Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | MM Docket No. 95-31          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Reexamination of the Comparative | ) |                              |
| Standards for Noncommercial      | * |                              |
| Educational Applicants           | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

**Adopted: June 27, 2002 Released: July 5, 2002**

By the Commission:

#  INTRODUCTION

1.  The Commission by this decision disposes of five petitions for
    further reconsideration of the standards for selecting among
    applications to construct noncommercial educational ("NCE")
    broadcast stations on channels "reserved" exclusively for NCE
    purposes.[^1] These standards enable the Commission to select a
    permittee when an NCE broadcast application is mutually exclusive,
    *i.e*. in technical conflict, with another timely filed NCE
    broadcast application.

2.  The petitions for further reconsideration suggest relatively small
    alterations to, or exemptions from, the current reserved channel NCE
    selection standards. Specifically petitioners question: (1) the
    method for counting existing NCE-FM radio stations for determining
    whether a community is underserved; (2) the operative dates and
    policies for determining whether an applicant is considered
    "established" for purposes of receiving points as an established
    local applicant; and (3) whether we adequately clarified the scope
    of Section 73.3555(f) of our rules concerning attribution of an
    applicant's other broadcast interests.[^2] Overall, however,
    petitioners accept the elements of our NCE comparative process. For
    the reasons stated herein, we conclude that reconsideration is
    unwarranted and decline to alter the NCE comparative standards.

# DISCUSSION 

## Fair Distribution of Service (Full Service FM Only)

3.  Petitioner Michiana Christian Broadcasting ("Michiana") suggests
    that we modify our fair distribution analysis, which is performed as
    a threshold matter when competing full service NCE-FM applicants
    propose service to different communities. Pursuant to Section 307(b)
    of the Communications Act,[^3] our analysis favors the applicant
    proposing to serve a significant population that currently receives
    no more than one NCE signal.[^4] In the *NCE MO&O* we clarified that
    the only NCE signals relevant for this analysis are those operating
    on channels reserved exclusively for NCE-FM use because it is
    relatively easy for NCE stations operating in the nonreserved band
    to convert to commercial operations.[^5] Michiana objects to our
    focus on reserved channel signals and suggests instead that we
    supplement this standard with a rebuttable presumption that would
    recognize long-lived non-reserved channel NCE stations. Under
    Michiana's proposal, an interested party could rebut an opposing
    applicant's claim of introducing service to an underserved area by
    showing that a non-reserved channel station has provided ongoing NCE
    service to the community for at least four years. Michiana believes
    that a non-reserved channel station that had operated
    noncommercially for four years has demonstrated a firm commitment to
    maintain its noncommercial operations.

4.  Spring Arbor College ("Spring Arbor") opposes Michiana's suggestion.
    Spring Arbor maintains that an inference of continued NCE operations
    by a non-reserved channel station would be entirely unreliable. It
    observes that stations on non-reserved channels are valuable
    resources that can also be operated commercially or sold to
    commercial operators. Such options, it argues, become particularly
    attractive when a licensee experiences a financial crisis, which can
    occur unexpectedly and at any time. Spring Arbor also maintains that
    our policy of considering only reserved channel service makes sense
    because most NCE stations operate in the reserved band, and the
    public is accustomed to tuning there when looking for NCE service.

5.  We decline to alter the types of stations relevant to an NCE Section
    307(b) analysis. The suggestion under consideration could result in
    a finding that a community's need for NCE service is fully satisfied
    by non-reserved channel stations. As discussed in earlier stages of
    this proceeding, however, there is the potential for rapid change in
    the nature of non-reserved channel stations, because there is no
    requirement that such stations currently operating noncommercially
    continue such operations indefinitely.[^6] Stations operating with
    noncommercial formats on commercially available channels do so at
    the discretion of the licensee and can easily convert to commercial
    operations by filing a minor change application. In contrast,
    noncommercial educational operations are mandatory on the channels
    reserved for that purpose.[^7] Thus, we believe the better approach
    is not to consider current, potentially temporary, noncommercial
    service to a community on a non-reserved channel as part of our
    analysis of whether one community needs permanent NCE service more
    than another community.

