a degree
    of stability for the new and untested LPFM service while providing
    maximum technical flexibility for full power stations to initiate or
    enhance service. The Commission has long recognized the importance
    of preserving existing broadcast services. As a result, we believe
    the qualified cut-off protection that LPFM stations enjoy
    *vis-a-vis* subsequently filed full power proposals is warranted,
    especially when the role of LPFM stations in providing new outlets
    for community-based organizations is taken into account. We note
    that our decision to protect full power stations to maximum
    facilities and to require that new LPFM stations meet an additional
    buffer zone protection requirement should substantially limit the
    number of cases where a site relocation results in interference
    received by a full power station.[^65]

53. NPR questions the use of the 70 dBu contour as a benchmark for
    protecting the community of license of noncommercial educational FM
    stations. Specifically, NPR argues that NCE FM stations operating
    within the reserved band are not required to cover their communities
    of license with a 70 dBu strength signal. Thus, under the LPFM rules
    as originally adopted, a full service NCE FM station could receive
    interference from an LPFM station within those portions of its
    community of license that it serves with less than a city grade
    strength signal. We concur that this result does not serve our
    intended goal of protecting service within each station's community
    of license.[^66] Accordingly, we will revise the pertinent rule
    sections to require that LPFM stations not cause interference within
    the community of license of an NCE FM station, provided that the
    community is within the 60 dBu contour of the affected NCE FM
    station. Extending this protection to stations with communities of
    license located beyond the 60 dBu contour is not warranted since
    such stations are already potentially subject to interference from
    other full service stations within their communities of license.
    Commercial FM stations are deemed to "substantially comply" with the
    community of license coverage requirements if at least 80% of the
    community of license is located within the 70 dBu contour.[^67]
    Accordingly, we will also protect the community of license of
    commercial FM stations, even in instances where a portion is located
    outside the 70 dBu contour.

54. NPR has expressed additional concerns about the service areas of NCE
    FM stations. NPR is concerned that, although the Commission
    indicated that the distance separation requirements often result in
    greater protection to stations operating with less than maximum
    class facilities, stations operating at maximum class facilities do
    not receive any "additional" protection.[^68] We do not share NPR's
    concern in this regard. The "additional protection" referred to by
    NPR is simply a consequence of using a minimum distance separation
    methodology based upon maximum class facilities instead of a contour
    overlap methodology based upon actual authorized facilities.[^69]
    Additionally, NPR expresses concern that stations operating in
    statewide networks are vulnerable to interference because
    "\[i\]ndividual stations in a statewide network are typically sited
    to achieve maximum population based upon the receipt of a quality
    signal rather than predicted contour overlap."[^70] With the
    exception of the 20 kilometer "buffer" added to the co- and 1^st^
    adjacent channel spacing requirements, the Commission did not
    provide for protections beyond stations' service areas based on
    maximum facilities for the station class. More generally, it is
    axiomatic that our technical rules protect NCE stations only to
    their "protected" contours and not some undefined otherwise
    unprotected contour relating to the location of a desired station
    audience. Requiring greater protection could unduly limit LPFM
    licensing opportunities and is at odds with protections provided in
    the full power service. We conclude that this fundamental departure
    from our license assignment policies is unwarranted.

55. Jurison also expressed concern about existing grandfathered
    superpowered FM stations operating in the non-reserved band.[^71]
    Specifically, Jurison states that the Commission did not explain why
    non-reserved band superpowered stations were not granted the
    additional protections provided for reserved band superpowered
    stations. [^72] Under current Commission rules, superpowered
    stations operating within the non-reserved band are protected not on
    the basis of their actual facilities but on the basis of the
    station's maximum class facilities.[^73] In contrast, full service
    superpowered stations operating within the reserved band are
    protected on the basis of their authorized facilities, which exceed
    the maximum facilities for the station class.[^74] Jurison has not
    established sufficient justification for requiring LPFM stations to
    provide non-reserved band superpowered stations with greater
    protection than that currently provided by existing full service
    stations. Jurison also expresses concern that LPFM stations would
    receive excessive interference from superpowered stations, despite
    being located at distances where our rules[^75] state that there
    would be "no interference received." While this situation may occur
    in some instances, we do not believe that it warrants increasing the
    LPFM minimum separation requirements toward all superpowered
    stations. LPFM minimum distance separation requirements may permit
    stations to operate in areas where they may be subject to received
    interference. To the extent that the "no interference received"
    values may be misleading in some instances, we will change the
    tables to read "For No Interference Received From Maximum Class
    Facility." It will be the LPFM applicant's responsibility to
    consider the facilities of nearby superpowered stations when
    considering its choices for site and/or frequency.

### Digital Audio Broadcasting

56. The Commission's decision to retain 2^nd^ adjacent channel LPFM
    protection requirements but eliminate 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    standards was designed, in part, to ensure that the introduction of
    the LPFM service did not impede the development of in-band
    on-channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting (DAB) technologies.
    Both USA Digital Radio Partners, L.P. (USADR) and Lucent Digital
    Radio (LDR) have expressed concerned about the robustness of their
    technologies with respect to 2^nd^ adjacent channel signals,
    including LPFM signals. However, neither proponent raised concerns
    about 3^rd^ adjacent channel operations and USADR has stated that
    "digital reception is essentially not susceptible to 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel interference."[^76] On this basis, the Commission concluded
    that the LPFM operations on 3^rd^ adjacent channels will not have an
    adverse impact on digital IBOC signals.[^77]

57. Neither USADR nor LDR seeks reconsideration of our decision not to
    establish 3^rd^ adjacent channel protection standards for LPFM
    stations. NPR, however, argues that the technical standards adopted
    in the *Report and Order* fail adequately to assure the
    compatibility of LPFM and a future DAB service. It urges the
    Commission to retain full service 3^rd^ adjacent channel
    interference protections or to authorize LPFM stations "on a
    secondary basis to all full power, translator, and booster stations
    operating pursuant to a DAB authorization."[^78] We believe that
    such additional restrictions on LPFM licensing are unwarranted. The
    *Report and Order* takes a technically conservative approach to
    minimize potential impacts on terrestrial digital radio services.
    The retention of 2^nd^ adjacent channel protections, the additional
    20-kilometer buffer zone protection afforded all full service
    stations operating on co- and 1^st^ adjacent channels, and the
    decision not to create a 1000-watt class of LPFM stations
    collectively demonstrate the Commission's commitment to ensuring a
    smooth transition to DAB. We believe that we have incorporated
    sufficient protections into our LPFM technical rules and, therefore,
    reaffirm our prior conclusion that LPFM is very unlikely to impede
    the development of a DAB service or cause interference in particular
    cases to digital IBOC signals.

## Third Adjacent Channel Complaint and License Modification Procedure

58. Based on the Commission's technical analyses and its review of
    several independent studies submitted in this proceeding we decided
    not to require LPFM stations to provide 3rd adjacent channel
    protection to full power stations. As discussed above, no issues
    have been raised on reconsideration that have persuaded us to
    reconsider our findings and conclusions on this matter.[^79] We
    continue to believe that the risk of interference from LPFM stations
    is small, and that the interference that may occur in individual
    cases would be vastly outweighed by the benefits of initiating a new
    service that will create new outlets for locally based
    community-oriented voices.

59. National Public Radio (NPR) urges the Commission to adopt an
    expedited process for the review of complaints of alleged
    interference to full power stations caused by LPFM stations
    operating on third adjacent channels. NPR proposes a pre-license
    complaint procedure, stating that "the Commission should implement a
    process that permits the challenge and denial of an LPFM application
    on a 3rd adjacent channel at the initial processing stage..."[^80]
    In the alternative, however, NPR proposes that the Commission adopt
    rules that would allow a "licensee of a full power, translator, or
    booster station to file an interference complaint at any time after
    final licensing of the facility LPFM operation."[^81]

60. As a preliminary matter, we reject NPR's pre-license predicted
    interference complaint procedure because it is in fundamental
    conflict with our conclusion that the benefits of this new service
    far outweigh the isolated instances of interference that may occur.
    We continue to adhere to this policy judgment. Our studies establish
    that FM receiver performance varies widely. Many receivers are
    highly immune to 3rd adjacent channel interference while poorer
    quality receivers may experience some additional interference from
    the operation of LPFM stations. Moreover, as noted in the *Report
    and Order*, any interference would most likely occur in a small area
    in the immediate vicinity of the LPFM transmission facility that is,
    itself, located at the outer edge of a full power FM station's
    service area. Listeners using low-end receivers are unlikely to
    experience "actual interference" in such a situation because in
    locations at the outer edge of a station's service area those
    receivers probably are not able to receive that station.

61. We concluded in the *Report and Order* that the licensing of LPFM
    stations on 3^rd^ adjacent channels would not result in significant
    new interference to existing FM stations, *i.e.* that very few
    listeners would be able to detect additional interference as a
    result of commencement of LPFM service on a 3^rd^ adjacent channel.
    Although we expect it to be the rare case where an LPFM station
    operating on a 3^rd^ 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.
    As a result of these new procedures, there may be circumstances
    where, contrary to what we said in the Report and Order,[^82] an
    LPFM station will be required to take steps to resolve complaints
    that its signal is interfering with the reception of a full power FM
    station even though the LPFM station is operating in accordance with
    the relevant rules.

62. This marks the first time that the Commission has departed from a
    purely "predicted interference" approach for an aural service that
    has program origination authority and that enjoys certain
    protections generally thought of as "primary" stations rights. Our
    willingness to do so is based on a unique combination of factors.
    Most importantly, we are confident about the technical conclusions
    we have reached in the proceeding. Specifically, we continue to
    believe that it is unlikely that more than a few listeners will
    detect any additional interference to the reception of an existing
    FM station at locations that would be entitled to protection under
    our full power third adjacent channel interference methodology.
    Thus, the post-construction "actual interference" complaint
    procedure we are establishing should not pose a significant threat
    to the viability or stability of the LPFM service.

63. Moreover, an efficient complaint procedure will promote the fullest
    interference-free use of the FM broadcast spectrum. At this time
    there are few, if any, full power FM station opportunities in most
    of the highly populated areas of the country. In fact, staff studies
    in this proceeding establish that there are no available FM channels
    for LP100 stations in a number of major markets. In many communities
    broadcasters have fully taken advantage of the Commission's policy
    of licensing efficient high-power stations that serve wide areas
    with limited technical preclusiveness. As a result, most Americans
    enjoy abundant radio service. LPFM is not, as some argue, in
    conflict with these principles. Rather it is a complementary way to
    serve the needs of communities within a mature broadcast service. It
    is grounded on the success of the Commission's licensing policies
    and is designed to efficiently match the little spectrum that
    remains with the demonstrable demand for locally based programming.
    We conclude that an efficient, limited complaint procedure fairly
    balances the interests of incumbent broadcasters against the
    benefits of fostering a new and different kind of radio service.

64. For purposes of the complaint process we will consider interference
    to occur whenever reception of a full power station is impaired by
    the operation of an LPFM station operating on a third adjacent
    channel station. We believe that it is unnecessary to adopt a more
    technically objective standard for determining whether a listener is
    experiencing "actual" interference. The "any impairment" standard
    has worked successfully over the past decade in the FM translator
    context.[^83] A particular listener's perception of signal
    impairment is dependent on many factors, including the receiver
    used, the programming, listener sound quality expectations, and
    listener auditory discrimination capabilities. As a result, we are
    reluctant to adopt a single "objectionable interference" standard.
    We are also concerned that this approach could add a level of
    factual complexity to the complaint process set forth below without
    any clear public interest justification.

65. The complaint process may be invoked where an LPFM station's
    transmission facilities are located inside the predicted 60 dBu
    contour of an existing full power FM station operating on a 3rd
    adjacent channel[^84]; that is, the 60 dBu contour corresponding to
    the station facilities that existed at the time construction of the
    LPFM station was authorized.[^85] Complaints will be limited to
    receivers located at fixed, identifiable locations within the full
    power station's 60 dBu contour that are not more than one kilometer
    from the LPFM transmitter site. This geographic limitation is
    intended to address broadcasters' specific concern about the lack of
    LPFM station 3rd adjacent channel interference protection
    requirements. An LPFM station's interfering contour would extend
    slightly less than one kilometer from the LPFM transmitter
    site.[^86] The fixed receiver requirement is based on our desire to
    put in place a manageable and efficient complaint procedure. Mobile
    receiver complaints are generally much more difficult to identify
    and resolve. A mobile receiver, such as a car or portable radio,
    will encounter constantly varying signal strengths from various
    stations, resulting in a continuously variable potential for
    interference.[^87] The complaint must be received by either the LPFM
    or full power station within one year of the date on which the LPFM
    station commenced operation. This time frame is necessary to limit
    uncertainty regarding the potential modification or cancellation of
    an LPFM station's license and such station's financial obligation to
    resolve interference complaints. Any interference caused by the LPFM
    station should be detectable within one year after it commences
    operation. The one-year cure period is similar to the technical
    requirement that each FM permittee resolve at its sole expense all
    blanketing interference complaints for a one-year period beginning
    with the commencement of program tests.[^88] The Commission will
    consider the modification of a station's license, including its
    cancellation, where as a result of the process described below,
    *bona fide* complaints from at least one percent of the households
    or thirty households, whichever is less, within the specified
    complaint area remain unresolved.[^89] We do not anticipate this
    level of interference as a result of licensing LPFM stations on
    3^rd^ adjacent channels and will not consider it *de minimis*.

66. The first stage of the complaint process is designed to facilitate
    cooperative efforts between LPFM and full power FM licensees to
    identify and resolve *bona fide* interference complaints. A listener
    who believes that an LPFM station signal is interfering with the
    reception of a full power station may initiate the complaint
    procedure by providing the full power station an affidavit that
    describes the nature and location of the alleged interference. LPFM
    stations receiving complaints directly from listeners will be
    required to forward promptly such complaints to the affected full
    power FM stations. The full power FM station will be required to
    identify those complainants who reside at locations covered by these
    procedures, and provide copies of all such *bona fide* complaints to
    the LPFM station. Initially, an LPFM station will have the
    opportunity to resolve individual interference complaints. For
    example, an LPFM station may agree to provide new receivers to
    impacted listeners or to install filters at the receiver site. The
    LPFM station also may wish to consider a power reduction or other
    facility modification to alleviate the interference. We expect the
    LPFM station to make serious and diligent efforts to resolve each
    *bona fide* complaint received.

