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                      |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

REPORT AND ORDER

**Adopted: January 20, 2000 Released: January 27, 2000**

By the Commission: Chairman Kennard and Commissioners Ness and Tristani
issuing separate statements; Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and
issuing a statement; and Commissioner Powell approving in part,
dissenting in part and issuing a statement.

**Table of Contents**

I. Introduction 2

II\. Issue Analysis [3](#issue-analysis)

A. Goals [3](#goals)

B. Classes of Service 7

1\. LP100 Service 13

2\. LP10 Service 14

C. Nature of Service and Licensees 15

1\. Noncommercial Educational Service 15

2\. Public Safety and Transportation 21

D. Eligibility and Ownership 24

1\. Cross-Ownership Restrictions 26

2\. Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based 31

3\. National Ownership Limits 37

4\. Local Ownership Limits 42

5\. Attribution 47

6\. General Character Qualifications and Unlicensed Broadcasters 51

E. Technical Rules 56

1\. Spectrum for Low Power Radio 56

2\. LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities 60

3\. Minimum Distance Separation Requirements 68

4\. Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection 73

5\. Other Technical Standards and Provisions 105

F. Application Processing 122

1\. Electronic Filing 122

2\. Window Filing Process 127

3\. Selection Among Mutually Exclusive Applications 134

4\. License Terms and Renewals 153

5\. Transferability 161

G. Programming and Service Rules 164

1\. Public Interest Requirements 164

2\. Locally Originated Programming 168

3\. Political Programming Rules 173

4\. Station Identification 177

5\. Operating Hours 180

6\. Main Studio Rule, Public File Rule and Ownership Reporting
Requirements 183

7\. Construction Permits 187

8\. Emergency Alert System 190

III\. Conclusion 198

# introduction 

1.  With this *Report & Order*, we authorize the licensing of two new
    classes of FM radio stations \-- one operating at a maximum power of
    100 watts and one at a maximum power of 10 watts. Both types of
    stations, known as low power FM stations (LPFM), will be authorized
    in a manner that protects existing FM service. They will be operated
    on a noncommercial educational basis by entities that do not hold an
    attributable interest in any other broadcast station or other media
    subject to our ownership rules. Initially, only entities located in
    the communities the stations serve will be eligible to participate
    in this service. Even once this eligibility criterion is relaxed, we
    will grant a significant selection preference to locally-based
    applicants. We believe that the LPFM service authorized in this
    proceeding will provide opportunities for new voices to be heard and
    will ensure that we fulfill our statutory obligation to authorize
    facilities in a manner that best serves the public interest.

2.  In establishing this new service, we are determined to preserve the
    integrity and technical excellence of existing FM radio service, and
    not to impede its transition to a digital future. In this regard,
    our own technical studies and our review of the record persuade us
    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. Moreover,
    imposing 3^rd^-adjacent channel separation requirements on LPFM
    stations would unnecessarily impede the opportunities for stations
    in this new service, particularly in highly populated areas where
    there is a great demand for alternative forms of radio service. We
    will not, therefore, impose 3^rd^-adjacent channel separation
    requirements. To avoid any possibility of compromising existing
    service, given the new nature of the LPFM service, we will impose
    separation requirements for low power with respect to full power
    stations operating on co-, 1^st^- and 2^nd^-adjacent and
    intermediate frequency (IF) channels.[^1] We believe that the rules
    we are adopting will maintain the integrity of the FM band and
    preserve the opportunity for a transition to a digital radio service
    in the future, while affording significant opportunities for new
    radio service.

# issue analysis

## Goals

3.  The *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* we adopted on January 28,
    1999[^2] responded to petitions for rule making and related comments
    indicating substantial interest in, and public support for,
    increased citizens\' access to the airwaves.[^3] Number range
    level0Number range level1Number range level2Number range
    level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7In the year since we issued the *Notice*,
    proposing rules authorizing the operation of new low power FM radio
    stations, we have received comments and letters from thousands of
    individuals and groups seeking licenses for new radio stations. Many
    of these comments, which will be discussed in greater detail below,
    included comprehensive engineering studies and valuable suggestions
    for service rules. These comments \-- from churches or other
    religious organizations,[^4] students,[^5] labor unions,[^6]
    community organizations and activists,[^7] musicians,[^8] and other
    citizens \-- reflect a broad interest in service from highly local
    radio stations strongly grounded in their communities. In
    authorizing this new service today, we enhance locally focused
    community-oriented radio broadcasting.

4.  Our goal in creating a new LPFM service is to create a class of
    radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or
    underrepresented groups within communities. To that end, in the
    *Notice* we proposed to establish two classes of low power FM radio
    service: a 1000-watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary
    service. We also sought comment on whether to establish a secondary
    class of stations operating between one and 10 watts.[^9] Commenters
    supporting low power radio generally argued for the creation of an
    LPFM service consisting of 100 or 10 watt stations. Most commenters
    did not support the creation of 1000 watt stations, arguing that the
    local aspect of LPFM service could be diminished by the size of the
    service area of such stations.[^10] Some commenters opposing the
    institution of 1000 watt service argued that 1000 watt stations
    present a greater interference potential than 100 or 10 watt
    stations.[^11] We also stated in the *Notice* a hope that the
    largest of the proposed LPFM stations, at 1000 watts, could serve as
    a proving ground and an "entry" opportunity for new entrants into
    the full-power broadcasting industry. While we continue to view this
    as a worthwhile goal, we are persuaded by commenters that
    establishment of a 1000 watt service would not best fulfill our
    goals at the present time. Our establishment of a low power radio
    service consisting of two classes operating at maximums of 100 watts
    and 10 watts will allow licensees to serve their local communities,
    and will permit a greater number of new stations to be authorized,
    fostering a diversity of new voices on the airwaves.

5.  Another goal expressed in the *Notice* was that any new LPFM service
    specifically include the voices of community based schools, churches
    and civic organizations. In the *Notice*, we raised the question of
    whether the LPFM service should include both commercial and
    noncommercial licensees or whether it should be entirely
    noncommercial. We also proposed that any stations of one to 10 watts
    be exclusively noncommercial, as we did not see commercial potential
    in stations with such limited service areas. Many of the commenters
    supporting LPFM strongly supported the establishment of an entirely
    noncommercial service.[^12] We tentatively concluded that auctions
    would be required if mutually exclusive applications for commercial
    LPFM facilities were filed, but noted that licenses for
    noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations are
    specifically exempted from auction by Section 309(j).[^13] Given the
    overwhelming support for the establishment of a noncommercial
    service, and the tendency of auctions to skew the allocation of
    licenses away from noncommercial entities that are more likely to
    serve underrepresented sections of the community, we conclude that
    eligibility for LPFM licenses should be limited to noncommercial,
    educational entities and public safety entities.

6.  Finally, in proposing the creation of a new LPFM service, we made
    clear that we will not compromise the integrity of the FM spectrum.
    We are committed to creating a low power FM radio service only if it
    does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio service.
    The *Notice* proposed that current restrictions on 3^rd^-adjacent
    channel operations might be eliminated in order to establish an LPFM
    service and also sought comment as to whether 2^nd^-adjacent channel
    separations are necessary. The modification of our existing rules
    concerning channel separations has generated extensive comment, as
    well as extensive engineering studies.[^14] Our Office of
    Engineering and Technology has conducted its own engineering tests,
    and has comprehensively reviewed the studies submitted by
    commenters. The rules adopted today reflect our well-considered
    conclusion that the elimination of 3^rd^-adjacent channel separation
    requirements for LPFM stations will not cause unacceptable levels of
    interference to existing radio stations. We recognize that the
    elimination of restrictions on both the 2^nd^- and 3^rd^- adjacent
    channels would create many more opportunities for community-based
    LPFM stations, but, given the ambiguity in the record on this issue
    and our commitment to ensure that the new LPFM service does not
    unacceptably interfere with existing radio services or impede a
    digital future for radio broadcasting, we must proceed cautiously.
    Accordingly, we will impose 2^nd^-adjacent channel separation
    requirements on LPFM stations.

## Classes of Service 

7.  [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
    to authorize two classes of LPFM stations: (1) an LP1000 class which
    would be for primary stations operating with an effective radiated
    power (ERP) of between 500 and 1000 watts and with an antenna height
    above average terrain (HAAT) up to 60 meters, and (2) an LP100 class
    which would be for stations operating on a secondary basis with
    between 50 and 100 watts ERP and with antennas up to 30 meters HAAT.
    We also sought comment on a very low power secondary LP10 service
    with an ERP between one and 10 watts. For each proposal, the
    Commission sought comment on the power levels associated with each
    class, the eligibility for such stations and the effects that each
    class may have on the full power radio service.

8.  [Comments]{.underline}. *LP1000*. Generally speaking, the proposal
    to authorize LP1000 stations generated the most controversy among
    the commenters. The topic was one of the few areas that generated
    opposition by both current full service broadcasters and low power
    radio proponents, although for different reasons. Commenters
    connected to the existing broadcast industry and the Association of
    Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) expressed their
    concerns regarding the large potential for interference posed by
    such operations.[^15] Additionally, AFCCE, as well as commenters
    that generally support the LP1000 proposal, expressed concerns that
    the service could preclude other lower powered LPFM stations. Most
    commenters supporting the LP1000 proposal proposed to limit LP1000
    stations to rural areas or areas where sufficient spectrum could be
    found for both LP1000 and LP100 classes of service.[^16]

9.  *LP100.* The proposal for LP100 stations generated the most positive
    comments. Commenters generally felt that LP100 stations would
    provide a reasonable coverage area while remaining small enough to
    continue focusing on local needs. From an engineering standpoint,
    various commenters, including AFCCE, stated that the LP100 proposal
    appears "reasonable" and the proposed power range would allow the
    use of equipment, such as exciters and simple single bay antennas,
    that are already available.[^17] Not all comments were favorable,
    however. In general most negative comments shared the view stated by
    Disney that "\[a\] secondary LP100 service is undesirable for two
    reasons: first, because it would be difficult to establish a
    procedural and enforcement framework that would adequately protect
    FM broadcasters from interference; and second, because LP100
    stations would create only marginal new radio listenership given the
    overriding levels of interference they would receive from full
    service stations."[^18]

10. *LP10.* The Commission's proposal for an LP10 service operating with
    10 watts or less elicited both highly favorable support and
    vociferous opposition. Most support for the proposal came from
    individuals and public interest groups. The comments in favor of
    LP10 generally viewed such a service as suitable for school campuses
    and local community organizations that wish to serve small areas and
    do not have the resources to construct and operate a higher-powered
    facility.[^19] Furthermore, given what they saw as a smaller
    potential for interference, these groups considered LP10 as the best
    option for crowded urban areas where higher-powered facilities are
    not likely to fit.[^20] On the other hand, most comments opposing
    the LP10 proposal came from broadcasters and individuals concerned
    that the Commission would not be able to enforce its rules against
    the numerous LP10 stations and that widespread interference would
    result. In fact, the NAB stated that, while the Commission feels
    that an LP10 station would not result in significant interference,
    the sheer number of LP10 stations may result in more interference
    than the higher-powered station proposals would create.
    Additionally, the NAB cited the Commission's 1978 determination that
    Class D 10 watt operations result in inefficient spectrum
    usage.[^21] However, one broadcaster, WEOK Broadcasting Corporation,
    noted that "\[v\]ery low power stations (perhaps one to 10 watts)
    could operate as useful adjuncts to college campuses," provided
    there are some restrictions on usage. [^22] Likewise, not all public
    interest groups felt that an LP10 service would be a good idea. For
    example, the Civil Rights Organizations stated that LP10 stations
    should not be authorized because they would be
    "hard-to-regulate."[^23]

11. [Decision]{.underline}. We will not authorize 1000 watt stations. We
    will, however, authorize LP100 and LP10 stations, in two separate
    stages. First, we will license LP100 stations. These stations
    generally will provide coverage appropriate to community needs and
    interests expressed in the record in this rule making. The Mass
    Media Bureau is delegated authority to issue an initial and
    subsequent public notices inviting the filing of applications for
    LP100 stations on dates consistent with this *Order* and processing
    requirements. After a period of time sufficient to process the
    initial LP100 applications, the Mass Media Bureau is authorized to
    open a filing window for applications for LP10 stations, which can
    also serve very localized community needs. We 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
    after the initial demand for LP100 stations has been accommodated.
    Additionally, our own resources will be better spent first advancing
    service to relatively greater areas.

12. However, the record, including comments from both current
    broadcasters and public interest groups who were opposed to stations
    as large as 1000 watts, convinces us that licensing such a service
    is not in the public interest. As argued by commenters, 1000 watt
    stations may pose a greater interference concern for existing
    broadcasters and are not necessary to meet the most pressing and
    widespread demand for service expressed in the record. Moreover,
    LP1000 stations could have a significant preclusive effect on the
    licensing of LP100 and LP10 stations. Yet, these lower powered
    stations will permit many more opportunities for community-oriented
    service than would 1000-watt stations.

### LP100 Service

13. LP100 stations will be authorized to operate with maximum facilities
    equivalent to 100 watts ERP at 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT[^24] and
    minimum facilities equivalent to 50 watts at 30 meters (100 feet).
    This would permit a maximum 1 mV/m contour (60 dBu) with a radius of
    approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles), subject to the radio
    environment. Depending on population density, such a station could
    serve hundreds or thousands of listeners. This service will allow
    LPFM licensees to broadcast affordably to communities of moderate
    size and interest groups that are geographically proximate, such as
    ethnic, professional, industry and student groups, and retirement
    neighborhoods. Spectrum rights and responsibilities for this service
    are addressed below.

### LP10 Service

14. LP10 stations will operate at between one and 10 watts ERP and an
    antenna height of up to 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT. Such stations
    will produce a 60 dBu signal out to about 1.6 to 3.2 kilometers (1
    to 2 miles) from the antenna site. Such stations will fit in some
    locations where LP100 stations cannot, due to separation
    requirements, and will provide groups with the opportunity to
    operate stations that reach smaller communities or groups with a
    common interest. Spectrum rights and responsibilities for this
    service are addressed below.

## Nature of Service and Licensees

### Noncommercial Educational Service

15. [Background]{.underline}. In proposing the creation of a new LPFM
    service, the Commission set forth its goals of encouraging diverse
    voices on the nation's airwaves and creating opportunities for new
    entrants in broadcasting. We raised the question of whether the
    service should be noncommercial in nature. We noted that while
    mutually exclusive commercial broadcast applications are subject to
    auction, certain noncommercial stations are specifically exempted
    from our auction authority.[^25]

16. [Comments]{.underline}. Of those commenters supporting LPFM, an
    overwhelming majority endorsed establishing it as a noncommercial
    service. Commenters stressed the diversity that would be created by
    a noncommercial service,[^26] and argued that noncommercial radio is
    the best way to serve local communities.[^27] Other commenters,
    however, argued that low-power FM licensees should be available to
    both noncommercial and commercial licensees.[^28]

17. [Decision]{.underline}. We will establish LPFM as a noncommercial
    educational service. Our goals in establishing this new service are
    to create opportunities for new voices on the air waves and to allow
    local groups, including schools, churches and other community-based
    organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community
    needs and interests. We believe that a noncommercial service is more
    likely to fulfill this role effectively than a commercial service.
    Commercial broadcast stations, by their very nature, have commercial
    incentives to maximize audience size in order to improve their
    ratings and thereby increase their advertising revenues. We are
    concerned that these commercial incentives could frustrate
    achievement of our goal in establishing this service: to foster a
    program service responsive to the needs and interests of small local
    community groups, particularly specialized community needs that have
    not been well served by commercial broadcast stations. We believe
    that noncommercial licensees, which are not subject to commercial
    imperatives to maximize audience size, are more likely than
    commercial licensees to serve small, local groups with particular
    shared needs and interests, such as linguistic and cultural
    minorities or groups with shared civic or educational interests that
    may now be underserved by advertiser-supported commercial radio and
    higher powered noncommercial radio stations.[^29] We note that
    commenters addressing this issue favored establishing LPFM as a
    noncommercial service by a substantial margin, though some have
    argued that a commercial service could provide ownership
    opportunities for new entrants**.**[^30] While we have considered
    the entrepreneurial opportunities that low power radio stations
    might create, we nonetheless conclude that a noncommercial service
    would best serve the Commission's goals of bringing additional
    diversity to radio broadcasting and serving local community needs in
    a focused manner.[^31]

18. Establishing LPFM as a noncommercial service will have the added
    benefit of giving us additional flexibility to assign licenses for
    this service in a manner that is most likely to place them in the
    hands of local community groups that are in the best position to
    serve local community needs. As a general matter, where mutually
    exclusive applications are filed for initial commercial licenses or
    construction permits, the licenses or permits must be awarded by
    competitive bidding pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Licenses for
    noncommercial educational broadcast stations, as described in
    Section 397(6) of the Act, however, are not subject to competitive
    bidding.[^32] Accordingly, having decided to establish LPFM as a
    noncommercial service, we will require that LPFM licensees comply
    with the eligibility requirements of Section 397(6) of the Act.[^33]

19. Section 397(6) of the Act defines "noncommercial educational
    broadcast station" as a station which:

\(A\) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on the
effective date of this paragraph, is eligible to be licensed by the
Commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast
station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit
private foundation, corporation, or association; or

\(B\) is owned and operated by a municipality and which transmits only
noncommercial programs for education purposes.[^34]

Since the statute incorporates by reference the Commission's
noncommercial eligibility rules, we must look to those rules in
determining noncommercial eligibility under Section 397(6) of the Act.
The Commission's rules limit eligibility for noncommercial radio
stations to nonprofit educational organizations that show that the
station will be used "for the advancement of an educational
program."[^35] In applying this rule, the Commission has required that
applicants be (a) a government or public educational agency, board or
institution, or (b) a private, nonprofit educational organization, or
(c) a nonprofit entity with a demonstrated educational purpose.[^36] We
require that an applicant described in (a) or (b) have an educational
program and demonstrate how its programming will be used for the
advancement of that program. An applicant applying as (c) must
specifically show (i) that it is in fact a nonprofit educational
organization, (ii) that it has an educational objective, and (iii) how
its programming will further that objective.[^37]

20. The requirement that NCE licensees provide programming that advances
    an educational objective may be satisfied by a variety of programs,
    including but not limited to "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."[^38] We have also stated that "in order to
    qualify as an educational station, it is not necessary that the
    proposed programming be exclusively educational."[^39] Given the
    latitude that entities have under our rules to qualify as NCEs, we
    do not believe that limiting eligibility for LPFM licenses to NCEs
    will unduly limit the range of groups that will be eligible to apply
    for LPFM licenses or the services that they can provide.[^40]

### Public Safety and Transportation

21. [Background]{.underline}. One appropriate use of LPFM stations is
    use by public safety or transportation organizations. Although the
    *Notice* did not specifically raise this issue, a number of
    commenters proposed it.

22. [Comments]{.underline}. We received a number of comments from public
    safety and transportation entities arguing that they would use LPFM
    stations to serve communities' need for public safety and traffic
    information. The New York State Thruway Authority (Thruway) argued
    that low power FM stations could be used for the benefit of public
    safety and transportation entities throughout the country to provide
    critical real-time information to travelers confronting emergency
    situations, traffic patterns and accidents.[^41] The Texas
    Department of Transportation stated a low power FM service would
    offer more reliable service to travelers than does its existing AM
    Travelers' Information Stations (TIS).[^42]

23. [Decision]{.underline}. The public safety and transportation
    commenters propose important uses for low power FM stations. LPFM
    stations could be used by state or local governments or other
    not-for-profit entities to provide traffic, weather, and other
    public safety information to local communities. The use of LPFM
    stations for public safety purposes will further our goal of better
    serving local communities. Certain of these entities already hold
    TIS or other broadcast licenses. We emphasize, however, that we will
    not exempt these licenses from the cross-ownership restrictions,
    described below, and will therefore require TIS licensees or other
    public safety or transportation licensees, to return their existing
    licenses upon the initiation of LPFM service. Thus, in addition to
    noncommercial, educational organizations, associations or entities
    as described above, public safety radio services used by state or
    local governments or not-for-profit organizations, as defined in 47
    U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A), will be eligible for LPFM licenses.

## Eligibility and Ownership

24. In order to further our diversity goals and foster local,
    community-based service, we will not allow any broadcaster or other
    media entity subject to our ownership rules to control or to hold an
    attributable ownership interest in an LPFM station or enter
    broadcast related operating agreements with an LPFM licensee.
    Additionally, to foster the local nature of LPFM service, we are
    limiting eligibility to local entities during the first year LPFM
    licenses are available. We are also adopting a significant local
    ownership preference to be applied in resolving mutually exclusive
    applications. After local entities have had an opportunity to apply
    for construction permits, we will permit applications by qualified
    non-local applicants. After the first two years, we will permit
    multiple ownership of LPFM stations nationally, but only up to a
    maximum of 10 LPFM stations over a phased-in period.

25. Throughout this discussion we use the term "community" in a manner
    different from our traditional use of the term.[^43] Here, we use
    the term to refer to the very small area and population group that
    will make up the potential service area and audience of an LPFM
    station. Given the very small nature of LPFM service contours and
    prospective audiences, we do not expect LPFM service areas to be
    coincident with traditional political boundaries that we use to
    define communities in other contexts, such as our allocations
    process.[^44]

### Cross-Ownership Restrictions

26. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission
    tentatively concluded that strict cross-ownership restrictions would
    be appropriate for low power radio. We proposed to prohibit any
    person or entity with an attributable interest in a broadcast
    station from having an ownership interest in any LPFM station in any
    market. We sought comment on whether the proposed strict
    cross-ownership restrictions would unnecessarily prevent individuals
    and entities with valuable broadcast experience from contributing to
    the success of the LPFM service. We also asked for comment on
    whether broadcasters with an attributable interest in broadcasting
    stations should be allowed to establish an LPFM station in a
    community where they do not have an attributable broadcast interest.
    We proposed to prohibit joint sales agreements, time brokerage
    agreements, local marketing or management agreements, and similar
    arrangements between full power broadcasters and low power radio
    entities. We also sought comment on whether the cross-ownership
    restriction should be extended to prevent common ownership of LPFM
    stations with cable systems, newspapers, or other mass media.

27. [Comments]{.underline}. Several commercial broadcasters, educational
    broadcasters and individuals propose that cross ownership be
    allowed.[^45] The NAB opposes restricting current broadcasters from
    low power ownership, claiming that consolidation of ownership in
    fact increases diversity of broadcast formats because of economic
    efficiencies.[^46] The NAB further alleges that such a prohibition
    would preclude low power stations from realizing efficiencies
    through joint operations with a full power counterpart.[^47] Some
    commenters propose that current broadcasters be allowed to apply for
    LPFM stations, but that they should be required to give up their
    current station license prior to initiating operations at the LPFM
    station.[^48] Others propose that full service station owners not be
    barred, so long as the LPFM station is in another market.[^49] Metro
    Detroit Broadcasting Corporation proposes a waiver of multiple
    ownership provisions for minority-owned low power stations.[^50]

28. Most commenters, however, oppose cross-ownership of full-service
    stations and LPFM stations.[^51] The National Lawyers Guild, for
    example, asks why the Commission would allow the few companies who
    already hold a broadcast license also to hold a low power license
    when 99.9 percent of the American people are barred from using the
    most effective communications media in the nation.[^52] Most
    commenters also support the Commission's proposal to prohibit
    arrangements between full service broadcasters and LPFM entities,
    such as joint sales and time brokerage agreements. UCC, et al., adds
    that not only should such agreements between full power licensees
    and low power licensees be prohibited, but also that agreements of a
    similar nature between two or more low power licensees should be
    disallowed.[^53]

29. [Decision]{.underline}. We will prohibit common ownership of LPFM
    and any other broadcast station, including translators and low power
    television stations, as well as other media subject to our ownership
    rules.[^54] Thus, no broadcaster or other media entity, or any party
    with an attributable interest in them, can hold any attributable
    ownership interest in an LPFM licensee. One of the most important
    purposes of establishing this service is to afford small,
    community-based organizations an opportunity to communicate over the
    airwaves and thus expand diversity of ownership \-- a purpose
    inconsistent with common ownership of LPFM stations and existing
    broadcast facilities or other media interests. Moreover, many of the
    commenters' remarks favoring cross ownership are directed to the
    establishment of the proposed LP1000 service. These arguments
    regarding efficiencies and economies and competitive standing for
    stations that might compete commercially, however, are less
    applicable to noncommercial educational LP100 and LP10 stations.
    Similarly, our own expressed concern that cross-ownership limits
    could retard the development of low power radio by excluding
    entities with broadcast experience is less pressing in the absence
    of commercial 1000 watt stations. We conclude that our interest in
    providing for new voices to speak to the community, and providing a
    medium for new speakers to gain experience in the field, would be
    best served by barring cross-ownership between LPFM licensees and
    existing broadcast owners and other media entities. This prohibition
    is national and absolute in nature, unlike our existing cross-media
    ownership rules. Thus, for example, a newspaper cannot have an
    attributable interest in any LPFM station, regardless of whether the
    newspaper and LPFM station are co-located. We believe our interest
    in promoting diversity warrants such a strict approach.

30. We have also decided to prohibit operating agreements in any form,
    including time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management
    agreements, and similar arrangements, between full power
    broadcasters and LPFM broadcasters, or between two or more low power
    licensees, as suggested by UCC, et al.[^55] As noted above, many
    commenters strongly oppose allowing any form of operating agreement
    that would dilute new ownership in the low power service. We are
    concerned that such agreements too readily could undermine the
    strict cross-ownership restriction adopted by allowing an ineligible
    entity to program or manage an LPFM station. We see no harm,
    however, in permitting any existing licensee to apply for an LPFM
    station on the condition that it is otherwise qualified and it
    represents that it will divest its interest prior to commencement of
    LPFM operations.

### Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based

31. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on
    whether to establish a local residency requirement, although we were
    not inclined, at that time, to do so. We were concerned that a
    residency requirement would limit the pool of potential owners of
    low power stations and would deny opportunity to individuals and
    entities who resided in a location where no frequency is available,
    as there will not be low power frequencies available in every
    community. We also noted that we expected in the case of LP100s and
    LP10 stations, in particular, that the very nature of the stations
    would attract primarily local or nearby residents. We note that
    given our decision to restrict eligibility to noncommercial
    educational entities, the term "residency" is somewhat misleading.
    The issue now is whether we should limit applicants to entities
    based within the local community they wish to serve and, if so, how
    we should define whether or not they are community-based.
    Nonetheless, given that the *Notice* and comments are cast in terms
    of residency, we will continue to use the term, but do so in the
    organizational or institutional sense noted here.

32. [Comments]{.underline}. Most commenters support a requirement that
    LPFM licensees be locally based.[^56] They argue that local
    residents are more likely to be aware of issues of importance to the
    local community, and to gear their programming accordingly. UCC, et
    al. proposes that a majority of the entity's board reside in the
    station's service area.[^57] The Civil Rights Organizations suggest
    that a majority of the licensee's board of directors, the head of
    the board and the CEO be local residents.[^58] Some commenters
    propose that applicants should be based within 25[^59] or 50
    miles[^60] of the new low power station, or within the station's
    proposed contour.[^61] Community Broadcasters proposes that a
    majority of the members of the governing body of the LPFM licensee
    be residents within the primary service contour of the proposed
    station.[^62] On the other hand, many commenters oppose the
    imposition of a residency requirement. Some argue that a local
    residency requirement would be struck down under the standards set
    forth by *Bechtel v. FCC*,[^63] discussed below. Some point out that
    a residency requirement is incompatible with a five- to ten-station
    national ownership cap.[^64]

33. [Decision]{.underline}. We continue to be concerned about the
    potentially preclusive effect of a strict local "residency"
    requirement and do not believe that local sources are the only
    valuable sources of information and service. Nonetheless, this
    service is intended to respond to the highly local interests that
    are not necessarily being met by full-power stations. Furthermore,
    since LPFM will be a noncommercial educational service, we cannot
    rely on commercial market forces and business incentives to ensure
    that local needs are fulfilled. Given the small coverage of LPFM
    stations, and our intention that the particular needs and interests
    of these small areas be served, local familiarity is more
    significant than it might be for a station serving a larger area and
    population. We thus conclude, after consideration of the comments
    and on further reflection, that the disadvantages of imposing a
    requirement that applicants be community-based are outweighed by the
    benefits to be gained by maximizing the likelihood that LPFM
    stations are operated by entities grounded in the communities they
    serve. Accordingly, for the initial and subsequent windows opened
    within two years after the first filing window for LPFM service has
    been opened, all LPFM applicants must be based within 10 miles of
    the station they seek to operate. This means that the applicant must
    be able to certify that it or its local chapter or branch is
    physically headquartered, has a campus, or has 75 percent of its
    board members residing within 10 miles of the reference coordinates
    of the proposed transmitting antenna. We chose the 10-mile distance
    as proportionate to most stations' likely effective reach. We are
    concerned that a larger distance, in many areas of the country,
    could lead to ownership outside the bounds of the station's real
    community and the people they will actually serve. We are concerned
    that a smaller area would too severely and unduly restrict the
    opportunities presented by LPFM. An organization providing public
    safety radio services will be considered community-based in the area
    over which it has jurisdiction.[^65] Beginning two years after the
    first window for LPFM service has been opened, non-local applicants
    will be eligible to apply in subsequent windows for those classes of
    stations pursuant to public notices issued by the Mass Media Bureau.
    By this approach, we intend to make it more likely that local
    entities will operate this service. If no local entities come
    forward, however, we do not want the available spectrum to go
    unused.