6.  We recognize that the Commission has adopted in this proceeding a
    holding period requirement of four years for stations licensed
    pursuant to the point system. However, that requirement is not
    comparable to the one suggested by Michiana. The forward-looking
    holding period requires a reserved channel licensee that was
    selected by point system to adhere to those commitments on which its
    comparative qualifications were established. It guarantees that
    selection factors will be maintained at least four years into the
    future. The licensee also must include its commitment in the
    organization's governing documents. Further, the Commission retains
    the ability to disapprove any assignment or modification
    application, and to sanction stations for violating the holding
    period requirements.[^8] In contrast, Michiana would use a
    backwards-looking four-year test to predict continued NCE operations
    by a station that has made no commitment of continued noncommercial
    operation to the Commission, and which can be converted to
    commercial status by routine application. Accordingly, we affirm our
    decision to count only reserved channel stations in our NCE Section
    307(b) analysis, and will exclude non-reserved channel NCE stations
    from that analysis regardless of the amount of time they may have
    operated.

## Established Local Applicant Points for Pending Applicants in Closed Groups

7.  In NCE television proceedings, in FM translator proceedings, and in
    full service FM proceedings that are not resolved on a threshold
    Section 307(b) fair distribution analysis, a point system is used to
    comparatively evaluate conflicting proposals. The point system
    assigns a numerical value to various aspects of each proposal and
    selects the applicant with the highest score.[^9] Three points (out
    of a total of seven) are available to "established local
    applicants." Several petitioners ask us to reconsider or clarify the
    class of organizations that can qualify for this credit.

8.  Applicants qualify for the established local applicant credit if
    they are both "local" [^10] and "established" within the meaning of
    our rules.[^11] The petitioners focus on the requirement that
    applicants be "established" for a period of two years in the local
    area and the application of this rule to pending applications.[^12]
    The *NCE MO&O* established for pending applicants in closed
    groups[^13] a single uniform date of June 4, 2001,[^14] to compute
    their non-technical qualifications.[^15] It also clarified that NCE
    organizations in existence for fewer than two years by the relevant
    "snap shot" date cannot be considered established, even if formed by
    long-term local citizens.[^16] In sum, under current policy, NCE
    organizations involved in pending closed group proceedings are
    considered "established" if they have operated as local entities
    since June 4, 1999, *i.e.,* for at least two years prior to June 4,
    2001.

9.  Jimmy Swaggart Ministries ("Swaggart")[^17] and Adventist Radio
    Network ("Adventist") maintain that we should alter the reference
    date from which pending applicants calculate whether they have been
    "established" for two years. Specifically, Swaggart and Adventist
    advocate replacing the current June 4, 2001, "look back" date
    (applicable to pending applicants in closed groups) with the date on
    which each particular pending applicant filed its application.
    Adventist argues that using the date of filing to apply this point
    criterion is the best way to treat all applicants fairly. Youngshine
    Media, Inc. ("Youngshine") also argues that relatively new local
    organizations should be considered "established" if formed by long
    time local residents. In response, Real Life Educational Foundation
    ("Real Life") supports maintaining the established local applicant
    credit in its current form.

10. With respect to use of the June 4, 2001, "look back" date for
    pending closed group applications, Swaggart and Adventist note that
    this policy differs from the date of filing requirement that will
    apply to future applicants. Adventist argues that use of a recent
    date is arbitrary and produces inequitable results. Specifically,
    Adventist is concerned that the treatment of corporations formed by
    local citizens for the sole purpose of applying for a license, will
    differ depending on whether the corporation was formed before or
    after June 4, 1999. It argues that older corporations, which might
    exist on paper only, could become "established" merely by waiting a
    lengthy period for action on their applications. In contrast,
    corporate applicants formed after June 4, 1999, would not qualify as
    "established" due simply to the shorter waiting period. Swaggart is
    concerned that use of a June 4, 2001, "look back" date engenders
    abuse in older groups of applications. It is concerned that "sham"
    applicants, that did not become local until well after their
    application filing date will now be considered equivalent to
    legitimate long-established local applicants. Real Life contests
    Swaggart's view that sham applicants will receive localism points
    under our current policy. According to Real Life, only applicants
    that have maintained a local presence for two or more years and that
    have the required organizational documents mandating that they
    maintain local attributes into the future will receive points.