67. In the event that the LPFM station concludes that it is not the
    source of the interference and the number of unresolved complaints
    equals at least one percent of households or 30 households \--
    whichever is less \-- in the complaint area, the LPFM and full power
    stations must cooperate in an "on-off test" to determine whether the
    interference is traceable to the LPFM station. To the extent
    necessary and where practical, we instruct our Enforcement Bureau
    field personnel to assist the parties in determining the source of
    the interference and identifying possible solutions. The Commission
    will consider a complaint resolved if the complainant does not
    reasonably cooperate with the LPFM station's investigatory and
    remedial efforts. If the licensees fail to reach agreement and the
    requisite number of complaints remain unresolved, the full power FM
    station licensee may request that the Commission initiate a
    proceeding to consider whether the LPFM station's license should be
    modified or cancelled. To expedite this process, LPFM licenses will
    include a condition permitting the Commission to modify or cancel
    such licenses where the Commission determines that the LPFM station
    is causing more than *de minimis* levels of 3rd adjacent channel
    interference to the reception of a full power FM station in the
    complaint area, *i.e.,* where the number of *bona fide* complaints
    meets or exceeds the one-percent-of-households or thirty-households
    threshold set forth above. This modification procedure will be
    conducted pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 316 and any such modification
    proceeding will be completed within 90 days of the filing of the
    complaint with the Commission, provided that the parties may seek
    extensions of this deadline consistent with our procedural rules.

68. An LPFM station may stay this procedure by voluntarily ceasing
    operations and filing a "displacement" application on Form 318
    within twenty days of the commencement of this modification
    procedure. A displacement application may propose a station
    relocation and/or channel change to any available channel. It will
    be treated as a "minor" change that is not subject to competing
    applications, provided that a requested LP100 station site change is
    not greater than 2 kilometers or, in the case of an LP10 station, 1
    kilometer.

## Classes of Service 

69. The *Report and Order* established two classes of LPFM stations.
    LP100 stations will be authorized to operate with maximum facilities
    of 100 watts effective radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters (100 feet)
    antenna height above average terrain (HAAT). LP10 stations will be
    licensed with the equivalent of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. The
    Commission declined to create a 1000 watt class of low power
    stations because of potential interference concerns, and because it
    determined that LP100 and LP10 stations would create more
    opportunities for community-oriented service.[^90]

70. Skinner urges us to reconsider our decision not to authorize 1000
    watt stations, because he believes that restricting LPFM stations to
    lower power operation will adversely affect their economic
    viability. He argues that 1000 watt stations should be allowed in
    areas where it could be shown that operation would be possible
    without the creation of prohibited contour overlap.[^91] We continue
    to believe for the reasons stated in the *Report and Order* that the
    combination of LP100 and LP10 stations will best promote the goals
    of a community-based radio service.[^92] Moreover, we believe that
    our reasons for rejecting a contour protection methodology for
    protecting stations from interference [^93] is even more compelling
    with regard to higher power LPFM stations. Skinner has not provided
    any additional information that would lead us to reconsider these
    conclusions.

71. Our conclusion that licensing these two classes of service at this
    time would serve the public interest is warranted by changes in the
    radio industry. In the past we have struck the balance in favor of
    licensing higher powered stations to ensure that large audiences
    were served.[^94] Now, when radio service is widely available
    throughout the country and very little spectrum remains available
    for new full‑powered stations, we conclude that licensing very low
    powered stations will fill in the gaps in the spectrum that would
    otherwise go unused. This will maximize the use of the available
    spectrum, rather than create the inefficiencies we sought to avoid
    in the past.[^95] Consistent with this approach, we are licensing
    LP100 stations before LP10 stations. As we stated in the *Report
    and* *Order*, \[w\]e adopt this sequential process in order to
    provide the larger (100 watt) stations with their greater service
    areas the first opportunity to become established. Given that some
    LP10 stations can be sited where LP100 stations cannot, we expect
    that opportunities will remain for LP10 stations after the initial
    demand for LP100 stations has been accommodated. Additionally, our
    own resources will be better spent *first* advancing services to
    relatively greater areas.\"[^96] Our decision to begin licensing low
    power FM radio stations at this time is also in response to the
    dramatic changes in the radio industry during the last four years
    since our radio multiple ownership limits were relaxed pursuant to
    the 1996 Act.[^97] Given the substantial consolidation of radio
    station ownership in recent years, the need for adding diverse
    voices to the airwaves has grown. Because we have concluded that
    taking this step will not undermine our spectrum efficiency goals,
    we affirm our decision to create these two new classes of FM radio
    service.

## Noncommercial Nature of LPFM Service

72. In the *Report and Order*, we determined that only noncommercial
    educational entities would be eligible to hold LPFM licenses.
    Skinner argues that restricting the service to noncommercial service
    reduces LPFM stations' economic viability and eliminates a potential
    advertising medium for small businesses.[^98]

73. Our goals in establishing the LPFM service were to create
    opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local
    groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based
    organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community
    needs and interests.[^99] As discussed extensively in the *Report
    and Order*, although we considered the entrepreneurial opportunities
    a commercial LPFM service would create, we concluded that a
    noncommercial service would best serve the Commission's goals in
    this proceeding. Skinner has not persuaded us to alter that
    decision.

74. Amherst Alliance requests that the Commission clarify that
    "entertainment"[^100] programming can qualify as "educational" under
    the Commission's rules.[^101] As discussed in the *Report and
    Order*, we have not required that programming be exclusively
    educational for an entity to qualify as an NCE entity eligible for
    non-commercial licenses.[^102] In 1998 the Commission stated with
    regard to full power NCE stations that "NCE stations must promote a
    primarily educational purpose and not air commercials. Within those
    limits, there are many programming choices on NCE stations, such as
    instructional programs, programming selected by students, bible
    study, cultural programming, in-depth news coverage, and children's
    programs such as Sesame Street that entertain as they teach."[^103]
    We will apply the same standards we have applied to full power NCE
    stations to LPFM stations.

75. Specific questions were raised as to whether Indian tribes may apply
    for LPFM stations, or whether only their educational institutions
    may apply. As long as they meet the NCE criteria and other
    eligibility rules applicable to all applicants, Indian tribes may
    apply for LPFM construction permits. We have granted NCE radio
    station licenses to Indian tribes and to educational institutions
    operated by Indian tribes and thus, this LPFM eligibility rule
    follows current policy. We will apply the NCE criteria to Indian
    tribe applicants \-- and all applicants \-- in the same manner in
    LPFM as we have in the existing FM radio service.

## Ownership and Eligibility

### Local Ownership Restrictions

76. In the *Report and Order* we prohibited common ownership of more
    than one LPFM station in the same area and cross-ownership of *any*
    LPFM by any other broadcast station, including translator and low
    power television stations, as well as other media subject to our
    ownership rules.[^104] Lawson & Langford request that AM licensees
    be permitted to file LPFM applications, in part, they argue, because
    of the higher number of minorities that are AM station
    licensees.[^105] As discussed extensively in the *Report and
    Order*,[^106] we believe that strict ownership rules are an
    important mechanism for assuring the diversity of ownership that is
    so critical to this service. We concluded that the interest in
    bringing new voices to the airwaves would be best served by barring
    cross-ownership between LPFM licensees and existing broadcast owners
    and other media entities. We believe that the rules we have adopted
    for the LPFM service \-- *including* the strict cross ownership ban
    \-- will lead to more access by all segments of the population to
    the airwaves. We will, therefore, maintain the cross-ownership
    restrictions set forth in the *Report and Order*. [^107] As noted in
    the *Report and Order*, if a licensee of an AM station (or any other
    station) agrees to divest its interest in its license upon grant of
    the LPFM license, it may apply for an LPFM license.

77. Cohn & Marks ask us to clarify that an entity may hold both an ITFS
    license and an LPFM license. Cohn & Marks state that many
    universities and colleges hold ITFS stations, which transmit a
    signal to fixed receiving locations and may only be used to transmit
    formal educational programming offered for credit to enrolled
    students of accredited schools. We clarify that ITFS is neither a
    broadcast service nor other "media subject to our ownership rules"
    and is therefore not encompassed by the LPFM cross-ownership
    restrictions.[^108]

### National Ownership Limit

78. The Commission established a staged national ownership rule. For the
    first two years after a filing window opens, an entity may own only
    one LPFM station. After the first two years we will allow one entity
    to own up to five stations nationwide; after three years, we will
    allow an entity to own up to ten stations nationwide. The purpose of
    this staged approach is to foster diversity by initially disallowing
    common ownership of LPFM stations, but eventually permitting common
    ownership where local applicants fail to come forward.[^109] As
    noted above, since adoption of the *Report and Order* we adopted
    staggered filing windows based on geographic regions. We clarify
    that this two year limitation \-- as well as other time periods tied
    to the opening of a filing window \-- will begin to run in a
    geographic region based on the opening of that region's filing
    window.

79. *Public Safety and Transportation*. In addition to NCEs, state or
    local governments or not-for-profit organizations that operate
    public safety or emergency services[^110] are also eligible owners
    for LPFM licenses.[^111] The NYSTA requests that the Commission
    relax the national ownership rules to allow such government, public
    safety and transportation entities, such as itself, to hold multiple
    licenses.[^112] It argues that in order to disseminate traffic,
    safety, and other information over a large geographic area, these
    entities should be able to operate a string of stations along
    certain roadways. Upon reconsideration, we will allow government,
    public safety and transportation entities to apply for more than one
    license without waiting for the expiration of the two year period
    where no mutually exclusive application is filed in the same window.
    We agree that government, public safety and transportation agencies
    have separate and distinct needs from other local organizations that
    might seek LPFM licenses.[^113] However, we need to balance those
    needs with our goal of LPFM ownership diversity. We believe that
    allowing a limited exception to the ownership restrictions for
    government, public safety and transportation entities where they do
    not face competing applications strikes the right balance.

80. Thus, we will allow government, public safety and transportation
    organizations to apply for more than one license, but they must
    designate a "priority" application among those applications. The
    "priority" application will undergo the usual selection process as
    outlined in the *Report and Order* whether or not it encounters
    mutually exclusive applicants. The other applications they submit
    will be dismissed if they are mutually exclusive with any other
    applications but will be eligible for grant in the absence of
    competing applications.

81. *Schools with Multiple Campuses*. Several schools with multiple
    campuses sought clarification of the national ownership rules to
    permit the separate licensing of LPFM stations at several campuses.
    We believe the LPFM attribution exception should be expanded to
    cover separate school campuses in most cases, allowing schools to
    have LPFM stations on separate campuses notwithstanding our national
    ownership rule.[^114] For example, if several high schools in an
    area seek LPFM licenses but are all governed by a local school
    board, the high schools can assert that they are local chapters of a
    large organization and can apply for their own licenses. If multiple
    campuses of the same university apply for LPFM licenses, they too
    would be considered separate local entities under that exception.
    The same principle will apply to charter schools that are a part of
    a larger school system but seek their own licenses.

### University-Licensed Student-Run LPFM Stations

82. As noted above, in the *Report and Order*, we determined that no
    broadcaster or other media entity subject to our ownership rules, or
    any party with an attributable interest in a broadcaster or media
    entity subject to our ownership rules, could hold an attributable
    ownership interest in an LPFM licensee.[^115] Moreover, we
    restricted local ownership, allowing an entity to own only one LPFM
    station in a community.[^116] Finally, for purposes of our national
    ownership limits, an entity may own only one LPFM station during the
    first two years of LPFM service.[^117]

83. Two petitioners ask us to create an exception to these LPFM multiple
    and cross-ownership rules to allow universities that hold full-power
    FM radio licenses to obtain LPFM licenses for student-run
    stations.[^118] Specifically, petitioners contend that our LPFM
    ownership rules preclude students from operating a
    university-licensed LPFM station where the university already holds
    licenses for radio broadcast stations, including NPR affiliated
    stations. Petitioners argue that students are not permitted to
    participate in the operation of these full-power stations and that
    our LPFM ownership rules deny students the opportunity to operate
    LPFM stations.[^119] UCC supports an exception for student
    organizations cautioning the Commission "to place strict limits on
    what constitutes a student-run station," but not to "limit
    university support for student-run LPFM stations."[^120]

84. We will allow universities that hold licenses for full-power
    broadcast stations that are not student-run to apply for LPFM
    licenses for stations that would be managed and operated on a
    day-to-day basis by students, provided that they do not face any
    competing applications. We find that allowing this limited exception
    to our LPFM ownership rules will promote our goals of maximizing
    diversity of ownership in a community and providing a medium for new
    speakers, including students, to gain experience in the broadcast
    field. Accordingly, if a university's full-power station does not
    provide the university's students with a meaningful opportunity to
    participate in the management and operation of that station, we will
    allow the university to apply for a license for a student-run LFPM
    station on that campus.[^121] If a license is granted, the station
    must be managed and operated by students of the university, although
    as the licensee, the University must retain ultimate control of the
    station's operations. However, in those cases where a university
    already holds an attributable interest in a broadcast station, its
    LPFM application will be eligible for grant only if it does not face
    competing applications. If the university is a licensee and its LPFM
    application faces a competing application, the university's LPFM
    application will be dismissed.[^122] We believe this exception
    properly balances the interests of local groups in acquiring a first
    broadcast facility and of university licensees that desire to
    provide a distinct media outlet for students.

