Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Creation of A Low Power Radio Service
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 99-25
THIRD REPORT AND ORDER AND
SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  November 27, 2007 Released: December 11, 2007
Comment Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:  Chairman Martin; Commissioners Copps, and Adelstein issuing separate 
statements. Commissioners Tate and McDowell approving in part, dissenting in 
part, and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................2
III. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................11
A. Ownership and Eligibility.................................................................................................11
1. Alienability of Authorizations....................................................................................11
a. Changes in Board Membership............................................................................11
b. Assignments and Transfers..................................................................................14
c. Procedures............................................................................................................18
2. Ownership and Eligibility Limitations.......................................................................21
3. Time-Sharing..............................................................................................................26
a. Deadline for Submission of Voluntary Time-Sharing Agreements.....................27
b. License Renewal Procedures for Parties to Time-Sharing Arrangements...........30
B. Technical Rules.................................................................................................................37
1. Construction Period....................................................................................................37
2. Technical Amendments..............................................................................................41
3. LPFM  FM Translator Interference Priorities ..........................................................43
4. Interference Protection from Subsequently Authorized Full-Service FM Stations ...58
a. Section 73.809 Interference Procedures ..............................................................63
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
2
b. Section 73.807 Second-Adjacent Channel Waiver Standard ..............................64
c. LPFM Station Displacement................................................................................68
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING .......................................72
A. Section 73.807 Second-Adjacent Channel Waiver Standard............................................74
B. LPFM Station Displacement.............................................................................................75
C. Obligations of Full-Service New Station and Modification Applicants to Potentially 
Impacted LPFM Stations ..................................................................................................76
D. Contour Protection-Based Licensing Standards for LPFM Stations ................................78
E. LPFM-FM Translator Protection Priorities ......................................................................84
V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................85
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ...........................................................................................86
A. Filing Requirements..........................................................................................................86
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ........................................................................................89
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis..................................................................................91
D. Congressional Review Act................................................................................................94
E. Additional Information .....................................................................................................95
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES.........................................................................................................96
APPENDIX A  List of Commenters and Reply Commenters
APPENDIX B  Rule Changes
APPENDIX C  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX D  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In March 2005, the Commission released a Second Order on Reconsideration and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as part of its ongoing efforts to promote the operation and 
expansion of the low power FM (LPFM) service.1 In the Second Order, the Commission made minor 
changes to the LPFM rules.  The accompanying FNPRM sought comment on a number of issues related 
to ownership and eligibility restrictions for LPFM licensees, as well as technical matters related to the 
LPFM service.  This Third Report and Order resolves the issues raised in the FNPRM.  In so doing, this 
Order advances the Commissions goal to ensure that we maximize the value of LPFM service without 
harming the interests of full-power FM stations or other Commission licensees.2 In light of changed 
circumstances since we last considered the issue of protection rights for LPFM stations from 
subsequently authorized full-service stations, we also find it necessary to consider certain rule changes to 
avoid the potential loss of LPFM stations.  Accordingly, we issue a Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) to seek comment on these changes.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In January 2000, the Commission adopted rules to establish two classes of LPFM 
facilities: (a) the LP100 class, consisting of stations with a maximum power of 100 Watts effective 
radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), providing an FM 
service radius (1 mV/m or 60 dB?) of approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers); and (b) the LP10 class, 
  
1  Creation of Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, Second Order on Reconsideration and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 6763 (2005) (Second Order or FNPRM).
2 Id. at 6763, para. 1.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
3
consisting of stations with a maximum of 10 Watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT, providing an FM service 
radius of approximately one to two miles (1.6 to 3.2 kilometers).3 The Report and Order announcing 
those classes imposed separation requirements for LPFM stations to protect full-power FM stations 
operating on the co-, first-, and second-adjacent channels, as well as stations operating on intermediate 
frequency (IF) channels.4 The Report and Order concluded, however, that imposition of a third-
adjacent channel separation requirement would restrict unnecessarily the number of LPFM stations that 
could be authorized, and therefore declined to impose that requirement.5
3. The Report and Order also established ownership and eligibility rules for the LPFM 
service.  The Commission restricted LPFM service to noncommercial educational (NCE) operations, 
restricted licensee eligibility to applicants with no attributable interests in any other broadcast station or 
other media subject to our ownership rules, and prohibited the assignment or transfer of LPFM stations.6
The Commission also determined that, during the two years following the first LPFM filing window, no 
entity would be permitted to own more than one LPFM station and that ownership should be restricted to 
local entities.7 To choose among entities filing mutually exclusive applications for LPFM licenses, the 
Report and Order set forth a point system that favors local ownership and locally-originated 
programming, with ties between competing applicants resolved by either voluntary time-sharing 
agreements between such applicants or, in the event that they cannot so agree, the imposition of 
involuntary time-sharing, with each tied and grantable applicant awarded an equal, successive and non-
renewable license term of no less than one year, for a combined total eight-year term.8 Finally, the 
Report and Order directed the then-Mass Media Bureau to establish filing windows for LP100 
applications.9  
4. The Commission revised and clarified some of its LPFM rules in a September 2000 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration.10 The Reconsideration Order declined to adopt 
the more restrictive channel separation requirements urged by certain petitioners.  Instead, the 
  
3  See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205, 2211-
12, paras. 13-14 (2000) (Report and Order); see also 47 C.F.R.  73.811.    