11. On reconsideration we affirm our standards for computing "localism"
    points for this class of pending applications. Significant
    differences between pending applicants and future NCE applicants
    justify different approaches for these two classes of applications.
    Pending applicants submitted their applications under lengthy A/B
    cut-off filing procedures, whereas future applicants will all file
    at about the same time in brief filing windows. Under the Swaggart
    and Adventist proposals, pending applicants in the same proceeding
    would have different reference dates that could potentially vary by
    months or even years.[^18] Our decision to use a single "snap shot"
    date provides a level competitive field for such applicants, with
    their qualifications all compared as of the same time. Further, as
    many of the pending proceedings involve applications filed a
    considerable time ago, use of a relatively recent "snap shot" date
    would more accurately reflect the current characteristics of the
    applicants.

12. We also believe that the petitioners' proposal that pending
    applicants use the filing date for purposes of determining localism
    points would unnecessarily complicate the comparative process. Many
    applicants are competing in multiple groups and, to comply with our
    new rules, were required to submit separate point supplements in
    many different proceedings. Our use of a common "snap shot" date for
    all non-technical qualifications has facilitated speedy and accurate
    filings. Adoption of petitioners' proposal would add needless
    complexity and potential delay to the process.

13. We do not take lightly petitioners' concerns of potential abuse of
    the established local applicant credit. Nevertheless, we do not find
    a significant potential for pending applicants to abuse the
    established local applicant credit. As Real Life notes in its
    opposition, it would be incorrect to presume illegitimacy for all
    pending applicants based solely on their first becoming established
    some time after their original date of filing. In fact, the two-year
    "look back" period at issue here was designed, in part, to prevent
    such abuse.[^19] Existing applicants would have had no motivation to
    feign local qualifications on June 4, 1999, (two years prior to the
    "snap shot" date) because the localism criteria were not adopted
    until April 4, 2000, almost a year later. Thus, any applicant with a
    pending application trying to adopt local characteristics in
    response to our new point criteria would fail to qualify because the
    applicant would be considerably short of the two-year period needed
    to be considered "established."[^20]

14. In creating a recent "snap shot" date for points we sought to
    recognize legitimate changes to applicants occurring between the
    date of filing and the first opportunity to claim points.[^21] For
    example*,* a private college that began offering classes at a new
    local campus only one year before application (and thus not
    "established" at that time), would be treated as an established
    local applicant if, by June 4, 2001, it had operated continuously at
    that campus for two or more years. Similarly, we would consider as
    "established" a non-profit organization formed shortly prior to its
    time of application, but which, by the June 4, 2001, "snap shot"
    date, had engaged in active and continuous non-broadcast activities
    in the community for two or more years. Thus, a new church,
    providing weekly worship services and outreach activities to the
    community over two years while its broadcast application was pending
    would satisfy this prong of the "localism" test.

15. We take note, however, of Adventist's concern that some NCE
    organizations formed solely to apply for an NCE permit, and engaged
    in virtually no activities while awaiting our decision, might
    consider themselves qualified as "established" merely because the
    organization was formed before June 4, 1999. The Commission designed
    the established local applicant credit, however, to favor local
    applicants that have been operating in the community prior to
    receiving a broadcast permit.[^22] It has never been our intent to
    award the established local applicant credit to organizations
    engaged in virtually no activities in the community of interest. In
    the *NCE R&O*, for example, we indicated an expectation of
    \"contact" between the station\'s policy makers and the area to be
    served.[^23] Similarly, in the *NCE MO&O*, we stressed that an
    established local applicant's interaction with the community would
    be "continuing," building upon its past experiences.[^24] For
    example, we indicated that an organization that has been local for
    two or more years would have already \"become such a part of the
    community" as to have the knowledge and accountability needed to
    "hit the ground running," unlike organizations that do not begin
    "operating within a community" until later.[^25] A shell
    organization's mere paper existence for two or more years
    establishes no "operations," "contact," or "continuing interaction
    with the community" from which the organization might \"hit the
    ground running.\" Paper existence serves neither to "establish the
    applicant's educational credentials in a particular locality" nor
    "to foster participation by truly local entities in noncommercial
    educational broadcasting."[^26] Further, with respect to future
    applicants, for which feigning of qualifications will be a concern,
    an interpretation of our "established" requirement that would allow
    mere shell organizations to qualify would clearly be contrary to our
    stated purpose of limiting opportunity for such potential
    abuse.[^27]

16. We believe that most of the local applicants claiming credit as
    "established" will have had more than a shell existence for the
    two-year period at issue. If, however, Adventist correctly predicts
    that some applicants may have misunderstood this factor, our
    existing petition to deny process would provide a meaningful
    opportunity to show that a purportedly "established" applicant was
    only a "paper" organization. In the event that a petitioner succeeds
    in raising a substantial and material question about whether the
    applicant correctly claimed to be "established," there would be many
    ways for the applicant to demonstrate that it indeed was an
    established force **"**operating within the community" throughout
    the pertinent two-year period. These could include, for example, the
    applicant's showing that it convened meetings with the community,
    taught classes at its local campus, undertook community programs
    and/or activities, regularly generated income or incurred expenses
    from community-based assets, engaged in active planning of its
    program service for the community, or similar ongoing
    community-based operations by the organization within the two-year
    period.