### Time Periods for the Community-Based Requirement and for the National Ownership Cap

85. In the *Report and Order*, the Commission established a two-year
    time period during which only local, community-based applicants are
    eligible, and an entity can only own one station nationwide. UCC
    asks that we extend both of these time periods in order to give more
    local groups enough time to organize and submit their
    applications.[^123]

86. We deny UCC's request that we extend the two-year time periods for
    the community-based requirement and the national cap. We considered
    UCC's concerns when we adopted the *Report and Order* and concluded
    that we struck an appropriate balance between the interests of local
    groups and the interest in insuring that the service is used fully.

87. When deciding on the two-year time period for the community-based
    requirement, we weighed our interest in putting LPFM stations into
    the hands of local and diverse entities against our interest in
    ensuring that available spectrum does not go unused. As noted above,
    we have adopted a staggered filing window approach for accepting
    LPFM applications based on geographic region. We clarify that the
    two-year period for the community-based requirement for each
    jurisdiction starts on the date of the filing window for that
    jurisdiction. Therefore, in Alaska, California, District of
    Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands,
    Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah, for which we opened a
    filing window on May 30, 2000, the two-year period began running on
    that date. In the remainder of the jurisdictions, in which LPFM
    filing windows have not yet opened, the two-year period has not yet
    begun to run. Thus, applicants in these jurisdictions that have not
    yet had a filing window will have additional time to organize and
    prepare their applications. Amherst argues that it will take longer
    than two years for groups to organize themselves and apply for
    licenses. We believe that the simplified application process we
    created for LPFM will ameliorate this concern.

88. With regard to the two-year time period for the national ownership
    cap, UCC argues that national entities do not have the "experience
    and connections with a tiny 3 or 7 mile area of a neighborhood
    necessary to serve that neighborhood."[^124] They seem to be arguing
    against allowing national entities to hold licenses at all, rather
    than arguing against the two-year time period for the national
    ownership cap. Amherst's arguments do not convince us that our
    decision to maintain a two-year time period was imprudently made.

### Foreign Ownership and Non-Stock Entities

89. Questions have arisen with respect to the application of statutory
    foreign ownership requirements to LPFM applicants and licensees. As
    we explained in the *Notice*,[^125] all low-power facilities will be
    subject to the statutory requirements of Section 310(b) of the Act,
    which limits foreign ownership and voting interests in radio station
    licenses, including broadcast licenses.[^126] Sections 310(b)(1) and
    (b)(2) prohibit the grant of a license to a foreign government or a
    representative of a foreign government; an alien or representative
    of an alien; or a corporation organized under the laws of a foreign
    government.[^127] While foreign parties may act as officers or
    directors of corporate licensees,[^128] Section 310(b)(3) prohibits
    foreign entities from owning or voting more than 20 percent of the
    capital stock of a broadcast licensee.[^129] Section 310(b)(4),
    which limits foreign ownership in parent corporations, allows us to
    deny a license application, upon a determination that denial is in
    the public interest, where more than 25 percent of the parent
    corporation's capital stock is owned or voted by foreign
    entities.[^130] The Commission has determined that Section 310(b)
    applies not only to corporate interests, but also to partnership and
    other non-corporate interests.[^131] Thus, we will apply our foreign
    ownership rules and policies on a case-by-case basis to all entities
    that are LPFM applicants and licensees, guided by Commission
    precedent.

90. We recognize that many entities that will hold LPFM licenses will be
    non-stock corporations or other non-stock entities,[^132] and that
    non-stock entities do not have "owners" in the traditional sense. As
    the Commission has explained, the specific citizenship requirements
    of Section 310(b) reflect a deliberate judgment on the part of
    Congress to prevent undue foreign influence in broadcasting.[^133]
    Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a non-stock LPFM
    applicant or licensee complies with the statutory foreign ownership
    requirements, we will first consider the citizenship of those
    individuals who would have the ability, comparable to that of a
    traditional owner, to influence or control the licensee. In making
    these determinations we will be guided by Commission precedent.

91. An applicant or licensee must directly inform us that an ownership
    structure may or does in fact exceed the foreign ownership
    benchmarks in Section 310(b) of the Act.

### Minority Broadcast Training Institutions

92. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) filed a
    supplementary pleading contending that the Commission should award
    the first LPFM licenses exclusively to minority broadcast training
    institutions (MBTIs). MMTC argues that such a provision is necessary
    to ensure that MBTIs receive licenses wherever they are available in
    order to assist them in their mission of educating minorities in
    broadcasting, to prevent discrimination, to remedy past
    discrimination and its consequences, and to promote diversity.[^134]
    We decline to grant MMTC's proposal. First, we do not believe it is
    necessary to grant MBTIs the right to receive the first wave of LPFM
    licenses in order to provide them a significant opportunity to
    participate in LPFM. Although MMTC argues that the chances of MBTIs
    winning many licenses are remote, it concedes that they would likely
    be able to earn points under our selection criteria for mutually
    exclusive applications.[^135] Thus, as long as MBTIs agree to
    time-share or, as a last resort, accept a shorter license term as
    part of a group, they will be likely to be granted a license under
    the tie-breaker procedures.[^136]

93. Second, although we agree that providing minority broadcast
    education would be a valuable use of the LPFM service, it is not the
    only valuable use. We believe our current eligibility rules will
    lead to the ownership of LPFM stations by a wide variety of groups,
    which will best promote our goals in this proceeding.

94. Finally, notwithstanding MMTC's argument that *Adarand
    Constructors v. Pena*[^137] would not apply to their proposal, we
    believe the legal issues underlying the proposal would pose a risk
    of delaying the introduction of LPFM service to the public. As we
    stated in the *Report and Order* in response to requests for
    preferences for entities controlled by minorities, the Commission is
    conducting fact-finding studies as to whether such preferences may
    be justified consistent with *Adarand*.[^138] Depending on the
    outcome of these studies, as well as our experience with LPFM, we
    will consider in the future whether to adjust our rules to
    facilitate participation of more minority-oriented organizations in
    the service.

### Unlicensed Broadcasters

95. In the *Report and Order*, we determined that unauthorized
    broadcasters would not be eligible for LPFM licenses unless they
    could certify that they (1) promptly ceased operation when directed
    by the Commission to do so if that direction was received prior to
    February 26, 1999, or (2) voluntarily ceased operation by February
    26, 1999 (within 10 days of the publication of the *Notice* in the
    *Federal Register*.)[^139] In no event will an unlicensed
    broadcaster be eligible for an LPFM license if it continued
    illegally broadcasting after February 26, 1999.[^140] Don
    Schellhardt requests that we allow unlicensed broadcasters to apply
    for LPFM licenses if: (1) the unauthorized broadcaster challenged
    the legality of an FCC order to cease operations and/or sought an
    injunction to bar the FCC from enforcing such an Order, and (2) the
    court "allowed" the unlicensed broadcaster to continue operating
    while the legal challenge was pending.[^141]

96. We reject Shellhardt's request. As discussed in the *Report and
    Order*, our rule on unlicensed broadcasters was based on our concern
    that past illegal broadcast operations reflect on the entity's
    proclivity to deal truthfully with the Commission and to comply with
    our rules and policies. We continue to believe that a party that
    continued to operate in contravention of an FCC direction to cease
    operations should not be eligible to apply for an LPFM license. Such
    a party should have ceased its illegal broadcast while pursuing any
    legal challenge to a Commission order.[^142] Any party ignoring our
    order has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the
    Commission's rules and thus should not be rewarded with an LPFM
    license. For the same reasons, we reject Schellhardt's request that
    those who flagrantly violated a Commission order to cease operating
    and "continued to broadcast while in hiding" or after losing a court
    challenge be eligible for "probationary licenses."[^143]

## Point System For Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications

97. In the *Report and Order*, the Commission created a point system to
    determine selection among mutually exclusive applications. The point
    system includes three selection criteria: (1) established community
    presence; (2) proposed operating hours; and (3) local program
    origination. The system will employ voluntary time-sharing as an
    initial tie-breaker; that is, tied applicants will have an
    opportunity to aggregate points by submitting time-share proposals.
    Successive license terms will be used as a final tie-breaker.

98. Kenneth Bowles seeks clarification of the local program origination
    point language.[^144] Under the point system, applicants that pledge
    to originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day
    will be assigned one point.[^145] In the *Report and Order* we
    defined local origination as the production of programming within 10
    miles of the proposed transmitting antenna.[^146] Bowles argues that
    this point should be broadened to include programming that "covers
    local persons and/or their activities and/or local issues."[^147] We
    agree with Bowles that our definition of locally originated
    programming should be clarified, but we find Bowles' preferred
    substitute to be too broad and difficult to enforce. In the *Report
    and Order*, we explained that the local origination criteria

> derives from the service requirements for full-service broadcast
> stations, which are required to maintain the capacity to originate
> programming from their main studios. LPFM licensees will not be
> subject to main studio requirements, and will have discretion to
> determine the origination point of their programming. As a comparative
> selection factor, local program origination can advance the
> Commission's policy goal of addressing unmet needs for
> community-oriented radio broadcasting. In this regard, we believe 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.[^148]

We believe that these goals will be better served by defining local
program origination as the production of programming *by the licensee*
within 10 miles of the proposed transmitting site. The intent behind
awarding a point for pledges to provide such programming is to encourage
licensees to maintain production facilities and a meaningful staff
presence within the community served by the station. We clarify that
this rule does not necessarily preclude an applicant from claiming a
point for local origination based on coverage of a high school away game
played more than ten miles away (an example Bowles provided), so long as
the production involves facilities located within a 10-mile radius of
the antenna. By focusing on who is producing the programming and where,
the rule does not require the Commission to evaluate the content of the
station's broadcasts to determine their local nature, as Bowles'
proposal would.

99. Black seeks reconsideration of the voluntary time-sharing
    tie-breaker, alleging that the point skews LPFM allocation against
    stations that could provide 24-hour-per-day programming.[^149] We
    understand that an applicant will have the incentive to propose
    time-sharing even if it could provide full-day programming in order
    to maximize its points and increase the likelihood it will be
    selected. Although this may result in the loss of some valuable
    programming from a particular source, it will be replaced by
    programming from a different source. We believe that the benefit of
    bringing more voices to the radio service outweighs any
    disadvantages of the time-sharing approach.

100. MMTC argues that all educational institutions should be awarded an
     extra point in order to ensure that the first wave of LPFM
     licensees is "seeded" by stable, enduring enterprises that will
     promote the success and spectrum integrity of the FM service.[^150]
     We will not change the point system to award a greater preference
     to educational institutions. Educational institutions generally
     enjoy the ability to achieve the highest comparative advantage
     available, due to their longevity, community presence, resources,
     and ability to provide significant amounts of programming and
     locally-originated programming. They are not, however, the only
     institutions with such merits. In most cases educational
     institutions will be able to receive licenses as long as they are
     willing to time-share.[^151] Although some schools might be
     reluctant to time-share or have to overcome certain internal
     procedural hurdles to do so, as MMTC argues, the same could
     probably be said of many other community institutions. Operating on
     a less than full-time basis would not necessarily significantly
     diminish their ability to contribute to the community, or, in the
     case of MBTIs, to train a significant number of broadcast
     professionals. Moreover, as discussed above, the time-sharing
     incentives will increase access by more members of the community to
     the airwaves.

## Other Issues

101. *Public File and Ownership Reporting.* We deny a request by UCC
     that we impose public file and ownership reporting requirements on
     LPFM licensees.[^152] As a general matter, we agree with UCC's
     assertion that these are important sources of citizen information
     about a station's programming, ownership, and compliance with
     Commission rules.[^153] As we have already stated in the *Report
     and Order*, however, these requirements would impose a burden that
     is out of proportion to the small noncommercial nature of the
     stations. We also continue to believe that the community-oriented
     nature of the stations' service further reduces the justification
     for such requirements. We are not swayed by UCC's argument that
     nonlocal entities, which may hold LPFM licenses after the initial
     two years of licensing, will not have an incentive to be responsive
     to their communities. The unknown extent of such nonlocal ownership
     and the nature of resulting operations do not warrant the
     imposition of a disproportionate burden on all LPFM licensees at
     this time.

102. *Low Power Advisory Committee*. We will not establish a low power
     advisory committee as suggested by the Amherst Alliance.[^154] LPFM
     broadcasters and other interested parties are free, of course, to
     form a private organization to promote LPFM, support and assist its
     members and their operations, and address technical issues with
     each other and, where appropriate, raise them with the Commission.
     Amherst Alliance has not raised a compelling reason, however, for
     governmental institution of such an organization at this time.

103. *Automatic Program Review.* We will not establish an "automatic
     program review" as also urged by the Amherst Alliance.[^155] It is
     possible that, in time, our experience with LPFM, as with any new
     service, will lead us to consider changes in our rules to enhance
     the quality of the radio service the public receives. Amherst
     specifically suggests that we plan to revisit our determinations to
     require 2^nd^ adjacent channel separations, to require "buffer
     zones" in our channel separations, and to reject low power AM
     service.[^156] They also suggest we consider authorizing 250 watt
     service in small cities and rural areas, and adjusting wattage
     ceilings in some urban environments.[^157] Although we are open to
     proposing, or considering proposals, to revise our rules after we
     have had experience with the service, we do not find it necessary
     to commit now to a review in the future.

104. *Transfers of Control -- Nonstock Entities*. In the *Report and
     Order*, we established that LPFM licenses (and licensees) cannot be
     sold or transferred to another entity. We will here clarify, in
     response to Colorado Christian University's Petition for
     Reconsideration, that the gradual change of a governing board or
     membership body to the point that a majority of its members are new
     since the authorization was granted will not, by itself, constitute
     a prohibited transfer of control. This policy is consistent with
     the Commission's practice in responding to these gradual changes in
     nonstock entities when they occur for full-power NCE
     licensees.[^158]

105. *Regulatory Flexibility.* As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
     Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et* *seq*., a Supplemental Final Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis has been completed and is attached as Appendix
     B hereto.