4  Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2233-34, paras. 70-71; 47 C.F.R.  73.807.
5  Id. at 2246, para. 103.
6  Id. at 2213, 2217, paras. 17, 29.
7  Id. at 2219, 2222, paras. 33, 39; 47 C.F.R.  73.853(b); 73.855(b).  The rule permitting only local entities to 
apply for LPFM licenses sunset in 2002.  At present, an entity is allowed to own up to ten LPFM stations and all 
commonly owned stations must be separated by a distance of at least 12 kilometers.  47 C.F.R.  73.855(a). 
8  Report and Order at 2260, para. 139.  
9  Id. at 2256, para 130.  In March 2000, the Mass Media Bureau announced five separate filing windows for 
accepting LP100 application, with each window limited to an application group of ten states and at least one other 
United States jurisdiction.  See FCC Announces Five-Stage National Filing Window for Low Power FM Broadcast 
Station Applications, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18621 (MMB 2000).  The last of those windows closed on June 
15, 2001.  Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 7915 (MMB 2001).  
10  Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 
19208 (2000) (Reconsideration Order).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
4
Commission adopted complaint and license modification procedures to address unexpected third-channel 
interference problems caused by LPFM stations.11 The Reconsideration Order modified spacing 
standards to require LPFM stations to protect radio reading services.12 Beyond the issue of interference, 
the Commission increased ownership flexibility for universities, state and local governments, and entities 
operating public safety or transportation services.13 Finally, the Reconsideration Order addressed a 
number of technical and ownership issues and clarified the eligibility rules for certain groups.14  
5. After the Commission declined to impose third-adjacent channel separation requirements 
in the Reconsideration Order, Congress directed the agency to do so in the Making Appropriations for 
the Government of The District of Columbia for FY 2001 Act (2001 DC Appropriations Act).15 In that 
legislation, Congress instructed the Commission to prescribe third-adjacent channel spacing standards for 
LPFM stations and to deny LPFM applications of applicants that previously had engaged in the 
unlicensed operation of a radio station.16 The 2001 DC Appropriations Act also directed the 
Commission to evaluate the likelihood of interference to existing FM stations if LPFM stations were not 
subject to the third-adjacent channel spacing requirement.  
6. As a result of the spacing requirement imposed by the 2001 DC Appropriations Act, a 
number of facilities proposed in otherwise technically grantable applications became short-spaced to 
existing full-power FM stations or translators, leading to the eventual dismissal of those applications.17  
To evaluate the likelihood of interference in the absence of a third-adjacent channel separation 
requirement, the Commission selected an independent third party  the Mitre Corporation  to conduct 
field tests.  The Commission then sought public comment on Mitres reported findings.18 In February 
2004, the Commission submitted its report to Congress, recommending that, based on the Mitre study, 
Congress modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel distan[ce] separation requirements 
for LPFM stations.19  
7. In the March 2005 Second Order, the Commission reexamined some of the rules 
governing the LPFM service, noting that the rules might need adjustment in light of the experiences of 
  
11  Id. at 19233-34, paras. 64-68; 47 C.F.R.  73.809. 
12  Id. at 19219, para. 24.
13  Id. at 19240-41, paras. 80-84.  
14  Id. at 19238-39, paras. 75-78
15 Pub L. No. 106-552,  632, 114 Stat. 2762, 27620A-111 (2000).  
16  Id.
17  See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 
8026, 8028, paras. 5-6 (2001) (Second Report and Order). 
18  See Comment Sought on the Mitre Corporations Technical Report, Experimental Measurements of the Third-
Adjacent Channel Impacts of Low-Power FM Stations, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd. 14445 (2003).  
