**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**445 12^th^ STREET, S.W.**

**WASHINGTON, DC 20554**

February 19, 2004

**Report to the Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing
Program**

**Pub. L. No. 106-553**

In accordance with Section 632 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (the "Act"),[^1] the Federal Communications
Commission ("Commission") submits this report to the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. This report
includes the Commission's recommendations to Congress regarding the
modification or elimination of minimum distance separation requirements
for low power FM ("LPFM") stations operating on third-adjacent channels
(+/- 600 kHz) to full power and other FM broadcast stations.

**I. BACKGROUND**

On January 20, 2000, the Commission authorized the licensing of LPFM
stations, and imposed minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM
stations consistent with current FM protection standards with respect to
existing commercial and noncommercial educational ("NCE") FM stations,
and FM translator and booster stations operating on the same and on the
two immediately adjacent channels. Based on studies done by the
Commission and the public, the Commission determined that LPFM stations
would not cause unacceptable levels of interference to FM stations
operating on third-adjacent channels. Accordingly, the initial LPFM
technical rules did not impose third-adjacent channel minimum distance
separation requirements on LPFM stations. On September 20, 2000, the
Commission, on reconsideration, adopted complaint and license
modification procedures to ensure that significant third-adjacent
channel interference problems would be resolved expeditiously.[^2] On
December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed the Act into law, requiring
the Commission to impose third-adjacent channel minimum distance
separation requirements on LPFM stations, and to conduct independent
field tests and an experimental program to determine whether the
elimination of third-adjacent channel protection requirements would
result in LPFM stations causing harmful interference to existing FM
stations operating on third-adjacent channels. On March 22, 2001, the
Commission adopted an order imposing third-adjacent channel minimum
distance separation requirements on LPFM stations consistent with the
third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirements
currently in effect for full power commercial and NCE FM stations.[^3]
In July 2001, the Commission selected The Mitre Corporation (\"Mitre\")
to conduct the required LPFM field tests and experimental program, and
to prepare a report containing the analyses required by the Act.

**II. THE MITRE STUDY AND REPORT**

The scope of work for the LPFM field tests and experimental program
required by\
the Act and specified in the contract between the Commission and Mitre
required Mitre to:

-   Perform market research for the field tests and experimental program

-   Establish and manage the acquisition program for the field tests and
    experimental program

-   Design the test plans and obtain the information required by the Act

-   Select and manage the field tests subcontractor

-   Prepare a final report on the field tests and experimental program
    to be submitted to Congress

Due to budgetary constraints that became apparent at the conclusion of
Mitre's market research, the required LPFM field tests and experimental
program were divided into two phases. In Phase I, Mitre was required to
take LPFM field strength measurements and make high quality digital
recordings, and to analyze the effect of third-adjacent channel LPFM
stations on the transition from analog to digital terrestrial radio.
Phase II of the LPFM field tests and experimental program would consist
of audience listener tests based on the Phase I digital recordings and
an economic analysis of the effect of third-adjacent channel LPFM
stations on existing broadcasters.

Mitre completed Phase I of the LPFM field tests and experimental program
and delivered its final report to the Commission on June 2, 2003. The
Commission accepted the Mitre Report and issued a *Public* Notice on
July 11, 2003, requesting public comment on the Mitre report.[^4]
Originally, comments were due on September 12, 2003. However, on August
8, 2003, two parties, National Public Radio (\"NPR\") and the
International Association of Audio Information Services (\"IAAIS\"),
jointly requested a 90-day extension of time in which to prepare and
submit comments.[^5] On August 29, 2003, the Commission granted an
extension of time until October 14, 2003, for filing comments on the
Mitre report.[^6]

The Mitre Report contains the following conclusions/recommendations
concerning LPFM stations and existing third-adjacent channel FM
stations:

> 1\. Reduction or elimination of existing third-adjacent channel LPFM
> minimum distance separation requirements is possible without
> increasing the potential for third-adjacent channel LPFM interference
> to existing stations.
>
> 2\. Adoption of a more stringent third-adjacent channel LPFM emissions
> mask would mitigate LPFM interference potential because most LPFM
> transmitters achieve spurious emission suppression in excess of the
> current mask value.
>
> 3\. Third-adjacent channel LPFM stations will have little or no effect
> on the transition to terrestrial digital radio since third-adjacent
> channel LPFM interference to digital receivers is unlikely to occur
> beyond 130 meters from the LPFM transmitter.
>
> 4\. Due to the lack of measurable interference produced by
> third-adjacent channel LPFM stations during testing, the listener
> tests and economic analysis scheduled for Phase II of the LPFM field
> tests and experimental program should not be done.

**III. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED**

Appendix A is a list of the twenty-four parties (including one untimely
filer) that submitted comments on the Mitre Report. Eighteen filers
support elimination or modification of the existing third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM stations.
Three support retention of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum
distance separation requirements. Ten individuals who favor elimination
of the current third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements reported that their local LPFM station is suffering
co-channel interference that could be eliminated if the station could
change frequency to a third-adjacent channel. They state that they value
highly this station's local community-oriented programming. One
supporter of the current distance separation restrictions contends that
the additional LPFM stations that could be authorized without
third-adjacent channel protections could have a negative cumulative
interference impact on the FM service. Three parties support retention
of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements with respect to existing full-power FM stations providing
Reading Services for the Visually Impaired (RSVI) on FM sub-carriers.
Four filers addressed the Mitre Report recommendation to modify the
third-adjacent channel emissions mask limits for LPFM stations. Two of
the four endorse and one opposes the Mitre proposal, and one maintains
that further study is required before a decision on the mask
modification can be made. No comments addressed the Mitre Report
assessment of the effect of third-adjacent channel LPFM stations on the
transition to terrestrial digital radio.