# CONCLUSION

106. In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we generally affirm the
     decisions we reached in the *Report and Order*. We do, however,
     clarify certain rules to provide better guidance to the public, and
     make minor revisions to improve our procedures and the quality of
     the LPFM service, and to protect stations operating radio reading
     services, while at the same time preserving the quality of full
     power FM service. We also establish a process to ensure prompt
     resolution of certain interference problems in the unlikely event
     they occur.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

107. Authority for issuance of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* is
     contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
     303(r), 403, and 405.

108. The actions taken in this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* have been
     analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and
     found to impose no new or modified reporting and record-keeping
     requirements or burdens on the public.

109. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     *Memorandum Opinion and Order* including the Supplemental Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

110. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration
     or clarification listed in Appendix E ARE GRANTED to the extent
     provided herein and otherwise ARE DENIED pursuant to Sections 4(i),
     303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405, and Section 1.429(i) of
     the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(i).

111. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of The Amherst Alliance *et
     al*. for a Decision on the Motion for Reconsideration of the
     Amherst Alliance filed June 5, 2000, and the Motion of Don
     Shellhardt *et al*. for a Decision on the Motion for
     Reconsideration of Don Schellhardt filed June 5, 2000, are to the
     extent provided herein DISMISSED as untimely and moot pursuant to
     Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,
     as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405, and Sections
     1.429(d) and (i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(d)
     and (i).

112. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as
     set forth in Appendix A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions
     of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and the Commission's rules,
     as amended in Appendix A, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after
     publication in the Federal Register.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

**Appendix A**

**Low Power FM Service Rule Modifications**

Part 73 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended
to read as follows:

# Part 73 -- Radio Broadcast Services {#part-73-radio-broadcast-services .unnumbered}

1\. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

2\. Section 73.209 is modified as follows

**§ 73.209 Protection from interference.**

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(c\) Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from
> interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or
> of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in
> Subpart G of this Part.

3\. Section 73.514 is modified, as follows

**§ 73.514 Protection from interference.**

> Permittees and licensees of NCE FM stations are not protected from
> interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or
> of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in
> Subpart G of this Part.

4\. Section 73.807 is modified as follows:

**§73.807 Minimum distance separation between stations.**

> Minimum separation requirements for LP100 and LP10 stations, as
> defined in Section 73.811 and Section 73.853 of this Part, are listed
> in the following subsections. An LPFM station will not be authorized
> unless these separations are met. 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 right-hand column lists (for informational purposes only) the
> minimum distance necessary for the LPFM station to receive no
> interference from other stations assumed to operating at the maximum
> permitted facilities for the station class. For second-adjacent
> channels and IF 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 LP100 stations,
> LP100 station applications that were timely-filed within a previous
> window, and vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations are not required to
> protect LP10 stations. 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.

+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |         | Sec          | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |         | ond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |         | Channel      | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |         | Minimum      | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |         | Separation   | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |         |              | separ  |
| LP100  |        |       | Mi    |         | (km)         | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |         | Required     | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |         |              | or     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |         |              | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | For   |         |              |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |         |              |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |         |              |        |
|        | From   |       | In    |         |              |        |
|        | Max.   |       | terfe |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | rence |         |              |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |         |              |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |         |              |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |         |              |        |
|        | Fa     |       | From  |         |              |        |
|        | cility |       | Max.  |         |              |        |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Class |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | uired |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |         |              |        |
|        |        |       | ility |         |              |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+
| LP100  | 24     | 24    | 14    | 14      | None         | None   |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| 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     |
|        |        |       |       |         |              |        |
| C      | 130    | 203   | 120   | 142     | 93           | 28     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+---------+--------------+--------+

> (a)(2) LP100 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel minimum
> distance separation requirements of subsection (a)(1) with respect to
> any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as of September 20, 2000
> (the adoption date of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*) broadcasts
> a radio reading service via a subcarrier frequency.
>
> (b)(1) An LP10 station will not be authorized 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 LP10 stations, vacant FM allotments, or LPFM
> stations.

+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |        | Se            | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |        | cond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |        | Channel       | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |        | Minimum       | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |        | Separation    | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |        |               | separ  |
| LP10   |        |       | Mi    |        | (km)          | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |        | Required      | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |        |               | or     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |        |               | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | For   |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |        |               |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | From   |       | In    |        |               |        |
|        | Max.   |       | terfe |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | rence |        |               |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |        |               |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |        |               |        |
|        | Fa     |       | From  |        |               |        |
|        | cility |       | Max.  |        |               |        |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Class |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | uired |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | ility |        |               |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| LP100  | 16     | 22    | 10    | 11     | None          | None   |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| LP10   | 13     | 13    | 8     | 8      | None          | None   |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| D      | 16     | 21    | 10    | 11     | 6             | 2      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| A      | 59     | 90    | 53    | 53     | 29            | 5      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B1     | 77     | 117   | 70    | 70     | 45            | 8      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B      | 99     | 141   | 91    | 91     | 66            | 11     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C3     | 69     | 117   | 64    | 64     | 39            | 8      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C2     | 82     | 141   | 77    | 81     | 52            | 11     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C1     | 103    | 175   | 97    | 108    | 73            | 18     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| C      | 122    | 201   | 116   | 140    | 92            | 26     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+

> (b)(2) LP10 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel minimum
> distance separation requirements of subsection (b)(1) with respect to
> any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as of September 20, 2000
> (the adoption date of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*) broadcasts
> a radio reading service via a subcarrier frequency.

\(c\) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations for
Class LP100 and Class LP10 stations in subsections (a) and (b) of this
rule section above, new LP100 and LP10 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:

\(1\) LP100 stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:

+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |        | Se            | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |        | cond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |        | Channel       | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |        | Minimum       | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |        | Separation    | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |        |               | separ  |
| LP100  |        |       | Mi    |        | (km)          | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |        | Required      | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |        |               | or     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |        |               | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | For   |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |        |               |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | From   |       | In    |        |               |        |
|        | Max.   |       | terfe |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | rence |        |               |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |        |               |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |        |               |        |
|        | Fa     |       | From  |        |               |        |
|        | cility |       | Max.  |        |               |        |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Class |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | uired |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | ility |        |               |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| A      | 80     | 111   | 70    | 70     | 42            | 9      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B1     | 95     | 128   | 82    | 82     | 53            | 11     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B      | 138    | 179   | 123   | 123    | 92            | 19     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+

\(2\) LP10 stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:

+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| S      | Co-c   |       | Firs  |        | Se            | I.F .  |
| tation | hannel |       | t-adj |        | cond-adjacent | C      |
| Class  | M      |       | acent |        | Channel       | hannel |
| Pro    | inimum |       | Ch    |        | Minimum       | m      |
| tected | Sepa   |       | annel |        | Separation    | inimum |
| by     | ration |       |       |        |               | separ  |
| LP10   |        |       | Mi    |        | (km)          | ations |
|        | (km)   |       | nimum |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Separ |        | Required      | 10.6   |
|        | For No |       | ation |        |               | or     |
|        |        |       |       |        |               | 10.8   |
|        | Interf |       | (km)  |        |               | MHz    |
|        | erence |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | For   |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | No    |        |               |        |
|        | ceived |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | From   |       | In    |        |               |        |
|        | Max.   |       | terfe |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | rence |        |               |        |
|        | Class  |       |       |        |               |        |
|        | Re     |       | Rec   |        |               |        |
|        | quired |       | eived |        |               |        |
|        | Fa     |       | From  |        |               |        |
|        | cility |       | Max.  |        |               |        |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Class |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Req   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | uired |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | Fac   |        |               |        |
|        |        |       | ility |        |               |        |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+
| A      | 72     | 108   | 66    | 66     | 42            | 8      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B1     | 84     | 125   | 78    | 78     | 53            | 9      |
|        |        |       |       |        |               |        |
| B      | 126    | 177   | 118   | 118    | 92            | 18     |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------------+--------+

# Note: Minimum distance separations towards "grandfathered" superpowered Reserved Band stations, subsections (a), (b), and (c) above : {#note-minimum-distance-separations-towards-grandfathered-superpowered-reserved-band-stations-subsections-a-b-and-c-above .unnumbered}

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.

> \(d\) \*\*\*\*\*
>
> \(e\) \*\*\*\*\*

\(f\) \*\*\*\*\*

(g*) 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 | Co       | First-   | Second-  | Third-   | Int       |
| Station  | -channel | Adjacent | Adjacent | Adjacent | ermediate |
| Class    |          | Channel  | Channel  | Channel  | Frequency |
|          | (km)     |          |          |          | (IF)      |
|          |          | (km)     | (km)     | (km)     | Channel   |
|          |          |          |          |          |           |
|          |          |          |          |          | (km)      |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| A1 &     | 45       | 30       | 21       | 20       | 4         |
|          |          |          |          |          |           |
| Low      |          |          |          |          |           |
| Power    |          |          |          |          |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 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 Mexican border, LP100 stations must meet the
    following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mexican     | Co-channel  | Fir         | Second-     | I           |
| Station     |             | st-Adjacent | /Third-     | ntermediate |
| Class       | (km)        | Channel     | Adjacent    | Frequency   |
|             |             |             | Channel     | (IF)        |
|             |             | (km)        |             | Channel     |
|             |             |             | (km)        | (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          |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

(3) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP10 stations must meet the
    following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian stations:

+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Canadian | Co       | First-   | Second-  | Third-   | Int       |
| Station  | -channel | Adjacent | Adjacent | Adjacent | ermediate |
| Class    |          | Channel  | Channel  | Channel  | Frequency |
|          | (km)     |          |          |          | (IF)      |
|          |          | (km)     | (km)     | (km)     | Channel   |
|          |          |          |          |          |           |
|          |          |          |          |          | (km)      |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| A1 &     | 33       | 25       | 20       | 19       | 3         |
|          |          |          |          |          |           |
| Low      |          |          |          |          |           |
| Power    |          |          |          |          |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| A        | 53       | 45       | 40       | 39       | 5         |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| B1       | 65       | 57       | 52       | 51       | 8         |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| B        | 79       | 71       | 67       | 66       | 11        |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| C1       | 101      | 93       | 88       | 87       | 18        |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| C        | 111      | 103      | 98       | 97       | 26        |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

(4) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP10 stations must meet the
    following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mexican     | Co-channel  | Fir         | Second-     | I           |
| Station     |             | st-Adjacent | /Third-     | ntermediate |
| Class       | (km)        | Channel     | Adjacent    | Frequency   |
|             |             |             | Channel     | (IF)        |
|             |             | (km)        |             | Channel     |
|             |             |             | (km)        | (km)        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Low Power   | 19          | 13          | 9           | 2           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| A           | 34          | 29          | 24          | 5           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| AA          | 39          | 33          | 29          | 5           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| B1          | 57          | 50          | 45          | 8           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| B           | 79          | 71          | 66          | 11          |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| C1          | 83          | 77          | 73          | 18          |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| C           | 102         | 96          | 92          | 26          |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

\(5\) \*\*\*\*\*

> \(6\) 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.

5\. Section 73.809 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.809 Interference protection to full service FM stations.**

> \(a\) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of an LPFM
> station to correct at its expense any condition of interference to the
> direct reception of the signal of any subsequently authorized
> commercial or NCE FM station that operates on the same channel,
> first-adjacent channel, second-adjacent channel or intermediate
> frequency (IF) channels as the LPFM station, where interference is
> predicted to occur and actually occurs within (1) the 3.16 mV/m (70
> dBu) contour of such stations; (2) the community of license of a
> commercial FM station; or (3) any area of the community of license of
> an NCE FM station that is predicted to receive at least a 1 mV/m (60
> dBu) signal. Predicted interference shall be calculated in accordance
> with the ratios set forth in Section 73.215(a)(1) and (2) of this
> Part. Intermediate Frequency (IF) channel interference overlap will be
> determined based upon overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50) contours of the
> FM and LPFM stations. Actual interference will be considered to occur
> whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the
> signals radiated by the LPFM station.
>
> \(b\) An LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate
> in connection with the processing of the commercial or NCE FM
> application that interference as described in subsection (a) is
> unlikely. If the LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it will be
> required to cease operations upon the commencement of program tests by
> the commercial of NCE FM station.
>
> \(c\) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to
> subsections (a) and (b) must be served on the LPFM licensee and the
> Federal Communications Commission, attention Audio Services Division.
> The LPFM station must suspend operations within twenty-four hours of
> the receipt of such complaint unless the interference has been
> resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant on the basis of
> suitable techniques. An LPFM station may only resume operations at the
> direction of the Federal Communications Commission. If the Commission
> determines that the complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station
> to apply remedial techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the
> interference without impairment of the original reception, the
> licensee of the LPFM station is absolved of further responsibility for
> the complaint.

\(d\) \*\*\*\*\*

\(e\) \*\*\*\*\*

12\. A new Section 73.810 is added as follows:

**§ 73.810. Third Adjacent Channel Complaint and License Modification
Procedure.**

(a) An LPFM station is required to provide copies of all complaints
    alleging that the signal of such LPFM station is interfering with or
    impairing the reception of the signal of a full power station to
    such affected full power station.

(b) A full power station shall review all complaints it receives, either
    directly or indirectly, from listeners regarding alleged
    interference caused by the operations of an LPFM station. Such full
    power station shall also identify those that qualify as *bona fide*
    complaints under this section and promptly provide such LPFM station
    with copies of all *bona fide* complaints. A *bona fide* complaint:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(i) is a complaint alleging third adjacent channel interference caused
    by an LPFM station that has its transmitter site located within the
    predicted 60 dBu contour of the affected full power station as such
    contour existed as of the date the LPFM station construction permit
    was granted;

(ii) must be in the form of an affidavit, and state the nature and
     location of the alleged interference;

(iii) must involve a fixed receiver located within the 60 dBu contour of
      the affected full power station and not more than one kilometer
      from the LPFM transmitter site; and

(iv) must be received by either the LPFM or full power station within
     one year of the date on which the LPFM station commenced broadcasts
     with its currently authorized facilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(c) An LPFM station will be given a reasonable opportunity to resolve
    all interference complaints. A complaint will be considered resolved
    where the complainant does not reasonably cooperate with an LPFM
    station's remedial efforts.

