Released: May 24, 2001
DEADLINE FOR NCE SETTLEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTS EXTENDED TO JULY 19, 2001;
DATE FOR CALCULATING COMPARATIVE QUALIFICATIONS REMAINS JUNE 4, 2001
MASS MEDIA BUREAU PROVIDES EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF NCE SECTION
 307(b) CRITERIA
By this Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau provides additional information regarding the
processing of pending closed group applications for reserved channel noncommercial educational ("NCE")
broadcast stations.
Settlement and Supplement Deadline Extended but Date for Determining Qualifications
Unchanged: The Bureau previously issued a Public Notice announcing a deadline of June 4, 2001 by which
applicants in closed groups of NCE broadcast applications must file either settlements/minor technical
amendments to resolve application conflicts, or supplements to claim points under the new NCE comparative
standard. See Public Notice, DA 01-729 (March 22, 2001). That Public Notice also established June 4, 2001
as the date on which applicants' comparative qualifications would be generally fixed. On May 11, 2001,
seven NCE organizations (collectively "Joint Petitioners") filed a joint motion for extension of time with the
Commission. The Joint Petitioners request a 45-day extension of the settlement/supplement deadline to July
19, 2001 to provide additional time to negotiate and file settlement requests. However, to avoid any potential
unfairness to applicants, the joint motion proposes that June 4, 2001 remain the date for determining
comparative qualifications, such as whether applicants qualify for points as established local entities.
We find that an extension of the June 4, 2001 deadline is warranted. First, Joint Petitioners report
that software developers are still in the process of incorporating data from the 2000 Census into programs that
calculate populations within proposed station service areas. They state that without updated software, it is
difficult for NCE applicants to assess the comparative strength of competing applications. Second, they note
that on May 4, 2001 the Bureau released an Errata which added 16 applicants to various settlement groups.
The Joint Petitioners also describe several unforeseen difficulties in initiating settlement agreements. In a
number of cases application contacts have changed. In others, obtaining various required approvals from
college administrators and public officials has proven difficult within the time frame established for this
purpose.
Accordingly, we announce that we will accept settlements, engineering solutions, and point
supplements through July 19, 2001. We also extend until July 19, 2001 the period during which we will allow
settlements that propose payments in excess of expenses. We believe that these extensions will provide needed
additional time to complete settlement agreements without unduly delaying the processing of remaining
applications. However, we will not adopt a suggestion of several commenters who support the joint motion,
to extend the period for filing settlements involving payments in excess of expenses to August 20, 2001. We
believe that it would be inappropriate to permit settlements in excess of expenses beyond the deadline for filing
comparative supplements. Such an extension would defeat the Commission's underlying purpose for
providing that extraordinary relief - - to provide an incentive to settle and to make unnecessary the filing and
consideration of point supplements. Accordingly, settlements filed after July 19, 2001 will be subject to the
monetary limits in our rules.
 In sum, applicants will have an extra 45 days, until July 19, 2001, to negotiate settlements that
exceed expenses. In the event that settlement negotiations fail, applicants must file supplements with a June
4, 2001 "snap shot" date for determining an applicant's maximum non-technical qualifications, as announced
previously. Thus, applicants filing supplements on July 19, 2001, may not claim non-technical points in
excess of those for which they would have qualified on June 4, 2001. Also remaining unchanged are the dates
set by the Commission in paragraph 31 of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding for
comparing technical proposals.
Application of NCE  307(b) Criteria: In cases where mutually exclusive NCE applications specify
different communities, the Commission must first consider whether to award a decisive  307(b) preference.
47 C.F.R.  73.7002(b); Report and Order, MM Docket 95-31, 15 FCC Rcd 7386, 7397-98 (2000). An NCE
applicant will be eligible for the preference if it will provide a first or second NCE aural service (in the
aggregate) to 10 percent of the people within the proposed station's 60 dBu contour, provided that the number
of people receiving such service is at least 2,000. Id. If two or more applicants meet this standard, the
applicant providing the greatest number of people with the highest level of service will be awarded a
construction permit, if it will provide such service to at least 10 percent of the people within the station's 60
dBu contour and to at least 5,000 more people than the next best applicant. Id. First service will be preferred
over second service. Id. Thus, the Commission will first examine the applicants' first service levels alone to
determine whether one of the proposals is superior and should receive a decisive preference. If such applicants
are equivalent with respect to first service alone, the Commission will compare proposals by aggregating new
first and second service population totals. Applicants providing equivalent service overall will be considered
under the point system, while any applicants not deserving a  307(b) preference or deserving a lesser 
307(b) preference than the next best applicant will be dismissed. Id. The Mass Media Bureau has prepared
the following examples to clarify the Commission's application of these new criteria.
Contacts: Irene Bleiweiss 418-2700 (legal); Edward P. De La Hunt 418-2700 (engineering).
 Examples
In each example applicants propose to serve different communities. All mutually exclusive
applicants are identified. Assume that each applicant's 60 dBu contour encompasses 40,000 people,
making the 10% threshold for each applicant equal to 4,000 people (which exceeds the 2,000 minimum).
EXAMPLE 1:
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED: Standard analysis, including aggregation as part of second service
analysis when first service alone is not dispositive.