34. We do not find convincing the argument made by some commenters that
    imposition of a local residency eligibility requirement here would
    pose the same legal problems as the "integration of ownership and
    management" factor formerly employed as a comparative criterion in
    the commercial broadcast service. While that comparative criterion
    was overturned as arbitrary and capricious in the *Bechtel*
    case,[^66] that case did not invalidate a preference for locally
    based applicants *per se*. Rather, it rejected a preference for a
    particular form of business organization \-- in which station owners
    worked more than a certain number of hours per week at their station
    \-- that had not been shown to provide superior service even though
    the preference had been used for many years. The preference for
    local licensees here, in contrast, rests on our predictive judgment
    that local entities with their roots in the community will be more
    attuned and responsive to the needs of that community, which have
    heretofore been underserved by commercial broadcasters. We believe
    that local residence should carry particular weight here because we
    envision LPFM as a uniquely local service designed to serve local
    community needs. We note that while the court invalidated the
    integration criterion in the *Bechtel* decision, it recognized that
    an applicant who is familiar with the community is likely to be
    aware of its special needs.[^67]

35. Furthermore, we believe that local roots are particularly important
    in a noncommercial educational service like LPFM. As noted above, we
    cannot rely on commercial market forces to ensure that LPFM
    licensees are responsive to local needs because they will be
    noncommercial entities providing noncommercial program services.
    Indeed, Congress and the Commission have long recognized the unique
    role played by local entities in providing noncommercial educational
    programming, and we have favored local entities in providing other
    noncommercial educational services.[^68]

36. Finally, we do not believe that our preference for local applicants
    here raises the concerns voiced by the court in *Bechtel*. The court
    was concerned in *Bechtel* that the integration preference elevated
    quantitative factors -- the number of hours the station owners
    promised to work at the station -- over arguably more important
    qualitative factors such as broadcast experience and established
    local residence. In contrast, the community-based requirement that
    we adopt today does not rest on quantitative factors and is not
    based on promises of future conduct. Rather, we are adopting a
    simple, straightforward requirement that applicants be based in the
    local community. In addition, a primary concern underlying the
    court's decision was that there was no obligation for a successful
    applicant in the commercial broadcast service to adhere to its
    integration proposal, and there was no evidence indicating the
    extent to which licensees had done so in the past. In contrast, LPFM
    licenses will not be transferable, so we can be assured that a local
    entity that is awarded the license will continue to operate the
    station. For these reasons, we do not believe that the
    community-based requirement that we adopt today suffers from the
    problems identified by the court in the *Bechtel* decision.

### National Ownership Limits

37. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we also sought comment on
    the issue of a national multiple ownership cap. In particular, we
    asked whether a limit of five or ten stations nationally would
    provide a reasonable opportunity to attain efficiencies of operation
    while preserving the availability of the stations to a wide range of
    applicants and their essentially local character.

38. [Comments]{.underline}. Comments on this issue are wide-ranging in
    their opinions. Some groups favor an absolute nationwide
    one-station-per-owner limit, arguing that a one-station-per-entity
    cap would distribute the low power stations as widely as possible
    and create the opportunity for the most diverse ownership.[^69] The
    Civil Rights Organizations "disagree in the strongest terms" with
    the idea that a low power licensee could hold more than one
    license.[^70] UCC, et al., states that the Commission's belief that
    economies of scale from national ownership will improve service is
    especially ill-founded.[^71] It similarly exhorts us to disallow
    "agreements" between low power stations.[^72] Some commenters
    support a less strict national cap, arguing that some national cap
    will promote greater diversity in the service, but that a
    one-per-owner limit is excessively restrictive.[^73] Several
    commenters agree with the Commission's suggested range of five to
    ten stations, nationally.[^74] Finally, some groups oppose any type
    of national cap. The NAB does not believe that a national ownership
    cap is allowed under the 1996 Act, and believes that common
    ownership will improve efficiency in the service.[^75]

39. [Decision]{.underline}. We are adopting a staged rule, which will
    initially foster diversity by disallowing any common ownership of
    LPFM stations, but eventually permit the accumulation of additional
    stations where local applicants fail to come forward. This will
    increase the service available to the public and permit the
    efficiencies that can be achieved by multiple ownership where there
    is not an immediate local interest in operating a station. To
    achieve this, we will require that for the first two years of LPFM
    service, any one entity may own only one LPFM station. The two
    year-long period will begin on the day that the first LP100 filing
    window opens for applications. After the first two years, to bring
    into use whatever low power stations remain available but unapplied
    for, we will allow one entity to own up to five stations nationally,
    and after the first three years of this service, we will allow an
    entity to own up to ten stations nationwide.

40. In addition to ensuring the fullest use of LPFM spectrum in the long
    term, we believe that this tiered system will balance the interests
    of local entities, which we expect to be the first entrants in this
    service, and national noncommercial educational entities, which may
    be interested in additional local outlets to increase their reach
    and to achieve certain efficiencies of operation. We note the
    attribution exception for national or other large entities with
    local community-based chapters, discussed below in the attribution
    section, which will allow the local chapters to apply as individual
    entities and thus not be constrained by this national ownership
    provision.

41. In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded that Section 202 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act)[^76] eliminating
    national multiple ownership restrictions for existing full power
    commercial stations does not apply to a new broadcast service. Given
    our decision to limit LPFM to noncommercial educational
    broadcasters, Section 202 clearly does not apply to LPFM and we need
    not discuss this issue further.[^77]

### Local Ownership Limits

42. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to prohibit
    entities from owning more than one LPFM station in the same
    community. We were concerned that it would be difficult to achieve
    wide new entry into the broadcasting market and enhance diversity if
    more than one low power station in an area were under common
    control. At the same time, we sought comment on whether such a
    restriction would inappropriately deny to LPFM licensees the
    efficiencies achievable through multiple ownership, and on what
    cooperative arrangements might facilitate the development of LPFM
    service without unduly diluting its benefits. We also sought comment
    on the appropriate definition of "market" or "community" for the
    purposes of LPFM service.

43. [Comments]{.underline}. Many commenters agree strongly with the
    Commission's proposal that LPFM ownership should be limited to one
    station per community.[^78] They argue that allowing multiple
    ownership in a local area would reduce the number and diminish the
    diversity of new entrants. Most contend that the demand for stations
    from local owners will be plentiful and that there will be no need
    to allow outside owners to own low power stations.[^79] The NAB
    opposes the proposed ban on common local ownership, saying that
    common ownership leads to increased efficiencies.[^80] A few
    commenters address the issue of the definition of "community" for
    the purpose of determining the limitations of local ownership but
    none offered specific alternative definitions. Some commenters
    expressed concern that the current Commission definition of a
    "community" is ambiguous and therefore subject to inequitable
    application.[^81]

44. [Decision]{.underline}. We will restrict local ownership and allow
    one entity to own only one LPFM station in a "community." We concur
    with those commenters who expressed concern over the potential for
    diminution of diversity in ownership if one entity were allowed to
    control more than one station in their community. The comments
    opposing the restriction seem directed to and more appropriate in
    the context of the proposed 1000 watt service, which could have
    operated commercially. The primary benefit of local multiple
    ownership, increased efficiency, is less compelling with respect to
    LP100 and LP10 noncommercial educational stations, particularly as
    compared to the benefit to a community of multiple community-based
    voices. As noted above, we use the term community in this *Report
    and Order* to refer to the very small population group that makes up
    a station's potential audience. For purposes of the local ownership
    limits, we will require that no entity own or have an attributable
    interest in two or more LPFM stations located within 7 miles of each
    other. That is, to comply with our local ownership limits, the
    antennas of commonly-owned stations must be separated by at least
    seven miles. We believe seven miles is appropriate given the
    approximately 3.5 mile signal reach of LP100 stations. Although the
    signal reach of LP10 stations is smaller, for the sake of simplicity
    we will apply the seven-mile ownership separation to both classes of
    service.

45. In the *Notice* we noted that Section 202 of the 1996 Act permitted
    significant local multiple ownership of full power commercial radio
    stations but questioned whether this standard would apply to a new
    low power service. Our decision here, however, to limit LPFM
    stations to noncommercial educational service renders this question
    moot. As discussed above regarding the national multiple ownership
    issue, Section 202, by its terms, does not apply to noncommercial
    stations.

46. We note that the attribution exception for local chapters of
    national entities, discussed in the next section, will allow local
    chapters to apply as individual entities and thus avoid the bar that
    the national ownership rules would otherwise impose.

### Attribution

47. [Background]{.underline}. Given the significance we have accorded
    the ownership of LPFM stations, the strict cross- and
    multiple-ownership rules and the community-based eligibility and
    selection criteria we are adopting, determining who "owns" or
    constitutes a low power radio applicant or licensee is critically
    important. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on what interests or
    relationships should be attributable in this regard.

48. [Comments]{.underline}. Comments on attribution vary widely. Some
    commenters express concern that if the existing attribution rules
    were applied to these stations, some entities with large national
    organizations and small chapters would be unable to hold multiple
    licenses even though they maintain a local presence and would
    provide community-oriented programming.[^82] Other commenters
    propose that attribution rules be waived in the case of accredited
    educational institutions, so that they can hold a full power station
    and also an LPFM station.[^83] Amherst argues that it should be
    illegal for a subsidiary, affiliate, agent or franchisee of any
    institution holding a broadcast license to acquire an LPFM
    license.[^84]

49. [Decision]{.underline}. We will apply rules similar to the existing
    commercial attribution rules to determine a licensee's compliance
    with the ownership limits set forth above. Because many of the
    entities that will hold LPFM licenses will be non-stock corporations
    (or other non-stock entities), we will attribute the interests of
    the applicant, its parents, its subsidiaries, their officers and
    members of their governing boards. If an entity that holds an LPFM
    license does have stock, then the existing attribution rules will
    apply and voting stock interest of 5% or more will be attributable
    unless the investor is passive in nature, in which case voting stock
    interests of 20% or more will be attributable. Partners and
    non-insulated limited partners are attributable, as are officers and
    directors. Non-voting stock and debt are not attributable unless
    they satisfy the "equity-debt-plus" standards set forth in our
    recent attribution order.[^85] Thus, for example, if a full-power
    broadcaster in a community were to invest in an LPFM licensee in
    that same community and the investment accounted for more than 33%
    of the LPFM's total capitalization, the investment would be
    attributable and would violate the cross-ownership ban discussed
    above. Similarly, if a director of the same full power broadcaster
    were to act as an officer of the LPFM, the director would be
    attributed with both stations and would violate the ban. Consistent
    with the existing commercial attribution rules,[^86] however, an
    exception will apply to certain officers and directors of the parent
    of an LPFM applicant or licensee. Such an officer or director may
    hold otherwise attributable interests in a broadcast licensee or
    other media entity subject to our ownership rules without making the
    LPFM applicant ineligible, provided the duties and responsibilities
    of the officer or director are wholly unrelated to the LPFM station
    and the officer or director recuses himself or herself from
    consideration of any matters affecting the LPFM station.[^87] This
    exception will avoid making ineligible entities that will serve the
    purposes of this service well, such as universities or schools,
    which may have large and diverse board membership, while protecting
    against control of an LPFM licensee by ineligible media owners. For
    the same reason, in the LPFM context we will extend the exception to
    officers and directors of the LPFM applicant or licensee itself, if
    that entity is a multifaceted organization, such as a university,
    and the duties and responsibilities of the officer or director are
    wholly unrelated to the LPFM station and the officer or director
    recuses himself or herself from consideration of any matters
    affecting the LPFM station.[^88] We emphasize that these exceptions
    are narrow in scope. An individual holding an attributable media
    interest may not act as an officer of the LPFM station, nor function
    in any other attributable role.

50. We will, moreover, include an attribution exception for local
    chapters of national or other large organizations. In the event that
    a local chapter can demonstrate that it: (1) is separately
    incorporated, and (2) has a distinct local presence and mission, the
    local chapter can apply for a license in its own right and the
    national entity's "ownership" will not be attributed to it. In order
    to meet this standard, the local entity must be able to show a
    significant membership within the community, as well as a local
    purpose that can be distinguished from its national purpose. For
    example, the general purpose of raising awareness of the toxic waste
    problem in the United States would not suffice, but raising
    awareness of the toxic waste problem in particular local areas would
    meet the local purpose standard.

### General Character Qualifications and Unlicensed Broadcasters 

51. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we generally proposed to
    apply the same standards for character qualification requirements to
    all LPFM broadcasters as we do to full power broadcasters. The
    Commission asked if commenters saw any reason to distinguish between
    full and low power radio licensees for this purpose. In addition, we
    sought comment on whether to disqualify unlicensed broadcasters who
    once violated or who still are violating Commission rules. We sought
    comment on whether the Commission should adopt a middle ground and
    accept applications from parties who have broadcast illegally, but
    who either (1) promptly ceased operation when advised by the
    Commission to do so, or (2) voluntarily ceased operation within ten
    days of the publication of the *Notice* in the *Federal Register*.

52. [Comments]{.underline}. The National Lawyers Guild and the Civil
    Rights Organizations both argue for amnesty for unlicensed
    broadcasters.[^89] Many individuals insist that without radio
    "pirates," LPFM would not have been created.[^90] Others, such as
    Amherst and UCC, et al., support the middle ground set forth in the
    *Notice*, saying that it is most fair to the interests of future low
    power broadcasters and to the public.[^91] The Alliance for
    Community Media also supports the Commission's proposed
    compromise.[^92] Many commenters believe that anyone who has
    operated illegally should not be eligible for a license. NAB
    believes that because "pirate" broadcasters operated illegally, they
    should not be excused or granted amnesty.[^93] Some object to
    restricting parties with an interest in a broadcast station from
    owning an LPFM station, but allowing "pirates" to own them.[^94]

53. [Decision]{.underline}. We have decided, as we proposed, to apply
    the same character qualification requirements to low power station
    licensees as we currently apply to full power licensees. The
    Commission's character policy is underpinned by our interest in a
    licensee's truthfulness and reliability. We have a critical need to
    ascertain whether a licensee will in the future be forthright in its
    dealings with the Commission and operate its station in a manner
    consistent with the requirements of the Communications Act and the
    Commission's rules and policies.[^95] No commenter showed a reason
    to distinguish between full and low power broadcasters on this
    basis, and we do not believe one exists.

54. The most significant specific question that character concerns raise
    in the context of this proceeding, as discussed in the *Notice*, is
    how past illegal broadcast operations reflect on that entity's
    proclivity "to deal truthfully with the Commission and to comply
    with our rules and policies,"[^96] and thus on its basic
    qualifications to hold a license. We are persuaded to adopt our
    original proposal and accept a low power applicant who, if it at
    some time broadcast illegally, certifies, under penalty of perjury,
    that: (1) it voluntarily ceased engaging in the unlicensed operation
    of any station no later than February 26, 1999, without specific
    direction to terminate by the FCC; or (2) it ceased engaging in the
    unlicensed operation of any facility within 24 hours of being
    advised by the Commission to do so. Applicants will be required to
    make such certifications as part of their applications for an LPFM
    station. Such certifications will be made with respect to the
    applicant as well as all parties to the application (*i.e*., any
    party with an attributable interest in the applicant). Submission of
    false or misleading certifications will subject the applicant to
    enforcement action including fines, revocation of license and
    criminal penalties.

55. Contrary to some commenters' arguments, this rule does not
    unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment rights of
    unlicensed broadcasters.[^97] Disqualification under this rule is
    based solely on lack of compliance with statutory and regulatory
    requirements. All parties should note, however, that as licensed
    broadcasters, ignorance, whatever its cause, is not considered an
    excuse for violation, and full compliance with our rules will be
    required. Moreover, as implied by the provisions of the *Notice*,
    the illegality of unauthorized broadcasting must now be presumed to
    be well-known, and any unlicensed broadcast operation occurring more
    than 10 days after the *Notice* was issued will make the applicant
    ineligible for low power, full power, or any other kind of license
    and will be subject to fines, seizure of their equipment, and
    criminal penalties.

## Technical Rules

### Spectrum for Low Power Radio

56. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission stated
    that it did not intend to allocate new spectrum for a low power
    radio broadcasting service. The utilization of new spectrum would
    require listeners to purchase new equipment to receive the service,
    which would significantly delay the benefits of the service to the
    public. We proposed to authorize low power radio stations within the
    FM band only. This determination was based partly on the extent of
    congestion within the AM band, with numerous existing stations
    experiencing significant interference. Furthermore, we recognized
    that low power AM stations were capable of causing significantly
    higher levels of interference as a result of AM signal propagation
    characteristics. With regard to the use of the FM band, we concluded
    that the large number of existing FM stations precluded us from
    designating any specific frequencies for LPFM service, as no such
    channels are available throughout the country. Thus we sought
    comment on whether we should allow LPFM stations to operate
    throughout the entire band or restrict the reserved portion of the
    FM band (Channels 201-220) for noncommercial educational (NCE)
    stations. We also contemplated that low power radio stations would
    desire to use auxiliary broadcast frequencies, where available \--
    for example, for studio-to-transmitter links and transmissions of
    remote broadcasts \-- and sought comment in this regard.

57. [Comments]{.underline}. No commenters specifically supported the
    allocation of new spectrum for the proposed service.[^98] Many
    commenters agreed that existing interference within the AM band and
    the relative complexity of AM facilities should preclude
    consideration of a low power AM service.[^99] Some commenters,
    however, argue that an AM low power station should be an option in
    areas where the FM spectrum is too crowded to permit new stations.
    With regard to the FM band, most commenters support the view that
    the reserved band should continue to be reserved for NCE use only.
    However, NPR, CPB and several other commenters are particularly
    concerned that the introduction of numerous new stations in the
    reserved band would potentially increase interference to existing
    stations, especially in areas beyond their protected contours.[^100]
    At the same time, other commenters expressed the desire to allow NCE
    low power stations throughout the FM band.[^101]

58. [Decision]{.underline}. We will authorize low power radio stations
    throughout the FM band, where the stations will fit, but not in the
    AM band. Although FM band crowding may preclude or limit LPFM
    opportunities in certain markets, we are not persuaded that the
    creation of an AM low power radio service is warranted. Likewise, we
    acknowledge the concerns of CPB and NPR about the current "crowding"
    within the reserved band. However, we note that we are adopting
    minimum distance separations between LPFM and full-service stations
    based upon the assumption that full service stations operate with
    maximum height and power for their class. Therefore, an LPFM station
    would generally provide greater protection to stations operating in
    the reserved band than that afforded to them by other full service
    stations, for which station facilities are spaced more closely on
    the basis of the contour protection methodology.[^102] Because LPFM
    stations will be licensed throughout the FM band, they will not be
    concentrated in the reserved portion of the FM spectrum. We note,
    however, that LPFM stations, regardless of their location in the FM
    band, are reserved to qualified NCEs. We will apply the same
    interference protection and other technical standards for LPFM
    operations in the reserved and nonreserved bands. This will
    facilitate application processing and uniform LPFM technical
    operating requirements.

59. In view of their relatively smaller service areas, we believe that
    most LPFM stations will co-locate program origination and
    transmission facilities. As a result, these stations would not
    require studio-to-transmitter links (STL) between these facilities.
    However, we will not foreclose LPFM operators the use of broadcast
    auxiliary frequencies used by full-service radio stations for this
    purpose. LPFM stations may also desire to air programming relayed
    from a remote location, such as an athletic event, or in connection
    with news gathering. Generally, we will permit entities authorized
    to operate LPFM stations to use remote pickup frequencies and radio
    broadcast auxiliary frequencies in the manner in which full-service
    stations use these frequencies, pursuant to the technical rules and
    procedures given in Subparts D and E of Part 74 of our rules.
    However, we will require that LPFM operations on auxiliary
    frequencies be secondary to that of full-service broadcast stations
    and other primary users, given the congestion of frequency use in
    some locales. We note that TV auxiliary frequencies are licensed to
    low power TV stations on this basis.[^103] An entity seeking to
    operate an LPFM station may apply for broadcast auxiliary license
    only after it has been authorized to construct the LPFM
    station.[^104]

### LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities

60. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we raised issues
    regarding the spectrum priority of the contemplated classes of LPFM
    service. We recognized that our resolution of these issues would
    affect where LPFM stations could locate and the stability of their
    operations. Additionally, LPFM interference protection rights and
    responsibilities could affect existing and future FM radio service.
    The *Notice* proposed a 1000-watt primary service and a 100-watt
    secondary service. It sought comment on a 10-watt class of LPFM
    station that would be secondary to all other FM radio services. As
    proposed, LP100 and LP10 stations would not be permitted to
    interfere within the protected service contours of existing and
    future primary stations and would not be protected against
    interference from these stations. We sought comment on whether LP100
    stations should be permitted to select channels without regard to
    interference received and on the extent to which LP100 stations
    should protect FM translator and booster stations.

61. [Comments]{.underline}: Given our decision not to create a 1000-watt
    LPFM station class, this summary is limited to the issue of spectrum
    priorities for LP100 and LP10 stations. The comments were divided on
    whether LPFM stations should have a primary or secondary regulatory
    status. Several commenters supported primary status for all LPFM
    stations, mainly to help ensure their survival.[^105] The ACLU of
    Massachusetts believes that all LPFM stations should be primary, but
    should be willing to accept higher than normal amounts of
    interference.[^106] The Community Broadcasters Association supported
    primary status for all LPFM stations as a way to open capital
    markets for these stations.[^107] Some commenters supported a
    modified form of primary status for LPFM. Amherst Alliance supported
    a status that would not permit LPFM stations to "bump" other
    stations, but would also protect LPFM stations from being
    "bumped."[^108] Community Broadcasters commented that LPFM stations
    should be given primary status with respect to analog stations, but
    have a secondary status with respect to digital radio
    stations.[^109] Other commenters, including some broadcast
    licensees, supported a secondary status for LPFM stations.[^110] Big
    City Radio, Inc., for example, stated that LPFM stations should not
    be permitted to block the relocation of full-power stations forced
    to relocate their transmitter sites.[^111] Mississippi Valley
    Broadcasters, LLC commented that LPFM stations should be given the
    same secondary spectrum priority as FM translator stations.[^112]
    According to the Association of Federal Communications Consulting
    Engineers, LP100 stations should be secondary and not be permitted
    to displace FM translator stations.[^113] Aaron Read commented that
    Class D FM stations should be secondary to LP100 stations because of
    their higher power, but that microradio stations should be secondary
    to Class D.[^114] Jeffrey Richman, chief operator of a Class D
    station, commented that Class D licensees should not be secondary to
    LPFM licensees.[^115]

62. [Decision.]{.underline} In crafting interference protection rights
    and responsibilities for an LPFM service, we seek to balance our
    vital interest in maintaining the technical integrity of existing
    radio services with our desire to create a supple and viable
    community-oriented radio service. First and foremost, we must
    require that new LPFM stations protect radio reception within the
    service areas of existing full-service stations, as well as the
    existing services of FM translator and booster stations. Second,
    LPFM stations, with their much smaller service areas and fewer
    service regulations, should not prevent FM stations from modifying
    or upgrading their facilities, nor should they preclude
    opportunities for new full-service stations. Additionally, LPFM
    applications will be required to protect vacant FM allotments.
    Subject to these constraints, however, we want to foster a stable
    and enduring LPFM service. Once an LPFM station is built and
    operating, we wish to permit it to continue operating on its
    channel, wherever possible, as the radio environment changes around
    it. We want to minimize, to the extent possible, the situations in
    which we would require an LPFM station to change its channel or
    cease operating. This measure of stability, we believe, would assist
    LPFM station applicants or operators in obtaining financing to
    construct and operate stations and to better serve their
    communities. It may also create an incentive for the operation of a
    first local radio station in many communities or radio service that
    would be responsive to other unmet needs. We believe the approach
    set forth below appropriately balances the above objectives.

63. *Protection to existing FM radio services*: Applicants for new or
    modified LP100 or LP10 facilities will be required to meet minimum
    station separation distances to protect the service contours of
    authorized commercial and noncommercial FM stations of all classes,
    including Class D. In the same manner, they will be required to
    protect the existing service of FM translator and booster stations
    and LP100 stations. We will also require LPFM applicants to protect
    full-service FM, FM translator and LP100 facilities proposed in
    applications (for example, FM minor change applications) filed
    before a public notice announcing an LPFM application filing window.
    Applications filed after the release date of an LPFM window notice
    will not be protected against LPFM applications filed in that
    window. However, full-service applicants will not be required to
    protect the facilities proposed in LPFM applications. We believe
    this approach fairly balances the interests of full-service and LPFM
    applicants. LPFM station proposals to operate on channels 201-220
    will also be required to protect television stations operating on TV
    Channel 6. Applicants for LP100 stations will not be required to
    protect authorized LP10 stations or LP10 application proposals,
    given the relatively smaller service areas of LP10 stations.[^116]
    Station separation requirements for these various purposes are
    described in paragraphs 68-72 and 114 and the separation distances
    are presented in the tables in the attached rules.

64. The extent of interference protection from LPFM stations to existing
    FM, LPFM and FM translator and booster service generally will be
    that afforded by minimum station separation requirements. These were
    designed to provide the same degree of interference protection that
    full-service stations provide each other.[^117] We have added a
    20-kilometer buffer to the separations for protecting co-channel and
    first adjacent channel full-service stations. This buffer will help
    to protect FM radio facilities that were modified or upgraded in a
    manner that would create a short-spacing with an operating LPFM
    station. LPFM stations will not be required to eliminate
    interference caused to FM stations by their lawful operations. They
    will, however, be required to eliminate interference caused by
    operations that violate the terms of the station's authorization or
    the Commission's Rules; for example, radiation of excessive
    emissions outside of the station's authorized channel. LPFM station
    operators will also be required to respond to complaints of
    "blanketing" interference (*see* paragraph 113.). They will also be
    subject to international agreements regarding the elimination of
    interference to primary Canadian or Mexican broadcast stations.
    Until these agreements are modified, we believe it is appropriate to
    apply to LPFM stations the international provisions applicable to FM
    translators, which operate at comparable power levels.

65. *LPFM rights and responsibilities with respect to subsequently
    modified, upgraded or new full-service FM stations.* We are not
    adopting for the LPFM service many of the regulations applicable to
    full-service stations; for example LPFM stations will not be
    required to have a main studio. LPFM stations also will service much
    smaller areas than full-service stations. For these reasons, we do
    not believe that an LPFM station should be given an interference
    protection right that would prevent a full-service station from
    seeking to modify its transmission facilities or upgrade to a higher
    service class. Nor should LPFM stations foreclose opportunities to
    seek new full-service radio stations. Accordingly, operating LPFM
    stations will not be protected against interference from
    subsequently authorized full-service facility modifications,
    upgrades, or new FM stations. Because we will not protect LPFM from
    future FM facilities, we will not require LPFM applicants to meet
    minimum distance separation requirements to protect their service
    areas against interference received. However, as a guide to LPFM
    applicants, the attached rules includes minimum station separation
    distances necessary to protect an LPFM station's 60 dBu contour.