(d) In the event that the number of unresolved complaints plus the
    number of complaints for which the source of interference remains in
    dispute equals at least one percent of the households within one
    kilometer of the LPFM transmitter site or thirty households,
    whichever is less, the LPFM and full power stations must cooperate
    in an "on-off" test to determine whether the interference is
    traceable to the LPFM station.

(e) If the number of unresolved and disputed complaints exceeds the
    numeric threshold specified in subsection (d) following an "on-off"
    test, the full power station may request that the Commission
    initiate a proceeding to consider whether the LPFM station license
    should be modified or cancelled, which will be completed by the
    Commission within 90 days. Parties may seek extensions of the 90 day
    deadline consistent with Commission rules.

(f) An LPFM station may stay any procedures initiated pursuant to
    subsection (e) by voluntarily ceasing operations and filing an
    application for facility modification within twenty days of the
    commencement of such procedures.

Section 73.816 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.816 Antennas.**

a\) Permittees and licensees may employ nondirectional antennas with
horizontal only polarization, vertical only polarization, circular
polarization or elliptical polarization.

b\) Directional antennas will not be authorized and may not be utilized
in the LPFM service, except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section.

c\) Public safety and transportation permittees and licensees, eligible
pursuant to § 73.853(a)(ii) of this part, 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.

d\) LPFM TIS stations will be authorized as nondirectional stations. The
use of a directional antenna as provided for in subsection (c) will not
be considered in the determination of compliance with any requirements
of this part.

Section 73.825 is modified 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 Number     | Class LP100 to TV     | Class LP10 to TV      |
|                       | Channel 6 (km)        | Channel 6 (km)        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 201                   | 140                   | 136                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 202                   | 138                   | 134                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 203                   | 137                   | 133                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 204                   | 136                   | 133                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 205                   | 135                   | 132                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 206                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 207                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 208                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 209                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 210                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 211                   | 133                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 212                   | 132                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 213                   | 132                   | 131                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 214                   | 132                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 215                   | 131                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 216                   | 131                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 217                   | 131                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 218                   | 131                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 219                   | 130                   | 130                   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 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 Six.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| FM Channel Number     | Class LP100 to LPTV   | Class LP10 to LPTV    |
|                       | Channel 6 (km)        | Channel 6 (km)        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 201                   | 98                    | 93                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 202                   | 97                    | 92                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 203                   | 95                    | 91                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 204                   | 94                    | 91                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 205                   | 93                    | 90                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 206                   | 91                    | 90                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 207                   | 91                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 208                   | 91                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 209                   | 91                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 210                   | 91                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 211                   | 91                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 212                   | 90                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 213                   | 90                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 214                   | 90                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 215                   | 90                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 216                   | 89                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 217                   | 89                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 218                   | 89                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 219                   | 89                    | 89                    |
|                       |                       |                       |
| 220                   | 89                    | 88                    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

A new Section 73.827 is added, as follows

**§ 73.827 Interference to the Input Signals of FM Translator or FM
Booster Stations.**

\(a\) An authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to
operate if an FM translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the
LPFM station is causing actual interference to the FM translator or FM
booster station\'s input signal, provided that the same input signal was
in use at the time the LPFM station was authorized.

\(b\) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to
subsection (a) must be served on the LPFM licensee and the Federal
Communications Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM
station must suspend operations upon the receipt of such complaint
unless the interference has been resolved to the satisfaction of the
complainant on the basis of suitable techniques. Short test
transmissions may be made during the period of suspended operation to
check the efficacy of remedial measures. An LPFM station may only resume
full operation at the direction of the Federal Communications
Commission. If the Commission determines that the complainant has
refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial techniques that
demonstrably will eliminate the interference without impairment of the
original reception, the licensee of the LPFM station is absolved of
further responsibility for the complaint.

Section 73.854 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.854 Unlicensed operations.**

> No application for an LPFM station may be granted unless the applicant
> certifies, under penalty of perjury, to one of the following
> statements:
>
> \(a\) Neither the applicant, nor any party to the application, has
> engaged in any manner including individually or with persons, groups,
> organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any
> station in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
> as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301.
>
> \(b\) To the extent the applicant or any party to the application has
> engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons, groups,
> organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of a
> station in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
> as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, such an engagement:
>
> \(1\) ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999, if not
> previously directed by the FCC to cease operation; or
>
> \(2\) ceased operation within 24 hours of being directed by the FCC to
> terminate unlicensed operation of any station but in no event later
> than February 26, 1999.

Section 73.855 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.855 Ownership Limits**

\*\*\*

\(b\) Except as provided in subsection (b)(4) of this section,
nationwide ownership limits will be phased in according to the following
schedule:

> \(4\) Not-for-profit organizations and governmental entities with a
> public safety purpose may be granted multiple licenses only if:
>
> \(i\) one of the multiple applications is submitted as a priority
> application, and;
>
> \(ii\) the remaining non-priority applications do not face a mutually
> exclusive challenge.

Section 73.860 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.860 Cross Ownership**

**\*\*\***

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this subsection, no license
    for an LPFM station shall be granted to any party if the grant of
    such authorization will result in the same party holding an
    attributable interest in any other non-LPFM broadcast station,
    including any FM translator or low power television station, or any
    other media subject to our broadcast ownership restrictions.

\(b\) A party with an attributable interest in a broadcast radio station
must divest such interest prior to the commencement of operations of an
LPFM station in which the party also holds an interest unless such party
is a college or university that can certify that the existing broadcast
radio station is not student run. This exception applies only to parties
that;

\(i\) are accredited educational institutions, and;

> \(ii\) own attributable interest in non-student run broadcast
> stations;

(iii) apply for an authorization for an LPFM station that will be
      managed and operated on a day-to-day basis by students of the
      accredited educational institution; and

(iv) do not face competing applications for the LPFM authorization.

Section 73.870 is modified as follows:

§ 73.870 Processing of LPFM Broadcast Station applications.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) Applications subject to subsection (b) that fail to meet the
Section 73.807 minimum distance separations with respect to all
applications and facilities in existence as the date of the pertinent
Public Notice in subsection (b), other than to LPFM station facilities
proposed in applications filed in the same window, will be dismissed
without any opportunity to amend such applications.

> \* \* \* \*

Section 73.872 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually exclusive application.**

> \*\*\*

(3) Local program origination. The applicant must pledge to originate
    locally at least eight hours of programming per day. For purposes of
    this criterion, local origination is the production of programming,
    *by the licensee*, within ten miles of the coordinates of the
    proposed transmitting antenna.

Section 73.877 is modified as follows:

**§ 73.877 Station Logs for LPFM stations.**

The (a) is removed at the outset of that paragraph, although the content
of "(a)" remains, and the numbers are changed to letters.

Section 73.1660 is modified as follows:

**§73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.**

> (a)(1) An AM, FM, or TV transmitter shall be verified for compliance
> with the requirements of this part following the procedures described
> in Part 2 of the FCC rules.
>
> (a)(2) An LPFM transmitter shall be certified for compliance with the
> requirements of this part following the procedures described in Part 2
> of the FCC rules.

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

Part 74 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended
to read as follows:

# Part 74 -- Experimental Radio, Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distributional Services {#part-74-experimental-radio-auxiliary-special-broadcast-and-other-program-distributional-services .unnumbered}

1\. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:

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

2\. Section 74.1204 Subpart L in Part 74, is modified as follows:

**§74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM Translator and LP100
stations.**

> \(a\) An application for an FM translator station will not be accepted
> for filing if the proposed operation would involve overlap of
> predicted field contours with any other authorized commercial or
> noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations, FM translators, and
> Class D (secondary) noncommercial educational FM stations; or if it
> would result in new or increased overlap with an LP100 station, as set
> forth below:
>
> \(1\) \* \* \*
>
> \(2\) \* \* \*
>
> \(3\) \* \* \*
>
> \(4\) LP100 stations (Protected Contour: 1 mV/m)

+----------------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| Frequency separation | Interference contour of | Protected contour  |
|                      | proposed translator     | of                 |
|                      | station                 |                    |
|                      |                         | LP100 LPFM station |
+----------------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| Cochannel            | 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu)       | 1 mV/m (60 dBu)    |
|                      |                         |                    |
| 200 kHz              | 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)       | 1 mV/m (60 dBu)    |
+----------------------+-------------------------+--------------------+

> **Note: For the purposes of determining overlap pursuant to this
> subsection, LPFM applications and permits that have not yet been
> licensed must be considered as operating with the maximum permitted
> facilities. All LPFM TIS stations must be protected on the basis of a
> nondirectional antenna.**
>
> \* \* \* \* \*

**Appendix B**

**SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^159] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) and a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the *Report and Order*.[^160] The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
*Notice* and the *Report and Order*, including comment on the IRFA and
FRFA. No comments were received in response to the IRFA and the one
comment received in response to the FRFA is addressed below. This
present Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^161]

**Need for, and Objectives of, the *Memorandum Opinion and Order***

In the *Report and Order*, the Commission adopted a 100-watt class
(LP100) and a 10-watt class (LP10) of small radio stations. Because of
the predicted lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations
as opposed to full power facilities, the Commission expects that small
entities would be expected to have few economic obstacles to becoming
LPFM licensees. Therefore, as discussed in the *Report and Order* and
the FRFA, this new service may serve as a vehicle for small entities and
under-represented groups (including women and minorities) to gain
valuable broadcast experience and to add their voices to their local
communities. The Commission received petitions for reconsideration of
the *Report and Order* that requested reconsideration of a variety of
issues. This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* resolves those issues.

We do not change most of the determinations made in the *Report and
Order*. We do, however, adopt the following few changes. We adopt
complaint and license modification procedures to ensure that if any
unexpected, significant 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference problems are
caused by the operation of a particular LPFM station, it can be resolved
expeditiously. We modify the spacing standards adopted in the *Report
and Order* to require that LPFM stations operating on 3^rd^ adjacent
channels protect stations operating radio reading services and we
increase the flexibility of the ownership rules for certain specific
types of applicants.

**Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the FRFA**

J. Rodger Skinner (Skinner), who submitted one of the original Petitions
for Rulemaking regarding LPFM on February 5, 1998, contends in his
Comments that the *Report and Order's* FRFA analysis was flawed in
claiming that the institution of LPFM service would "create significant
opportunities for new small businesses."[^162] Skinner argues that the
rejection of commercial service, the imposition of 3^rd^ adjacent
channel separations and the refusal to include 1000 watt stations
undercut the Commission's expectation of new stations in the LPFM
service. His argument, however, that the alternative resolutions he
proposes were not considered and their rejection explained is mistaken.
Both the *Report and Order* and the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*
address each issue that he raises. In instituting this new LPFM service
and in determining the rules that will govern it, we were concerned with
the impact of our rules on small businesses, and took many steps to
ensure the availability of this service to new entities. For instance,
we adopted strict ownership limitations, made electronic filing
voluntary, and refrained from main studio requirements for LPFM
stations.[^163] At the same time, we explicitly weighed the best manner
in which to achieve our goals in protecting existing service and
creating this service against the benefits of commercial service, less
stringent interference protection and higher power limits. Skinner's
argument that small local businesses will be deprived of a potential
economical advertising outlet also is insufficient to outweigh the
reasons for our determination to make LPFM a strictly noncommercial
service.

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the rules.[^164] The RFA generally defines the term \"small
entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\"
\"small organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^165]
In addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^166] 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).[^167] A small organization is generally \"any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.\"[^168] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were
approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^169] "Small governmental
jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than 50,000."[^170] The Census Bureau estimates that
this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91
per cent) are small entities.

The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has \$5 million or
less in annual receipts as a small business.[^171] A radio broadcasting
station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural
programs by radio to the public.[^172] Included in this industry are
commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations.[^173] The
1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station
establishments produced less than \$5 million in revenue in 1992.[^174]
Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio
stations were operating in 1992.[^175] As of September 30, 1999,
Commission records indicate that 12,615 radio stations were operating,
of which 7,832 were FM stations.[^176]

The rules will apply to a new category of FM radio broadcasting service.
It is not known how many entities may seek to obtain a low power radio
license. Nor do we know how many of these entities will be small
entities. We note, however, that in the eighteen months since we issued
the *Notice*, the Commission's LPFM website has received approximately
100,000 hits, demonstrating the interest of individuals and groups in
operating such a facility. In addition, we expect that, due to the small
size of low power FM stations, small entities would generally have a
greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.

**Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements**

Most of the provisions of the *Report and Order* are unchanged by the
*Memorandum Opinion and Order*. As noted in the *Report and Order*, the
new service will require the collection of information for the purposes
of processing applications for (among other things) initial construction
permits, assignments and transfers, and renewals. We will also require
lower power radio stations to comply with some of the reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of full power radio
broadcasters.

The portions of the *Report and Order* that were altered by the
*Memorandum Opinion and Order* follow: (1) radio reading services will
be protected on the 3^rd^ adjacent channel, (2) corrections were made to
the spacing table, (3) a complaint procedure was added, (4)
transportation entities will be permitted to hold multiple stations in
certain instances, and (5) an ownership exception was created for
university-licensees of low power radio stations. We do not anticipate
that these changes will result in any changes to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of LPFM licensees.

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

The RFA requires agencies to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (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.[^177]

The Commission believes that the LPFM service is likely to create
significant opportunities for new small businesses. None of the changes
made by the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* alter that belief. This
*Memorandum Opinion and Order* alters the LPFM rules by allowing an
expedited complaint process, creating additional interference protection
for radio reading services, and increasing flexibility for specific
licensees (university and public safety entities). The Commission
believes that none of these revisions will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, in an
abundance of caution we will examine any potential impact to potential
LPFM licensees.

The Commission does not anticipate that LPFM service will cause
interference to existing stations. Due to concern expressed by parties
about potential interference, however, the Commission has adopted
complaint and license modification procedures to ensure that if any
unexpected, significant 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference problems are
caused by the operation of a particular LPFM station, they can be
resolved expeditiously. We believe this process will assist small
entities by providing resolution to problems without delays and the
potential for incurring legal and consulting expenses.