 Community 1/Applicant A Community 2/Applicant B
First Service 4,000 7,000
Second Service 5,000 7,500
ANALYSIS: Applicant B is selected pursuant to  307(b). A and B are both eligible for consideration
under  307(b) because each provides a new first or second service to 10% of the population within their
respective service areas. Both applicants are entitled to a first service preference. However, B would not
provide a new first service to at least 5,000 more persons than would A, and thus is not entitled to a
comparative preference. Next, we consider whether A or B would provide total first or second service to
5,000 more people than the other applicant. A would provide a first or second service to 9,000 people
(4,000 plus 5,000). B would provide a first or second service to 14,500 people (7,000 plus 7,500). B is
superior to A because B is providing first or second service to at least 5,000 more people than A, in this
example 5,500 more people (14,500 9,000 = 5,500)
EXAMPLE 2:
PRINCIPLES ILLUSTRATED: An applicant meeting the 10% minimum new service threshold prevails
over an applicant that does not. In such circumstances, the prevailing applicant need not satisfy the 5,000
person differential threshold. A first service preference will prevail over a second service preference of any
magnitude.
Community 1/Applicant A Community 2/Applicant B
First Service 4,750 3,000
Second Service 5,000 15,000
ANALYSIS: Applicant A receives a decisive  307(b) preference. Applicants A and B are both eligible
for consideration under  307(b) because each provides a new first or second service to 10% of the
population within their respective service areas. First service is compared, and Applicant A is the only
applicant to meet the minimum new first service threshold. B does not qualify for a first service preference
because it does not propose to provide a first service to at least 4,000 people (i.e. 10% of the people within
its 60 dBu contour). Because B does not qualify for a first service preference, A's first service need not
exceed B's first service by 5,000. Because Applicant A prevails under the first service criterion, no second
service analysis is undertaken.
XAMPLE 3:
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED: Point system applies to  307(b)-preferred but materially equivalent
applicants.
Assume five applicants A through E each serving a different community:
 A B C D E
First Service 100 6,000 20,000 20,250 21,000
Second Service 20,000 15,000 0 5,000 4,000
ANALYSIS: Applicants D and E will be considered under the point system. All applicants are eligible
for consideration under  307(b) since all provide first or second service to 10% of the people within their
respective 60 dBu contours. First service is compared and A is eliminated because it does not meet the
minimum NCE  307(b) first service threshold (10%/2,000 people). B also is eliminated, because its first
service is inferior (by at least 5,000 people) to the next best applicant, C (20,000 6,000 = 14,000). C, D,
and E proceed to second service consideration. C is eliminated because it provides total first or second
service that is inferior by at least 5,000 people to the first or second service provided by the next best
applicant, E (25,000 20,000 = 5,000). D and E will be considered under the point system because they
provide materially equivalent first and second service.
EXAMPLE 4:
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED: For purposes of comparing a group of three or more applicants,
equivalency is determined by comparing each applicant to the applicant proposing the next best service, not
by comparing each applicant to the top applicant.
Community 1 Community 2
A 5,000 second service B 7,500 second service
 C 11,000 second service
ANALYSIS: All applicants will proceed to point system comparison. All applicants are eligible for 
307(b) consideration. No dispositive  307(b) preference can be awarded because, in the progression from
A through C, no applicant exceeds the next best applicant by at least 5,000 people. A is not eliminated
even though its proposal is more than 5,000 people inferior to C (11,000 5,000 = 6,000) because it is not
clear who will represent Community 2, and if B were to prevail, B would not be superior to A with respect
to  307(b).
EXAMPLE 5:
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED: First and second service totals are aggregated for the purpose of
establishing eligibility for the  307(b) preference.
Community 1/Applicant A Community 2/Applicant B Community 2/Applicant C
First Service 3,000 0 100
Second Service 2,500 5,000 500
ANALYSIS: Applicants A and B are compared using the point system. Applicants A and B are eligible
for  307(b) consideration, but C is not because even combined, C's first and second service level (600) is
below the 10%/2,000 people minimum. For purpose of initial eligibility, A can rely on its combined new
first and second service to meet the 10% threshold. (See FCC Form 340-Supplement, Worksheet #6 ,
Lines 5 and 6). Applicant A would report this eligibility by answering "yes" to Question III(2) on the
Form 340 Point Supplement (concerning second local service) and by providing an exhibit to that question
showing that it is relying on its first and second service combined to establish eligibility. Neither A nor B
meets the minimum first service threshold, and thus first service is not dispositive. Applicant A provides
first or second service to 5,500 people (3,000 plus 2,500). Applicant B provides first or second service to
5,000 people. Thus A and B are equivalent. Had the group consisted only of A and C, however, A would
have received a decisive  307(b) preference because A would have been the only 307(b)-eligible
applicant based on its first and second service aggregated for determining eligibility.

EXAMPLE 6:
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED: If 307(b)-preferred new first or second service proposals specify the
same community, the point system is used to determine the comparatively superior proposal.
 Community 1 Community 2
 Applicant A Applicant B Applicant C
First Service 1,000 8,000 7,000
Second Service 5,000 0 6,000
ANALYSIS: Applicants B and C will be compared using the point system. All of the applicants are
eligible for  307(b) consideration by providing a first or second service to 10% of their populations.
Applicant A is eliminated because, looking at first service alone, fewer than 10% of A's population
receives new first service, in contrast to B and C which both provide an equivalent level of first service to
10% of their populations. The elimination of Applicant A eliminates Community 1 from consideration.
The remaining applicants, B and C, both propose the same community. Section 307(b) analysis ends. The
equivalent applicants B and C proceed to comparative consideration in a point system.