66. We expressed our desire to provide a measure of stability to
    operating LPFM stations. For this purpose, we will permit LPFM
    stations to continue operating even though they would cause
    interference within the protected service contours of a subsequent
    authorized FM service, including new stations and facilities
    modifications or upgrades of existing stations. In such situations,
    the LPFM operator would decide whether interference received to its
    service would permit the station to continue operating on its
    channel. However, we must make one exception to this policy. FM
    stations have a core responsibility to service their principal
    communities. Therefore, we will not permit an operating LPFM station
    to cause interference within a commercial or NCE FM station's 3.16
    mV/m (70 dB) contour. This issue can only arise in connection with a
    subsequently filed full-service new station or modification
    application. If grant of such an application would result in
    predicted interference within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of the
    proposed station, the affected LPFM station will be provided an
    opportunity to demonstrate that interference is unlikely to occur
    within this contour due to, for example, terrain shielding. If the
    LPFM station fails to make a sufficient showing, it will be directed
    to cease operations upon the commencement of program tests by the
    commercial or NCE FM station.

67. We recognize that actual interference within the 3.16 mV/m contour
    might still be possible where the LPFM station has demonstrated that
    it is unlikely. In these circumstances, a complaint of actual
    interference must be served on the LPFM station and filed with the
    Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM station must
    suspend operations within twenty-four hours of the receipt of a
    complaint unless the interference has been eliminated by the
    application of suitable techniques and to the satisfaction of the
    complainant. An LPFM station may resume operations only at the
    direction of the Commission. If the Commission determines that a
    complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial
    techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the interference without
    impairment of the original reception of the full-service station,
    the licensee of the LPFM station will be absolved of further
    responsibility. As a practical matter we believe that in many cases
    involving FM station modifications or upgrades, interference to new
    or expanded areas will be offset by the conservative separation
    distances met by the LPFM station when it was initially authorized,
    particularly because of the 20-kilometer interference protection
    buffer.

### Minimum Distance Separation Requirements

68. [Background]{.underline}. The *Notice* tentatively concluded that
    minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM stations would
    provide the most efficient means to process a large number of
    applications while ensuring the overall technical integrity of the
    FM service. We proposed minimum spacings to protect full-service
    station operation on the same channel, first-adjacent channel and
    intermediate frequency (IF) channels. We proposed to exclude
    third-adjacent channel protection and questioned the need for
    second-adjacent channel spacing requirements. We noted that the use
    of a contour overlap methodology could significantly delay the
    implementation of the LPFM service because it would require
    substantial preparation on the part of applicants and the Commission
    and would increase the processing burden on the staff. The *Notice*
    included spacing tables for the proposed LPFM classes based on the
    interference protection ratios that underlie full-service radio
    separations and the assumption that stations operate at the maximum
    height and power for their station class. We sought comment on the
    accuracy of the specific values listed in these tables. In addition,
    we requested comment as to whether alternate approaches, including
    contour overlap methodology and/or more sophisticated terrain
    modeling programs, should be used at a later time, based on our
    initial experience in authorizing LPFM service.

69. [Comments]{.underline}. No comments challenge any of the specific
    values listed in our proposed minimum distance separation tables.
    However, one commenter, Summit American, Inc. (Summit), suggests an
    alternate methodology based upon a full service station's 44 dBu
    F(50,50) protected service contour, instead of the 60 dBu contour
    that defines the protected service contours for all NCE and many
    commercial stations. The 44 dBu contour is cited by Summit as the
    "extent of listenable service for the average listener," based upon
    the comments filed by USADR, one of the proponents of an
    in-band-on-channel digital audio broadcasting (IBOC DAB) system. In
    support of the definition of service beyond that protected by the
    Commission, Summit cites the Commission's FM translator interference
    rules which define interference as affecting an area where there is
    reception of "a regularly used signal.[^118]" Although it does not
    calculate distance separations, the North Carolina Association of
    Broadcasters and the Virginia Association of Broadcasters (NCAB/VAB)
    echo Summit's concerns and argue that our separation requirements
    should protect actual service areas beyond protected contours.[^119]
    Several commenters urged either the use of a contour overlap
    methodology or a combination of contour overlap and separation
    requirements in order to accommodate the licensing of additional
    LPFM stations.[^120]

70. [Decision.]{.underline} We recognize that a distance separation
    methodology will preclude new LPFM stations in some areas. However,
    we are not persuaded that the potential benefit of some additional
    stations is substantial enough to warrant the preparation of more
    complex and costly engineering exhibits based on contour protection
    and the resulting delays in the authorization of LPFM service.
    Therefore, we are adopting minimum separation requirements for the
    LPFM service as the means of protecting full service commercial and
    noncommercial educational stations.[^121] We also adopt spacing
    rules to protect FM translator stations and other LPFM stations, as
    well as a spacing table for LPFM stations operating on Channels 201
    through 220 with respect to protection of TV Channel 6.[^122] As we
    proposed in the *Notice*, we will not establish minimum separations
    between LPFM stations that operate two or three channels apart.
    Special case spacing tables are also being adopted for Puerto Rico
    and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Additionally, appropriate spacings will
    be used for the approximately 20 "grandfathered superpowered"
    stations operating in the reserved band.[^123] These spacing tables
    are set forth in the new rules, in Appendix A. LPFM applicants
    should be mindful of the fact that the minimum separation distances
    being adopted will not protect LPFM stations against interference
    from the full service stations, but are designed to prevent the LPFM
    station from causing interference to the protected service areas of
    full-service FM and other protected stations. However, as a guide to
    LPFM applicants, we are including in the rules a table giving the
    minimum separations necessary to avoid interference within the LPFM
    station service areas.

71. The minimum distance separation requirements that we adopt here for
    LPFM stations do not apply to full-service stations and FM
    translators. To prevent subsequently filed FM translator stations
    from causing interference to existing LPFM stations, we will expand
    the current FM translator interference protection rules to include a
    requirement that previously authorized LPFM stations be protected.
    As noted above, we will permit a full service station to modify its
    facility in a manner that reduces these separations to LPFM
    stations. However, in such cases we generally will not require the
    LPFM station to cease operation. Instead, the affected stations will
    have to bear any interference caused by facilities changes, such as
    an FM transmitter site move. However, so as to reduce the potential
    impact on the affected stations, the spacing rules we adopt today
    include a 20 km "buffer" for co-channel and first-adjacent channel
    LPFM-to-full-service-FM stations. This additional separation is
    included for two reasons. First of all, we recognize that the FM
    band is not static. For example, broadcast stations often change
    transmitter sites to provide better service to their communities and
    service areas. Same-station-class transmitter site moves are
    generally less than 20 km from the original site. Therefore,
    inclusion of the 20 km buffer spacing allows full-service stations
    room to move while also reducing the potential impact on existing
    LPFM stations. Second, and equally important, the additional
    separation affords the LPFM station an increased likelihood that its
    operation would not cause interference within a full service
    station's community of license. This additional 20 km separation
    will apply only to the initial establishment of the LPFM station.
    Subsequent site moves by the LPFM station would either need to meet
    this distance separation requirement, or if the existing spacing
    were already less than this amount due to a prior site move by a
    full service station, the spacing could not be less than the
    currently existing separation.

72. *International Coordination Provisions*. We are also adopting
    provisions for LP10 and LP100 stations which lie within 320 km of
    the Canadian or Mexican borders, consonant with existing
    international agreements between the respective countries. We will
    apply the existing FM translator rule, 47 CFR § 74.1235, and current
    international coordination procedures to LPFM stations in these
    areas.[^124] In the attached rules, we include distance separation
    tables that were intended to ensure compliance with the appropriate
    international agreements. We will adopt these tables to the extent
    that foreign stations are provided the appropriate protection. We
    have also derived similar tables for LP10 stations. We will only
    accept LPFM proposals that meet these distances. Such proposals will
    be coordinated as required by the pertinent agreements. In addition,
    LP10 and LP100 applicants in the U.S. Virgin Islands should be aware
    that international coordination may be required with the British
    Virgin Islands in some instances.

### Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection

73. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice* we sought comment on the
    interference protection criteria to be used to govern the
    authorization of low power radio services. We stated that low power
    stations would be subject to existing co-channel and 1^st^-adjacent
    channel protections but that to the extent possible we were inclined
    to authorize low power service without any 2^nd^- and 3^rd^-adjacent
    channel protection standards.[^125] We stated our belief that a
    strong case could be made for not requiring 3^rd^-adjacent channel
    protection to or from any of the contemplated classes of LPFM
    stations. We indicated that such an approach would entail little
    risk of interference to existing radio service. We noted that areas
    of potential interference to a full power station would be very
    small and occur only in the immediate vicinity of the low power
    transmission facility. We further indicated that such interference
    would generally only occur if the low power station were located at,
    or very near, the outer edge of the full power station's service
    contour where the full power station's signal is the weakest. We
    noted that 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection was eliminated for
    certain grandfathered and short-spaced full power stations in
    1997.[^126] On balance, we stated that creating opportunities for a
    new LPFM service should outweigh any small risks of interference to
    and from LP1000 and LP100 stations.[^127]

74. With regard to 2^nd^- adjacent channel protection, we noted that
    "grandfathered" short-spaced FM facilities were permitted to modify
    their facilities without regard to 2^nd^- and 3^rd^- adjacent
    channel spacings during the period from 1964 to 1987, and from 1997
    to the present. We indicated that no interference complaints were
    received as a result of those modifications and found that the small
    risk of interference was outweighed by improved service. Similarly,
    we noted that we have been willing in the past to accept small
    amounts of potential 2^nd^- and 3^rd^-adjacent channel interference
    in the noncommercial FM service where such interference is
    counterbalanced by substantial service gains.[^128] We sought
    comment on the state of receiver technology and the ability of
    receivers to operate satisfactorily in the absence of 2^nd^-adjacent
    channel protection. We also sought comment on the impact of
    eliminating 2^nd^- adjacent channel protection on the possible
    conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital mode, in
    particular with regard to in-band-on-channel (IBOC) technology. In
    this regard, we noted that one IBOC proponent, USA Digital Radio
    Partners, L.P. (USADR), suggested that 2^nd^-adjacent channel
    signals from analog FM stations in the existing radio environment
    would not pose an interference threat to its digital IBOC
    signal.[^129]

75. [Comments]{.underline}. Three technical studies of FM receivers were
    filed in response to the *Notice*. These studies were: 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).[^130] The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
    also completed a study of FM receivers that was placed in the record
    of the proceeding (OET study).[^131] 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).

76. *CEMA Study and Comments*. CEMA states that the purpose of its study
    is to document the sensitivity of consumer FM receivers to
    interference from other FM band signals. CEMA tested 16 consumer
    receivers, including 5 automobile radios, 5 "Home Hi Fi" tuners or
    receivers, 3 portable stereo systems, 2 portable radios and one
    "Walkman" radio. These receivers were tested under a number of
    conditions including co-channel, and 1^st^-, 2^nd^-, and 3^rd^-
    adjacent channel interference. CEMA asserts that its tests indicate
    that the FCC's proposal to eliminate 2^nd^- and 3^rd^- adjacent
    channel protections could result in significant interference to
    current and future FM service and threaten the deployment of future
    digital audio radio services. It therefore recommends that the
    2^nd^- and 3^rd^ -adjacent channel (and intermediate-frequency
    related) protections be maintained.

77. CEMA's test results are as follows:

-   The current FCC co-channel desired to undesired (D/U) signal
    protection ratio of 20 dB results in an average audio
    signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 24 dB. To achieve what CEMA regards
    as the desired target audio quality level, *i.e.*, 45 dB, an
    additional 22 dB of protection is needed.[^132]

-   The current FCC 1^st^-adjacent channel protection ratio of 6 dB
    results in an average S/N ratio of 36 dB. To achieve the 45 dB S/N
    level, an additional 11 dB of protection is needed. Tests also show
    potential analog-to-digital interference.

-   The current 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection ratio of -40 dB
    results in an average S/N of 28 dB, while at a D/U ratio of --30 dB
    the average S/N ratio is 35 dB.

-   The current 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection ratio of -40 dB
    results in an average S/N of 36 dB. Based on this finding, CEMA
    argues that the 3^rd^-adjacent protection should be maintained.

-   Intermodulation tests show that the current intermediate frequency
    (IF) protection requirements are required to avoid both IF
    interference and local oscillator interference.[^133]

78. *NAB Study and Reply Comments*. As part of its comments, NAB
    submitted a technical study of FM receivers. In addition, it
    provided extensive tabular and geographical data illustrating what
    it believed would be the impact of various LPFM operations on
    existing FM broadcast service. NAB states that the receiver study
    was conducted to determine the susceptibility of modern FM receivers
    to co- and adjacent-channel signals and to determine the potential
    for interference to existing FM stations should a new low power FM
    service be authorized. NAB tested a total of 28 FM radios. This
    sample included 8 automobile, 5 component, 5 portable, 5 personal
    and 5 clock radios. In its reply, NAB argues that its sample is the
    only one of those used in the four studies that fairly represented
    all receiver categories.

79. In conducting its study, NAB chose a 50 dB audio S/N ratio as its
    performance measure. It considered interference to occur when the
    audio S/N ratio was degraded to this level. For radios that could
    not attain a 50 dB audio S/N ratio in the absence of an interfering
    signal, interference was judged to occur when the audio S/N ratio
    was degraded by a factor of 5 dB. NAB's test results demonstrate
    that receivers are most sensitive to co-channel interference and are
    progressively less sensitive to interference as the spacing between
    the desired and undesired frequencies increases. Based on its
    performance measure, NAB indicates that 15 to 22 of the 28 receivers
    in its sample would experience interference from signals on
    3^rd^-adjacent channels at the current -40 dB D/U protection
    ratio.[^134] NAB also indicates that 22 to 23 receivers in its
    sample would experience interference from signals on 2^nd^-adjacent
    channels. NAB therefore concludes that FM receivers generally do not
    perform up to the current FCC interference standards and that the
    Commission's assumptions that these restrictions could be eliminated
    for LPFM stations are incorrect.

80. In its reply comments, NAB also criticizes the receiver samples used
    in the other technical studies. It argues that only its study tested
    five different categories of receivers and a full price range of
    receivers in all categories. It also argues that OET and CEMA did
    not test clock radios and OET did not test personal radios, while
    CEMA only included one personal radio in its sample. NAB further
    asserts that while NLG tested all categories, its sample was too
    small to derive any general conclusions. NAB notes that all of the
    studies agree that automobile radios and, in some cases, component
    receivers, tend to be more effective at rejecting adjacent channel
    interference than clock, personal and portable radios.[^135]
    However, NAB asserts that all of the studies confirm that modern FM
    receivers do not perform as well as the existing FCC protection
    criteria for 2^nd^- and 3^rd^-adjacent channel interference assume.

81. *NLG Study*. The NLG study examined a sample of 10 consumer FM
    radios. These radios were grouped in three broad categories as
    follows: 1) 3 higher priced radios (generally above \$150); 5 lower
    priced radios (\$20 to \$150); and 3) 2 factory installed car
    radios. Based on its test results, NLG observed that car radios and
    higher priced radios performed "far better than one would predict
    based on the FCC interference ratios" and that "substantial signal
    strengths were required to cause 2^nd^, 3^rd^, and 4^th^ adjacent
    channel interference.[^136] It also observed that the performance of
    lower priced radios tended to "straddle" the FCC interference
    protection standards.

82. NLG indicated that it was difficult to establish a definition of
    unacceptable interference, noting that its tests demonstrated that
    even the best receivers showed measurable, often imperceptible,
    increases in distortion in the presence of extremely low level
    undesired signals. It stated while the traditional practice is to
    establish a standard based on an absolute level of noise or
    distortion, such as a 3% increase in distortion or a S/N ratio of 30
    dB, actual FM listening conditions are dependent on such variables
    as reception conditions, baseline radio performance without
    interference, and the various sounds and effects that interference
    can create. NLG stated that these variables make it difficult to
    scientifically derive a universal measure of unacceptable
    interference. NLG indicated that in testing radios, it found that
    the distortion and noise performance of each radio exhibited a
    "transition zone" where the radio would suddenly fail to receive the
    desired signal. It used these transition zones to make comparisons
    between radios, between forms of undesired signal modulation, and
    between interference from signals on adjacent channels.[^137]

83. The NLG study's findings are as follows:

-   More aggressive modulation of the undesired signal did not cause a
    significant increase in interference and that this was especially
    true for signals on 2^nd^, 3^rd^, and 4^th^ adjacent channels. Less
    costly radios were more susceptible to modulation induced
    interference than more costly radios.

-   The response of all radios tested for co-channel and first adjacent
    channel interference matched or exceeded the FCC interference
    protection ratios.

-   Higher priced radios tend to withstand 2^nd^-adjacent channel
    interference better than lower priced radios. Higher priced radios
    and car radios withstood undesired signal levels higher than the FCC
    interference protection standards. The poorest performing radios
    were susceptible to 2^nd^-adjacent channel undesired signal levels
    that were as much as 50 dB lower than the levels that affected the
    best performers.

-   3^rd^-adjacent channel interference was slightly less challenging to
    most radios than 2^nd^- adjacent channel interference. Higher priced
    radios and car radios tended to fare better than lower priced
    radios.

84. *OET Study*. The OET study examined four broad categories of FM
    receivers: 1) small, inexpensive receivers with integral antenna; 2)
    small, moderate-cost receivers with antenna connection; 3)
    dash-mount automobile receivers; and 4) moderately expensive audio
    component receivers. In the OET study, 21 FM receivers were tested.
    These included 5 small, moderate-cost receivers with antenna
    connections (portable and "boom-box" receivers), 7 automobile
    receivers, and 9 moderately expensive audio component receivers
    ("component" or home stereo type receivers). No inexpensive
    receivers with integral antennas were selected for the test sample
    because of the difficulty of providing test signals at accurately
    controlled levels to this type of device.[^138] The OET study found
    that nearly all the receivers in the sample appear to meet or exceed
    the current 40 dB 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection requirement and
    to exceed the 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection by a wide margin.
    The OET study indicated that there was about an 8-10 dB improvement
    in overall performance with regard to interference immunity with
    regard to 3^rd^-adjacent channel signals as compared to
    2^nd^-adjacent channel signals. The study also investigated the
    effect of reducing the maximum FM deviation on the interfering
    signal and found that a small improvement in 2^nd^- and
    3^rd^-adjacent channel interference immunity can be expected for
    most receivers.

85. *Rappaport Study*. The Rappaport study[^139] analyzes the other
    research, and concludes that LPFM will not cause unacceptable levels
    of service to existing FM broadcast stations. Rappaport indicates
    that the submitted technical studies support elimination of 2^nd^-
    and 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection for low power radio and that
    the small additional interference that would be induced by LPFM is
    miniscule in comparison to the already existing FM interference
    levels.[^140] Rappaport also asserts that there was a clear bias in
    some of the technical studies to overstate potential LPFM
    interference. He indicates, for example, that NAB omitted automobile
    radios (which make up over 20% of the radios sold and over 44% of
    the radios listened to by the public) from its LPFM impact study and
    made up a "worst-case" radio based on measurements from different
    radios. Spectrum studies are also included that, according to
    Rappaport, indicate hundreds of LPFM stations may be deployed at
    power levels between one and 100 watts and serving tens of millions
    of listeners while having minimal interference impact on tens of
    thousands of listeners at most.

86. Rappaport states that NAB's and CEMA's tests appear to be designed
    to show how poorly FM receivers perform compared with the FCC
    interference protection ratios. He argues that these protection
    ratios were developed to ensure that stations were not built too
    close together, thereby providing acceptable reception by early
    generation of radios. He argues that today's receivers drift less,
    have more reproducible electrical characteristics and better
    detection capabilities. He states that the fact that modern
    receivers do not meet the FCC protection ratios while still
    providing good consumer performance demonstrates that the protection
    ratios are overly stringent. Rappaport argues that FM receiver
    performance is based on actual real world environment, consumer
    expectations, and design/cost tradeoffs, and has nothing to do with
    how the FCC assigns station licenses.[^141] Rappaport argues that
    studies show that consumers are pleased with FM radios that have
    much less protection immunity than assumed by the FCC protection
    guidelines, and thus LPFM can be easily implemented since LPFM will
    introduce only a small amount of additional interference.

87. Rappaport notes that the FCC regulations require that out-of-band
    emissions on the 1^st^-adjacent channels be at least 25 dB below the
    main carrier but that in practice they are 30 dB below this level.
    He therefore suggests that if LPFM transmitters are certified for
    proper operation as suggested, there is no reason to expect
    interference except for blanketing conditions.

88. Rappaport indicates that the interference potential of LPFM stations
    is as follows:

+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
| LPFM     | Interference | Interference | Service      | Service   |
| Power    | Radius (mi.) |              | Radius (mi.) | Area      |
|          |              | Area (sq.    |              |           |
| (Watts)  |              | mi.)         |              | (sq. mi.) |
+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
| 1        | 0.04         | 0.01         | 1.1          | 4.0       |
+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
| 10       | 0.14         | 0.06         | 2.0          | 12.1      |
+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
| 100      | 0.44         | 0.60         | 3.5          | 38.5      |
+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+

89. Rappaport also argues that several conditions must exist for
    interference to occur, such as: the LPFM station must be at the
    coverage fringe of the incumbent station; the listener only wishes
    to listen to a station 2 or 3 channels above or below the LPFM
    station; and the listener is using a poor performing radio like a
    clock radio. However, even in these circumstances, Rappaport asserts
    that, in many instances, the listener may be able to eliminate the
    interference by adjusting the position of the clock radio or boom
    box for good reception. Rappaport further argues that the percentage
    of people experiencing interference from a low power station is much
    less (0.24% to 1.56%) than the people that would be served by a low
    power station.[^142]

90. Rappaport also criticizes several aspects of the receiver studies by
    NAB and CEMA. For example, he indicates that despite CEMA's claims,
    its receiver sample is not representative of the population of
    receivers in use. He also states that neither NAB or CEMA weighted
    their results to take into account the high proportion of listening
    (44%) that occurs in vehicles and that this failure over-emphasized
    the poor performance of certain other radios. Rappaport also does
    not believe that the quality criteria selected were appropriate. He
    notes that NAB chose a quality threshold that was impossible for the
    majority of its receivers to meet. He states that this suggests
    either the performance metric was unrealistic, or that there was an
    intentional effort to select inferior radios. He argues that
    choosing a fixed quality threshold creates testing and sampling
    problems. Rappaport argues that in an academic setting, the design
    of NAB's and CEMA's tests would be considered flawed and the results
    from such tests would be disregarded.[^143] Rappaport also states
    that none of the four tests gives a complete picture of receiver
    performance because they all used only a limited range of desired
    input signals.

91. He indicates that while it is difficult to compare the different
    receiver studies, they demonstrate that car radios are much more
    robust to interference and are typically designed to meet the FCC
    2^nd^- and 3^rd^- adjacent protection ratio (-40 dB D/U ratio). He
    indicates that other radios do not require this level of protection
    because, unlike automobile radios, they do not experience severe
    fading nor do they move rapidly towards an interfering signal.

92. Rappaport also criticizes NAB's mapping study. He states that this
    study seriously over-counted the number of people potentially
    affected by LPFM interference by counting affected people multiple
    times, using the worst possible receiver performance, inventing a
    "worst radio," and omitting interference from incumbent FM
    stations.[^144] Finally, Rappaport indicates that IBOC proponents'
    concerns about 2^nd^-adjacent channel operation by LPFM are
    unwarranted.

93. [Decision]{.underline}. We find that the record in this proceeding
    thus far, including the technical data and other studies submitted,
    supports a conclusion that any risk of interference from LPFM
    stations of 100 watts or less is small and, on balance, is
    outweighed by the benefits of this new service. We conclude that it
    is not necessary to apply 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection
    requirements to or from such stations. As discussed below, we
    believe 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. Nor do we believe such operations
    are likely to have an adverse effect on digital IBOC signals.[^145]

94. In considering the issues relating to potential interference from
    LPFM operation, we first observe that all of the technical studies
    before us have certain limitations that make direct comparison of
    the study results difficult. Most significantly, all of the studies
    used different measures to determine when interference occurs and
    the quality of service to be protected. This fact explains somewhat
    the differences in the conclusions drawn by the various
    studies.[^146] As NAB indicates, the significant differences among
    the studies were not in the measurements or in the performance of
    the radio receivers tested, but rather in the criteria used to
    decide whether the effects of an interfering signal caused harm to
    the desired signal.[^147] We generally concur with this assessment.

95. Both CEMA and NAB used an audio signal-to-noise criterion to define
    acceptable FM service.[^148] CEMA used a S/N value of 45 dB based on
    an earlier study by NPR. NAB chose a 50 dB S/N criteria. NAB states
    that an audio S/N of 50 dB is necessary for interference-free
    reception.[^149] NAB indicates that an estimate of the appropriate
    S/N can be made from the FCC co-channel desired-to-undesired (D/U)
    interference ratio of 20 dB. It states that the FCC co-channel
    protection ratio of 20 dB should produce an audio S/N ratio of
    approximately 50 dB for monophonic reception.[^150]

96. We do not find the audio S/N criteria suggested by either CEMA or
    NAB to be appropriate interference criteria for today's FM radio
    service. FM radio stations provide stereophonic not monophonic
    service. While a 20 dB D/U ratio yields a *monophonic* audio S/N of
    about 50 dB, according to an earlier study by NAB, for
    *stereophonic* transmissions, the 20 dB protection ratio yields an
    audio S/N of only about 30 dB.[^151] While NAB and CEMA may desire
    that FM radio service be protected to higher levels of service,
    based on NAB's earlier study and the results of the technical
    studies before us herein, we do not believe that the existing
    interference protection standards, *e.g.*, the 20 dB co-channel
    interference requirement, generally provides for protection to such
    levels.

97. We also believe that accounting for both stereo performance and the
    FCC's current interference protection standards explains why many of
    the FM receivers tested did not meet the criteria chosen by CEMA and
    NAB, or did exhibit performance degradation higher than NAB's and
    CEMA's expectations. For example, the majority of receivers (17
    of 28) chosen by NAB did not meet its 50 dB S/N criteria with *no*
    interference present and with the "strongest" desired signal.[^152]
    Similarly, CEMA reports that none of its sample receivers "came near
    meeting the target S/N" of 45 dB at the FCC's co-channel standard of
    20 dB.[^153] NLG, in its study, states that "receiver performance
    data show that all receivers produce some measurable increase in
    noise at undesired signal levels below the FCC ratio reference
    levels." We therefore fail to see how 50 or 45 dB can be an
    appropriate measure when most radios do not perform at this level,
    even in the absence of any interference as was the case in NAB's
    tests. We have no reason to find that the vast majority of current
    FM receivers do not provide satisfactory service to the public and
    therefore believe that a lower value or measure of acceptable
    performance would be more appropriate for interference purposes. We
    believe that this is especially the case if we are to consider all
    categories of FM receivers, including lower cost models, such as
    clock, portable and personal units, as suggested by some of the
    commenting parties.

98. Another limitation of the studies was the relatively limited sample
    of FM receivers examined. The relatively small samples examined in
    each of the studies makes it difficult to draw statistical
    inferences with regard to the general population of FM receivers.
    However, the studies do clearly indicate that current FM radios
    exhibit a wide range of performance with regard to audio reception
    quality and interference rejection. While a 50 dB, 45 dB, or even 40
    dB reception quality level, as suggested by Rappaport, may be
    expected for certain types of radios, such as automobile radios and
    home stereos, clearly from the data presented these levels of
    performance are not the norm for other types of radios, such as
    portable, personal and clock radios. In addition, all of the studies
    found that automobile radios and home stereo/component receivers
    tend to be more effective at rejecting adjacent channel interference
    than clock, personal and portable radios.[^154] Based on our
    examination of the studies, we find that automobile radios and home
    stereo/component receivers generally are able to provide -40 dB
    rejection of 3^rd^-adjacent channel signals and therefore generally
    will provide acceptable service in the absence of 3^rd^-adjacent
    channel protection. We also recognize that some poorer quality
    receivers may experience some additional interference as a result of
    eliminating the 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection for LPFM stations.
    We note, however, that these classes of radio may also experience
    some degree of interference from co- and 1^st^-adjacent channel
    stations operating within the existing protection requirements. We
    also believe that consumers generally 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, as suggested by Rappaport. We therefore
    believe that our decisions with regard to LPFM service should not be
    constrained solely by the performance limitations of lower cost
    radios any more than we should use those radios to redefine existing
    FM radio service. In this regard, we believe that good engineering
    practice suggests that evaluations of the potential impact of new
    interference from low power FM stations should not be based on
    either the worst or best performing radios.