The Commission offered additional protection to the radio reading
services, pending its analysis of a Commission study conducted to assess
radio reading service's performance as compared with other receivers.
While awaiting the results of the study, the Commission will not license
LPFM stations on 3^rd^ adjacent channels to existing stations with radio
reading services. Because radio reading services provide such a valuable
service, we have modified the rules to assure that interference to radio
reading services does not occur. The only other alternative considered
would have been to leave the rules as originally drafted in the *Report
and Order*. We decided against that alternative until such a time as the
Commission can confirm that no unacceptable interference would occur.

The Commission makes a few other changes to the *Report and Order*. We
allow transportation and public safety entities to hold multiple LPFM
stations in certain instances and create an ownership exception for
university-licensees of low power radio stations. Petitioners showed the
Commission that these exceptions were merited based on the specific
circumstances of these potential licensees. The only other alternative
was to leave the rules as adopted in the *Report and Order*; to do so
would not have accounted for the beneficial service, and unique
circumstances, of particular applicants.

**Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the SBREFA.[^178] In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, including the Supplemental
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
*Memorandum Opinion and Order* and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^179]

**Appendix C**

**Filing Schedule**

The country has been divided into five groups of states accepting LPFM
applications. The FCC has accepted applications from the first and
second groups of states:

1^st^: Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
Utah

2^nd^: Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Wyoming.

The remaining three groups of states' LPFM applications are anticipated
to be accepted as follows:

3^rd^: American Samoa, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, New
York, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin (Public Notice
October 2000; filing window: November 2000)

4^th^: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia (Public
Notice January 2001; filing window: February 2001)

5^th^: Alabama, Arkansas, Guam, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington (Public
Notice April 2001; filing window: May 2001)

**Appendix D**

### Existing Stations With Radio Reading Services[^180] {#existing-stations-with-radio-reading-services .unnumbered}

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| [Call Sign]{.underline}  | ## [Licensee City, State]{.unde           |
|                          | rline} {#licensee-city-state .unnumbered} |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KANU-FM                  | Lawrence, KS                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KANZ-FM                  | Garden City, KS                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KAPC-FM                  | Butte, MT                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KAUS-FM\*                | Austin, MN                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KAXE-FM                  | Grand Rapids, MN                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KBHE-FM\*                | Rapid City, SD                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KBPR-FM                  | Brainerd, MN                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KBSX-FM                  | Boise, ID                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCCM-FM\*                | Moorhead, MN                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCHO-FM                  | Chico, CA                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCND-FM                  | Bismarck, ND                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCRB-FM\*                | Bemidji, MN                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCSD-FM\*                | Sioux Falls, SD                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCSM-FM                  | San Mateo, CA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KCUR-FM                  | Kansas City, MO                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KDPR-FM                  | Dickinson, ND                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KDSD-FM\*                | Pierpont, SD                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KERA-FM                  | Dallas, TX                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KESD-FM\*                | Brookings, SD                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KFAE-FM                  | Richland, WA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KFJM-FM\*                | Grand Forks, ND                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KGAC-FM\*                | St. Peter, MN                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KGNU-FM                  | Boulder, CO                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KGPR-FM                  | Great Falls, MT                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KHCC-FM                  | Hutchinson, KS                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KHKE-FM                  | Ceder Falls, IA                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KHPR-FM                  | Honolulu, HI                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KIOS-FM                  | Omaha, NE                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KJJK-FM\*                | Fergus Falls, MN                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KJZZ-FM                  | Phoenix, AZ                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KLCD-FM\*                | Decorah, IA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KLSE-FM\*                | Rochester, MN                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KMPR-FM                  | Minot, ND                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KMUW-FM                  | Wichita, KS                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KNAA-FM                  | Show Low, AZ                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KNAQ-FM                  | Flagstaff, AZ                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KNAU-FM                  | Flagstaff, AZ                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KNOW-FM                  | St. Paul, MN                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KNPR-FM                  | Las Vegas, NV                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KOPB-FM                  | Portland, OR                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPBS-FM                  | San Diego, CA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPBX-FM                  | Spokane, WA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPPR-FM                  | Williston, ND                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPRJ-FM                  | Jamestown, ND                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPSD-FM\*                | Faith, SD                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KPUB-FM                  | Prescott, AZ                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KQMN-FM\*                | Thief River Falls, MN                     |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KQSD-FM\*                | Lowry, SD                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRCC-FM                  | Colorado Springs, CO                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRIC-FM                  | Rexburg, ID                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRNW-FM                  | Chillicothe, MO                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRPS-FM                  | Pittsburg, KS                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRSU-FM\*                | Appleton, MN                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KRSW-FM                  | Worthington-Marshall, MN                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KSJR-FM\*                | Collegeville, MN                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KSKA-FM                  | Anchorage, AK                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KSUI-FM                  | Iowa City, IA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KTEP-FM                  | El Paso, TX                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KTPR-FM                  | Fort Dodge, IA                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KTSD-FM\*                | Reliance, SD                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUAC-FM                  | Fairbanks, AK                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUAT-FM                  | Tucson, AZ                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUCV-FM                  | Lincoln, NE                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUFM-FM                  | Missoula, MT                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUFN-FM                  | Hamilton, MT                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUHF-FM                  | Houston, TX                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUHM-FM                  | Helena, MT                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUKL-FM                  | Kalispell, MT                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUND-FM                  | Grand Forks, ND                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUOW-FM                  | Seattle, WA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUSD-FM                  | Vermillion, SD                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUSU-FM                  | Logan, UT                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KUT-FM                   | Austin, TX                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KVCR-FM                  | San Bernardino, CA                        |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| KXCV-FM                  | Maryville, MO                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WABE-FM                  | Atlanta, GA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WABR-FM                  | Tifton, GA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WACG-FM                  | Augusta, GA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WAMC-FM                  | Albany, NY                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WATD-FM\*                | Marshfield, MA                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBCL-FM\*                | Ft. Wayne, IN                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBEZ-FM                  | Chicago, IL                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBHM-FM                  | Birmingham, AL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBLU-FM                  | Grand Rapids, MI                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBLV-FM                  | Twin Lake, MI                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WBRU-FM\*                | Providence, RI                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WCBU-FM                  | Peoria, IL                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WCNY-FM                  | Syracuse, NY                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WCPN-FM                  | Cleveland, OH                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WCVE-FM                  | Richmond, VA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDAQ-FM\*                | Danbury, CT                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDCO-FM                  | Cochran, GA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDET-FM                  | Detroit, MI                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDPG-FM\*                | Greenville, OH                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDPR-FM\*                | West Carrollton, OH                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WDUQ-FM                  | Pittsburgh, PA                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WEPR-FM                  | Greenville, SC                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WERS-FM\*                | Boston, MA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WESM-FM                  | Princess Anne, MD                         |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WETA-FM                  | Washington, DC                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFAE-FM                  | Charlotte, NC                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFAL-FM                  | Falmouth, MA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFCR-FM                  | Amherst, MA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFDD-FM                  | Winston-Salem, NC                         |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFSS-FM                  | Fayetteville, NC                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFSU-FM                  | Tallahassee, FL                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WFYI-FM                  | Indianapolis, IN                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WGCU-FM                  | Fort Myers, FL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WGGL-FM\*                | Houghton, MI                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WGTE-FM                  | Toledo, OH                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WGUC-FM                  | Cincinnati, OH                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHAI-FM\*                | Greenfield, MA                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHIL-FM                  | Mobile, AL                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHMC-FM                  | Conway, SC                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHQR-FM                  | Wilmington, NC                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHRV-FM                  | Norfolk, VA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHUS-FM\*                | Storrs, CT                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WHYY-FM                  | Philadelphia, PA                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WICN-FM                  | Worcester, MA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WIGH-FM\*                | Lexington, TN                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WIPA-FM                  | Pittsfield, IL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WIRR-FM\*                | Virginia-Hibbing, MN                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WITF-FM                  | Harrisburg, PA                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WIUM-FM                  | Macomb, IL                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WIUW-FM                  | Warsaw, IL                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJCT-FM                  | Jacksonville, FL                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJFF-FM\*                | Jeffersonville, NY                        |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJMJ-FM^\*^              | Hartford, CT                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJSP-FM                  | Warm Springs, GA                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJWV-FM                  | Fort Gaines, GA                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WJWJ-FM                  | Beaufort, SC                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WKAR-FM                  | East Lansing, MI                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WKCR-FM\*                | New York, NY                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WKSB-FM\*                | Williamsport, PA                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WLCA-FM\*                | Godfrey, IL                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WLJK-FM                  | Aiken, SC                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WLRH-FM                  | Huntsville, AL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WLRN-FM                  | Miami, FL                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WLTR-FM                  | Columbia, SC                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAB-FM                  | Mississippi State, MS                     |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAE-FM                  | Booneville, MS                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAH-FM                  | Biloxi, MS                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAO-FM                  | Greenwood, MS                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAU-FM                  | Bude, MS                                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAV-FM                  | Oxford, MS                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMAW-FM                  | Meridian, MS                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMFE-FM                  | Orlando, FL                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMHT-FM                  | Schenectady, NY                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMJQ-FM\*                | Buffalo, NY                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMPN-FM                  | Jackson, MS                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WMRA-FM                  | Harrisonburg, VA                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNCW-FM                  | Spindale, NC                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNGU-FM                  | Dahlonega, GA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNHU-FM\*                | West Haven, CT                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNIJ-FM                  | Rockford, IL                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNIN-FM                  | Evansville, IN                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNSC-FM                  | Rock Hill, SC                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WNXT-FM\*                | Portsmouth, OH                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WODE-FM\*                | Easton, PA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WOI-AM                   | Ames, IA                                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WOI-FM                   | Ames, IA                                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WOSU-FM                  | Columbus, OH                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WPKN-FM\*                | Bridgeport, CT                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WPPR-FM                  | Demorest, GA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WQCS-FM                  | Fort Pierce, FL                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WQUB-FM                  | Quincy, IL                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WRBH-FM\*                | New Orleans, LA                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WRJA-FM                  | Sumter, SC                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WRHV-FM                  | Poughkeepsie, NY                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WSCD-FM\*                | Duluth, MN                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WSCI-FM                  | Charleston, SC                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WSIU-FM                  | Carbondale, IL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WSLU-FM                  | Canton, NY                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WSVH-FM                  | Savannah, GA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WTEB-FM                  | New Bern, NC                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WTHN-FM\*                | Ellenville, NY                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WTSU-FM                  | Montgomery/Troy, AL                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUAL-FM                  | Tuscaloosa, AL                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUFT-FM                  | Gainesville, FL                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUGA-FM                  | Athens, GA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUIS-FM                  | Springfield, IL                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUKY-FM                  | Lexington, KY                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUNC-FM                  | Chapel Hill, NC                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUNV-FM                  | Albany, GA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WUSF-FM                  | Tampa, FL                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVIA-FM                  | Scranton, PA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVIK-FM                  | Rock Island, IL                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVLC-FM\*                | Mannsville, KY                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVTF-FM                  | Roanoke, VA                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVTR-FM                  | Marion, VA                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVTU-FM                  | Charlottesville, VA                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WVTW-FM                  | Charlottesville, VA                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WWET-FM                  | Valdosta, GA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WWGC-FM                  | Carrolton, GA                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WXVS-FM                  | Waycross, GA                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WXXI-FM                  | Rochester, NY                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WYMS-FM\*                | Milwaukee, WI                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WYPL-FM\*                | Memphis, TN                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WYSU-FM                  | Youngstown, OH                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WZIP-FM\*                | Akron, OH                                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| WZRU-FM                  | Roanoke Rapids, NC                        |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc531749333 .anchor}Appendix E

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc531749334 .anchor}Petitioners in the Creation of
Low Power FM Radio Station

\"Report & Order\"

**MM 99-25**

***Petition for Reconsideration:***

1.  Amherst Alliance

2.  Black, David S.

3.  Bowles, Kenneth W.

4.  Camarillo, Michael

5.  Colorado Christian University

6.  Fox, Craig L.

7.  Jurison, Alan W.

8.  Lawson, James W. and Larry Langford, Jr.

9.  Lohnes and Culver

10. Minority Media and Telecommunications Council

11. National Public Radio, Inc.

12. National Translator Association

13. New York State Thruway Authority

14. Schellhardt, Don

15. Skinner, Rodger

16. TRA Communications Consultants, Inc.

17. United Church of Christ, et al. (UCC)

***Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration:***

18. National Public Radio

19. United Church of Christ et al. (UCC)

***Reply to Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration:***

1\. National Public Radio

[^1]: *Report and Order*, MM Docket No. 99-25, 15 FCC Rcd 2205 (2000).

[^2]: Hereinafter the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*. The list of
    petitioners is attached at Appendix E.

[^3]: Both Amherst Alliance and Don Schellhardt filed Motions for a
    Decision on their respective reconsideration petitions, urging the
    Commission to act on their reconsideration petitions before issuing
    licenses. We dismiss these motions as moot. To the extent the
    motions raise new arguments, we dismiss them as untimely filed
    Petitions for Reconsideration.

[^4]: We are accepting applications for LP100 stations on a
    geographically staggered basis. *See* Appendix C for the filing
    window schedule. The initial filing window for the first region
    closed June 8, 2000. The initial filing window for the fifth, and
    last, region is expected to be opened in May 2001.

[^5]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2206, ¶ 2.

[^6]: For example, the 3^rd^ adjacent channels to an FM station
    operating on 97.1 MHz are at 97.7 MHz and 96.5 MHz.

[^7]: The NPRM was adopted on January 28, 1999 in response to petitions
    for rulemaking and related comments indicating substantial interest
    in, and public support for, increased citizen access to the
    airwaves. After issuance of the NPRM, we received comments and
    letters from thousands of groups and individuals seeking license for
    new radio stations. These comments -- from churches or other
    religious organizations, students, labor unions, community
    organizations and activists, musicians, and other citizens --
    reflect a broad interest in service from highly local radio stations
    strongly grounded in their communities.