> **IV. RECOMMENDATIONS**

**1.** **Existing third-adjacent minimum distance separation
requirements between LPFM stations and existing full-service FM stations
and FM translator and booster stations should be eliminated.**

The Mitre Report states that, even in the worst case, no third-adjacent
channel interference between an LPFM station and an existing
full-service FM station will exist beyond a radius of 1.1 kilometers
around the LPFM transmitter site. The Commission's technical studies
similarly showed that LPFM stations do not pose a significant risk of
causing interference to existing full-service FM stations or FM
translator and booster stations operating on third-adjacent channels. If
such interference were to occur, the Commission would address it on a
case-by-case basis using the third-adjacent channel LFPM interference
complaint and license modification procedures adopted in September
2000.[^7] Based on the Phase I testing results, the complaint and
license modification procedures should be sufficient to resolve any
anomalous cases of third-adjacent channel interference. Further, the
Commission specifically requires an LPFM station to meet the
second-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirement with
respect to an FM station providing radio reading services via subcarrier
that is operating on a third-adjacent channel. Based on these reasons,
there appears to be no public interest reason to retain third-adjacent
minimum distance separation requirement for LPFM stations.[^8] Congress
should re-address this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the
third-adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM
stations.

**2. Congress should re-evaluate the necessity of completing Phase II
testing.**

The results of Phase I testing call into question the necessity of
completing Phase II. In Phase I, the Mitre field tests found that no
100-watt LPFM station significantly degraded the reception of a
full-service station at any distance greater than 126 meters from the
LPFM transmitter. Also, with the exception of a single anomalous result,
no significant LPFM-related degradation to the reception of a
full-service station was identified at a distance greater than 333
meters from the LPFM transmitter, a test result based on over 1,400
measurements. Mitre concluded that the expenditure of public funds for
listener tests and economic analysis would be unwarranted based on the
de minimis potential for actual third-adjacent channel LPFM interference
to commercial and NCE FM stations. We agree.

First, the Phase I testing showed a limited number of test points where
interference was detected. Spending additional money on listening tests
would not appear to add any substantive information because there was no
significant interference detected. Next, the Commission's experience
with licensing LPFM stations shows there has not been a great demand for
licenses in rural areas. Thus, an adverse economic impact on small
market stations may not be realized. Additionally, even with
modification of the third-adjacent channel separations, there will not
be many new LPFM opportunities in most communities of any significant
size. Further, nothing in the record demonstrates that a limit on local
radio competition is necessary to protect incumbent broadcasters or that
additional competition from noncommercial educational LPFM stations
would cause significant economic harm to full-power broadcasters.
Finally, the Commission estimates that an additional \$800,000 would be
required to complete Phase II testing and analysis. In light of these
reasons, we recommend that Congress re-assess the need for listening
tests and economic analyses.

Attachments:

Appendix A: List of Commentors on Mitre Report

Mitre Technical Report, Experimental Measurements of the
Third-Adjacent-Channel Impacts of Low-Power FM Stations (Volumes One and
Two)

**APPENDIX A**

**LIST OF COMMENTORS ON MITRE REPORT**

1.  Tim West

2.  Gary W. Barnett

3.  Fred E. and Ramona J. Morgan

4.  Lois Crowe

5.  Crystal McGarry

6.  Fred Compton

7.  David D. Petherbridge

8.  John R. Smith

9.  Will Satak

10. Richard Bennett

11. REC Networks

12. Stephen G. Toner

13. Richard M. Wolcott

14. Paul Pfnister

15. JT Communications

16. Kyle Magrill & Barry Magrill

17. National Public Radio, Inc.

18. National Association of Broadcasters

19. Livingston Radio Company

20. Cox Radio, Inc.

21. Prometheus Radio Project; Media Access Project, National Lawyers
    Guild Committee on Democratic Communications; Office of
    Communication, Inc., United Church of Christ; National Federation of
    Community Broadcasters; Future of Music Coalition; and Free Press

22. Midwest Christian Media, Inc. and Three Sisters Wireless, Inc.

23. The Amherst Alliance

24. International Association of Audio Information Services (Late
    filing)

[^1]: *D.C. Appropriations -- FY 2001*, Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 632, 114
    Stat. 2762, 2762A-111 (2000).

[^2]: *See Creation of Low Power Radio Service,* 15 FCC Rcd 19208
    (2000).

[^3]: *See Creation of Low Power Radio Service,* 16 FCC Rcd 8026 (2001).

[^4]: *Public Notice, Comment Sought on The Mitre Corporation's
    Technical Report, \"Experimental Measurements of the Third-Adjacent
    Channel Impacts of Low Power FM Stations*,\" DA 03-2277 (rel. July
    11, 2003).

[^5]: NPR/IAAIS Motion for Further Extension of Time (filed Aug. 8,
    2003).

[^6]: *Order*, DA 03-2767 (rel. Aug. 29, 2003) (MM Docket No. 99-25).

[^7]: See 47 C.F.R. § 73.810 and § 73.827.

[^8]: See 47 C.F.R. § 73.807(a)(2) and § 73.807(b)(2).