99. The NAB study generally bases its analyses on median receiver
    performance, and the CEMA study generally uses average performance
    to describe its results. In addition, since the studies use
    different measures of when interference occurs, it is difficult to
    directly compare the test results. Nonetheless, we believe that
    there is sufficient consistency in the study results to support some
    decisions in this matter, particularly with regard to the need for
    3^rd^-adjacent channel protection.

100. The OET and NLG studies generally conclude that FM receivers
     provide for adequate rejection of interference on 2^nd-^ and
     3^rd^-adjacent channels.[^155] The OET study, for example, finds
     that nearly all receivers in its sample appear to meet or exceed
     the 2^nd^ -adjacent channel protection and exceed the
     3^rd^-adjacent channel protection criteria by a substantial margin,
     i.e., exceed the -40 dB criteria by 8 to 10 dB.[^156] On the other
     hand, CEMA and NAB argue that their studies show that these
     adjacent channel protections should be retained. A careful review
     of CEMA's results, however, shows that CEMA's median receiver
     provides about -40 dB of rejection of 3^rd^-adjacent channel
     interference and that the average 3^rd^ -adjacent channel
     performance is about 3 to 7 dB better than 2^nd^-adjacent channel
     performance for its sample.[^157] Similarly, while we question the
     validity of NAB's interference criteria, its test results also show
     3^rd^-adjacent channel performance to be substantially better than
     2^nd^-adjacent (*i.e*., 8 to 10 dB) \-- the same margin of
     improvement as found in the OET study. [^158]

101. We also find that the area in which any additional interference
     would be likely to occur from an LPFM station operating on a
     3^rd^-adjacent channel at maximum facilities of 100 watts and
     antenna height of 30 meters above average terrain would be very
     small. For example, even using NAB's median receiver performance
     test results for its three "worst" FM radio categories, *i.e.*,
     clock, personal and portable, we find that the area where such
     receivers could potentially experience degradation from
     interference is small, generally 1 km or less from an LPFM antenna
     site. This interference analysis is shown in the following table:

102. LPFM Potential Interference Radius[^159]

  ------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
  Receiver      Desired Signal                          
  Category      Level                                   

                -45 dBm             -55 dBm             -65 dBm

  Clock         0.3 km              0.7 km              2.1 km

  Portable      1.0 km              0.9 km              1.0 km

  Personal      0.4 km              0.5 km              0.5 km
  ------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

103. Further, we believe that this analysis provides a conservative
     estimate of actual interference potential of LPFM given NAB's
     performance criteria and the fact that NAB's sample included some
     of the poorer performing radios among the four studies.[^160] In
     addition, as pointed out by Rappaport and others, whether
     interference in fact occurs to FM listening is dependent on a
     number of factors, besides the performance of the FM receiver.
     These include, among other things, the actual reception conditions,
     such as the location and position of the radio, the frequency and
     location of both the desired and undesired stations, and the type
     of program material being transmitted and received. CEMA notes, for
     example, that when the desired signal is modulated with rock music
     the interference was masked in its 2^nd^- and 3^rd^-adjacent
     channel subjective tests.[^161]

104. Accordingly, we find 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. Furthermore,
     we find that any small amount of interference that may occur in
     individual cases would be outweighed by the benefits of new low
     power FM service. With regard to 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection
     requirements, it appears that the risk of interference from LPFM
     signals on 2^nd^-adjacent channels may be somewhat higher. We find
     that this would also be true with regard to LPFM stations at power
     levels higher than 100 watts and antenna heights higher than 30
     meters. Therefore, we will retain 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection
     requirements.

### Other Technical Standards and Provisions

105. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice,* we sought comment on
     which Part 73 technical operating requirements for full-service
     stations should be applied to LPFM stations. In general, most
     commenters stated that, although some requirements must remain to
     ensure a quality service, the LP100 and LP10 stations should be
     held to less stringent requirements than full service stations.
     While we do not want to overly burden LPFM operators, we
     nevertheless believe that the technical rules set forth below
     should apply to the LPFM stations. By doing so, we will not only
     facilitate technically sound LPFM operations and the use of
     available equipment, but will permit LPFM stations to engage in
     services such as those obtained through the multiplexing of FM
     subcarriers. There are some requirements applicable to full-service
     stations which we believe can be relaxed or not applied.
     Accordingly, we will apply certain rules to LP10 stations that
     apply to existing stations that operate with ten watts transmitter
     power output (TPO) or less.[^162] The following paragraphs set
     forth the principal technical requirements and provisions for LPFM
     stations. These technical matters were generally non-controversial
     to parties who filed comments in this proceeding. Other technical
     requirements for LPFM stations are given in the rules appendix.

106. *Power/Height restrictions*. Several commenters expressed the
     desire to operate facilities at heights in excess of those
     specified as the maximum/minimum facilities for the class. This
     would enable stations to use existing structures at sites where the
     localized elevation is such that the 30 meter HAAT would be
     exceeded regardless of the height of the structure. One commenter,
     the Arkansas Broadcasters Association, believes we should impose
     strict maximum height restrictions on LPFM stations since, due to
     the nature of the Commission's F(50,10) interference prediction
     curves, equivalent 1 mV/m (60 dBu) reference contours do not always
     guarantee proportionally sized interfering contours.[^163] Although
     Arkansas Broadcasters is correct in this regard, we are not
     persuaded that this is of sufficient magnitude to warrant strict
     height restrictions on LPFM stations. Rather, we will allow LPFM
     stations to exceed the class-defined upper height restrictions as
     long as there is an offsetting decrease in the station's effective
     radiated power. For this purpose, we will authorize equivalent
     height and power combinations to produce the 60 dBu contour
     generated by the maximum and minimum permitted facilities for the
     LP100 and LP10 stations; *e.g.,* the maximum LP100 facilities of
     100 watts and 30 meters produce a 60 dBu contour at a distance of
     5.6 km.[^164]

107. We recognize that computing a station's HAAT requires access to
     terrain database and numerous calculations.[^165] Therefore, in
     order to streamline the application process, the staff will utilize
     a computer program to calculate the antenna HAAT based upon
     information provided by the LPFM applicant (the coordinates of the
     proposed antenna, the site elevation above mean sea level, and the
     antenna height above ground level (AGL)). If the calculated HAAT is
     less than or equal to 30 meters, the LPFM station will be
     authorized to operate with any ERP within the maximum and minimum
     limits for its class.[^166] If the HAAT is calculated to exceed 30
     meters, the permit will specify maximum and minimum ERP values that
     would produce the reference 60 dBu contours.[^167]

108. *Directional antennas.* Under our current rules, full service FM
     stations may specify directional antennas to avoid interference to
     other stations. Such facilities are subject to several strict
     installation and pattern requirements.[^168] Processing these
     applications is staff intensive. Construction permits for
     directional facilities generally contain numerous conditions. Since
     we are relying on a minimum distance separation methodology --
     rather than a contour-based approach \-- to provide interference
     protection, we see no need for stations to employ directional
     antennas. Accordingly, to simplify applicant requirements and
     facilitate application processing and ensure that service can be
     implemented as expeditiously as possible, we will not authorize
     directional antennas for LPFM stations.

109. *Transmission standards.* The *Notice* asked whether different
     transmission standards should be employed for an LPFM service; for
     example, whether the bandwidth could be reduced from 200 kHz to
     some smaller value as a means of reducing the potential
     interference from LPFM stations. To ensure technically sound
     station operations, we have decided to apply to LPFM several
     transmission standards presently in use for commercial and
     noncommercial educational FM stations. In most cases, these
     standards will be met through the use of type 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 CFR § 73.317,
     the center frequency drift limits in 47 CFR § 73.1545(b), and the
     limits on modulation in 47 CFR § 73.1570(a) and (b). In addition,
     LPFM stations may, at their option, engage in monophonic or
     stereophonic broadcasting. LPFM stations may also transmit
     additional information via inaudible subcarriers during those
     periods when the audible FM signal is on the air.

110. *Antenna polarization*: We will permit LP10 and LP100 stations
     throughout the FM band to use horizontally polarized, vertically
     polarized, or circularly or elliptically polarized antennas, as
     desired by the applicant. We note that vertical-only polarized
     antennas have been used in the noncommercial educational FM service
     to protect reception of TV Channel 6 for nearly 15 years now,
     without adverse impact. This will afford LPFM stations a wider
     selection of antennas for use at LPFM stations.[^169]

111. *Protection of AM radio radiation patterns*: LPFM applicants should
     also be aware that antenna structure construction within 3.2 km (2
     miles) of a directional AM station or 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of a
     nondirectional AM station will subject the LPFM station to the
     requirements of 47 CFR §73.1692. This section requires the affected
     AM station to make before and after measurements of its
     installation to insure that the new antenna structure does not
     aversely affect the signal pattern through reflections of the AM
     signal produced by the new structure. The LPFM applicant is
     financially responsible for conducting the measurements and any
     corrective measures that may need to be undertaken. The
     measurements can be quite expensive to conduct, and correction even
     more so. Therefore, we encourage LPFM applicants to locate the
     antenna more than 3.2 km from any directional AM station, or more
     than 0.8 km from any AM nondirectional station.[^170]

112. *Tower Height/FAA Coordination Requirements.* Any proposal before
     the Commission that specifies an antenna supporting structure in
     excess of 61 meters above ground level is subject to the
     Commission's requirements for antenna structure registration
     requirements. Certain lower structures located close to air
     facilities are also subject to these requirements.[^171] All
     structures subject to registration requirements must obtain an FAA
     Determination of No Air Hazard for the structure before the tower
     may be registered. In a letter dated June 1, 1999, the FAA
     expressed some concern regarding the impact LP1000 stations may
     have upon nearby air facilities. No specific questions were raised
     regarding the lower powered facilities. Since we are not
     authorizing an LP1000 service at this time, we will continue
     determining compliance with our tower registration requirements in
     the manner set forth above.

113. *Blanketing Interference.* For one year after the commencement of
     transmissions with new or modified facilities, all FM stations are
     required to take remedial action to resolve blanketing interference
     complaints occurring within the immediate vicinity of the antenna
     site.[^172] A station's specific blanketing interference radius is
     defined by our rules.[^173] The blanketing contour for an LP100
     station would extend approximately 125 meters from the transmitter
     site and a 10-watt LP10 blanketing contour would extend 39 meters.
     Thus, the blanketing area of either type of station is very small.
     We conclude that LPFM stations should be required to resolve
     blanketing interference complaints in the same manner applicable to
     full power stations. Although the potential for blanketing
     interference from LPFM stations may be quite limited, affected
     parties are entitled to relief from such interference caused by a
     new source of radiation, whether it is a full-power commercial
     station or a new low power community broadcaster. Accordingly, we
     will apply the requirements in § 73.318 to all LPFM stations.[^174]

114. *Potential Television Channel 6 Interference.* Presently,
     noncommercial educational FM applicants are required to consider
     the impact of their operations on reception of television Channel
     6, which operates on a frequency band (82 to 88 MHz) just below the
     FM band (88 to 108 MHz) in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR
     § 73.525. Determining the affected interference area pursuant to
     this section usually requires complex calculations and detailed
     contour studies. Given the very limited potential for interference
     caused by LPFM stations, in order to simplify processing and lessen
     the filing burden on applicants, we will utilize a spacing table to
     protect TV Channel 6 stations. The values given in the table
     utilize the protection ratios of § 73.525 and worst case facilities
     for the TV Channel 6 and the LP10 and LP100 stations.[^175] On this
     basis, we do not anticipate that interference will occur. However,
     we will require LPFM applicants to correct any complaints of
     interference caused to Channel 6 reception in accordance with our
     blanketing interference requirements (as are Channel 6 complaints
     regarding full service stations). In most cases, this will require
     the installation of simple filters on affected television sets.
     LPFM applicants will not be required to coordinate their proposals
     with any potentially affected Channel 6 television station.

115. *Radio Reading Services.* Several radio reading services have
     expressed concerns about interference from LPFM stations to their
     service to persons who are blind or who have low vision.[^176]
     Programming provided by radio reading services is transmitted on
     subcarrier frequencies of a broadcast station, which are not
     audible on a standard radio. As the subcarrier frequencies are
     transmitted within the 200 kHz bandwidth of the broadcast station,
     they receive the same protection from interference as does the main
     broadcast programming. Thus, insofar as the transmitted subcarrier
     signal is concerned, there will be no increase in interference.
     With respect to subcarrier receivers used by the radio reading
     service audience, the Commission does not set technical standards
     for radio receivers. Thus, we cannot consider whether additional
     interference might affect SCA reception in the vicinity of an LPFM
     station, or whether different receiver construction could reduce
     possible interference. However, we note that the 20 km buffer
     between LPFM stations and co-channel or 1^st^-adjacent channel full
     service FM stations adopted in this *Order* should afford
     additional protection to subcarrier reception than was proposed in
     the *Notice*.[^177]

116. *Transmitter Certification***.** In the *Notice*, we tentatively
     concluded LPFM stations should utilize only transmitters deemed
     "type certified" by the Commission's Office of Engineering and
     Technology (OET) to ensure the integrity of the FM radio spectrum.
     Type certification would prevent the use of transmitters with
     excessive bandwidth or modulation, spurious emissions, excessive
     power output, or insufficient frequency stability, which could
     cause interference to other existing stations. A large majority of
     commenters concurred with this conclusion. A few licensed amateur
     radio operators felt that they should be exempt from this
     requirement, asserting that many amateurs were capable of creating
     suitable equipment.[^178] However, we remain concerned about the
     significant potential for interference caused by non-type certified
     transmitters, particularly given the interference-protection
     standards we are adopting. Nor do we believe that type
     certification of equipment by the manufacturer will add appreciably
     to the cost of equipment for a low power broadcast radio station.
     Accordingly, we will adopt the certification requirement as
     proposed in the *Notice*.[^179] We emphasize that the use of
     non-type certified transmitters will not be tolerated. Use of
     non-type certified transmitters will subject the licensee to
     enforcement action including, but not limited to, fines.

117. *Unattended Operation.* We anticipate that many LPFM stations will
     be run as "attended operations," since the transmitter sites will
     be located at the source of program origination. However, LPFM
     stations may also be operated in "unattended" mode. During these
     times, there may be no personnel at the studio or transmitter site
     to monitor operation. LPFM stations that will operate unattended
     will be required to advise the Commission by simple letter of the
     unattended operation, and provide an address and telephone number
     where a responsible party can be reached during such times. The
     responsible party must be able at all times to turn off the
     transmitter within 3 hours of receiving notice from the FCC that
     the equipment is not functioning properly. In addition, we
     encourage the use of monitoring equipment that can automatically
     shut off the transmitter within 3 hours if a fault (such as
     operation at excessive power operation or center frequency drift)
     occurs.[^180] Finally, during periods when the LPFM station is not
     transmitting programming on its regular channel, the transmitter
     must be turned off.

118. *Station Logs*. Station logs provide a mechanism for verifying
     proper operation of a station, as they require the licensee to
     examine the operation before making a log entry. Logging
     requirements for LPFM stations will be minimal. The station log for
     LPFM will contain only the following entries:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Daily observation of proper function of tower obstruction lighting
    (if required by Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules);

2)  Dates and a brief explanation regarding station outages due to
    equipment malfunctioning, servicing or replacement;

3)  Any operation not in accordance with the station license;

4)  Receipt of weekly EAS (Emergency Alert System) test;

5)  Name of person making the entry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
119. These minimal requirements will not impose any significant burden
     on LPFM licensees. Except for any required daily tower lighting
     checks, entries need only be made when necessary. Logs must be
     retained for two years from the date of the last entry, and station
     logs must be made available to FCC personnel upon request.

120. *Environmental Requirements.* As with any applicant for a
     Commission license, an LPFM proponent will have to certify
     compliance with the environmental requirements of Section 1.1307 of
     our rules. In order to facilitate the preparation and processing of
     LPFM applications, we will simplify the environmental compliance
     worksheets included in the current FCC Form 301 to account for the
     low operating power of LPFM stations.

121. *Radio Astronomy Installation Notifications.* Low power FM
     broadcast stations will be required to coordinate with and provide
     protection to the radio quiet zones at Green, West Virginia and at
     Boulder, Colorado, as is required for full service FM stations by
     Section 73.1030. In addition, low power FM applicants in Puerto
     Rico will need to coordinate with Cornell University regarding the
     radio coordination zone on that island. This requirement is
     necessary to ensure that research work at these installations will
     not be disrupted. Because of the low power and antenna height of
     LPFM stations, we anticipate that this requirement will affect very
     few applicants.[^181]

## Application Processing

### Electronic Filing

122. [Background]{.underline}. The Commission recently mandated the
     electronic filing of broadcast applications after a transition
     period of six months from the date that each form becomes available
     for filing electronically.[^182] Likewise, we proposed in the
     *Notice* to require that LPFM applications be filed
     electronically.[^183] We stated that mandatory electronic filing
     could speed the introduction of LPFM service by enabling the staff
     to process more quickly and efficiently the large number of LPFM
     applications that we expect to receive. In addition, we indicated
     that electronic filing software could be designed to assist
     applicants with technical issues related to their applications,
     such as determining what frequencies are available based on current
     information in the Commission\'s database. We requested comment as
     to whether Internet access is sufficiently universal to warrant
     mandatory electronic filing of LPFM applications.

123. [Comments]{.underline}. Commenters that addressed the matter
     generally support the use of electronic filing, but are divided as
     to whether it should be mandatory. Metro Detroit Broadcasting
     Corporation (Metro) opposes mandatory electronic filing on the
     ground that it would disadvantage minority groups due to a
     "significant race-gap" in Internet access.[^184] In addition, Metro
     argues that permissive electronic filing would provide time for
     interested parties to develop proficiency in using an electronic
     system.[^185] Andrew Morris argues that electronic filing should be
     required due to the threat of a backlog of paper-filed LPFM
     applications that would have to be entered manually into the
     Commission's database. However, several commenters express concern
     that electronic filing is untried and may delay the introduction of
     LPFM service. The Oklahoma and Texas Departments of Transportation
     comment that, based on their experiences renewing licenses and
     correcting addresses using the Commission's Web site, an electronic
     filing system is likely to be reasonably accessible and easy to
     use.[^186] Several commenters urge that, regardless of whether
     electronic filing is required, LPFM filing procedures should be as
     simple and inexpensive as possible.[^187]

124. [Decision]{.underline}. We anticipate that electronic forms will be
     made available via the Commission's World Wide Web site prior to
     the opening of the first LPFM filing window. Based on our
     consideration of the record, however, we will not adopt a mandatory
     electronic filing system for LPFM application forms at this time.
     Rather, assuming availability of the forms, we will make electronic
     filing permissive for the first LPFM filing window, which we intend
     to open for LP100 stations shortly after the effective date of this
     *Order*. Whether electronic filing is permissive for the second
     window that we anticipate opening for LP10 stations, as well as for
     any subsequent LPFM filing windows, will be resolved at a later
     date and will depend on several factors, including our experience
     with both electronic and paper filing during the first LPFM window
     and the time that elapses between the first and second windows.

125. We recognize that, as some commenters point out, there may be
     disparities among potential LPFM applicants in terms of Internet
     access and/or computer skills. We believe that making electronic
     filing permissive at this time will accommodate applicants that
     might be disadvantaged by mandatory electronic filing. We
     previously have discussed the significant advantages of a mandatory
     electronic filing system in terms of realizing savings and
     efficiencies. We do not believe that electronic filing would
     necessarily constitute an undue burden or expense for potential
     LPFM applicants, as the costs of computer and modem equipment
     continue to fall, and Internet access increasingly is becoming
     available at minimal cost commercially and at public institutions
     such as libraries. In addition, the Commission has made, and will
     continue to make, great efforts to create a simple, user-friendly
     electronic filing system.[^188] However, at present we are
     determined to be cautious with the first applications for a new
     service filed by applicants whose resources and familiarity with
     Commission processes may be very limited. We will reassess our
     electronic filing decision after our experience during the first
     filing window. We can better determine at that time whether the
     first filing window has provided a reasonable opportunity for
     interested parties to understand and arrange for Internet access
     and familiarize themselves with our Web site and electronic filing
     system. We can then determine whether the public interest benefits
     of mandatory electronic filing will outweigh any difficulties
     encountered or inequities expected, and decide whether electronic
     filing will remain voluntary or be mandated for use by all.

126. Although electronic filing will be permissive, we strongly
     encourage applicants to take advantage of electronic filing, and
     expect that many will do so. The forms will be accessible to anyone
     with a computer and a modem, without the need to purchase any
     special computer software.[^189] The Commission's software will
     make filing more certain for applicants by automatically notifying
     them of critical errors or omissions in their applications, and
     allowing them to correct the applications prior to submission. This
     software also will provide applicants with immediate verification
     that their applications have been received by the Commission. In
     addition, it will allow applicants to submit amendments, make
     corrections to their previously-filed applications, and submit
     narrative, explanatory exhibits. Furthermore, we intend to design
     additional software that will be available on the Commission's Web
     site to assist interested parties in making a preliminary
     determination as to which frequencies are available for LPFM use,
     based on current information in the Commission\'s database. Thus,
     LPFM applicants using the electronic filing system also will have
     access to a form of automated technical assistance in preparing
     their applications.

### Window Filing Process

127. [Background]{.underline}. We proposed in the *Notice* to adopt a
     window filing approach for LPFM applications, with short filing
     windows of a few days each to "lessen the occurrence of mutually
     exclusive applications and speed service to the public."[^190] The
     Commission recently substituted a uniform window filing procedure
     for the various application procedures for new commercial broadcast
     stations, and for major changes to existing stations.[^191] Under
     this procedure, the Commission announces by public notice a
     "window" or specific time period during which applications may be
     filed. When the window closes, the staff reviews the applications
     filed to determine whether any request mutually exclusive
     authorizations and, therefore, are subject to competitive bidding.
     Non-mutually exclusive applications are processed in accordance
     with our general procedures. Groups of mutually exclusive
     applications are identified by public notice and proceed to
     auction. The Commission also is considering substituting a window
     procedure for the two-step, cut-off list procedures now in place
     for full-service NCE broadcast applications.[^192]

128. In the *Notice*, we also asked for comment as to whether a first
     come-first served process might serve the public interest better
     than a window process by more effectively avoiding mutual
     exclusivity among LPFM applications.[^193] We speculated that
     electronic filing "might give us the capacity to ascertain the
     precise sequence in which applications are submitted by different
     parties."[^194] Thus, applications conflicting with ones filed
     "even a moment earlier"[^195] might be rejected as unacceptable for
     filing, avoiding mutual exclusivity in many cases. We noted a
     number of drawbacks to this approach, however, including the
     possibility that applicants might lose filing rights based solely
     on the quality of their Internet connections.

129. [Comments]{.underline}. Many commenters support a window filing
     approach, and offer various suggestions as to the appropriate
     duration of filing windows.[^196] Joshua Weiss comments that, in
     order to even the playing field for potential LPFM applicants, the
     Commission should list available frequencies and locations well in
     advance of opening a window. Warren Michelsen states that a
     Commission database capable of helping applicants determine
     frequency availability in the areas in which they are interested
     would help avoid the occurrence of mutual exclusivity.[^197] Some
     commenters instead favor a first come-first served filing system,
     generally contending that it would be a better means of avoiding
     mutual exclusivity than a window approach.[^198] However, Ronnie
     Miller argues that a first-come first-served system would give an
     unfair advantage to applicants with superior financial and
     technical resources.[^199] Several commenters suggest hybrid
     approaches combining elements of window and first come-first served
     systems.[^200]

130. [Decision]{.underline}. Based on our consideration of the record,
     we will adopt a window filing process for LPFM applications. We
     previously stated that a window process "provides the staff with a
     mechanism to control effectively the filing and processing of
     broadcast applications."[^201] We believe that such a mechanism is
     important here because of the large number of LPFM applications
     that we expect to receive. In addition, the first-come first-served
     approach envisioned in the *Notice*, which would determine filing
     priority based on the exact time that applications are filed, is
     feasible only if electronic filing is required, which will not be
     the case, at least initially.[^202] Moreover, we are concerned that
     such an approach, by placing a premium on filing at the earliest
     possible moment, might unfairly disadvantage certain applicants
     based solely on the quality of their Internet connections.[^203]
     The filing of hundreds or thousands of applications at once also
     might place unbearable strains on the LPFM electronic filing
     system. A window filing process avoids these pitfalls, as
     applicants will be able to file at any time over a period of
     several days without losing filing rights.

131. Once this *Order* becomes effective,[^204] the Mass Media Bureau,
     pursuant to delegated authority, will promptly release a public
     notice announcing a national filing window for LP100
     applications.[^205] We anticipate that this window will open in
     May.[^206] The notice will be issued at least thirty days in
     advance of the opening of the filing window. Full power broadcast
     applications filed on or after the date of release of a public
     notice announcing the opening of an LPFM window will not preclude
     the filing of conflicting LPFM applications filed during that
     window. However, where the conflict ultimately is determined to
     relate to service inside the city grade contours of the full power
     station, the LPFM application will be dismissed.[^207] The window
     itself will be open for a period of five business days. We believe
     that five days, combined with thirty days' specific advance notice
     and the additional time between the release of this *Order* and the
     public notice announcing the window, should give interested parties
     sufficient time to prepare and file their LPFM applications, while
     minimizing the number of mutually exclusive LPFM applications. We
     emphasize that applications filed before or after the dates
     specified in the public notice will not be accepted.

132. In accordance with our window filing procedure for commercial
     broadcast applications, after the LPFM window closes, the staff
     initially will screen applications for the purpose of identifying
     those that are mutually exclusive and those that fail to protect
     existing broadcast stations in accordance with the standards
     adopted herein. Applications that fail to properly protect these
     existing stations will be dismissed without the applicant being
     afforded an opportunity to amend. This will increase the speed and
     efficiency with which LPFM applications can be processed by the
     staff. Technically acceptable non-mutually exclusive applications
     will be further reviewed for acceptability and processed by the
     staff in accordance with the Commission's general procedures.
     Groups of mutually exclusive applications will be identified in a
     subsequent public notice, and will be subject to the selection
     procedures set forth below.[^208] After an application is
     tentatively selected from a mutually exclusive group, it will be
     reviewed for acceptability, and a public notice will be released
     announcing the finding that the application has been tentatively
     selected and is acceptable for filing.[^209] Petitions to deny the
     application will be due within 30 days of the release of the public
     notice of its acceptability for filing.[^210] Petitions and
     informal objections will not be considered unless and until the
     application has been tentatively selected for processing and found
     acceptable for filing.

133. As stated above, we are developing software to assist interested
     parties in determining whether specific frequencies may be
     available at specific locations for LPFM use. This software will
     not be able to determine conclusively whether a particular
     frequency will be available for an applicant, as frequency
     availability also will depend, among other things, on whether
     competing applications are filed during the LPFM filing window.
     Nevertheless, we anticipate that the software will help interested
     parties focus on potentially-available facilities, and will provide
     technical assistance for interested parties with limited financial
     resources. We anticipate that this software will be ready for use
     by the time we announce the first filing window for LPFM
     applications. The Mass Media Bureau will issue a public notice with
     information regarding how to access the software and the technical
     assistance it can provide. Such information also will be posted on
     the Commission's Web site.