[^8]: The NLG study was funded by NLG, UCC and several others.

[^9]: *See* *Second and Third Adjacent Interference Study of FM
    Broadcast Receivers*, OET Report FCC/OET TRB-99-1, prepared by
    William H. Inglis and David L. Means, July 1999.

[^10]: NPR Petition at 4.

[^11]: We do, however, as discussed in detail below, ¶¶57-67, adopt a
    3^rd^ adjacent channel complaint and license modification procedure
    that will better protect stations from unacceptable 3^rd^ adjacent
    channel interference.

[^12]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2245-46, ¶¶ 101-103.

[^13]: The existing FM interference protections, which are provided
    through spacing standards, are based on the following ratios: 20 dB
    co-channel D/U; 6 dB 1^st^ adjacent channel D/U; -40 dB 2^nd^
    adjacent channel D/U for commercial FM stations and --20dB for
    noncommercial stations operating in the reserved FM band; -40 dB
    3^rd^ adjacent channel D/U. Receivers with the ability to reject
    interference at these ratios could be expected to provide
    interference free service within a station's 60 dBu contour service
    area. (Such radios might not, however, be able to receive service at
    all locations within that contour if they did not have sufficient
    sensitivity to receive signals at the 60 dBu level even in the
    absence of any interference.) Receivers with lower capabilities
    might experience interference within a station's service area, while
    those with higher capabilities might be able to reject interference
    at greater distances.

[^14]: *See* National Association of Broadcasters, "Subjective
    Evaluation of Audio Degraded by Noise and Undesired FM Signals,"
    Laurence C. Middlekamp, November 17, 1982.

[^15]: *See* OET Study at 3. In addition, we did perform additional
    measurements on two "Walkman" type and two other radios (a clock
    radio and a portable "boom-box" unit) with integral antennas at our
    Laboratory. These tests were performed using a GTEM cell that does
    not require the radio under test to be modified. One of the radios
    tested was supplied by CEMA and was included in its testing. Our
    test of this radio produced results similar to those found by CEMA,
    confirming the NPR/CEMA results for that radio. However, our tests
    did find that this radio performed somewhat better than reported
    with the DX/LO switch in the opposite position from that tested by
    CEMA.

[^16]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2245-46, ¶¶101-102.

[^17]: NPR indicates that to help clarify the interference issues, it is
    conducting field tests that it expected to complete by July. To
    date, we have not received the results of NPR's field testing.

[^18]: The Commission's concerns regarding interference to digital
    operations were also resolved based on the record in the proceeding.
    *See* ¶ 55-56.

[^19]: We continue to believe that the principal issue is receiver
    performance, i.e. the ability of modern FM radios to reject unwanted
    3^rd^ adjacent channel signals. Laboratory tests allow examination
    of individual receiver performance under controlled conditions. This
    permits precise control of both desired and interfering signals so
    that the interference performance of individual receivers can be
    accurately determined. Field testing, on the other hand, is
    generally used to confirm models or estimates of how both desired
    and interfering signals propagate to individual locations. For
    example, in the case of FM radio, estimates of desired field
    strength are based on the F(50, 50) field strength chart contained
    in Section 73.333 of the rules, 47 CFR § 73.333, while estimates of
    interference are based on the F(50, 10) field strength chart in that
    Section. These charts shows the distances from their respective
    transmitters at which the desired signal strength is predicted to
    exceed a given level at 50 percent of the locations 50 percent of
    the time and at which the interfering signal strength is predicted
    to exceed a given level at 50 percent of the locations 10 percent of
    the time. In simple terms, this approach assumes that the desired
    signal is at an average level while the interfering signal is at a
    much stronger level, i.e., a "worse case" interference situation.
    These propagation and interference models have been used for many
    years for the FM radio and other services, and are independent of
    receiver performance. No questions have been raised by any of the
    parties in this proceeding regarding the propagation and
    interference models used for FM radio. Further, it is unclear as to
    what additional information, if any, field tests, would reveal about
    receiver performance, which is the principal technical issue in this
    matter affecting 3^rd^ adjacent channel interference. Field test
    data, in our opinion, would merely assess the accuracy of our
    propagation predictions, rather than reveal information on receiver
    performance.

[^20]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2206-07, ¶¶ 2 - 3.

[^21]: For informational purposes, Section 73.807 provides minimum
    distance separations necessary for an LPFM station to receive no
    interference from the various classes of FM stations. 47 C.F.R. §
    73.807.

[^22]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2206 ¶ 2.

[^23]: *Id.* at 2245-46, ¶¶ 102 -- 104.

[^24]: Stations on noncommercial reserved FM channels (channels 201-220,
    in the band 88-92 MHz) are authorized based on contour overlap,
    rather than the minimum spacing standards used for commercial
    stations. *See* section 73.509 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.509. The
    contour overlap standards for noncommercial stations are the same as
    the D/U ratios on which the spacing standards for commercial
    stations are based, with one exception. The exception is that the
    D/U ratio for 2^nd^ adjacent channel protection for noncommercial
    stations is --20 dB, whereas the 2^nd^ adjacent channel spacing
    standard for commercial stations is based on the less stringent D/U
    ratio of --40 dB.

[^25]: *See* Report and Order in MM Docket No. 95-31 (Reexamination of
    the Competitive Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants),
    FCC 00-120 (released April 24, 2000), at ¶¶ 114-115. In that action,
    we indicated that, in addition to considering interference from TV
    Channel 6 (radio only) and foreign stations (radio only), we would
    also provide a needs test for future rule making requests that ask
    that non-reserved channels not already in the FM or TV Table of
    Allotments be added and reserved for noncommercial educational use.
    Under this test the noncommercial educational proponent would have
    to demonstrate that the need for a noncommercial educational station
    is greater than the need for a commercial station.

[^26]: A partial list of existing stations operating radio reading
    services is set forth in Appendix D. This information was provided
    by National Public Radio and the International Association of Audio
    Information Services.

[^27]: *See* Appendix D to Rappaport study.

[^28]: Black Petition at 1.

[^29]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2206, ¶ 2, at 2209, ¶ 6, at
    2230, ¶¶ 62-63, at 2282, ¶ 198.

[^30]: Amherst Alliance Petition at 7.

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.1203(a)(3).

[^32]: On reconsideration, we are expanding this protection to include
    the community of license of commercial FM stations and the community
    of license of NCE FM stations provided that community is within the
    station's 60 dBu contour. *See* ¶ 52.

[^33]: "In most cases, these standards will be met through the use of
    certified equipment without need for further adjustment by the LPFM
    licensee. LPFM stations will be required to adhere to the 200 kHz
    channel bandwidth applicable to full service stations, as well as
    the out-of-channel signal attenuation requirements in 47 C.F.R. §
    73.317 \[via reference in § 73.508\], the center frequency drift
    limits in 47 C.F.R. 73.1545(b), and the limits on modulation in 47
    C.F.R. § 73.1570 (a) and (b)." *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    2248, ¶109. In this regard, we note that one of the rules modified
    in the *Report and Order*, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1660, inadvertently
    specified verification rather than certification procedures for LPFM
    stations. We are correcting the rules accordingly to correspond to
    our decisions in the *Report and Order*.

[^34]: Fox Petition.

[^35]: *See Public Notice* entitled "FCC Announces Five-Stage National
    Filing Window for Low Power FM Broadcast Station Applications,"
    released March 17, 2000, DA 00-621. *See also* the discussion in ¶
    52 of this *Memorandum Opinion & Order*.

[^36]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2256-57, ¶¶ 130-133.

[^37]: Amherst Alliance Petition at 11-15.

[^38]: *Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 98‑43, 13 FCC Rcd. 23056
    (1998); *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in MM Docket No. 98‑43, 14
    FCC Rcd. 17525 (1999).

[^39]: NPR Petition at 16-17.

[^40]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2249, ¶ 113.

[^41]: *Id.* at 2233-34, ¶¶ 70-71.

[^42]: NPR Petition at 17-19

[^43]: *See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning FM Translator Stations,* 5 FCC Rcd at 7219, ¶ 48 (1990).

[^44]: NPR Petition at 21; NTA Petition at 3 .

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1203(a)(2).

[^46]: ^.^

[^47]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2249-50, ¶ 114.

[^48]: ^.^

[^49]: The current distance requirements listed in § 73.825 are premised
    upon a TV Channel 6 station operating with 100 kW ERP at 610 meters
    HAAT and the interference ratios proscribed by 47 C.F.R. § 73.525.
    However, these requirements overstated the potential for
    interference created by LP10 and LP100 stations. Accordingly, we are
    amending § 73.825 to eliminate this discrepancy. The requirements we
    are adopting for Class A TV, LPTV and television translator
    protection are based upon these stations operating with 3 kW ERP at
    610 meters HAAT and the appropriate ratios of § 73.525 and are thus
    much less restrictive than the requirements for protection of full
    service TV Channel 6 stations

[^50]: "And, if the distances involved are below one mile, it is
    necessary to use the free space equation to determine the signal
    strength of the undesired signal. The free space equation which we
    use is derived from 'Radio Propagation at Frequencies above 30
    Megacycles,' by Kenneth Bullington, Proceeding of the I.R.E., page
    1122, October 1947. After taking into account the fact that FM
    broadcast antenna effective radiated power is referenced to
    half-wave dipole, rather than an isotropic antenna, we have:

    Distance (feet) = [23 Square Root (effective radiated power in
    watts)]{.underline} Field Strength (V/m)"

    *In re Application of City College of New York,* 47 RR 2d 1095
    (1980).

[^51]: When conducting our review of the minimum separation requirements
    within the Canadian border zone we became aware of a miscalculation
    in the requirements with respect to co- and 1^st^- adjacent channel
    Canadian Class C stations. Accordingly we are modifying 73.807(g)(1)
    and (g)(3) to reflect the correct values. Additionally, we are
    clarifying 73.807(g)(6) to acknowledge the Commission's
    responsibility to coordinate with the appropriate government in all
    cases where such coordination is necessary to maintain compliance
    with existing international agreements.

[^52]: The Treaties between the United States and Canada and the United
    States and Mexico refer to secondary facilities as "Low Power FM
    Stations." Low power FM Stations are authorized on a secondary basis
    in both Canada and Mexico, just as FM Translator stations are
    authorized in the United States.

[^53]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2248, ¶ 108.

[^54]: NYSTA Petition at 2-4; Lohnes and Culver Petition at 2.

[^55]: These requirements, given in 47 C.F.R. § 73.316, include the
    submission of measurements of directional antenna relative field
    patterns to ensure the accuracy of radiated emissions. The
    determination and verification of directional antenna radiation
    characteristics can be exceedingly complicated, particularly for
    composite antenna systems comprised of multiple antennas.

[^56]: NYSTA Petition at 1-3.

[^57]: Lohnes and Culver Petition at 3.

[^58]: To enable such systems in the FM radio band, we are also
    providing a conditional exemption to government, public safety and
    transportation organizations to apply for multiple LPFM station
    licenses. *See* the discussion of National Ownership Limit at ¶ 77.

[^59]: Applicants for LPFM construction permits are not required to
    specify antenna information on FCC Form 318.

[^60]: The 1 mV/m contour for Class A, C3, C2, C1 and C stations; the .7
    mV/m contour for Class B1 stations; and the .5 mV/m contour for
    Class B stations.

[^61]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2233, ¶ 70.

[^62]: *Id.* at 2231-32, ¶¶ 65-67.

[^63]: Jurison Petition at 3; NPR Petition at 6.

[^64]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.209(c) (*Protection from interference);* §
    73.514 (*Protection from interference);* and § 73.809 (*Interference
    Protection for full service FM stations).*

[^65]: We wish to clarify 47 C.F.R. § 73.809 as it relates to
    determining interference caused by LPFM stations to full service
    stations operating on IF frequency channels. That section states
    that interference will be shown by demonstrating contour overlap
    based upon the interference ratios of 47 C.F.R. § 73.215. However, §
    73.215 does not apply to IF frequency channel stations. Accordingly,
    we are amending § 73.809 to state that IF frequency channel
    interference will be determined via overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50)
    (36 mV/m) contours. This contour was utilized to calculate the LPFM
    IF frequency channel spacing requirements.

[^66]: *See In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Streamlining of Radio Technical rules in parts 73 and 74 of the
    Commission's Rules,* (13 FCC Rcd 14849, 14875-76, ¶¶ 57-58 (1998)).

[^67]: *See John R. Hughes*, 50 Fed. Reg. 5679 (1985).

[^68]: NPR Petition at 9.

[^69]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2228, ¶ 58.

[^70]: NPR Petition at 10.

[^71]: "Superpowered" FM stations have been authorized to operate with
    facilities that exceed the ERP/HAAT limitations of §73.211 or
    §73.511 for their specific class of station.

[^72]: Jurison Petition at 2-3.

[^73]: All full service stations operating in the non-reserved band,
    regardless of facilities, must be protected under the provisions of
    47 C.F.R. § 73.207 (distance separations based upon maximum class
    facilities) or § 73.215 (lesser separation requirements based upon
    the lack of contour overlap with maximum class facilities).

[^74]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.509.

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.807.

[^76]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at n.145.

[^77]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2241, ¶ 93.

[^78]: NPR Petition at 25.

[^79]: *See* discussion in ¶ 5-18.

[^80]: NPR Petition at 13.

[^81]: *Id*.

[^82]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2282, ¶ 64.

[^83]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1203.

[^84]: Predicted 60 dBu contours must be calculated in accordance with
    47 C.F.R. § 73.313(a).