17. Finally, we consider the views of Youngshine, which believes that an
    organization with a 75 percent local governing board composed of
    long-time active residents should be treated as "established" for
    purposes of awarding localism points. Youngshine argues that the
    Commission adopted this provision to prevent future abuses, but that
    applications filed prior to announcement of the new NCE comparative
    standards had no opportunity to feign local characteristics, such as
    by "renting" local citizens to make its application appear local.
    Youngshine maintains that pending applicants in closed groups should
    qualify for points as "established local applicants" based on
    whether board members had been local for two years at the time of
    filing. It argues that organizations are only local because the
    individuals behind them are local.

18. Although we agree with Youngshine that organizations formed prior to
    announcement of our point system had no opportunity to feign
    localism, as would be the case with organizations formed later, we
    decline to expand, for pending applications, the "established"
    component of the local organization criterion. As specified in the
    rules, points are awarded under this criterion for "established
    local" applicants.[^28] This preference is grounded on our
    conclusion that an applicant entity that has an established local
    presence and a track record of serving the local educational needs
    of a community is more likely to be able to serve those needs
    immediately than an applicant with no such track record or no such
    local ties.[^29] The long-term residence of board members is not, by
    itself, a reliable basis on which to award a preference in this
    context. While having a board with 75 percent local residents is
    likely to ensure a level of community awareness that may be
    reflected in future station policies and programming, we cannot say
    that the mere presence of local residents on the board of an
    applicant (which may be a new organization or an organization that
    has no previous ties to the community) establishes the track record
    of serving the community's educational needs on which this
    preference relies as a predictor of future performance. Thus, we
    will not alter the qualifications for the established local
    applicant credit. Applicants will continue to be able to establish
    that they are "local" by demonstrating that 75 percent of their
    board members are local residents, and will continue to have to show
    that they were a nonprofit educational organization established in
    the community for two years in order to obtain a preference as an
    "established" local applicant. [^30] Youngshine's request is
    therefore denied.

## Attribution of Station Interests

19. A single petitioner, DeLaHunt Broadcasting ("DeLaHunt"), addresses
    the wording of Section 73.3555 of our rules, which was modified in
    this proceeding. The primary purpose of that rule section is to set
    out the numerical ownership limits for commercial stations. As there
    are no such ownership limits on NCE stations, the rule at one time
    entirely excluded NCE stations from its provisions.[^31] In the *NCE
    R&O*, the Commission recognized that the footnotes to Section
    73.3555, which establish the standards for determining whether
    broadcast interests are considered "attributable," are now of
    importance to NCE applicants. In particular, NCE applicants now need
    standards to determine whether they can claim local diversity points
    and tiebreaker preferences, both of which favor applicants with no
    attributable interests in other stations. Thus, we amended Section
    73.3555 to clarify for NCE applicants that, although the rule's
    ownership provisions remain inapplicable, they should use the rule's
    attribution standards for the purpose of calculating diversity
    points. At DeLaHunt's request we further modified the rule section
    in the *NCE MO&O*, phrasing it somewhat more broadly. As modified,
    the rule section currently states:

    . . .\[T\]he attribution standards set forth in the Notes to this
    section will be used to determine attribution of noncommercial FM
    and TV applicants, [such as]{.underline} in evaluating mutually
    exclusive applications pursuant to \[the point system in\] Subpart
    K.[^32]

    By modifying the rule to use the point system as an example only, we
    extended the rule's attribution standards to any other circumstances
    in which attribution principles might apply to NCE organizations.