### Selection Among Mutually Exclusive Applications

134. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we requested comment as
     to whether the proposed LPFM service should be restricted to NCE
     applicants or open to both commercial and NCE applicants.[^211] We
     tentatively concluded that, pursuant to statutory requirements,
     mutually exclusive applications for commercial LPFM facilities
     would be subject to auction.[^212] We asked for comment on
     alternative methods for resolving mutual exclusivity among NCE LPFM
     applicants. We specifically referred commenters to our proceeding
     reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards, where we sought
     comment on three possible methods for selecting among mutually
     exclusive applicants: (1) comparative hearings; (2) a lottery
     process weighted in favor of certain applicants based on statutory
     requirements and other factors; and (3) a system assigning points
     to applicants based on various selection criteria.[^213]

135. [Comments]{.underline}. Most commenters that address the matter
     oppose the use of competitive bidding, arguing that it would
     undermine the Commission's stated goals in establishing the LPFM
     service.[^214] Few commenters support the use of comparative
     hearings to resolve mutually exclusive NCE applications. There was
     support among commenters for the use of a lottery process, although
     most of these commenters argued the merits of lotteries over
     auctions, rather than over an alternative selection method.[^215] A
     number of commenters also favored the use of a point system. In
     addition, several commenters suggest that we impose arbitration to
     resolve mutual exclusivity,[^216] and one advocates the use of
     "conflict reduction methods" such as allowing "liberal channel and
     coverage changes."[^217] Commenters also propose various selection
     factors for use within a comparative selection process.

136. [Decision]{.underline}. Based on our consideration of the record,
     we shall adopt a point system for resolving mutual exclusivity
     among LPFM applicants. The point system will include three
     selection criteria: (1) established community presence; (2)
     proposed operating hours; and (3) local program origination. The
     system will employ voluntary time-sharing as a tie-breaker, that
     is, tied applicants will have an opportunity to aggregate points by
     submitting time-share proposals.[^218] As a last resort, where a
     tie is not resolved through time-sharing or settlement, we shall
     award successive equal license terms totaling eight years (the
     normal license term), without renewal expectancy for any of the
     licensees.

137. We conclude that the point system we are adopting is superior to
     alternative selection methods. As discussed above, the LPFM service
     will be reserved for noncommercial, educational service, and we are
     precluded by statute from using auctions to award station licenses
     on channels reserved for NCE use.[^219] Accordingly, we need not
     discuss an auction-based selection mechanism. In our proceeding
     reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards, we tentatively
     rejected comparative hearings because they tend to be lengthy,
     cumbersome, and resource-intensive, without substantial offsetting
     benefits.[^220] These disadvantages make comparative hearings
     particularly ill-suited for selecting LPFM applicants. Like
     comparative hearings, mandatory arbitration and engineering
     solutions could impose significant delays on the LPFM authorization
     process and impose additional expenses on applicants. Moreover,
     although we will encourage individual settlements as a means of
     resolving mutual exclusivity among LPFM applicants,[^221] the
     Commission lacks the resources to administer a system that would
     require arbitration or the imposition of engineering solutions in
     every instance of mutual exclusivity. Finally, we conclude that a
     lottery system is comparatively inferior to a point system as an
     LPFM selection method. The primary benefits of a lottery system are
     the speed and ease with which it may be applied.[^222] As discussed
     below, however, a point system offers like benefits. Moreover,
     there are unresolved legal and policy issues surrounding the use of
     a lottery system that pose a risk of delaying the introduction of
     LPFM service to the public.[^223] A point system does not entail
     similar risks. A lottery process is also inherently inferior to a
     point system in its ability to further the Commission's policy
     goals due its random nature. This randomness may be mitigated, but
     not eliminated, by weighting in favor of certain types of
     applicants. For these reasons, in the case of LPFM service, we
     reject all of these approaches in favor of a point system.[^224]

138. *Point System*. We believe that a point system is the best-suited
     selection methodology for promoting the Commission's policy goals
     for the LPFM service and speeding its introduction to the public.
     The Commission has used a point system procedure with success in
     the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).[^225] Like
     lotteries, point systems have the potential to be fast,
     inexpensive, and administratively efficient. Unlike lotteries,
     however, point systems make possible the selection of applicants
     based on objective criteria designed to best advance the public
     interest in the particular service at issue. Finally, the fact that
     LPFM licenses are non-transferable[^226] eliminates a major
     potential disadvantage of any system based on selection criteria;
     it prevents the integrity of the system from being undermined by
     the rapid assignment or transfer of station licenses by an entity
     that was awarded the license over other applicants on some merit
     basis that is not necessarily found in the buyer.[^227]

139. *Point System Operation---Selection Criteria*. Our point system
     will include three selection criteria for mutually exclusive
     applicants: (1) established community presence; (2) proposed
     operating hours; and (3) local program origination. These criteria
     are directly related to the advancement of the public interest that
     the Commission has found warrants the introduction of this new
     service. To protect the integrity of the selection process and
     ensure that its full benefits may be realized, we have chosen
     clear-cut selection factors that are objective in nature and do not
     require burdensome documentation.

140. *Established Community Presence*. For the reasons set forth above,
     first, applicants that have an established community presence of at
     least two years' duration will be awarded one point. An applicant
     will be deemed to have an established community presence where, for
     a period of at least two years prior to application, the applicant
     is able to certify that it has been physically headquartered, has
     had a campus, or has had 75 percent of its board members residing
     within 10 miles of the reference coordinates of the proposed
     transmitting antenna. This criterion will favor organizations that
     have been operating in the communities where they propose to
     construct an LPFM station and thus have \"track records\" of
     community service and established constituencies within their
     communities. We believe that such applicants, because of their
     longstanding organizational ties to their communities, are likely
     to be more attuned to, and have organizational experience
     addressing, the needs and interests of their communities. In this
     regard, a number of commenters suggest preferences based on prior
     community service and/or community support.[^228] These suggested
     factors could be subjective in nature, however, and could be
     burdensome to demonstrate and verify. In addition, we believe that
     preferring organizations that have been in existence and physically
     present in the community for two years will help prevent
     maneuvering of the point system by those who might otherwise
     establish multiple organizations to file LPFM applications.

141. As we stated above in our discussion of the community-based
     eligibility requirement, we do not believe this preference for
     established local entities contravenes the court's concerns in
     *Bechtel*. In adopting such a comparative factor, we further note
     that the *Bechtel* court was concerned that quantitative
     integration factors worked to the virtual exclusion of other
     factors the court deemed potentially relevant in determining the
     relative quality of service that would be provided by an applicant.
     For LPFM, we are including other selection factors and giving them
     equivalent weight in the selection process. Moreover, while the
     two-year presence factor has a quantitative aspect, it is
     objectively verifiable and does not depend on promises of future
     performance, as the integration preference did.

142. Applicants claiming points for established community presence will
     be required to certify in their applications that they meet the
     above-stated conditions. The application form will identify
     appropriate documentation that must be made available for the point
     claimed. Applicants will be required to submit this information at
     the time of filing and it will be available in our public reference
     room. As with other broadcast applications, the Commission will
     rely on certifications but will use random audits to verify the
     accuracy of the certifications.[^229] This information also will
     enable applicants to verify that competing applicants qualify for
     the points they claim.

143. *Proposed Operating Hours*. Second, applicants that pledge to
     operate at least 12 hours per day will be assigned one point. As
     set forth below, the minimum operating hours for LPFM stations will
     be five hours per day.[^230] This criterion does not impose any
     additional requirement, but awards points to applicants that pledge
     longer hours of operation. Applicants that propose more intensive
     use of the broadcast frequencies they seek will advance the
     Commission's general policy objective of ensuring efficient
     spectrum use and providing more programming to serve their
     communities.

144. *Local Program Origination*. Finally, applicants that pledge to
     originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day will
     be assigned one point. For purposes of this criterion, local
     origination will be defined as the production of programming within
     10 miles of the reference coordinates of the proposed transmitting
     antenna.[^231] This criterion derives from the service requirements
     for full-service broadcast stations, which are required to maintain
     the capacity to originate programming from their main
     studios.[^232] LPFM licensees will not be subject to main studio
     requirements, and will have discretion to determine the origination
     point of their programming.[^233] As a comparative selection
     factor, local program origination can advance the Commission's
     policy goal of addressing unmet needs for community-oriented radio
     broadcasting.[^234] 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.

145. With regard to both the second and the third selection criteria,
     applicants will be required to certify in their applications that
     they will meet the qualifying conditions for the points claimed. We
     will require successful applicants to adhere to their operating
     hours and local program origination pledges.[^235] As these
     criteria are prospective in nature, they will not be subject to
     verification at the application stage. The Commission will use
     random audits to verify the accuracy of the certifications, and
     will consider written complaints regarding actual performance.
     Consistent with our current practice, the staff may issue letters
     of inquiry requiring submission of documentation in connection with
     such audits. Where analysis of the requested information indicates
     that licensees have not fulfilled their pledges, appropriate action
     will be taken, including the possibility of monetary forfeitures
     and revocation proceedings.[^236]

146. In choosing selection criteria, we have carefully considered the
     comments we received advocating various selection factors, as well
     as the point system elements under consideration in our proceeding
     reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards.[^237] We
     believe that the factors we have chosen best balance our interest
     in furthering the specific localized objectives of the LPFM service
     and avoiding cumbersome, subjective and manipulable criteria. We
     note that a number of commenters advocate preferences for entities
     controlled by minorities.[^238] We shall defer consideration of
     this matter. The Commission is conducting fact-finding studies as
     to whether such preferences may be justified consistent with the
     Supreme Court's decision in *Adarand Constructors v. Pena*.[^239]
     Depending on the outcome of these studies, we will consider in the
     future whether to adopt minority control as a point system factor.

147. *1^st^ Tiebreaker \-- Voluntary Time-Sharing*. In the event that
     the point system results in a tie among two or more mutually
     exclusive applicants, applicants will have the opportunity, within
     30 days of the release of a public notice announcing the tie, to
     submit amendments to their applications incorporating voluntary
     time-share proposals. Each time-share proponent must propose to
     operate at least 10 hours per week. Time-share proposals may
     function as tie-breakers in two different ways. First, all of the
     tied applicants in a mutually exclusive group may propose a
     time-share proposal, in which case the staff will review and
     process all of the tied applications. Second, some of the tied
     applicants in a mutually exclusive group may submit a time-share
     proposal, in which case the time-sharers' points will be
     aggregated. Time-sharers may aggregate points under each of the
     three selection criteria.[^240] The purpose of allowing point
     aggregation is to encourage time‑share arrangements as a means of
     resolving mutual exclusivity among tied LPFM applicants. In
     addition, we believe that time-sharing arrangements will serve the
     public interest by increasing participation by a variety of local
     community organizations in the operation of LPFM stations.

148. Our decision to incorporate voluntary time-sharing into the point
     system as a tie-breaker is based on our judgment that voluntary
     time-share arrangements have the potential to advance the
     Commission's goals for the new service. We noted in our proceeding
     reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards that "\[a\]
     number of commenters dislike mandatory share-time arrangements,
     finding them confusing to audiences, and potentially inefficient
     for licensees."[^241] On a voluntary basis, however, time-sharing
     has significant potential advantages for LPFM applicants. From a
     practical standpoint, the localized nature of the LPFM service is
     likely to enhance applicants' ability to time-share. In many cases,
     the small scale of LPFM operations also may make time-sharing more
     efficient for LPFM licensees. Furthermore, by increasing the number
     of new broadcast voices, time-sharing can advance our interest in
     promoting additional diversity in radio voices and program services
     through the LPFM service.[^242]

149. *Final Tiebreaker \-- Successive License Terms*. As a last resort,
     in cases where a tie is not resolved through settlement or
     time-sharing, the staff will review tied applications for
     acceptability. Applicants whose applications are grantable will be
     eligible for equal, successive license terms of no less than one
     year each, spanning a total of eight years. Successive license
     terms will not be granted for groups of more than eight tied,
     grantable applications. In the event of such a situation, the staff
     will dismiss all but the applications of the eight entities with
     the longest established community presences, as demonstrated by the
     documentation submitted with their applications. If this does not
     limit the group of applications to eight, the entire group will be
     deemed ungrantable and will be dismissed if, after a final
     opportunity to submit settlement proposals within 30 days of the
     release of a public notice, the situation is not resolved. Where
     successive license terms are granted, there will be no renewal
     expectancy for any of the licensees.[^243] If none of the tied,
     grantable applications proposes same-site facilities, then all will
     be granted at the same time. The sequence of the applicants'
     license terms will be determined by the sequence in which they file
     their applications for licenses to cover their construction
     permits, based on the day of filing.[^244] However, if any of the
     tied, grantable construction permit applications propose same-site
     facilities, the applicants proposing such facilities will be
     required, within an additional 30 days, to submit a settlement
     agreement proposing the sequence of the license terms for such
     applicants. If they fail to do so, they will be removed from the
     mutually exclusive group and the remaining applications will be
     granted.

150. *Settlements*. Applicants may propose a full settlement at any time
     during the selection process after the release of the public notice
     announcing the mutually exclusive group. Such settlements must be
     universal \-- that is, they must involve all of the mutually
     exclusive applicants within a group \-- and must comply with the
     Commission's general rules for settlements, including the
     requirement that the settling parties certify that they have not
     received consideration for the dismissal of their applications in
     excess of their legitimate and prudent expenses.[^245] Settlements
     may incorporate voluntary time-share proposals.

151. *Delegated Authority*. As we explained in our proceeding
     reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards, the Commission
     currently may delegate authority for applying point systems only to
     administrative law judges or to individual Commissioners.[^246]
     This statutory restriction is based on the fact that point systems
     technically are considered a type of simplified hearing. We believe
     that the staff would be able to administer the LPFM point system in
     a more streamlined manner than administrative law judges or
     individual Commissioners. Therefore, we will seek authority from
     Congress, through specific legislation, to delegate responsibility
     to the staff for applying the point system.[^247] Until we receive
     such authority, the staff will refer point system proceedings to
     the Commission for disposition.

152. *Minor Modification of Authorized LPFM Stations*. We will adopt one
     exception to the window filing process to permit the filing at any
     time of certain "minor change" applications. For LP100 stations, a
     minor change may involve a transmitter site relocation of less than
     two kilometers. For LP10 stations, a minor change may involve a
     transmitter site relocation of less than one kilometer. Minor
     change applications may also propose a change to an adjacent or IF
     frequency or, upon a technical showing of reduced predicted
     interference, to any other frequency. Similarly, we will consider
     as minor any change in frequency necessary to resolve actual
     interference. All other changes will be classified as "major" and
     subject to our window filing procedures. Minor change applications
     also must satisfy the technical and legal requirements applicable
     to LPFM stations generally.

### License Terms and Renewals

153. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we asked how often and
     how closely we should actively monitor, within the parameters of
     our statutory responsibility, the performance of LP100 stations in
     connection with the license renewal process. We asked whether a
     *pro forma* process would satisfy any statutory requirement, in the
     absence of specific public complaint. We also asked for comment on
     whether stations other than LP1000 stations should be authorized
     for finite, nonrenewable periods, such as five or eight years, to
     create additional opportunities for new entrants in the LPFM
     service. We explained that making broadcast outlets available to
     more speakers is a fundamental premise of this rulemaking effort,
     and that we did not expect that such a limitation would discourage
     the very modest investment required to build such a station. We
     sought comment on whether the disruption of service to the public
     that non-renewability would involve outweighed the potential
     benefits of making this service available to more speakers on a
     consecutive basis.

154. [Comments]{.underline}. Commenters propose a variety of LPFM
     license terms and the majority argue that LPFM licenses should be
     renewable. Commenters suggest license terms of one,[^248]
     two,[^249] four,[^250] five,[^251] and seven years.[^252] REC
     Networks advocates a five-year renewable license term. According to
     REC Networks, granting a short license term would place the burden
     on LPFM licensees to demonstrate their continuing interest in
     providing local service.[^253] Other commenters contend that LPFM
     stations should have the same eight year license periods granted to
     full power stations.[^254]

155. Most commenters argue that all LPFM licenses should be
     renewable.[^255] Jeffrey Richman believes that licenses should be
     renewable because (1) applicants might be deterred if they do not
     have the expectation of renewal; (2) off-air periods between
     transfers would be confusing to the public; and (3) nonrenewable
     licenses would be inconsistent with the "renewal expectancy"
     Congress intended in sections 307(c) and 309(k)(1) of the
     Act.[^256] Douglas E. Smith and Warren Michelsen believe that even
     with renewable licenses, there would be turnover in ownership
     because, *e.g.*, the leadership of community groups will rotate and
     individual owners move frequently.[^257] REC Networks believes that
     through proper frequency coordination and time-sharing
     arrangements, many in crowded urban areas would have their turn at
     the microphone without having to wait several years for a license
     to expire.[^258] Commenters also contend that LPFM licensees should
     have the same renewal expectancy as existing broadcasters.[^259] On
     the other hand, Jennifer Anne Barrios and Robert Kevess believe
     LPFM licenses should not be renewable.[^260]

156. [Decision]{.underline}. We will provide LP100 and LP10 licensees
     with the same license terms and renewal expectancy as full-power FM
     radio stations. Accordingly, licenses will be renewed for a term
     not to exceed eight years from the date of expiration of the
     preceding license[^261] and LPFM licenses will be renewed, without
     consideration of competing applicants, if they have met the renewal
     standard of Section 309(k)(1) of the Act. Upon considering the
     comments filed in this proceeding, we find that granting renewable
     licenses is consistent with the goals we are seeking to advance
     with this service. Moreover, we believe that nonrenewable licenses
     would discourage licensees from developing facilities and audiences
     to the fullest extent possible. We therefore will grant, with one
     exception described in paragraph 159 below, renewable licenses for
     LPFM stations.

157. Section 73.1020(a) divides the country into 18 different regions
     containing one or more states for purposes of establishing
     synchronized schedules for radio and television licenses.[^262]
     Radio station licenses expired under this rule in intervals between
     October 1, 1995, and August 1, 1998, and those licenses, renewed
     for eight years, will expire again between September 30, 2003, and
     July 31, 2006.[^263] We consistently grant initial terms for all
     new broadcast authorizations to fit into this synchronized
     schedule, although it means initial terms are usually for a period
     of less than eight years.

158. We adopt these synchronized schedules for LPFM licenses because
     maintaining the predictability, administrative efficiencies, public
     awareness, and fairness inherent in the existing synchronized
     schedule of license cycles serves the public interest. Accordingly,
     an initial LPFM license granted within any renewal period set forth
     in Section 73.1020 of our rules will be assigned the expiration
     date assigned to those full-power FM stations licensed in the same
     region during the same licensing cycle.[^264] Because of the
     cyclical nature of this process, granting initial full eight-year
     license terms in the middle of a licensing cycle could undermine
     the synchronization of the whole process. Like full-power licenses,
     LPFM licenses may then be renewed for a term not to exceed eight
     years from the expiration date of the preceding license. This
     approach will reduce the regulatory burden on LPFM broadcasters by
     affording them the same maximum license terms now granted other
     broadcasters, and will correspondingly reduce the associated
     burdens on the Commission. We see no compelling reason to vary from
     the term set by Congress for full-power stations. We further note
     that, while we will authorize eight-year license terms, the public
     may scrutinize station performance and file complaints with the
     Commission at any time during the term of an LPFM license.

159. The one exception to this rule pertains to situations where we
     grant successive license terms under the final tiebreaker
     procedures. These tiebreaker licenses will not be based on the
     synchronized licensing cycle of Section 73.1020.[^265] If
     applicants were granted last resort tiebreaker licenses conformed
     to the synchronized schedule, each licensee, depending on where in
     the renewal cycle we were, might receive authorizations to operate
     for a very short period of time, *e.g.*, a few months, with no
     opportunity to renew their license.

160. We will also extend the renewal expectancy provisions of Section
     309(k)(1) of the Act to LPFM licensees.[^266] Providing incumbents
     with the likelihood of renewal encourages licensees to make
     investments to ensure quality service.[^267] Upon receiving an
     application for renewal of an LPFM license, we will determine
     whether the licensee has served the public interest, convenience,
     and necessity; whether there have been any serious violations of
     the Act or Commission rules; and whether there have been any
     serious violations that, taken together, would constitute a pattern
     of abuse. Only if incumbent LPFM licensees fail to meet these
     requirements will other applicants be eligible to apply for the
     same license. As noted, an exception is where the license is held
     for successive terms as a result of the final tiebreaker procedure.
     Such licenses will be nonrenewable.

### Transferability 

161. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we noted that some
     commenters urged us to restrict the sale of LPFM stations to deter
     the filing of speculative applications and trafficking in
     construction permits.[^268] We stated our belief that, in light of
     the limits we proposed on ownership of LPFM stations, we did not
     believe that it was necessary to restrict the sale of any class of
     LPFM station. We invited commenters to address this issue,
     including whether restrictions on sales would be advisable if the
     Commission adopts ownership rules other than those proposed in the
     *Notice*.

162. [Comments]{.underline}. While comments on the transferability of
     LPFM stations were mixed, the majority of commenters that addressed
     this issue supported either prohibiting transfers altogether or
     severely restricting them.[^269] UCC, et al., and Civil Rights
     Organizations proposed the adoption of rules prohibiting the sale
     of an LPFM station held for less than five years.[^270] Civil
     Rights Organizations argued that such a restriction would
     discourage speculators, who could operate even in a noncommercial
     environment, without deterring committed local broadcasters.[^271]
     ACLU of Mass. *et al.* argues that permitting transfer of licenses
     and construction permits will permit the creation of a secondary
     market where LPFM licenses can be obtained without regard to
     licensing priorities that favor diversity and localism. Instead, it
     proposes that if an LPFM licensee decides that it can no longer own
     and operate its station, the license should be returned to the FCC
     where it can be reissued in accordance with the criteria adopted by
     the Commission.[^272] A few commenters were in favor of permitting
     transferability of LPFM stations, arguing generally that owners who
     have invested in such stations should be able to realize the fair
     market value of such stations.[^273]

163. [Decision]{.underline}. After careful review of the comments, we
     have decided to prohibit the transfer of construction permits and
     licenses for LPFM stations. Contrary to our initial view stated in
     the *Notice*, we are persuaded that a prohibition on transfers will
     best promote the Commission\'s interest in ensuring that spectrum
     is used for low power operations as soon as possible, without the
     delay associated with license speculation. We are also persuaded
     that the goals of this new service, to foster opportunities for new
     radio broadcast ownership and to promote additional diversity in
     radio voices and program services, will best be met if unused
     permits and licenses are returned to the Commission. Given the
     modest facilities and noncommercial nature of LPFM stations, we do
     not believe non-transferability will discourage LPFM licensees from
     serving their listeners.

## Programming and Service Rules

### Public Interest Requirements

164. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to require
     LP1000 licensees to adhere to the same Part 73 requirements
     regarding public interest programming as apply to full-power FM
     licensees. We noted that this meant that each LP1000 licensee would
     be required to air programming serving the needs and interests of
     its community, using its discretion as to how to meet that
     obligation. We also listed several other rules, such as those
     regarding the broadcasting of taped, filmed, or recorded material,
     sponsorship identification, personal attacks, and periodic call
     sign announcements and sought comment on whether they should apply
     to LPFM stations. We stated a disinclination, however, to impose
     public interest programming requirements on LP100 and LP10
     licensees, given the size of operations we envisioned and the
     simplicity we were striving to achieve in this service. We expected
     that the very nature of LP100 and LP10 would ensure that they
     served the needs and interests of their communities.

165. [Comments]{.underline}. We received few comments on public interest
     requirements. Some commenters contend that we must apply all of the
     same basic public interest requirements to LPFM licensees that are
     applied to full-power broadcasters.[^274] The Low Power Radio
     Coalition believes that LPFM licensees must be held to high
     standards similar to those established for full-power
     broadcasters.[^275] UCC, et al., argues that the Commission must
     require all LPFM broadcasters to comply with the requirements of
     the public interest standard, as well as the sponsorship
     identification duties required by section 317 of the Act.[^276] NAB
     argues that all FM broadcast stations should be required to follow
     the same rules and contends that there is no basis on which to
     distinguish between different classes of stations.[^277] On the
     other hand, NLG contends that public interest rules outlined in the
     *Notice* should not be applied to LPFM stations with a 100 watt
     maximum.[^278] Similarly, other commenters oppose any requirements
     for LP100 and LP10 stations, arguing that it would place an
     unreasonable burden on those stations.[^279]

166. [Decision]{.underline}. Every broadcast licensee is required to
     operate its station in the public interest.[^280] Given the nature
     of the LPFM service, however, we conclude that certain obligations
     imposed on full-power radio licensees would be unnecessary if
     applied to LPFM licensees. We expect that the local nature of this
     service, coupled with the eligibility and selection criteria we are
     adopting, will ensure that LPFM licensees will meet the needs and
     interests of their communities. Thus, for example, consistent with
     our rules for low power television, we will not adopt a rule
     requiring LPFM licensees to provide programming responsive to
     community issues or to maintain a list of issues addressed or
     specific programs aired.[^281]

167. We will, however, apply certain specific rules applicable to all
     broadcasters to LPFM licensees. First, LPFM operators must, of
     course, comply with those rules required by statute. Thus, for
     example, like all broadcasters, LPFM licensees will be expressly
     prohibited from airing programming that is obscene, and restricted
     from airing programming that is "indecent" during certain times of
     the day.[^282] They must also comply with our sponsorship
     identification and political programming rules.[^283] In addition,
     we will require LPFM licensees to comply with our rules regarding
     taped, filmed, or recorded material,[^284] personal attacks,[^285]
     and periodic call sign announcements.[^286] Violation of any of
     these rules by an LPFM licensee would be as detrimental to its
     audience as violation by a full-power broadcaster, and widespread
     disregard for these rules could outweigh the benefits to the public
     this service is intended to bring.

### Locally Originated Programming

168. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on
     whether to impose a minimum local origination programming
     requirement on any of the three proposed classes of LPFM service.
     We opined that listeners benefit from local programming, because it
     often reflects needs, interests, circumstances, or perspectives
     that may be unique to that community. We also noted that many of
     LPFM's initial supporters argued that the Commission's rules should
     actively promote locally oriented programming by, for instance,
     limiting the amount of network programming a station could air. We
     expressed an expectation, however, that a significant amount of
     programming for LPFM stations would be locally produced as a matter
     of course. We also asserted that programming does not have to be
     locally produced to have interest or value to the listeners in a
     particular locale. Accordingly, we stated that we were inclined to
     give LP100 and LP10 licensees the same discretion as full-power
     licensees to determine what mix of local and non-local programming
     would best serve the community. To promote new broadcast voices,
     however, we proposed that an LPFM station not be permitted to
     operate as a translator, retransmitting the programming of a
     full-power station.

169. [Comments]{.underline}. Many commenters favor the adoption of a
     locally originated programming obligation.[^287] According to UCC,
     et al., for example, a locally originated programming requirement
     would attract applicants that intend to provide a locally oriented
     service, is a basic element of the Commission's implementation of
     the public interest standard, and would resemble the duty TV
     stations have to provide educational and informational programming
     for children.[^288] A number of commenters oppose any specific
     obligations on LPFM licensees regarding locally originated
     programming. [^289] Amherst argues, for example, that the best way
     to prevent LPFM stations from becoming "corporate satellites" is
     through limits on LPFM license eligibility.[^290] If any locally
     originated programming requirements are applied, however, Amherst
     asserts that those requirements should be modest in scope and
     narrowly targeted to prevent stations from becoming mere "fronts"
     for the airing of material produced by larger entities.[^291]

170. Commenters generally agree that LFPM stations should not be used as
     translators for retransmitting full-power station
     programming.[^292] The Civil Rights Organizations and Gary L. Nixon
     argue that an LPFM operator should not be permitted to operate as a
     translator or booster, except where an LPFM station might
     retransmit another station's programming for the purpose of student
     training.[^293] Nixon also notes that LPFM stations should be
     prohibited from using any satellite programming.[^294] UCC, et al.
     states that the Commission should not allow low power stations to
     replicate another station's programming because it would turn the
     purpose of low power radio, to provide local programming, on its
     head.[^295]

171. [Decision]{.underline}. We continue to believe that LPFM licensees'
     provision of a significant amount of locally originated programming
     will enhance the success of this service. This is why we are
     encouraging the provision of locally originated programming by
     means of a licensing preference.[^296] However, we also believe
     that in certain cases, programming need not be locally originated
     to be responsive to local needs. Therefore, we do not believe it is
     necessary to impose specific requirements for locally originated
     programming on LPFM licensees. We believe that the nature of the
     service, combined with the eligibility criteria and preferences we
     are adopting, will ensure that LPFM licensees provide locally
     originated programming or programming that is otherwise responsive
     to local needs.