[^85]: That contour, which encompasses the area that would have been
    protected had a 3^rd^ adjacent channel distance separation
    requirement been applied to LPFM stations, will bound the complaint
    area. With regard to LPFM protection of subsequently modified,
    upgraded, or new full-service FM stations, we will conform 3^rd^
    adjacent channel protection responsibilities to the generally
    applicable provisions in ¶ 66 of the *Report and Order* and as
    codified in 47 C.F.R. § 73.809. In this manner, operating LPFM
    stations will be permitted to interfere within the 60 dBu contour of
    a new or subsequently modified FM station, but not within such a
    station's 70 dBu "city grade" signal contour or principal community
    of license, as applicable (*see* discussion of service area issues,
    above).

[^86]: Under the Commission's interference methodology for FM stations,
    3^rd^ adjacent channel interference is predicted where the undesired
    signal is more than 40 dB stronger than the desired signal level ,
    *e.g.,* where the 3^rd^ adjacent channel station's 100 dBu contour
    overlaps the desired signal level. *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 73.509.
    The predicted 100 dBu contour of an LPFM station operating at
    maximum facilities would extend slightly less than one kilometer
    from the LPFM's transmitter site.

[^87]: Because of these complexities, the Commission generally does not
    hold an FM radio station responsible for alleviating interference
    problems caused to mobile receivers.

[^88]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.318.

[^89]: The exact number of complaints necessary to satisfy this
    one-percent threshold can only be calculated on the basis of a
    specific antenna location of an allegedly interfering LPFM station.
    Assuming uniform population distribution within a community of
    license, the number of complaints necessary to reach this threshold
    would be, for example, approximately 19 in Charlottesville,
    Virginia, 29 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and 12 in Frederick,
    Maryland. As noted above, in no event would this procedure require
    more than 30 *bona fide* complaints.

[^90]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2211, ¶ 11.

[^91]: Skinner Petition at 7.

[^92]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2211, ¶ 12.

[^93]: *Id.* at 2233, ¶ 70.

[^94]: *In re Revision of FM Broadcast Rules*, 21 RR 1655 ¶ 7 (1961);
    *In re Revision of FM Broadcast Rules*, 23 RR 1859, ¶ 19-20 (1963);
    *In re Changes in the Rules Relating to Noncommercial Educational FM
    Broadcast* *Stations*, 69 FCC 2d 240, ¶ 23-24 (1978).

[^95]: In the past, we have declined to authorize low power FM radio
    broadcast stations because of our concern that they would \"preclude
    the establishment of more efficient, stable, full powered
    stations.\" *Dunifer*, 11 FCC Rcd 718, ¶ 15 (1995). At this time,
    however, we are creating an LPFM service that is designed to allow
    small stations to operate where full powered stations cannot.
    Moreover, we have adopted rules to ensure that the operation of LPFM
    stations does not undermine the technical integrity of the existing
    FM radio service.

[^96]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2211, ¶ 11 (emphasis added).

[^97]: The 1996 Act eliminated the Commission's national ownership
    limits and relaxed the local radio ownership limits. In response,
    the radio industry has consolidated ownership during the past four
    years, with the number of radio owners declining by approximately
    1000. In 1996, the largest radio group owner had fewer than 40 radio
    stations nationwide. In March 2000, the two largest radio group
    owners each have over 440 radio stations, and there are several
    radio owners with more than 100 radio stations. Approximately
    two-thirds of all commercial radio stations are owned as a part of
    radio groups. *FCC Staff Analysis of BIA Master Access*, BIA
    research, Inc., March 2000.

[^98]: Skinner Petition at 7.

[^99]: *Report and Order* at 2213, ¶ 17.

[^100]: Amherst Alliance Petition at 9-11.

[^101]: *Report and Order,* at 2213-14, ¶¶ 17-20.

[^102]: *Id*. at 2214, ¶ 20 ("it is not necessary that the proposed
    programming be exclusively educational," citing *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, In re Application of Lower Cape Communications, Inc.,
    FCC 80-453, 47 RR 2d 1577, 1579 (1980)).

[^103]: *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, In the Matter of
    Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial
    Educational Applicants, 13 FCC Rcd 21167, 21168 (n.2) (1998).

[^104]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2216-18, ¶ 26-30.

[^105]: Lawson & Langford Petition at 3.

[^106]: *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 2217-18, ¶¶ 29-30.

[^107]: Lawson & Langford alternatively request that AM stations be
    allowed to provide programming and other support to LPFM stations.
    This would only be permissible if it did not violate the ban on
    rebroadcasting or other rules, such as the restriction of LPFM to
    noncommercial, educational service.

[^108]: The Commission has maintained that ITFS licensees are not
    broadcasters for the purposes of regulation. 47 U.S.C. § 153(o).

[^109]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2222, ¶ 39.

[^110]: These eligible services are defined in Section 309(j)(2)(A) of
    the Communications Act as "public safety radio services, including
    private internal radio services used by State and local governments
    and non-government entities and including emergency road services
    provided by not-for-profit organizations, that -- (i) are used to
    protect the safety of life, health, or property; and (ii) are not
    made commercially available to the public." 47 U.S.C. §
    309(j)(2)(A).

[^111]: NPR argues that the Commission authorized LPFM "travel advisory
    services" without consideration of the technical and feasibility
    issues relevant to such a service. NPR Petition at 6. These entities
    will have to comply with the technical rules applicable to all LPFM
    licenses; thus, we have no reason to believe this use of the service
    will cause technical difficulties. As to feasibility issues, we
    trust that the entities themselves can best determine whether LPFM
    licenses will serve their needs.

[^112]: NYSTA Petition at 4 and 6 (seeking relaxation of 10-station
    national cap as well as 2-year 1-station national cap and phase-in
    caps).

[^113]: NYSTA Petition at 7.

[^114]: This LPFM exception is inapplicable to full service NCE
    stations, for which there are no national ownership limits. Schools
    with multiple campuses applying for full service NCE stations are
    directed to the definition of attribution and the selection
    standards in 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000 and § 73.7003. *Report and Order*,
    15 FCC Rcd at 2225, ¶ 50.

[^115]: *Id.* at 2217, ¶ 29.

[^116]: *Id.* at 2223, ¶ 44. We use the term "community" to refer to the
    very small area and population group that makes up a station's
    potential service area and audience. *Id*. For purposes of the LPFM
    local ownership rules, we require that no entity own or have an
    attributable interest in two or more LPFM stations located within
    seven miles of each other. *Id*.

[^117]: *Id.* at 2222, ¶ 39. While we will disallow common ownership of
    LPFM stations for the first two years of LPFM service, we will
    permit multiple ownership of LPFM stations nationally, up to a
    maximum of 10 LPFM stations over a phased-in period, to bring into
    use whatever low power stations remain available but unapplied for.
    *Id.*

[^118]: Black Petition; *Petition for Reconsideration* of Michael
    Camarillo, on Behalf of KAMP Student Radio of the University of
    Arizona (Camarillo Petition).

[^119]: Black argues that because the Board of Regents for the
    University of Wisconsin holds licenses for campus stations and NPR
    affiliates at various campuses in the University of Wisconsin
    system, our ownership rules "disenfranchise" those students who
    would like to obtain an LPFM license for the Madison campus. Black
    Petition at 1-2. Black states that the Madison campus has a
    constituency of more than 40,000 students, and the capability and
    resources to operate a student-run LPFM station 24 hours per day,
    seven days per week. *Id*. at 1. Another petitioner, Camarillo,
    states that KAMP Student Radio is ineligible under our ownership
    rules for an LPFM license because the "Arizona Board of Regents
    holds several operating licenses in the state and three of the Board
    of Regent's NPR licenses are located at the University of Arizona."
    Camarillo Petition at 1. According to Camarillo, the NPR station at
    the Tucson campus "is not a student-run organization, and students
    attending the university do not benefit from its operation by being
    able to express themselves over the station airwaves." *Id*.

[^120]: UCC Opposition at 8-9.

[^121]: *See* ¶ 80 (stating that individual campuses of a single
    university system would be considered a separate local entity under
    the attribution exception for national or other large
    organizations). We note that many AM campus radio systems use
    carrier current technology where the radio signal is carried along
    electrical power lines. *In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory
    Review* -- Conducted Emissions Limits Below 30 MHz for Equipment
    Regulated under Parts 15 and 18 of the Commission's Rules, ET Docket
    No. 98-80, *Notice of Inquiry*, FCC 98-102, 1998 WL 292826, ¶ 5
    (June 8, 1998); 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(f). The exception we are creating
    today to our ownership rules applies where the university already
    holds a license for a full-power broadcast station that does not
    provide students with the opportunity to manage and operate the
    station. We will not consider campus carrier current systems in
    determining whether to grant an LPFM license under this exception
    because those systems are neither broadcasters nor other media
    entities subject to our ownership rules.

[^122]: We note that our decision is based on petitioners' request that
    the university be able to hold the student-run LPFM license. Black
    argues that the university must hold the license to provide the
    students with the "oversight, continuity, and institutional support
    they need." Black Petition at 1. Specifically, Black asserts that
    the university must be able to insure the station and provide
    students with needed legal advice. *Id*. While this exception
    applies to the situation where a university holds a license for a
    full-power broadcast station that does not provide students with the
    opportunity to manage and operate the station, we note that students
    or student organizations may apply for an LPFM license that is not
    associated with the university.

[^123]: UCC Petition at 4.

[^124]: Amherst Petition at 5.

[^125]: *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2496-97.

[^126]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b). Section 310(b) also limits foreign ownership
    in common carrier, aeronautical en route and aeronautical fixed
    radio station licenses. *Id.*

[^127]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(1) and (2).

[^128]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 403(k),
    110 Stat. 56 (1996*); In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 20, 21,
    22, 24, 26, 80, 87, 90, 100, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to
    Implement Section 403(k) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    *Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 13072 (1996) (*Citizenship Requirements Order*).
    Prior to enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section
    310(b)(3) precluded a license from being granted to a corporation
    with any foreign officers or directors, and Section 310(b)(4)
    provided that the Commission could deny an application or revoke a
    license where any officer of the parent corporation is a foreign
    party. *Citizenship Requirements Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 13073, ¶ 2.

[^129]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(3). If either the foreign ownership or voting
    interest in an applicant or licensee exceeds the 20 percent
    benchmark, we are required by law to revoke the license or refuse to
    grant the license application. In the Matter of Request for
    Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Citizenship Requirements of
    Sections 310(b)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, *Declaratory Ruling*, 103 F.C.C. 2d 511, 517-18, ¶ 12 &
    n.33, 520, ¶ 16 (1983) (*Wilner and Scheiner I*), *clarified upon
    reconsideration*, 1 FCC Rcd 12 (1986).

[^130]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4).

[^131]: *See* *Wilner and Scheiner I*, 103 F.C.C. 2d at 514-15, ¶ 7,
    516, ¶ 10 (stating that the Commission has applied the strictures of
    Section 310(b) to a variety of non-corporate entities, including
    unincorporated assocations and partnerships).

[^132]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2224, ¶ 49.

[^133]: *Wilner and Scheiner I*, 103 F.C.C. 2d at 517, ¶ 11.

[^134]: MMTC later supplemented its pleading with an ex parte letter
    suggesting that all educational institutions be granted an
    additional point in the point system for resolving mutually
    exclusive applications. We consider this issue below in the section
    on the point system

[^135]: MMTC Petition at 9.

[^136]: MMTC argues that time-sharing is impractical for these
    institutions, but we believe the value of allowing more voices on
    the air outweighs any procedural hurdles MBTIs must overcome to
    time-share.

[^137]: 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

[^138]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2262, ¶ 146.

[^139]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2225-27, ¶¶ 51-55.

[^140]: We have modified Rule 73.854 to make clear that no unlicensed
    broadcaster that continued to broadcast after February 26, 1999 will
    be eligible for an LPFM license.

[^141]: Schelhardt Petition at 1-2.

[^142]: We are not aware of any circumstances in which a court has
    ordered a stay of an FCC order to cease illegal broadcast
    operations.

[^143]: Schelhardt Petition at 6.

[^144]: Bowles Petition at 3.

[^145]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2261, ¶ 144.

[^146]: *Id.*

[^147]: Bowles Petition at 3.

[^148]: *Report and Order* at ¶144.

[^149]: Black Petition at 1.

[^150]: MMTC raises this proposal in its "Suggestion for a Compromise
    Resolution of the Issues Raised in the Petition to Correct
    Inadvertent Omission," filed on May 17, 2000. Although this letter
    was filed after the comment deadline, we are considering it here
    because it raises a significant issue and no party is prejudiced by
    our consideration.

[^151]: Given that most schools would be able to achieve the full three
    points, giving them an extra point would virtually be tantamount to
    giving them an absolute preference.

[^152]: *See* UCC Petition.

[^153]: *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 2277, ¶ 185.

[^154]: Amherst Petition at 2.

[^155]: Amherst Petition at 4.

[^156]: Amherst Petition at 2-6.

[^157]: Amherst Petition at 6.

[^158]: *See* *Notice of Inquiry,* MM Docket No. 89-77 (Transfers of
    Control of Certain Licensed Non-Stock Entities), 4 FCC Rcd 3403
    (1989).

[^159]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^160]: Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 2471, 2530-2534 (1999)
    (*Notice*); *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 2205, Appendix C (2000).

[^161]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^162]: Skinner Petition at 3.

[^163]: *See* *Report and Order* Appendix C.

[^164]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^165]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^166]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^167]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^168]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^169]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^170]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^171]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4832.

[^172]: 1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1, at Appendix A-9.

[^173]: *Id*. The definition used by the SBA also includes radio
    broadcasting stations which also produce radio program materials.
    Separate establishments that are primarily engaged in producing
    radio program material are classified under another SIC number,
    however. *Id*.

[^174]: The Census Bureau counts radio stations located in the same
    facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM
    combinations counts as one establishment.

[^175]: FCC News Release, No. 31327 (Jan. 13, 1993).

[^176]: FCC News Release, \"Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30,
    1999\" (Nov. 22, 1999).

[^177]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).

[^178]: 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^179]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^180]: The information in this Appendix was provided by National Public
    Radio. Stations identified by an asterisk (\*) are non-NPR stations
    identified by the International Association of Audio Information
    Services (IAAIS) as providing radio services.