20. On further reconsideration, DeLaHunt seeks to make one more "subtle"
    change in Section 73.3555. It asks us to modify the language's
    current focus on NCE applicants, and instead to phrase the rule in
    terms of NCE ownership interests. DeLaHunt believes that altering
    the rule in this manner is needed to recognize that commercial
    applicants also may have attributable interests in NCE stations. For
    example, DeLaHunt is interested in clarifying that the commercial
    auction rule, 47 C.F.R. § 73.5007(b), prohibits a commercial bidder
    from receiving a new entrant bidding credit if it has an
    attributable interest in an NCE station. DeLaHunt also believes that
    its proposal would clarify that Subpart G of the Commission's rules,
    concerning the Low Power FM ("LPFM") Service, does not permit an
    LPFM applicant to have any other NCE or commercial broadcast
    interests.

21. We do not believe that the proposed rule change is necessary. Our
    intention in amending Section 73.3555 was to clarify that
    henceforth, whenever attributable interests in NCE stations are
    relevant, as dictated by statute, our Rules, or Commission
    precedent, the attribution standards in Note 2 to Section 73.3555
    are to be used**,** even though NCE stations are exempt from
    numerical local ownership limits.[^33] Thus we stated that "whenever
    attribution issues are relevant for NCE purposes, the standards in §
    73.3555 will apply."[^34] In other words, the attribution of
    broadcast interests, when relevant to a particular broadcast
    application, will be determined pursuant to the Notes to Section
    73.3555, regardless of whether the interest to be attributed is
    commercial or noncommercial, and regardless of whether the applicant
    holding that interest is applying for a commercial or noncommercial
    station. With respect to DeLaHunt's interest in clarifying an
    attribution issue that arose in a particular commercial auction
    prior to our amendment of Section 73.3555, that matter goes beyond
    of the scope of this proceeding. We note that DeLaHunt has raised
    this identical issue in an application proceeding. *See Letter to
    Ms. Carol DeLaHunt and Minnesota Christian Broadcasters, Inc*., Ref.
    No. 1800B3-TSN (Audio Services Div., Mass Media Bureau, rel. Sept.
    27, 2000), *application for review filed by DeLaHunt* (Oct*.* 27,
    2000). We will address that issue in that proceeding.

#  PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND Ordering CLAUSES

22. This *Memorandum Opinion and Second Order on Reconsideration*
    promulgates no additional final rules, and we received no petitions
    for reconsideration of the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification. Therefore, no additional Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §
    601 *et seq.* The previous final certification made in this
    proceeding remains unchanged. Specifically, the *NCE R&O*
    anticipated the actions taken therein to "reduce the overall
    administrative burden of the Commission's application processes on
    applicants and the Commission," and the *NCE MO&O* anticipated that
    a clarification therein "may benefit small entities."

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

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

25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for further
    reconsideration ARE DENIED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 403,
    and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405, and Section 1.429(i) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(i).

26. For additional information concerning this proceeding, contact Irene
    Bleiweiss, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2700.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX A**

    **List of Participants**

De La Hunt Broadcasting

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries

Michiana Christian Broadcasters, Inc.

Real Life Educational Foundation of Baton Rouge, Inc.

Spring Arbor College

Youngshine Media, Inc.

[^1]: The standards were adopted in April 2000 and clarified in February
    2001. 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000) ("*NCE R&O*"); 16 FCC Rcd 5074 (2001)
    *("NCE MO&O*").

[^2]: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries ("Swaggart") and Real Life Educational
    Foundation ("Real Life") also question the applicability of the new
    comparative procedures to terminated hearing proceedings. Swaggart
    and Real Life are the applicants in the only such terminated
    hearing. On June 14, 2002 Swaggart and Real Life filed a settlement
    agreement that, if approved, would make that issue moot.
    Accordingly, the Commission is not addressing the issue at this
    time.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^4]: Specifically, when FM applicants propose different communities, an
    applicant receives a decisive Section 307(b) preference, as a
    threshold matter, if it would provide the first or second full
    service NCE aural signal to 10% of the people within the proposed
    station's 60dBu contour, but to no fewer than 2,000 people. If more
    than one applicant meets this standard, first service prevails over
    second service. Among applicants proposing the same level of
    service, the one that would provide service to 5,000 more people
    than the next best proposal will prevail. The Bureau has by public
    notice provided examples of how the fair distribution analysis
    applies to specific illustrative situations. *Public Notice*,
    *Deadline for NCE Settlements and Supplements Extended/Mass Media
    Bureau provides Examples of Application of NCE Section 307(b)
    Criteria*, 16 FCC Rcd 10892 (2001). The NCE Section 307(b) analysis
    applies only to full service FM applicants.