172. We do, however, agree with commenters that LPFM stations should not
     be used for retransmitting, either terrestrially or via satellite,
     the programming of full-power stations. This would significantly
     undercut a fundamental basis for the establishment of this service.
     This prohibition against LPFM stations operating as translators
     also promotes locally originated programming by eliminating a
     significant avenue for obtaining non-locally originated
     programming.

### Political Programming Rules

173. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the
     applicability of political programming rules to each class of low
     power radio service that we might adopt. We explained that sections
     312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications Act, as amended, underlie
     some of these rules, and each is explicitly applicable to
     "broadcast stations." Thus, we lack the discretion not to apply
     these provisions to any class of LPFM station, regardless of size.
     We specifically sought comment on how each of these political
     broadcasting rules should be applied to low-power stations, taking
     into consideration our statutory mandate.

174. [Comments]{.underline}. The few comments that we received on this
     issue support our tentative conclusion to adopt political
     programming rules for LPFM stations. UCC, et al. asserts that
     application of Title III duties to low-power broadcasters is
     non-discretionary, contending that the Commission must require all
     low-power broadcasters to comply with specified duties required by
     Sections 312 and 315 of the Communications Act, as amended.[^297]
     REC Networks and John D. Bowker agree that political programming
     rules should be applied to LPFM services.[^298]

175. [Decision]{.underline}. We conclude that we are required by statute
     to apply the same political programming rules to low-power stations
     that we apply to full-power stations. There is ample precedent for
     how the political programming rules apply to noncommercial stations
     and thus how the rules will apply to LPFM. For example, Section
     312(a)(7) of the Communications Act, as amended, requires
     broadcasters to allow legally qualified candidates for federal
     office reasonable access to their facilities,[^299] but because
     LPFM stations are noncommercial educational facilities, they must
     provide such access on a free basis.[^300] Section 315(a) of the
     Communications Act, as amended, requiring equal opportunities for
     candidates, will also apply.[^301]

176. In conformance with the statutory mandate, we will apply the
     reasonable access and equal opportunities provisions of the statute
     and the Commission's rules, as well as related policies delineated
     in prior Commission orders, to LPFM licensees. With respect to
     reasonable access, the Commission's policy has generally been to
     defer to the reasonable, good faith judgment of licensees as to
     what constitutes "reasonable access" under all the circumstances
     present in a particular case. Noncommercial educational stations,
     including LPFM stations, however, may not support or oppose any
     candidate for political office.[^302] LPFM licensees cannot charge
     legally qualified candidates for the time used on their
     stations[^303] and no LPFM licensee may discriminate among
     candidates "in practices, regulations, facilities, or services" or
     "make or give any preference to any candidate for public
     office."[^304] In addition, we will require LPFM licensees to
     maintain a political file, if needed, to record the requisite
     particulars. The political file shall be maintained for public
     inspection at an accessible place in the station's community.
     Finally, we will resolve any issues involving LPFM licensees on a
     case-by-case basis to determine whether the licensee is acting
     within the spirit of the statute and Commission rules and policies
     on political programming.

### Station Identification

177. [Background]{.underline}. In the Notice, we sought comment on
     whether to adopt a call sign system that would identify a low power
     radio station as such. We noted in the *Notice* that a nonstandard
     (five letter) identifying call sign system was used for the first
     several years of licensing low power television (LPTV) stations,
     but that the Commission later allowed LPTV stations to adopt call
     signs that were like those of full power stations, but were
     appended with the suffix "-LP."

178. [Comments]{.underline}. Commenters are divided over whether it
     would be in the public interest to employ special call signs that
     would help identify LPFM stations as low power. Some commenters
     argue that the use of call signs would help to identify legitimate
     from illegal stations, or help with the identification of
     malfunctioning or interfering stations.[^305] Other commenters feel
     that a new system of call signs for LPFM would be confusing to the
     public, with little or no compensating public benefit, and suggest
     that ordinary FM call signs be issued to new LPFM stations.[^306]
     Some commenters also argue that the use of call signs for low power
     broadcasters would not be burdensome to these broadcasters.[^307]

179. [Decision]{.underline}. The question raised by the *Notice* was not
     whether to have call signs for LPFM stations, as apparently
     misunderstood by some commenters, but whether to include a special
     designation in the call signs identifying LPFM stations as low
     power stations. It is imperative for a variety of reasons,
     including enforcement, convenience to the public, and conformance
     with international agreements, that all broadcasters, including low
     power broadcasters, use unique identifiers on the air. We also
     conclude that it will be extremely beneficial for LPFM operators to
     build an "identity" and do so in a radio-familiar manner. We were
     guided on this issue by our experience with low power television.
     In that service, we require stations' call signs to indicate that
     they are low power stations, by appending the suffix "-LP" to their
     four-letter call signs. We thus will require low power stations to
     positively identify themselves. To avoid confusion for the public
     and to inform the public of the reasonable expectations they may
     have for service, the suffix "-LP" will be appended to LPFM station
     call signs (e.g., "WXYZ-LP"). Such identification will inform the
     public that a station is a low power station. An LPFM four-letter
     call sign cannot exactly duplicate the call sign of any other
     broadcast station and cannot contain the same first four letters as
     another station's call sign without that station's written
     consent.[^308] The Commission's current call sign system will be
     modified to accommodate low power stations in the manner four
     letter call signs are provided to low power TV stations.[^309]

### Operating Hours

180. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we said we were not
     inclined to adopt minimum operating hours for LP100 or LP10
     stations. However^,^ we expressed our concern that spectrum might
     be underutilized if low power stations were licensed but unused or
     underused, and asked for comments on this issue.

181. [Comments]{.underline}. For LP100 and LP10 services, commenters
     either argue for: (1) low or no minimum operating hours, because of
     the cost burden involved in requiring extended hours of operations,
     or (2) a time sharing arrangement among local broadcasters.[^310]
     This latter group of commenters argue that time sharing
     arrangements would reduce the part-time warehousing of spectrum
     that would occur by a single non full-time licensee, and would
     permit the entry of additional new voices into the local radio
     market.[^311]

182. [Decision]{.underline}. In order to ensure an effective utilization
     of channels, we will impose the same minimum operating hour
     requirements on LP100 and LP10 FM stations that we currently apply
     to full-power noncommercial educational FM stations. Under our
     rules, "\[a\]ll noncommercial educational FM stations are required
     to operate at least 36 hours per week, consisting of at least 5
     hours of operation per day on at least 6 days of the week; however,
     stations licensed to educational institutions are not required to
     operate on Saturday or Sunday . . . ." [^312] These requirements
     are not extensive and should not impose an inordinate burden on
     LPFM licensees. In cases where individual parties are interested in
     applying for LP100 and LP10 stations but do not have sufficient
     programming to meet the minimum operating hour requirements, we
     encourage those parties to find other applicants with whom they
     could share the license. To accommodate those situations in which
     the demand for airtime does not exceed the spectrum availability,
     however, we will not automatically delete a station that is
     operating at less than the minimum hours. When another applicant
     comes forward that wants to utilize the underused channel, that
     applicant can notify the Commission of the incumbent's failure to
     meet minimum hours and demand that the incumbent return its license
     or agree to a time-sharing arrangement that will accommodate both
     parties.

### Main Studio Rule, Public File Rule and Ownership Reporting Requirements 

183. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we invited comment on
     whether LPFM stations of each class should be subject to the
     variety of other rules in Part 73 with which full power stations
     must comply, including, for example, the main studio rule (47
     C.F.R. § 73.1125(a)), public file rule (47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526,
     73.3527), and the periodic ownership reporting requirements (47
     C.F.R. § 73.3615). Given the purposes and power levels of LP1000
     stations, we tentatively concluded that LP1000 licensees should
     generally meet the Part 73 rules applicable to full power FM
     stations. However, the *Notice* sought comment on whether
     sufficient useful purpose would be served in applying each rule to
     these licensees. We were disinclined to apply these service rules
     to LP10 stations, and sought comment with regard to the rules
     appropriate for LP100 stations.

184. [Comments.]{.underline} Comments were divided on this issue. Most
     broadcasters who commented on this issue agree that LPFM stations
     should generally follow existing regulations for full-power
     stations,[^313] but some note that they should only have minimal
     day-to-day regulatory requirements because of the difficulty of
     survival if such stations had to follow the exact rules that
     full-power stations are required to follow.[^314] Many other
     commenters state that the Commission should not require LPFM
     stations to comply with a main studio, public file or ownership
     reporting requirement, because of the burdens they would
     impose.[^315]

185. [Decision.]{.underline} We conclude that we should not impose the
     main studio, public file,[^316] or ownership reporting requirements
     on LPFM stations. We believe these requirements would place an
     undue burden on such small noncommercial educational stations. In
     addition, we believe that the nature of this service will ensure
     that LPFM stations are responsive to their communities. This
     approach is consistent with our treatment of low power television
     stations.[^317]

186. As to equal employment opportunity (EEO) rules, we conclude that
     all LPFM licensees must comply with the Commission\'s long‑standing
     prohibition against employment discrimination.[^318] We believe
     that a finding that any broadcaster has engaged in employment
     discrimination raises a serious question as to its character
     qualifications to be a Commission licensee.[^319] In addition to
     the prohibition against discrimination, the broadcast EEO Rule also
     includes EEO program requirements.[^320] These requirements are not
     currently in force.[^321] In any event, we did not enforce
     compliance with the EEO program requirements by broadcast stations
     with fewer than five full-time employees. Because we anticipate
     that the vast majority of this class of licensees will employ very
     few (if any) full‑time, paid employees, we do not intend to require
     LPFM licensees to comply with any EEO program requirements we adopt
     in our pending rulemaking proceeding.

### Construction Permits

187. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed
     an 18-month construction period for LP100 stations and a
     twelve-month limit for LP10 stations. The shorter construction time
     limits for LP100 and LP10 stations (relative to the three-year
     construction period that is allowed to full-power FM
     stations[^322]) were meant to reflect the simpler construction
     requirements for these facilities. The 18- and 12-month periods
     also assumed that difficulties with obtaining the requisite
     construction permits would be minimal.

188. [Comments]{.underline}. Many commenters state that the proposed
     construction periods for LP100 and LP10 stations are reasonable,
     given the relatively smaller facilities and simpler construction
     involved with these stations.[^323] Other commenters argue for even
     shorter construction periods for LP100 and micro-radio
     services.[^324] Some commenters thought that imposing strict
     construction time limits would help to prevent spectrum hoarding
     and help encourage the rapid deployment of the spectrum
     resources.[^325]

189. [Decision]{.underline}. We will adopt an 18-month construction
     period for both LP10 and LP100 services, and it will be strictly
     enforced. While we believe that most permittees will be able to and
     will have ample incentive to construct their low power stations in
     far less than 18 months, given the relative technical simplicity of
     LP100 and LP10 stations, we do not wish to burden applicants who
     may encounter unforeseen difficulties with a shorter construction
     period. We recognize that while the facilities themselves will be
     relatively easy to construct, zoning and permitting processes may,
     in some cases, delay construction. However, we expect that
     applicants will have well-considered proposals in this regard and
     we do not intend to grant extensions to the construction
     permits.[^326] Therefore, to avoid the complications and delays of
     extension rulings, as well as to encourage well-planned and
     executed proposals, we have allowed what we consider to be more
     than ample time for permittees to complete construction and begin
     operation, and we expect to see many stations in operation long
     before the allowed 18 months.

### Emergency Alert System

190. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to treat
     LP1000 facilities like full-power FM stations for the purposes of
     the Emergency Alert System (EAS). We explained that, in this way,
     we would expect to avoid having significant numbers of people
     deprived of this critical information resource. By contrast,
     because of their extremely small coverage areas and correspondingly
     sized audiences, as well as their limited resources, we proposed
     that LP10 stations, if authorized, not be required to participate
     in the EAS. We sought comment on these proposals and also on how
     LP100 stations, with their intermediate size and audience reach,
     should fit into the EAS structure.

191. [Comments]{.underline}. Some commenters argue that compliance
     should not be required for LP100 or LP10 stations because small
     operations and coverage areas make compliance unnecessary and too
     expensive;[^327] stations other than LP100 and LP10 stations can
     take on the role of alerting the community to emergencies;[^328]
     the short range and secondary status of LP100 stations make them
     unsuitable for emergency message propagation;[^329] and removing
     LP100 stations from the air during national emergencies would help
     prevent interference during such crisis times.[^330] Other
     commenters suggest that EAS be required only under certain
     circumstances.[^331] A few commenters provide suggestions on how to
     overcome the expense involved in EAS participation.[^332] Finally,
     Andrew Morris and William T. Croghan, Jr. assert that LP100
     stations should not be required to use EAS encoders because these
     stations only broadcast to listeners, not to EAS participants that
     would use encoded information.[^333]

192. Other commenters, however, stress the importance of participation
     in EAS by all broadcast stations.[^334] NAB and John D. Bowker
     argue that LP100 stations should not be excluded from EAS system
     requirements because listeners will be unaware that they will not
     receive the emergency warnings from LPFM stations that they have
     come to expect from radio stations.[^335] West End Radio asserts
     that LPFM stations should be required to participate in EAS because
     Americans who live in remote areas would be put in jeopardy if they
     cannot receive any kind of emergency alert.[^336] Aaron Read argues
     that the costs of EAS are not too heavy a financial burden (average
     \$1600), and for an EAS system in general to work, all broadcast
     services must participate. Read further argues that Congress has
     mandated participation in EAS for all broadcast services, which
     would include LPFM stations.[^337] Noting that the minimum facility
     Class A FM station operating at 100 watts must participate in the
     EAS, Wright Broadcasting argues that exempting LP100 stations from
     participation is discriminatory.[^338]

193. [Decision]{.underline}. We conclude that LPFM stations should be
     required to participate in the EAS structure, but in a modified
     way. Our requirements will balance the cost of compliance, the
     ability of stations to meet that cost, and the needs of the
     listening public to be alerted in emergency situations. LPFM
     licensees will be able to satisfy our EAS requirements if they
     install and operate Commission-certified decoding equipment, which
     will alert station personnel to emergency alerts. Once that
     decoding equipment is installed, station personnel must pass any
     national emergency audio message on to listeners as prescribed in
     our rules. As is the case for full service broadcasters, LPFM
     participation at the state and local levels will be on a voluntary
     basis.

194. The EAS is composed of several entities, including FM broadcast
     stations, LPTV stations, and cable systems operating on an
     organized basis at the national, state, and local levels.[^339] The
     EAS alert is designed to make viewers and listeners aware of
     emergencies that may affect them so that they may take appropriate
     protective action or seek additional information.[^340] Though the
     arguments of financial hardship for LPFM licensees to implement the
     EAS are well taken, alert messages are potentially important to all
     listeners and viewers, and commenters do not persuade us that the
     LPFM stations should, as a class, be exempted from this important
     public safety function. We will, however, minimize the cost of
     effective participation for LPFM licensees. Accordingly, we amend
     section 11.11(a) to include LPFM stations in the list of the EAS
     entities. We also amend the Broadcast Station Timetable of section
     11.11(a) to set out the requirements for LPFM.

195. While we will require EAS participation, we will exempt LPFM
     stations from purchasing some of the EAS equipment required for
     other participants under our rules. In general, EAS equipment must
     be able to perform the functions described in all of our rules
     regulating EAS.[^341] However, we relaxed some of these
     requirements for Class D noncommercial educational FM and LPTV
     stations.[^342] Because LPFM stations will also provide service to
     small audiences, we exempt LPFM stations from the requirement to
     install and operate encoders. We believe that the cost to LPFM
     licensees of installing and operating both encoding and decoding
     equipment outweighs the benefits that these small stations could
     provide to the public.[^343]

196. While we are not requiring LPFM stations to install encoding
     equipment, all LPFM stations are required to use decoding equipment
     that notifies the station in case of any emergency. We recognize
     that there will be costs associated with EAS decoders, but believe
     the costs are justified. Current Commission-certified integrated
     encoder/decoder equipment costs \$1,500 or more depending on the
     options a station wants to install. We note that today's
     manufacturers only produce certified encoders and decoders as
     integrated units, as that is the only demand that exists.
     Noncertified decoding equipment, however, is currently available
     and is advertised in some places for as little as \$650.[^344]
     Thus, it appears that Commission-certified decoding equipment
     should be available for well under \$1000 and should be able to
     reach the market in the near future. Accordingly, we will require
     the use of Commission-certified EAS decoders or decoder/encoders by
     all LPFM stations when they commence operations. It will be several
     months before the first LPFM stations are on the air. Given that
     decoders are already on the market, this should be ample time to
     obtain Commission certification and make certified units available
     for purchase. If certified decoder equipment is not available at
     that time, we can grant a temporary exemption for LPFM stations
     until such time as it is reasonably available. Once the licensee
     has installed decoding equipment, if the station is on the air at
     the time it receives a national emergency alert message, station
     personnel must pass the information along to listeners.[^345]

197. Finally, we will continue to grant waivers of EAS requirements to
     broadcasters, including LPFM licensees, on a case-by-case basis in
     appropriate circumstances upon a sufficient showing of need. As we
     outlined in the *EAS First Report and Order*, the waiver request
     must contain at least the following: (1) justification for waiver,
     with reference to the particular rule sections for which a waiver
     is sought; (2) information about the financial status of the
     entity, such as a balance sheet and income statement for up to the
     previous two years (audited, if possible); (3) the number of other
     entities that serve the requesting entity's coverage area and that
     have or are expected to install EAS equipment; and (4) the
     likelihood (such as proximity or frequency) of hazardous risks to
     the requesting entity's audience.[^346]

# Conclusion

198. In this *Report and Order*, we set the stage for a new dimension in
     radio broadcasting, creating additional, affordable outlets for the
     expression of views and the provision of information and
     entertainment to local communities. By limiting participants in
     this service to noncommercial, educational organizations, we hope
     to ensure that this service will meet needs unmet by the commercial
     radio service. Through eligibility requirements, selection
     preference factors, and the relatively small range of LPFM
     stations, we hope to create a service that will serve the distinct
     needs of small local communities. Mindful of the need to protect
     the technical integrity of the existing radio service and to
     preserve its potential transition to digital service, however, we
     are proceeding cautiously. Accordingly, we are limiting radio
     stations in the LPFM service to a maximum of 100 watts. We are also
     maintaining 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection. Based on our
     engineers\' careful review of the technical data submitted to the
     Commission, as well as their own studies, we are confident that any
     risk of interference is small and, on balance, outweighed by the
     benefits this new service will bring.

**ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS**

199. [Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis]{.underline}. This *Report and
     Order* has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction
     Act of 1995, and found to impose new or modified reporting and
     recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation
     of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements
     will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
     as prescribed by the Act.

200. [Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. Pursuant to the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 601, the
     Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this *Report
     and Order* is attached as Appendix C.

201. [Additional Information]{.underline}. For additional information on
     this proceeding, please contact Julie Barrie, Policy and Rules
     Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2130.

**ORDERING CLAUSES**

202. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority contained in
     sections 1, 4(i), 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 303, Part 73 of the Commission's
     rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A
     below.

203. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the amendments set forth in Appendix A
     shall be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal
     Register.

204. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
     *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
     Administration.

205. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Magalie Roman Salas Secretary

[^1]: Existing FM stations must protect and are protected from
    interference from stations operating on the same, *i.e.,*
    co-channel, frequency, and each of the first three adjacent FM
    channels. Distance separation requirements are based on a
    desired-to-undesired signal strength ratio methodology and are
    designed to permit the reception, generally, of a "desired" station
    throughout its protected service area. Co-channel protection is
    based on the "desired" signal providing a signal strength of at
    least 40 dB greater than an "undesired" co-channel signal and 6 dB
    greater than an "undesired" first-adjacent channel signal within the
    "desired" station's protected service area. This methodology also
    ensures that a "desired" signal is not less than 40 dB less than an
    "undesired" 2nd- or 3rd-adjacent channel signal within the "desired"
    station's protected service area.

[^2]: *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, MM Docket No. 99-25, 14 FCC Rcd
    2471 (1999) (*Notice*).

[^3]: Petition of J. Rodger Skinner, RM-9242, *Public Notice*, Report
    No. 2254 (February 5, 1998); Petitions of Nickolaus Leggett, Judith
    Leggett, and Donald Schelhardt, RM-9208, *Public Notice*, Report No.
    2261 (March 10, 1998).

[^4]: *See generally* Comments of Abyssinian Baptist Church; Comments of
    Crown Heights Jewish Community Council; Comments of the United
    States Catholic Conference; Comments of Immanuel Presbyterian
    Church; Comments of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland,
    Ohio; Comments of Association of Islamic Charitable Projects;
    Comments of Mendan Presbyterian Church; Comments of Calvin Christian
    Reformed Church; Comments of the United Church of Christ, et al.
    (UCC, et al.).

[^5]: *See generally* Comments of Justin W. Clifton on behalf of KAMP
    Student Radio; Comments of University of Arizona; Comments of Adrian
    Kohn, General Manager, WGTB, Georgetown University; Comments of
    Brookland High School, Brookland, Arkansas; Comments of El Cerrito
    High School, El Cerrito, CA.

[^6]: *See generally* Comments of AFL-CIO; Comments of Communications
    Workers of America.

[^7]: *See generally* Comments of Mount Pleasant Broadcasting Club;
    Comments of Haitian American Community Broadcasting Federation;
    Comments of Zeitgeist Community Gallery of Cambridge; Comments of
    Advocates for a Better Community.

[^8]: *See generally* Comments of Louisiana Music Commission; Comments
    of Michigan Music is World Class Campaign; Letter from Low Power
    Radio Coalition by Artists (September 22, 1999); Comments of Jazz
    Music Radio.

[^9]: In the *Notice* we referred to the one-to-10 watt stations as
    "microradio" stations; for simplicity, however, throughout this
    *Order* we will use the term "LP10" stations.

[^10]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of National Lawyers Guild, et al. at
    Section V; Reply Comments of the United Church of Christ, et al.
    (UCC, et al.) at 4.

[^11]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Walt Disney Company (Disney) at 5.

[^12]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of National Lawyers Guild, et al. at
    Section II; Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 2.

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2).

[^14]: *See generally* Comments of National Association of Broadcasters
    (NAB); Reply Comments of UCC, et al.; Comments of the Consumer
    Electronics Manufacturing Association (CEMA); Comments of the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB); Comments of National
    Public Radio (NPR).

[^15]: *See* Comments of AFCCE at 11-13; *see also* Comments of NAB at
    37-40; Comments of Disney (August 2, 1999) at 3-5, Engineering
    Statement at 6-7.

[^16]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Vincent Chiao; Comments of Spencer
    Graddy Clark.

[^17]: *See* Comments of AFCCE at 13.

[^18]: *See* Comments of Disney at 2.

[^19]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of National Lawyer's Guild; Comments of
    Amherst.

[^20]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of ACLU, et al.; Comments of REC Networks.

[^21]: *See* Comments of NAB (August 2, 1999) at 81-85 (Vol. One).

[^22]: S*ee* Comments of WEOK Broadcasting Corporation at 7.

[^23]: *See* Reply Comments of the Civil Rights Organizations at 13 n.
    24.

[^24]: Antenna heights greater than 30 meters HAAT would be permitted,
    but an appropriate downward adjustment in ERP would have to be made
    such that the 1 mV/m F(50,50) signal contour radius would not exceed
    5.6 kilometers.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(C).

[^26]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 16
    (noncommercial stations would serve groups, including those defined
    by race, religion ethnicity, language or age, that are poorly served
    by advertiser-supported radio).

[^27]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 16-17
    (noncommercial LPFM service is the best means of creating
    locally-based radio likely to serve needs of the local communities);
    Comments of National Lawyers Guild at 6-8 (noncommercial service
    will attract those who truly wish to provide a service to their
    community). *See* *also* Comments of The National Federation of
    Community Broadcasters (Community Broadcasters) at 7 (noncommercial
    LPFM service would avoid the debate over the impact of LPFM on the
    economics of radio broadcasting); *see also* Comments of Creative
    Educational Media Corp. at 4; Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting
    Co. at 3, Comments of Nassau Broadcasting at 3; Comments of WATD at
    4; Comments of WBRV at 3.

[^28]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Amherst (filed April 28, 1999) at 32-34
    (supporting licensing all categories of LPFM service, but arguing
    that noncommercial uses should be given priority); *see also*
    Comments of Media Island International (both commercial and
    noncommercial stations should be licensed but noncommercial should
    be given a two-year "head start" on commercial); Comments of Trident
    Media at 2-3 (LPFM stations should have the option of being
    commercial in order to generate revenues and remain viable).

[^29]: Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 16-17

[^30]: *See e.g.,* Comments of UCC, et al. at 25-26 (commercial low
    power stations could provide an important entrepreneurial
    opportunity for members of demographic groups that have historically
    been underrepresented in the broadcast industry as licensees and
    professionals).

[^31]: While opposing the establishment of an LPFM service generally,
    NPR stated that \"if there can be some assurance that prospective
    licensees will serve the community and the public interest, it is
    by\" applying the \"current eligibility criteria\" for noncommercial
    educational licensees to all LPFM stations. Comments of NPR at
    29‑30.

[^32]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(C) and 397(6).

[^33]: As discussed below, we will license LPFM stations to operate in
    both reserved and non-reserved portions of the FM band.
    Nevertheless, the same eligibility and noncommercial service
    restrictions will apply to all LPFM stations, regardless of the
    portion of the FM band in which they are licensed to operate. In
    this regard, LPFM NCE stations will be different from full-service
    NCE stations that operate in the non-reserved band. The latter can
    convert from NCE status to commercial status at will by filing a
    notification letter with the Commission, but LPFM stations will not
    be permitted to change their noncommercial status.

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 397(6).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 73.503(a). The same eligibility requirements were in
    effect on the effective date of Section 397(6) of the Act. *See
    also* Appendix A to *Notice of Inquiry*, In the Matter of
    Eligibility for Noncommercial Educational FM and TV Broadcast
    Station Licenses, BC No. 78-164, FCC 77-382, 43 Fed. Reg. 30842
    (1978), 30844 (processing guidelines for institutional and
    organizational applicants for noncommercial educational licenses).

[^36]: *See generally* Appendix A to *Notice of Inquiry*, In the Matter
    of Eligibility for Noncommercial Educational FM and TV Broadcast
    Station Licenses, BC No. 78-164, FCC 77-382, 43 Fed. Reg. 30842,
    30844 (1978).

[^37]: *See, e.g.,* In re Applications of Music Ministries, Inc. and
    Community Education and Religious Broadcasting, *Hearing Designation
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 3628 (Aud. Serv. Div. 1994).

[^38]: *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, In the Matter of
    Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial
    Educational Applicants, MM Docket No. 95-31, FCC No. 98-269, 13 FCC
    Rcd 21167, 21169 (1998).

[^39]: *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, In re Application of Lower Cape
    Communications, Inc., FCC 80-453, 47 RR2d 1577, 1579 (1980). *See
    also* *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, *Florence Bridges*, FCC
    78-719, 44 RR2d 667, 668 (1978).

[^40]: We note, however, that individuals cannot qualify as NCEs.

[^41]: Comments of the New York State Thruway Authority at 2. *See also*
    Comments of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (LPFM
    stations could be used to facilitate the transmission of travel
    information to the public).

[^42]: Comments of Texas Department of Transportation at 2.

[^43]: The "community" concept is significant with respect to the limits
    on local ownership of LPFM stations. The concept of "community" is
    not relevant to our cross-ownership restrictions, which, as
    discussed below, are absolute and thus do not depend on a
    determination of the locality of a particular media interest.

[^44]: In allocating full-power FM stations to specific communities, we
    define a community as a geographically identifiable population
    grouping, usually determined based upon whether the area is
    incorporated or is listed in the U.S. Census. *Amendment of Section
    73.202(b),* MM Docket No. 90-385, 6 FCC Rcd. 5835 (1991).

[^45]: *See, e.g*.*,* Comments of NAB at 71; Comments of Nassau
    Broadcasting Partners at 7.

[^46]: Comments of NAB at 70.

[^47]: *Id.* at 70-71.

[^48]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company of New
    Jersey, Inc. at 6; Comments of the University of Dayton at 6;
    Comments of El Cerrito High School - West Contra Costa Unified
    School District at 6.

[^49]: Comments of Douglas E. Smith at 2-3.

[^50]: Comments of Metro Detroit Broadcasting Corporation at 5.

[^51]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Amherst at 38.

[^52]: Reply Comments of the National Lawyers Guild, etc. at 4.

[^53]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 13.

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3555 & 76.501.

[^55]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 13.

[^56]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of the American Civil Liberties Union of
    Massachusetts et. al. at 6; Comments of Community Broadcasters at 9.

[^57]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 31-32.

[^58]: Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 21-22.

[^59]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Anthony M. Marimpietri, Jr. at 2;
    Comments of Quinnipiac College at 2; Comments of Amherst at 37;
    Comments of Salida Colorado Radio Club at 2.

[^60]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Charles C. Knight at 1; Comments of
    Joseph T. Norton at 1; Comments of Jonathan Tesser at 2; Comments of
    American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts et al. at 6.

[^61]: Reply Comments of Grid Radio at 23.

[^62]: Comments of Community Broadcasters at 9.

[^63]: 10 F.3d 875 (1993). *See, e.g.,* Comments of Morris Broadcasting
    Company of New Jersey, Inc. at 8; Comments of Creative Educational
    Media Corporation, Inc. at 9.

[^64]: *See* Comments of Andrew Morris at 9.

[^65]: For example, a Virginia TIS entity would be eligible to apply for
    an LPFM license anywhere in the state of Virginia but not in any
    other state.

[^66]: 10 F.3d 875 (1993).

[^67]: *Id.* at 885.

[^68]: *See Second Report and Order*, ITFS, MM Docket No. 83-523, 101
    FCC 2d 50 (1985) *recon. denied* *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, MM
    Docket No. 83-523, 59 R.R. 2d 1355 (1986); 47 U.S.C. § 396.

[^69]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Amherst at 44l; Comments of Civil Rights
    Organizations at 23; Comments of UCC, et al. at 13, 39; Comments of
    Christopher Conly at 1; Comments of Peter Brinson at 2.

[^70]: Comments of the Civil Rights Organizations at 25.

[^71]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 14-15.

[^72]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 13.

[^73]: Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company of New Jersey, Inc. at 8;
    Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting Company, Inc. at 7; Comments of
    Nassau Broadcasting Partners, L.P. at 8; Comments of Creative
    Educational Media Corporation, Inc. at 8-9. Some commenters proposed
    specific national caps. *See, e.g.,* Comments of Ronnie V. Miller at
    17, Comments of Glenda Brookens at 1; Comments of Anthony M.
    Marimpietri, Jr. at 2 (3-station cap); Comments of Metro Detroit
    Broadcasting Corporation at 8 (at least 10-station cap); Comments of
    Trident Media and Broadcasting, Ltd. at 3 (15-station cap); Comments
    of Thomas M. Eells at 20 (20-station cap).

[^74]: Comments of Kenneth Bowles at 17 (5 stations or more); Reply
    Comments of Randall C. Wright at 4 (no more than 10 nationally);
    Comments of Craig Admunson at 2 (maximum of 10); Comments of Tom A.
    Bunch at 2 (5 to 10 nationally); Comments of Andrew Morris at 8-9 (5
    to 10 nationally); Comments of Scott D. Fowler at v (limit of 10).

[^75]: Comments of NAB at 72.

[^76]: P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 202 (1996).

[^77]: *Id.*

[^78]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of National Lawyers Guild, etc. at 21;
    Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 23-24; Comments of Thomas
    M. Eells at 3.

[^79]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 21.

[^80]: Comments of NAB at 72.

[^81]: Comments of University of Dayton at 7; Comments of Positive
    Alternative Radio, Inc., et al. at 12; Comments of Morris
    Broadcasting Company of New Jersey, Inc. at 6.

[^82]: *See, e.g*., Comments of National Council of La Raza at 2; Reply
    Comments of the United States Catholic Conference at 2.

[^83]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Aaron Read at 8; Comments of Geoffrey M.
    Silver at 1. Likewise, Salida Colorado Radio Club sought an
    exception for school districts that may like to have very small
    wattage licenses for different schools in the same district.
    Comments of Salida Radio Club at 2.

[^84]: Comments of Amherst at 42-43.

[^85]: *Report and Order* in MM Docket Nos. 94-150, 92-51 & 87-154, FCC
    99-207 (August 6, 1999) ("*Attribution R&O*").

[^86]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555 Note 2(h) ("The officers and directors of a
    parent company of a broadcast licensee, cable television system or
    daily newspaper, with an attributable interest in any such
    subsidiary entity, shall be deemed to have a cognizable interest in
    the subsidiary unless the duties and responsibilities of the officer
    or director involved are wholly unrelated to the broadcast licensee,
    cable television system or daily newspaper subsidiary, and a
    statement properly documenting this fact is submitted to the
    Commission."); *see also* Attribution of Ownership Interests, 97 FCC
    2d 997 (1984), *on recon.,* 58 RR 2d 604 (1985), *on further
    recon*., 1 FCC Rcd 802 (1986).

[^87]: Given the nature of the LPFM service and our goal of limiting the
    burdens imposed on the service, we will not require the submission
    of a statement to the Commission documenting this recusal (*cf*. 47
    C.F.R. § 73.3555 Note 2(h)), but we expect licensees to effect such
    a recusal and to abide by it.

[^88]: Unlike in the commercial attribution rule, we will not require
    the applicant or licensee to seek a waiver under these
    circumstances. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555 Note 2(h).

[^89]: Comments of the National Lawyers Guild, etc. at 3-4; Comments of
    Civil Rights Organizations at 33.

[^90]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Stephen G. Toner at 2.

[^91]: Comments of Amherst at 56; Comments of UCC, et al. at 33.

[^92]: Comments of Alliance for Community Media at 5.

[^93]: Comments of NAB at 74.

[^94]: Comments of Wisconsin Rapids Broadcasting, L.L.C. d/b/a WHFR/WGLX
    Radio at 3-4. Many others object to "rule-breakers" receiving
    licenses. Comments of Colorado West Broadcasting, Inc. at 2;
    Comments of North Cascades Broadcasting, Inc. at 8; Comments of Omni
    Communications, Inc. at 6; Comments of Association of Islamic
    Charitable Projects at 1.

[^95]: Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing,
    102 FCC 2d 1179, ¶54-55 (1986); *recon. granted in part and denied
    in part*, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991).

[^96]: *Id.*

[^97]: *See National Broadcasting Co. v. United States*, 319 U.S. 190
    (1943).

[^98]: One commenter did propose operation on "Channels 198, 199 and
    200" (presumably 87.5 MHz, 87.7 MHz, and 87.9 MHz). *See* Comments
    of American Civil Liberties U, et al at 14*.* These frequencies are
    currently allocated for television broadcasting on TV Channel Six
    (82-88 MHz). Channel 200 is reserved for Class D (secondary)
    stations relocating to eliminate interference and was not proposed
    for low power use at this time. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.512.

[^99]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Aaron Reed; Comments of Chuckie
    Broadcasting Company; Comments of Oklahoma Department of
    Transportation.

[^100]: *See* Comments of NPR (August 2, 1999) at 18; Comments of CPB at
    19.

[^101]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Amherst (April 28, 1999) at 70-71;
    American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts at 13.

[^102]: We have identified a finite number of "superpowered" facilities
    operating in the reserved band that exceed the permissible maximum
    class facilities. Such facilities will receive protection in
    proportion to their operating facilities. *See* ¶ 70.

[^103]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.602(f).

[^104]: Broadcast auxiliary applications are filed on FCC Form 600 and
    are processed by the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau.

[^105]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Media Island International at 1;
    Comments of City of Berkeley, CA at 1; Comments of Citizens
    Telecommunications & Technology Advisory Board of Seattle at 4;
    Comments of Jennifer Anne Barrios at 1; Comments of Citizens for
    Access to the Airwaves at 2.

[^106]: Comments of ACLU of Massachusetts at 98.

[^107]: Comments of Community Broadcasters Association at 1.

[^108]: Comments of Amherst Alliance at 7.

[^109]: Reply Comments of Community Broadcasters at 9.

[^110]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. at 3;
    Comments of WATD at 6; Comments of Emmis Communications Corporation
    at 1; Reply Comments of Cumulus Media, Inc. at 13; Comments of
    Infinity Broadcasting at 25.

[^111]: Comments of Big City Radio, Inc. at 22.

[^112]: Comments of Mississippi Valley Broadcasters at 8.

[^113]: Comments of the Association of Federal Communications Consulting
    Engineers at 13. The comments of National Public Radio also contend
    that LPFM stations should not be permitted a higher priority than FM
    translator stations, Comments of NPR at 23-27. The National
    Association of Broadcasters, while opposing the creation of any LPFM
    service, submits that FM translators and boosters must be protected
    against new LP100 stations, Comments of NAB Volume One (August 2,
    1999) at 63-64.

[^114]: Comments of Aaron Read at 2.

[^115]: Comments of Jeffrey Richman at 1.

[^116]: In this regard, LP10 stations will be authorized on a secondary
    basis to LP100 stations. However, interference protection from LP10
    stations to LP100 stations will be limited to the extent of the
    protection afforded by the station separation requirements.

[^117]: The minimum separation distances governing LPFM stations
    authorizations are based on the same protection criteria used to
    derive the minimum separations among full-service FM stations;
    *i.e.*, the same desired-to-undesired signal strength ratios applied
    at a station's protected contour and the assumption that a protected
    station operates at the maximum height and power permitted for its
    class.

[^118]: *See* Comments of Summit (August 2, 1999) at 2-4; *see also*
    Comments of USADR (August 2, 1999), Exhibit A at 3.

[^119]: *See* Comments of NCAB/VAB (August 2, 1999) at vii-ix.

[^120]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Dr. C. William Chignoli at ¶ 3.

[^121]: Unlike full service commercial and noncommercial educational
    stations, we are not adopting spacing requirements for stations
    removed three channels from the LPFM frequency (third adjacent
    channel), for reasons which will be explained in a subsequent
    section.

[^122]: Currently, noncommercial educational stations operating in the
    reserved band (Channels 201 to 220, or 88.1 MHz to 91.9 MHz) must
    provide protection to reception of television channel 6 in
    accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR § 73.525. We have decided
    that LPFM stations should also protect reception of TV Channel 6.
    This issue is covered in greater detail in ¶ 114 below.

[^123]: Superpowered stations will be protected under the distance
    separations for the class of station that most closely approximates
    its facilities. This determination will be made based upon the
    stations 1 m V/m reference contour and the procedures for
    determining class listed in §73.211. A listing of correct reserved
    band superpowered stations is included in Appendix B.

[^124]: Pursuant to § 74.1235, FM translators within 250 km of the
    Canadian border may be authorized if the 34 dBu F(50,10) interfering
    contour does not exceed 60 km in any direction from the transmitter
    site. FM translators located within 125 km of the Mexican border
    will be permitted to operate with an ERP not to exceed 50 watts,
    provided that the 34 dBu F(50,10) interfering contour does not
    extend more than 32 km toward the Mexican border, and the 60 dBu
    F(50,50) service contour cannot extend more than 8.7 km from the
    transmitter site in the direction of Mexico. FM translators located
    further than 125 km from the Mexican border, but less than 320 km
    from the border, may operate with the maximum ERP permitted for LP10
    and LP100 stations, however, the location of the 60 dBu contour must
    lie more than 116.3 km from the Mexican border.

[^125]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 42.

[^126]: *See* *Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 96-120, 12 FCC Rcd
    11840, 11847-49 (1997) (*Grandfathering of Short-Spaced Stations
    R&O*).

[^127]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 45.

[^128]: *See* Educational Information Corporation, 6 FCC Rcd 2207
    (1991).

[^129]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 47.

[^130]: The NLG study was funded by NLG, UCC, et al., and several
    others.

[^131]: *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.

[^132]: CEMA target level was an audio Weighted Quasi-Peak (WQP) S/N
    ratio of 45 dB. It indicated that NPR had established the 45 dB
    audio S/N ratio for quality broadcasting on a previous project.
    *See* CEMA's *Laboratory Test Report* at p.1.

[^133]: *See* Comments of CEMA at ii-iii, and *Laboratory Test Report*
    at pp. 1-7.

[^134]: *See* Comment of NAB Vol. 2 at 22-26.

[^135]: *See* Reply Comments of NAB at 8.

[^136]: *See* Executive Summary of the NLG study.

[^137]: NLG stated that while the transition zone in its distortion and
    noise tests did not pinpoint the conditions under which a listener
    would decide a signal is undesirable to listen to, it was the most
    identifiable characteristic common to the radios in its tests.

[^138]: *See* OET study at 3.

[^139]: Theodore S. Rappaport conducted this study on behalf of MAP.
    *See* ¶ 75.

[^140]: *See* Rappaport study at 2.

[^141]: *See* Rappaport study at 12.

[^142]: The percentage values cited reflect differences in LPFM power
    levels from 1 watt to 100 watts and are based on the average
    population density for the 60 cities studied in the *Notice*.
    Rappaport acknowledges that results will vary from city to city.
    Rappaport Study at 23-24.

[^143]: *See* Rappaport Study at 41.

[^144]: *See* Rappaport Study at 47-54.

[^145]: For example, in the *Notice* we referenced the view of USADR, an
    IBOC technology proponent, that "because of the design of the USADR
    IBOC system, digital reception is essentially not susceptible to
    3^rd^-adjacent channel interference...." *Notice* Appendix C at ¶
    53.

[^146]: For example, CEMA and NAB, in their studies, conclude that
    2^nd^- and 3^rd^-adjacent channel protections are needed and should
    be retained to protect against interference while the OET and NLG
    studies suggest that these interference protections may not be
    needed in certain circumstances.

[^147]: *See* Reply Comments of NAB, Appendix B, Pickholtz/Jackson
    Review at iii.

[^148]: In this regard, NAB criticizes the OET study for its use of
    harmonic distortion measurements rather than the more traditional
    S/N measurements employed in the NAB and CEMA studies. We believe
    that this criticism is unwarranted. Both S/N and harmonic distortion
    measurements can be used to satisfactorily measure interference to
    FM receivers. Both of these techniques quantify in an accurate and
    repeatable manner the amount of energy produced by the interfering
    signal in the receiver's audio output. However, there are advantages
    and disadvantages to each approach. While it is true, as NAB and
    their consultants have suggested, that harmonic distortion
    measurements are relatively less sensitive -- that is, they produce
    a smaller change in measured results for a given change in
    undesired-to-desired signal ratio -- the change in distortion is
    well within the resolution capability of the measuring equipment. On
    the other hand, distortion measurements provide an advantage over
    S/N measurements in that they measure the effect of interference on
    audio output in the presence of the desired signal's modulation,
    thus capturing any audio intermodulation effects that might be
    caused by interaction of the desired and interfering signals. S/N
    measurements, in contrast, require that the desired signal's
    modulation be removed to measure the interference component, thus
    missing any opportunity to capture this effect.

    We also note that there are slight differences between the NAB and
    CEMA S/N measurements. In measuring S/N, the value actually measured
    is (S+N)/N. To make this measurement, one first establishes a
    reference by measuring the total level of the unimpaired desired
    signal at baseband and any system noise also at baseband, then
    removing the desired baseband signal and measuring the relative
    level of the baseband noise in the presence of the impairment. So
    the ratio actually reported is *unimpaired* S+N to *impaired* N.
    Because of shifts in the reference level noted when impairments are
    introduced (shifts in either direction, apparently caused by either
    receiver desensitization or the contribution of noise, or both),
    CEMA chose to re-establish the reference level in the presence of
    the impairment while NAB did not. Thus, CEMA's reported ratio is
    actually *impaired* S+N to *impaired* N.

    NAB also implies that the test methodology used in the OET study is
    faulty. NAB makes this claim based on its assertion that the OET
    test results are significantly different from its results and the
    results of the other studies when those other results are
    interpolated to NAB's 50 dB S/N criteria. We find NAB's argument in
    this regard specious and unpersuasive. Interpolating all test
    results, except one, to a given criteria and then commenting that
    the one test result not interpolated is different does not call into
    question OET's test methodology in our opinion but rather NAB's
    analysis. In this regard, a direct comparison between OET's test
    results at 3% distortion and measured and interpolated results at 50
    dB S/N is not appropriate and provides no basis for calling into
    question the validity of OET's tests. We note that OET measured the
    S/N performance of one of the receivers in CEMA's sample and
    obtained the same results as CEMA.

[^149]: *See* Comments of NAB Vol. 1 at 28.

[^150]: NAB also cites ITU Recommendation 641, which specified an audio
    S/N of 50 dB assuming that receivers can produce a S/N of 56 dB
    without interference, in support of its S/N choice of 50 dB.
    Recommendation 641, "Determination of Radio-Frequency Protection
    Rations for Frequency-Modulated Sound Broadcasting," 1986, ITU,
    Geneva, Switzerland. *See* Comments of NAB Vol. 2 at 8.

[^151]: *See* NAB's Subjective Evaluation of Audio Degraded by Noise and
    Undesired FM Signals, Lawrence C. Middlekamp, November 17, 1982.

[^152]: Only 3 of the 28 receivers met the criteria of providing a S/N
    of 56 dB in the absence of interference. In addition, in its reply
    comments, NAB argues that the one of the only classes of receivers
    that come close to meeting its proposed 50 dB standard, i.e.,
    automobile radios, should be excluded and treated separately because
    they operate in a mobile environment and therefore require higher
    protection. NAB argues that an additional 30 dB of margin is needed
    in the protection ratios to account for multipath fading and other
    considerations of mobile operation. See Reply Comments of NAB at
    15-16.

[^153]: CEMA also indicates that its sample did not meet its target S/N
    at the FCC's 1^st^-, 2^nd^-, and 3^rd^-adjacent channel protection
    ratios.

[^154]: *See* Reply Comments of NAB at 8.

[^155]: The OET study did not, however, include small, inexpensive
    receivers with integral antennas, such as clock and personal radios.
    Similarly, the NLG study employed a sample of only 10 radios and, as
    pointed out by NAB, it is difficult to draw general conclusions for
    the FM receiver population from such a small sample.

[^156]: The above conclusions of the OET report that "nearly all the
    receivers in the sample appear to meet or exceed the 40 dB
    2^nd^-adjacent channel criterion and exceed the 3^rd^-adjacent
    channel protection criterion by a substantial margin" reflect
    measurements taken at the 1% distortion level. NAB, in its reply
    comments, asserts that for the OET study, interference was
    considered to exist when the desired audio from the receiver
    contained 3% or more distortion than with no interfering signal
    present. NAB states that it assumes this to be the case because if
    1% distortion were the interference point there would be no point in
    collecting 3% data. NAB's assumption is incorrect. The 1% and 3%
    levels were merely two points at which data were collected. The 1%
    level corresponds to a point at which most listeners would not be
    able to perceive any degradation in performance. On the other hand,
    the 3% distortion represents a level at which most listeners would
    perceive a difference in the received signal. The 3% distortion
    level was also chosen after informal consultations by FCC staff with
    the test firm hired by NAB, which stated that it recommended this
    value as a test point.

[^157]: CEMA reported average rather than median performance. Its
    findings showed an average S/N ratio of 34 dB at the -40 dB D/U
    level.

[^158]: NAB's study shows median receiver performance values at
    different desired signal levels. These median values are as follows:

    Desired Signal LevelMedian 2^nd^ AdjacentMedian 3^rd^ Adjacent-45
    dBm-17.0 dB-26.8 dB-55 dBm-23.7 dB-32.0 dB-65 dBm-30.5 dB-39.7 dB

[^159]: These interference estimates are calculated in accordance with
    the FM engineering charts in Section 73.333 of the rules, 47 CFR §
    73.333.

[^160]: As indicated above, NAB defines interference as a degradation in
    audio S/N performance of 5 dB. Using this measure, all five personal
    radios and two of the five portable radios tested by NAB could be
    considered to provide no service at all beyond the --45 dBm level,
    since they all exhibited a greater than 5 dB degradation in
    performance when the desired signal was reduced below --45 dBm even
    with no interference present. Therefore, it is questionable whether
    interference estimates for these radios using NAB's methodology are
    meaningful.

[^161]: *See* CEMA study at 6.

[^162]: In contrast, *effective radiated power (ERP)* refers to the
    power which is radiated from the antenna. ERP incorporates the
    transmission line loss -- the power loss of the cable used between
    transmitter and antenna -- and the gain of the antenna. Thus, it is
    possible for the effective radiated power to be greater than the
    transmitter power output (TPO), by using an antenna with a gain
    greater than 1.0. For simple systems, the ERP = TPO x (antenna gain)
    x (efficiency of transmission line), where the antenna gain and
    efficiency are decimal numbers (not in decibels = dB). In most
    cases, the antenna manufacturer or the transmission line
    manufacturer should be able to provide this information

[^163]: *See* Comments of ABA at 14.

[^164]: As a practical matter, this allowance will limit LP100 stations
    to 450 meters HAAT and LP10 stations to 100 meters HAAT. These HAAT
    values would produce equivalent maximum class contours for stations
    operating with 1 watt ERP, the lowest value we will authorize.

[^165]: Antenna height above average terrain (commonly abbreviated HAAT)
    does not refer to the height of the antenna above ground level. The
    antenna height above average terrain is a measure of the height of
    the antenna relative to a generated average terrain level . The
    average terrain level is computed by considering the terrain along 8
    or more evenly spaced radials centered at the antenna site. For each
    of these radials, the ground elevations at 50 or more evenly spaced
    points are determined and averaged. Then, the radial terrain
    averages are averaged together to determine the height of the
    average terrain above mean sea level (AMSL). The antenna height
    above average terrain (HAAT) is the difference between the height of
    the antenna (AMSL) minus the average height of the terrain AMSL.

[^166]: The Commission's prediction of coverage methodology does not
    account for HAAT's below 30 meters. In such cases, 30 meters is
    assumed when contour distances are determined.

[^167]: We will specify ERP to the nearest watt. This differs slightly
    from the full service FM rounding procedures. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.212.

[^168]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.316.

[^169]: Manufacturers of suitable antennas can provide assistance in
    determining the antenna gain of a particular antenna, and also the
    input power needed to emit a specified effective radiated power.

[^170]: LPFM applicants may use the AM Query on the Internet to
    determine whether an AM station lies within 3.2 km of a particular
    set of coordinates. The query may be accessed at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/amq.html#sprung5> .

[^171]: For towers less than 61 meters in height, FAA approval is not
    required if the structure is more than eight kilometers from the
    nearest air facility. If the structure is within eight kilometers of
    an air facility, FAA notification is not required if the height of
    the structure, when considered along with the distance to the air
    facility and elevation of the antenna site, satisfies a "slope"
    calculation. (These criteria are independent of the ERP of the
    facility.)

[^172]: High strength RF signals, which emanate from the antenna before
    they are dissipated over space, are capable of covering, or
    blanketing, the reception of all other FM stations and possibly TV
    stations and other electronic communications, regardless of
    frequency, by simply overpowering the receiver's tuner. Thus, the
    name "blanketing interference."

[^173]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.318.

[^174]: To a degree, Section 73.318 lacks detail regarding the exact
    requirements of licensees. However, over the years a clear
    interpretation of the rule has been developed by the Mass Media
    Bureau. The Commission proposed to codify this policy further in MM
    Docket 96-62, which is currently pending. *See In the Matter of
    Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to More Effectively
    Resolve Broadcast Blanketing Interference, Including Interference to
    Consumer Electronics and Other Communications Devices,* 11 FCC Rcd
    4750 (1996). We will apply the rule in accordance with the
    established precedents.

[^175]: This methodology is similar to that used in the FM translator
    rules. S*ee* 47 C.F.R. § 74.1205. The FM translator table was used
    in Appendix D of the *Notice*, "Spectrum Availability Analysis."

[^176]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of National Association of Radio Reading
    Services at 1.

[^177]: *See ¶* 65, adding 20 km buffer.

[^178]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of John Benjamin and Charles Coplein at 6;
    Comments of Spencer Graddy Clark at 6.

[^179]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.907.

[^180]: For additional information about unattended operation, please
    refer to the information sheet *Unattended Operation of Radio and
    Television Broadcast Stations*, which may be retrieved on the
    Internet through the address
    <http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/decdoc/engrser.html#UNATTEND> .

[^181]: In addition, as also detailed in § 73.1030, the Mass Media
    Bureau staff will coordinate action with the Enforcement Bureau if
    an application is predicted to place a signal strength of 80 dBu or
    more over an FCC monitoring station. As with current practice, there
    is no pre-filing notification requirement.

[^182]: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review---Streamlining of Mass Media
    Applications, Rules and Processes, Report and Order in MM Docket No.
    98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056 (1998) ("*Streamlining R&O*").

[^183]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2504-06.

[^184]: Comments of Metro at 12-13. Metro also express concern that
    mandatory electronic filing would create barriers for small
    businesses. Comments of Metro at 12. The eligibility criteria we are
    adopting for LPFM applicants, however, will exclude for-profit
    businesses. *See* ¶ 17-20.

[^185]: Comments of Metro at 13.

[^186]: Comments of the Oklahoma and Texas Departments of Transportation
    at 6.

[^187]: *See* Comments of Stephen Toner at 1; Comments of Dane Udenberg
    at 1.

[^188]: In order to simplify their use and speed their processing, the
    Commission has streamlined broadcast applications in adapting them
    to an electronic format. Open-ended questions requiring detailed
    exhibits have been replaced with simple yes/no questions as to
    compliance with Commission rules, supplemented by instructions and
    worksheets to explain the pertinent rules and help ensure that
    applicants answer the questions correctly. *See Streamlining Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 23067-68.

[^189]: With regard to operation and security issues, the electronic
    filing system for LPFM applications will function in a similar
    manner as the Commission's system for other broadcast applications.
    *See Streamlining R&O,* 13 FCC Rcd at 23062-65.

[^190]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 2506-07.

[^191]: *See* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional
    Television Fixed Services, *First Report and Order*, MM Docket No.
    97-234, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15972-74 (1998).

[^192]: Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial
    Educational Applicants, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM
    Docket No. 95-31, 13 FCC Rcd 21167, 21175 (1998).

[^193]: Under first-come first-served procedures, applications may be
    filed at any time, and the filing of an acceptable application
    precludes the subsequent filing of mutually exclusive applications,
    unless filed on the same day. Mutual exclusivity arises when
    competing applications are filed on the same day. These procedures
    now are used only for minor changes for commercial and NCE broadcast
    stations. *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review---Streamlining of
    Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules,
    *First Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 98-93, 14 FCC Rcd 5272,
    5273-77 (1999).

[^194]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2506.

[^195]: *Id*.

[^196]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Michael Robert Birdsill at 5; Comments
    of Ronnie Miller at 18-19; Comments of Andrew Morris at 15; Reply
    Comments of Kenneth W. Bowles at 19 (supporting short filing windows
    of only a few days or less); Comments of Creative Educational Media
    Corp. at 11; Comments of Positive Alternative Radio at 15; Comments
    of Community Media at 9; Comments of Oklahoma and Texas Departments
    of Transportation at 6; Comments of UCC, et al. at 35 (supporting
    windows of several months, open each year at the same time).

[^197]: Joseph Belisle and Stephen Toner suggest that LPFM applicants be
    limited to one application per window to reduce the likelihood of
    mutual exclusivity and to prevent speculative or abusive filings.
    Comments of Joseph Belisle at 1; Comments of Stephen Toner at 1. We
    need not consider this suggestion in light of the eligibility
    requirements we are adopting for LPFM applicants. In addition, for
    the reasons discussed below, we reject the suggestions of several
    commenters that the first filing window be reserved for institutions
    that serve women and minorities, or for applicants with a
    demonstrated commitment to their communities. *See* ¶ 137.

[^198]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Joseph Belisle at 1; Comments of John
    Bowker at 18; Comments of Kirk Chestnut at 1; Comments of David
    McOwen at 3-4; Comments of Forrest Parsons at 2.

[^199]: Comments of Ronnie V. Miller at 18-19.

[^200]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Scott Drew at 2; Comments of Community
    Broadcasters at 18.

[^201]: *Auctions 1^st^ R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15973 .

[^202]: Without mandatory electronic filing, the staff would have no way
    of determining the filing priority of applications that were
    electronically-filed and paper-filed on the same day.