[^5]: *NCE MO&O,* 16 FCC Rcd at 5089.

[^6]: *NCE R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7431; *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5089.

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.7003(b) and 73.7005.

[^9]: Points are awarded as follows: (a) 3 points for applicants that
    have been local to the community for at least two years; (b) 2
    points for local diversity of ownership, *i.e.* if there is no
    overlap of the principal community contour of the proposed station
    and any other station attributable to the applicant; (c) 2 points
    for certain state-wide networks providing programming to accredited
    schools; and (d) 1 to 2 points for the best technical proposal in
    terms of both area and population served. 47 C.F.R. § 73.7003.

[^10]: To be considered "local," an applicant must have a headquarters,
    campus, or 75 percent of its governing board residing within 25
    miles of the proposed community of license. Distances are measured
    from the community's center coordinates. Only primary residences
    qualify. An applicant relying on a local board residence to claim
    points as an established local applicant must demonstrate that its
    governing documents, *i.e*. by-laws, require that such localism be
    maintained for at least four years of station operations. *See NCE
    R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 7410, 7419.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.7000.

[^12]: We adopted the requirement that the applicant be "established" to
    ensure the bona fides of "local" qualification claims, to establish
    the applicant's educational credentials in the particular locality,
    and to foster participation by truly local entities in noncommercial
    educational broadcasting. *NCE R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 7410; *NCE MO&O*,
    16 FCC Rcd at 5093. We also noted that an organization that has been
    local for two years or more can sooner respond to the needs of the
    community.

[^13]: We have, throughout this proceeding used the term "closed group"
    to refer to groups of pending applications which are no longer
    subject to additional competing applications. *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd
    at 5084. In addition to these closed group applications, there are
    over 200 applications that are not "closed" to future competition
    because they were not "cut-off" prior to elimination of our former
    "A/B cut-off" procedures.

[^14]: The *NCE MO&O* refers to a uniform "supplement date" and directs
    the staff to issue a public notice announcing a date certain. *NCE
    MO&O,* 16 FCC Rcd at 5085. The staff, by public notice, announced a
    date of June 4, 2001. *Public Notice, Supplements and Settlements to
    Pending Closed Groups of NCE Broadcast Applications Due by June 4,
    2001*, 16 FCC Rcd 6893 (2001). *See also*, Public *Notice, Deadline
    for NCE Settlements and Supplements Extended to July 19, 2001/Date
    for Calculating Comparative Qualifications Remains June 4, 2001*, 16
    FCC Rcd 10892 (2001). The June 4, 2001date will not be used to
    calculate localism points for pending applications that are not in
    closed groups. *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5085, 5093. The Commission
    previously established that comparative qualifications for these
    applicants will be based on the date of the next NCE filing window,
    when competing applications may be filed. *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at
    5086.

[^15]: This differs for applicants applying in future filing windows.
    Such applicants will count back two years from the date of
    application to determine whether an applicant is "established."

[^16]: *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5085, 5093.

[^17]: Subsequent to initiation of this rulemaking proceeding, Jimmy
    Swaggart Ministries merged into Family Worship Center Church, an
    organization with identical officers and directors. For ease of
    identification of its position throughout this proceeding, we will
    continue to refer to "Swaggart."

[^18]: Pending applications were filed under A/B cut off procedures in
    which there was often considerable lag time between the filing of
    lead "A" applications and conflicting "B" applications. *E.g.,* *NCE
    MO&O, Appendix D, Section 3, Full Service FM Closed Groups,* Group
    No. 89101E ("A" applicant filed 18 months before "B" applicant).

[^19]: *E.g.*, *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5093.

[^20]: *Id.* at 5085.

[^21]: *Id.* at 5084-85.

[^22]: *Id.* at 5091.

[^23]: *NCE R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7410.

[^24]: *See NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5093.

[^25]: *Id.* at 5091.

[^26]: *Id.* at 5093.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3001(b)(1).

[^29]: *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5091 ("an organization that has already
    been local for two years or more . . . can thus 'hit the ground
    running' ").

[^30]: *See NCE R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7409-10, *aff'd NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC
    Rcd at 5091-93.

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(f) (1999).

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555 (*emphasis added*).

[^33]: *NCE R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7418-19.

[^34]: *NCE MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5102, *Erratum,* DA 01-1351, (Mass
    Media Bureau May 4, 2001, as corrected June 12, 2001).