[^203]: *Cf.* Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing
    Television Broadcasting, Order on Reconsideration*,* MM Docket No.
    91-221, FCC 99-343 (released November 10, 1999) (rejecting first
    come-first served processing of applications filed pursuant to
    modified rules adopted in the local broadcast ownership proceeding
    because, among other things, "a 'first come, first served' system
    could initiate a 'race' to Mellon Bank to file applications, and
    result in filers camping out to be first in line at the filing
    counter.").

[^204]: This Order will become effective 60 days after publication in
    the Federal Register.

[^205]: For the reasons discussed above, the first filing window will be
    open solely to applicants for 100-watt LPFM stations. *See* ¶ 11-14.
    We anticipate opening a second filing window for 10-watt LPFM
    stations in the future, after the close of the first window. *See
    id.*

[^206]: Information about application procedures, and in particular the
    timing of the application window, will be available on the
    Commission's LPFM website: www.fcc.gov\\mmb\\prd\\lpfm.

[^207]: *See* discussion of the city-grade contour, at ¶ 67.

[^208]: *See* ¶¶ 136-152.

[^209]: A tentative selectee whose application is found unacceptable for
    filing will be given a single opportunity to submit a curative
    amendment, provided that the amendment is minor and the amended
    application has the same number of points as originally claimed, or
    more than the points claimed by the next highest applicant.
    Tentative selectees whose applications remain unacceptable for
    filing after this opportunity will be removed from their mutually
    exclusive groups, and will not be provided with an additional
    opportunity to amend.

[^210]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584.

[^211]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2483, 2485.

[^212]: *Id.* at 2507-08, *citing* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, §
    3002(a)(1), *codified as* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j); *see Auctions 1^st^
    R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15924-25 (concluding that auctions are mandatory
    for all primary and secondary commercial broadcast services).

[^213]: *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21170-81.

[^214]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting Company at 4;
    Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company at 11-12; Comments of Mark
    Pfohl at 1; Comments of Positive Alternative Radio at 9; Comments of
    Keith Reising at 1; Comments of Douglas E. Smith at 2; Comments of
    Voice of Vashon at 2; Comments of Robert T. Wertime at 1; Comments
    of Zillah School District at 5. Likewise, many of the comments filed
    in response to the two petitions for rule making requesting the
    creation of low power radio services opposed the use of auctions.
    *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2507.

[^215]: *See, e.g**., ***Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting Company at
    4; Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company at 10-11; Comments of
    Keith Reising at 1; Comments of Zillah School District at 5.

[^216]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Alliance for Community Media at 9;
    Comments of Robert T. Wertime at 1.

[^217]: *See* Comments of CDC at 13.

[^218]: Applicants also will be able to propose time-sharing as part of
    a settlement agreement among all mutually exclusive applicants, at
    any time after the release of a public notice identifying their
    mutual exclusive group. *See* ¶ 147.

[^219]: *See Auctions 1^st^ R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15928-31.

[^220]: *NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21171.

[^221]: We clarify that we permit LPFM applicants to propose settlements
    to resolve mutually exclusive applications because the use of
    settlements serves the public interest in instances such as this
    where auctions are not permissible. In light of the fact that we are
    not auctioning this service, we believe settlements provide an
    appropriate method to resolve issues of unresolved mutual
    exclusivity and avoid the risk of protracted hearings. *See* ¶ 150.

[^222]: *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21171-72.

[^223]: *See Adarand Constructors v. Pena*, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

[^224]: Our decision here is not intended to prejudge the issues raised
    in our proceeding reexamining the comparative standards for
    full-service NCE stations. *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    21171-76.

[^225]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §74.913. The ITFS is a nonbroadcast,
    point-to-point service intended primarily to provide formal
    educational programming offered for credit to enrolled students of
    accredited schools. Pursuant to the provisions of the Balanced
    Budget Act of 1997, the Commission has determined that pending and
    future mutually exclusive ITFS applications shall be resolved by
    competitive bidding, unless Congress enacts legislation exempting
    ITFS from competitive bidding. *See Auctions 1^st^ R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd
    at 16003‑04.

[^226]: *See* ¶ 163.

[^227]: *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21181-83.

[^228]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Kirk Chestnut at 1 (require competing
    applicants to demonstrate community interest in their applications
    with letters of endorsement from community leaders and citizens);
    Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company at 7 (preference for
    applicants with record of prior service to minority communities or
    prior employment of minorities).

[^229]: *See Streamlining R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 23084-87.

[^230]: *See* ¶ 182.

[^231]: *See generally* Arizona Communications Corp., 25 FCC 2d 837
    (1970), *recon. denied*, 27 FCC 2d 283 (1971).

[^232]: *See* Amendment of Section 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the
    Commission's Rules, the Main Studio and Program Origination Rules
    for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order in MM Docket No. 86-406, 3 FCC Rcd 5024, 5026 (1988).

[^233]: *See* ¶ 186.

[^234]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2471; *see also* Comments of
    Alliance for Community Media at 7 (advocating points to applicants
    providing most local programming); Comments of UCC, et al. at 35
    (advocating point system using local program origination criteria).

[^235]: As noted above, a primary concern of the court in *Bechtel* was
    that there was no obligation for successful applicants to adhere to
    their integration proposals. *See* ¶ 34.

[^236]: *See generally* *Streamlining R&O*, 13 FCC Rcd at 23084-87.

[^237]: *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21177-80.

[^238]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting Company at 9;
    Comments of Southeast Association of Microbroadcasters at 1; *see
    also* Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company at 10-11 (preference
    for applicants with record of prior service to minority communities
    or prior employment of minorities).

[^239]: 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

[^240]: For example, two time-sharers that claimed points individually
    for established community presence and proposed operating hours and
    local program origination may claim a combined two points for each
    of these criteria, for a total of six points. They need not
    aggregate hours of operation or locally-originated programming to
    aggregate their points for these criteria.

[^241]: *NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21180.

[^242]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2471.

[^243]: If for some reason a successive term licensee becomes unable to
    operate the station during its portion of the license term, that
    licensee's time will be divided equally among the remaining
    licensees for that station.

[^244]: For example, assume an unresolved tie among four grantable
    applications. If permittees A, B, C and D file their license
    applications in that order, then their two-year license terms will
    be in that sequence, with the eight years commencing on the date
    that A's license application is granted.

[^245]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3525.

[^246]: *See NCE Further Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21176, n. 22. 47 U.S.C.
    §155(c)(1).

[^247]: The Commission previously secured similar legislation allowing
    it to delegate authority to the staff to conduct ITFS point system
    proceedings. *See id.*

[^248]: Comments of Robert W. Federal at 5; Comments of Scott D. Fowler
    at 4; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16.

[^249]: Comments of Craig F. Amundsen at 1.

[^250]: Comments of Jeffery A. Copeland at 2; Comments of Aaron Read at
    14.

[^251]: Comments of Jennifer Anne Barrios at 1; Comments of Robert
    Kevess, MD at 1; Comments of REC Networks at 16.

[^252]: Comments of Amherst at 12-13; Comments of NLG at 35; Comments of
    Jonathan Tesser at 2.

[^253]: Comments of REC Networks at 16.

[^254]: Comments of Michael Robert Birdsill at 4; Comments of Sunbury
    Broadcasting Corp. at 2.

[^255]: Comments of Crawford Broadcasting Co. at 7; Comments of Craig F.
    Amundsen at 1; Comments of John R. Benjamin and Charles Coplien at
    3; Comments of Spencer Graddy Clark at 3; Comments of William T.
    Croghan, Jr. at 10; Comments of Judith Fielder and Nickolaus E.
    Leggett at 5; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16; Comments of Gary L.
    Nixon at 2; Comments of Scott D. Fowler at 44; Comments of Warren
    Michelsen at 6; Comments of Andrew Morris at 13; Comments of Jeffrey
    S. Richman at 3; Comments of REC Networks at 6; Comments of Douglas
    E. Smith at 4.

[^256]: Comments of Jeffrey S. Richman at 3-4.

[^257]: Comments of Douglas E. Smith at 4; Comments of Warren Michelsen
    at 6.

[^258]: Comments of REC Networks at 16.

[^259]: *See* Comments of NLG at 35; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16;
    Comments of Scott D. Fowler at 44. NLG suggests that a renewal
    preference be given initially to LPFM licensees, but that preference
    could be lessened after a 10-year period and possibly eliminated
    after a twenty-year period. NLG further believes that a renewal
    preference should be given to an LPFM station that has joined a
    local self-regulatory organization. Comments of NLG at 35.

[^260]: Comments of Jennifer Anne Barrios at 1; Comments of Robert
    Kevess, MD at 1.

[^261]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a). We may, however, issue either an initial
    or renewed license for a lesser term if we find doing so is in the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity. *Id*.; *see* 47 U.S.C.
    §307(c).

[^262]: Implementation of Section 203 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996 (Broadcast License Terms), Sections 73.1020 and 74.15, MM
    Docket No. 96-90, *Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 1720, 1727, ¶ 18
    (1997).

[^263]: Licenses renewed for eight years in Maryland, the District of
    Columbia, Virginia, and West Virginia will expire on September 30,
    2003. 47 C.F.R. §73.1020(a)(1). Licenses renewed for eight years in
    Delaware and Pennsylvania will expire on July 31, 2006. *Id*.
    §73.1020(a)(18).

[^264]: Thus, for example, initial applications for licenses in Maryland
    filed within the current license cycle will expire on September 30,
    2003, and initial applications for licenses in Pennsylvania filed
    within the current license cycle will expire on July 31, 2006. While
    we anticipate that many applicants will be licensed in Maryland with
    expiration dates of September 30, 2003, any applicant licensed in
    Maryland after September 30, 2003, will be assigned an expiration
    date no later than September 30, 2011. Likewise, any applicant
    licensed in Pennsylvania after July 31, 2006, will be assigned an
    expiration date no later than July 31, 2014.

[^265]: *See* ¶ 149.

[^266]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1).

[^267]: *See* Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast
    Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to
    Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuses of the
    Renewal Process, *Third Further Notice of Inquiry and Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 4 FCC Rcd 6363, 6364, ¶ 9 (1989) (quoting
    *Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. FCC*, 683 F.2d 503, 507 (D.C.
    Cir. 1982), *see also Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC*, 444
    F.2d 841, 858 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (stating that renewal expectancies
    are provided "to promote security of tenure and to induce efforts
    and investments, furthering the public interest, that may not be
    devoted by a licensee without reasonable security").

[^268]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at ¶ 86; CRC Petition for Rule Making at 5.

[^269]: *See, e.g*., Comments of ACLU of Mass. *et al*. at 5-6; Comments
    of KVOI at 1; Comments of City of Berkeley, CA at 1; Comments of
    Jennifer Anne Barrios at 2; Comments of Eric Brown at 1; Comments of
    Mari J. Caro at 1; Comments of Robert Kevess MD at 1; Comments of
    Miles Ohlrich at 1. John Bowker would permit sale of a license only
    for an amount equivalent to the depreciated value of the existing
    plant. Comments of John Bowker at 16. Quinnipiac College would
    permit the sale of stations only to entities that do not own other
    commercial stations. Comments of Quinnipiac College at 2.

[^270]: Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 26; Comments of UCC,
    et al. at 16. UCC, et al. would permit waiver of the
    anti-trafficking rule for good cause.

[^271]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 16.

[^272]: Comments of ACLU of Mass. et al. at 5-6.

[^273]: *See, e.g*., Comments of Scott D. Fowler at 45.

[^274]: *See* Comments of John D. Bowker at 15; Comments of William T.
    Croghan, Jr. at 9.

[^275]: Comments of Low Power Radio Coalition at 6.

[^276]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 19-21.

[^277]: Comments of NAB at 75-76.

[^278]: Comments of NLG at 36.

[^279]: Comments of Andrew Morris at 10; Comments of Trident Media at 2;
    Comments of Gary L. Nixon at 1.

[^280]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

[^281]: *See* *Report and Order*, BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 RR 2d 476
    (1982) (*Low Power Television R&O*).

[^282]: 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 (prohibits broadcasting of
    indecent material from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., hours when
    children are likely to be in the audience).

[^283]: 47 U.S.C. § 317; 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212. *See* ¶ 75 for a
    discussion of political programming rules.

[^284]: 47 C.F.R. §73.1208.

[^285]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1920.

[^286]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1201.

[^287]: Comments of UCC, et al., at 3-4; Comments of William T. Croghan,
    Jr. at 8 (advocating 50% locally originated programming); Comments
    of Gregory Caliri at 2 (advocating two-thirds locally originated
    programming); Comments of NLG at 25-26; Comments of Joseph Crump at
    1; Comments of Jason D. Patent at 1 (advocating 75% locally
    originated programming); *see* Comments of Bott Broadcasting Co. at
    35; Comments of Robert Kevess, MD at 1; Comments of Ronnie V. Miller
    at 9; Comments of Libraries for the Future at 1 (advocating 80%
    locally originated programming); Comments of Gene Kirby at 1
    (advocating 100% locally originated programming).

[^288]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 10-11. NLG considers the Commission's
    proposal not to impose a local programming requirement a major
    mistake that could undermine the entire LPFM service. Comments of
    NLG at 25-26; *see* Comments of Aaron Read at 10 (arguing that
    without strict restrictions to ensure local programming, national
    programmers will obtain LPFM licenses to rebroadcast nationally
    sourced programming, eliminating any new or local voices). REC
    Networks suggests that LPFM stations be required to provide at least
    eight hours of local programming each weekday, but contends that
    there should be no restrictions between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
    weekdays or any time on weekends. Comments of REC Networks at 14-15.

[^289]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of the Alliance for Community Media at 7
    (believes local programming should not be mandatory, but suggests
    that the Commission give "priority points" to applicants based on
    the amount of public interest programming proposed); Comments of
    Warren Michelsen at 3 (supports the Commission's proposal to give
    low-power and LP10 licensees the same discretion as full-power
    licensees to determine what mix of local and non-local programming
    will best serve the community); Reply Comments of Kenneth W. Bowles
    at 16 (argues that local programming should not be required because
    LPFM is locally oriented by its nature).

[^290]: Comments of Amherst at 57-58.

[^291]: Comments of Amherst at 58-59. For example, Amherst suggests that
    use of all central source feeds, combined, could be "capped" at 49
    percent of programming, or use of any single central source feed
    could be "capped" at 25 percent of programming. *Id*. Amherst also
    argues that local content requirements should not apply to any
    materials that LPFM stations develop and donate or syndicate to each
    other or larger institutions. According to Amherst, syndication of
    original material could become a major source of influence or income
    for LPFM stations, and a way to get innovative, but potentially
    popular, material to the mainstream. *Id*. at 59. *See also*
    Comments of the Salida Colorado Radio Club at 3 (opposing regulating
    locally originated programming, suggesting instead that LPFM
    stations show a reasonable effort to have at least half of their
    programming of local origination and that compliance should be
    reviewed through enforcement actions).

[^292]: Comments of North Cascade Broadcasting at 7; Comments of Gary L.
    Nixon at 2; Comments of Trident Media at 2; Comments of the Alliance
    for Community Media at 3; Comments of John D. Bowker at 14.

[^293]: Comments of Civil Rights Organizations at 26; Comments of Gary
    L. Nixon at 10.

[^294]: Comments of Gary L. Nixon at 10.

[^295]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 4, n.1.

[^296]: *See* ¶ 144 (mutually exclusive applicants that pledge to
    provide at least eight hours of locally originated programming will
    receive one point).

[^297]: Comments of UCC, et al. at 19-21; see also Comments of NLG at
    36.

[^298]: Comments of REC Networks at 15; Comments of John D. Bowker at
    15.

[^299]: Specifically, section 312(a)(7) provides that "\[t\]he
    Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit for
    willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or permit
    purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting
    station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office
    on behalf of his candidacy." 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7); *see* 47 C.F.R.
    § 73.1944. This right of access does not apply to candidates for
    non-federal state or local offices.

[^300]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1942(d). While noncommercial broadcasters
    are prohibited from charging legally qualified candidates for time,
    they may charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

[^301]: Section 315(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, provides
    that "if any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally
    qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting
    station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such
    candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
    47 U.S.C. § 315(a); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941. Section 73.1940 of
    the Commission's rules defines "legally qualified candidate" as any
    person who has publicly announced his or her intention to run for
    nomination or office, is qualified under the applicable local,
    state, or federal law to hold office for which he or she is a
    candidate, and has qualified for ballot placement or has otherwise
    met all the qualifications set forth in the Commission's rules. 47
    C.F.R. § 73.1940. In addition, both the statute and the rules
    narrowly define the term "use" and exclude from the definition
    candidates' appearances in *bona fide* newscasts, interviews,
    documentaries, and the on-the-spot coverage of news events. 47
    U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)-(4); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941(a)(1)-(4). Section
    73.1941(b) further provides that "\[a\]s used in this section and §
    73.1942, the term 'use' means a candidate appearance (including by
    voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941(a)(1)
    through (a)(4) of this section." 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941(b). Licensees
    have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the
    equal opportunity provisions of section 315(a). 47 U.S.C. § 315(a);
    *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941.

[^302]: 47 U.S.C. §399; 47 C.F.R. § 73.1930(b); *see* *FCC v. League of
    Women Voters of Calif.*, 468 U.S. 364 (1984).

[^303]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1942(d).

[^304]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941(e).

[^305]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of William Croghan Jr. at 10; Comments of
    the Oklahoma Department of Transportation at 4. Some commenters
    suggest that FM translator call signs or amateur radio operator call
    signs should be adopted to identify LPFM stations. *See, e.g.,*
    Comments of Harry W. Pardue at 2; Comments of Douglas E. Smith at 5.
    *See also* Comments of John Bowker at 17 (suggesting that a new
    pattern of call signs is needed, such as the station's FM numerical
    channel followed by three letters); Comments of Gene Kirby at 2
    (suggesting that for LP100 and LP10 stations, the only
    identification needed might be the station's location and ownership,
    perhaps given at sign on and sign off of the station's programming).

[^306]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Andrew Morris at 14; Comments of
    Jeffrey S. Richman at 5.

[^307]: *See* Comments of Timothy Cramer at 2. *See also* Comments of
    Harry W. Pardue at 2 (arguing that using an existing call sign
    system will reduce administrative burdens).

[^308]: Thus, an LPFM station could not have the call sign WXYZ if a low
    power television station also had that four letter call sign because
    both would be identified as WXYZ-LP. If, on the other hand, WXYZ
    were the call sign of a full-power FM station and was not used by
    any LPTV station, the LPFM station could, with the consent of the
    full power station, use the call sign WXYZ. In this case, the two
    stations would be distinguished because one would be WXYZ-FM and the
    other would be WXYZ-LP.

[^309]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3550. LPFM stations shall also be subject to the
    station identification requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 73.1201. A party
    cannot request a call sign until a construction permit is issued. As
    with full power stations, the call letters of stations located east
    of the Mississippi River will begin with a "W" and west of the
    Mississippi will begin with a "K."

[^310]: Comments of Andrew Morris at 12 (suggesting that the Commission
    could reduce its administrative burdens by imposing no minimum
    operating hours, and relying instead on the "silent station"
    statute); Comments of Warren Michelsen at 4 (believing that minimum
    operating hours discourage greater diversity by compelling stations
    to fill up broadcast time with canned programming, and by
    potentially precluding more creative broadcast startups, which may
    not have sufficient programming or capital to afford the longer
    required broadcast hours).

[^311]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of William T. Croghan Jr. at 9; Comments
    of Mid-America Broadcasting Company, Inc. at 8; Comments of Morris
    Broadcasting Company of New Jersey, Inc. at 9; Comments of Positive
    Alternative Radio, Inc. et al. at 14; Comments of University of
    Dayton at 9.

[^312]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.561.

[^313]: *See*, *e.g.* Comments of NAB at 76; Comments of Buckley
    Broadcasting, Inc., at 16; Comments of Big City Radio, Inc. at 17;
    Comments of Barry Broadcasting Company at 4; Comments of Delmarva
    Broadcasting at 9-10.

[^314]: *See* Comments of Creative Educational Media Corporation, Inc.
    at 3; Comments of Mid-America Broadcasting Company at 3; Comments of
    Morris Broadcasting at 3; Comments of Nassau Broadcasting at 3.
    These commenters propose that all LPFM stations should be required
    to submit periodic program summary reports so that the FCC as well
    as the general public can verify the localized performance of all
    LPFM stations. REC Networks believes that all LPFM stations should
    maintain a public file which, for LP100 watts or less, could be
    placed on the internet in lieu of having a public inspection
    location, since many of these stations may be operated from private
    residences. Comments of REC Networks at 7.

[^315]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Texas Department of Transportation at
    3; Comments of Oklahoma Department of Transportation at 5 (Both
    believe that the micropower station licensees should be exempted
    from the main studio rule, the public file rule and periodic
    ownership reporting requirements). Ronnie Miller argues that we
    should impose the absolute minimum amount of regulation for smaller
    stations to allow for experimentation, and Gene Kirby states that
    LP10 should be as free of unnecessary rules, paperwork, logs, etc.,
    as is practical. Comments of Ronnie Miller at 23; Comments of Gene
    Kirby at 1.

[^316]: As noted above, however, LPFM licensees must maintain a
    political file. *See* ¶ 175.

[^317]: *Report and Order* in BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 RR 2d 476 (1982)
    ("*Low Power Television R&O*").

[^318]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 73.2080(a).

[^319]: *Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC*, 595
    U.S. 621, 628-29 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

[^320]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080(b) and (c).

[^321]: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Circuit held that the EEO program requirements of the broadcast EEO
    Rule are unconstitutional. *Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod v.
    FCC*, 141 F.3d 344, *pet. for reh'g denied*, 154 F.3d 487, *pet. for
    reh'g en banc denied*, 154 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (\"*Lutheran
    Church*\"). The Commission has proposed and requested comment
    concerning a new broadcast EEO Rule and policies consistent with the
    D.C. Circuit\'s decision in *Lutheran Church*. *See Review of the
    Commission\'s Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules
    and Policies and Termination of the EEO Streamlining Proceeding*, 13
    FCC Rcd 23004 (1998).

[^322]: *See* Report and Order in MM Dockets Nos. 98-43 and 94-149, FCC
    98-281 (released November 25, 1998) (\"*Non-Technical Broadcasting
    Streamlining R&O*\"), providing a three year construction period for
    new radio stations.

[^323]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of the Texas Department of Transportation
    at 5; Comments of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation at 4
    (supporting the proposed construction limit).

[^324]: Comments of REC Networks at 7 (arguing for a 12-month
    construction period); Comments of the Lawyers Guild at 37 (arguing
    for construction periods of 10 months and 9 months for LP100 and
    LP10, respectively, reasoning that "these stations should be fairly
    inexpensive and relatively easy to put on the air.").

[^325]: *See, e.g*., Comments of Andrew Morris at 12 (arguing that a
    designated construction period helps to guarantee use of the
    spectrum by a set date.); Comments of Joshua Weiss at 1 (arguing
    that licensees should be precluded from hoarding construction
    permits).

[^326]: LPFM permittees will be eligible for tolling of the construction
    period pursuant to our rules and consistent with Section 319(b) of
    the statute. *See* 47 U.S.C. §319.

[^327]: *See* Comments of Gene Kirby at 1; Comments of Morris
    Broadcasting Co. at 9; Comments of Gary L. Nixon at 2, Comments of
    Stanley L. Scharch at 1; Comments of Creative Educational Media
    Corp. at 10; Comments of John R. Benjamin and Charles Coplien at 5;
    Comments of Spencer Graddy Clark at 5.

[^328]: Comments of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation at 5;
    Comments of the Texas Department of Transportation at 5.

[^329]: Comments of Andrew Morris at 13.

[^330]: Comments of Andrew Morris at 13; Comments of REC Networks at 7.

[^331]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Ronnie V. Miller at 22 (not opposed to
    voluntary compliance for LP100 stations); Comments of REC Network at
    17 (supports voluntary compliance for LP100 stations); Comments of
    Robert J. Wertime at 2 (believes EAS should include automatic
    deference to local FM stations, if not fully implementable at an
    LPFM station); Comments of Roger P. Doering at 1 (believes that LPFM
    should shut down in an alert, unless a full power station is
    disabled); Comments of John A. Crutti, Jr. at 1 (believes that LP100
    stations should be exempt from EAS compliance, except where
    full-power stations are not present in local areas to provide EAS);
    Comments of Andrew Morris at 13 (same as John A. Crutti, Jr.).

[^332]: *See* Comments of Douglas E. Smith at 4-5 (suggests that LPFM
    could use equipment, which is available at a modest cost (less than
    \$100), to detect EAS codes originated by the National Weather
    Service and that it would not be excessively burdensome to require
    LPFMs to monitor their area's local primary station for EAN, and to
    go off the air if it is received, returning only after EAT is
    issued); Comments of Robert Zukowski at 2 (suggests that an
    economical way for LPFM stations to participate in EAS is to
    rebroadcast a full power station's EAS messages).

[^333]: Comments of Andrew Morris at 13; Comments of William T. Croghan,
    Jr. at 10.

[^334]: *See* Comments of Barry Broadcasting Co. at 4; Comments of
    Buckley Broadcasting Corp. at 16; Comments of Crawford Broadcasting
    Co. at 7; Comments of Delmarva at 10; Comments of Sunbury
    Broadcasting Corp. at 2.

[^335]: Comments of NAB at 77; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16.

[^336]: Comments of West End Radio at 1.

[^337]: Comments of Aaron Read at 15.

[^338]: Comments of Wright Broadcasting at 10-11.

[^339]: 47 C.F.R. § 11.11(a).

[^340]: EAS relies on equipment that provides emergency alerts via a
    digital signaling process. Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, FO
    Docket Nos. 91-171 and 91-301, *Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    1273, 1274, ¶ 2 (1998); *see* Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of
    the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, FO
    Docket Nos. 91-171 and 91-301, *Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 1786 (1994) (*EAS First Report
    and Order*). EAS equipment transmits a message that is generally no
    longer than two minutes in length and at a minimum, provides the
    viewer with the reason or event posing a threat, the location that
    the event may be affecting, the approximate time period that a
    threat to safety will last, and the originator of the alert message.
    *Id*. at ¶ 2, n. 4. National level EAS messages and EAS tests must
    be forwarded to the public upon receipt. EAS participants transmit
    state and local messages on a voluntary basis. *Id*. at ¶ 2.

[^341]: Specifically, EAS equipment must be able to perform the
    functions described in sections 11.31, 11.32, 11.33, 11.51, 11.52,
    and 11.61 of our rules.

[^342]: Class D noncommercial educational FM and LPTV stations are not
    required to install or operate encoders as defined in section
    11.32,^?^ to have equipment capable of generating the EAS codes and
    Attention Signal specified in section 11.31, or to perform certain
    parts of EAS tests.

[^343]: Accordingly, we amend section 11.11(b) to provide that LPFM
    stations, as defined herein, are not required to comply with section
    11.32. Because LPFM stations are not required to install or operate
    encoders, we amend section 11.51(e) to provide that LPFM stations
    are not required to have equipment capable of generating the EAS
    codes and Attention Signal specified in section 11.31. Because we
    are not requiring LPFM stations to install equipment capable of
    generating the EAS codes and Attention Signal, we amend the last
    sentence of section 11.61(a)(1)(v) to require Class D noncommercial
    educational FM, LPTV, and LPFM stations to transmit only the test
    script of this monthly test. Monthly tests are required of the EAS
    header codes, Attention Signal, Test Script and EOM code, but Class
    D noncommercial educational FM and LPTV stations are only required
    to transmit the Test Script. In addition, we amend section
    11.61(a)(2)(ii)(E)(2)(iii) to provide that Class D noncommercial
    educational FM, LPTV, and LPFM stations are not required to transmit
    this digital test, but must log receipt. Class D noncommercial
    educational FM and LPTV stations are not required to transmit weekly
    tests of the EAS header and EOM codes.

[^344]: Such equipment is used, for instance, by police or fire
    departments to monitor the Emergency Alert System.

[^345]: Accordingly, we amend section 11.53(a)(3) of our rules to
    require LPFM stations to disseminate the national audio message to
    all subscribers if it is received via wire services.

[^346]: *EAS First Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 1830, ¶ 123.