19 Report to Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program, Pub. L. No. 10-553 (rel. Feb. 19, 
2004).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
5
LPFM applicants and licensees.20 The Commission also took into account comments made at a February 
2005 forum on LPFM that had addressed achievements by LPFM stations and the challenges faced as 
the service mark[ed] its fifth year.21 The Second Order clarified that local program origination, as 
that term is used in Section 73.872(b)(2) of the Commissions Rules (the Rules), does not include the 
airing of satellite-fed programming. The Second Order also modified slightly the definitions of minor 
change and minor amendment.22  
8. In the accompanying FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a number of issues 
with respect to LPFM ownership restrictions and eligibility.  The Commission asked whether LPFM 
licenses should be assignable or transferable and whether the temporary restrictions on multiple 
ownership of LPFM stations and on non-local ownership should be extended or allowed to sunset.23  
Because introducing some level of transferability to the LPFM service is critical, the Commission 
delegated to the Media Bureau the authority to waive the prohibition on the assignment or transfer of a 
LPFM station contained in Section 73.865 of the Rules on a case-by-case basis and cited examples of 
circumstances in which the grant of such a waiver might be appropriate:
a sudden change in the majority of a governing board with no change in the 
organization's mission; development of a partnership or cooperative effort between local 
community groups, one of which is the licensee; and transfer to another local entity upon 
the inability of the current licensee to continue operation. . . . 24  
The Commission noted, however, that until we have further considered the transferability issue, we do 
not believe that waiver is appropriate to permit the for-profit sale of an LPFM station to any entity or the 
transfer of an LPFM station to a non-local entity or an entity that owns another LPFM station.25
9. The Commission also proposed certain changes to the Rules governing the formation and 
duration of voluntary and involuntary time-sharing arrangements among mutually exclusive LPFM 
applicants.26 The FNPRM also considered a number of changes to the LPFM technical rules.  The 
Commission proposed to extend the construction period for LPFM stations and to allow time-sharing 
applicants greater flexibility to amend their applications to relocate the transmitter to a central location.27
The FNPRM also sought comment on the relationship between the LPFM and full-power FM services.  
Noting that thousands of FM translator applications remained pending from the 2003 filing window, the 
  
20  Second Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6763, para. 1.  
21  Id. at 6766, para. 7.  
22  See id. at 6766-69, paras. 8-14.
23  Id. at 6770-73, paras. 17-23.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.853(b) (restricting applicant pool to local applicants for the 
first two years after LPFM licenses are made available for application); 73.855(b) (setting forth the phased-in 
ownership restrictions for LPFM).
24  See Second Order at 6772, para. 20.
25  See id.
26  Id. at 6774, paras. 24-25.
27  Id. at 6775-76, paras. 26-28.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
6
Commission froze the processing of those applications and sought comment on possible adjustments to 
the co-equal status of LPFM stations and FM translators with regard to interference between them.28 The 
Commission also sought comment on whether LPFM stations should be protected from interference from 
subsequently authorized FM stations.29 Finally, the Commission denied a request by the Media Access 
Project (MAP) to schedule regular filing windows for LPFM new station applications and major 
modification applications.30
10. During the seven years since we created the LPFM service, that service has flourished 
for the most part, but also has encountered unique obstacles.  To date, the Media Bureau has received 
3236 applications for new LPFM construction permits, of which 1,286 have been granted.  Currently, 
there are 809 LPFM stations operating throughout the country.  At the same time, the Media Bureau was 
compelled to cancel 17 station licenses and 95 construction permits for failure by the holder to satisfy 
certain procedural and/or technical requirements.  In view of this practical experience with LPFM service, 
we now turn to the issues raised in the FNPRM.  In resolving those issues, we seek to increase the number 
of LPFM stations that are on the air and providing service to the public, and to promote the continued 
operation of LPFM stations already broadcasting, while avoiding interference to existing FM service.  
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Ownership and Eligibility
1. Alienability of Authorizations
a. Changes in Board Membership
11. Section 73.865 of the Rules provides that [a]n LPFM authorization may not be 
transferred or assigned except for a transfer or assignment that involves: (1) Less than a substantial change 
in ownership or control; or (2) An involuntary assignment of license or transfer of control.31 The 
Reconsideration Order clarified that the gradual change of a licensees governing board or membership 
body is a permissible insubstantial change, even if the majority of current members joined after the 
stations authorization was granted.32 As the FNPRM noted, however, [o]ur rules . . . do not permit a 
sudden change in the board or membership of an LPFM licensee, which would constitute an 
impermissible transfer of control.33 Panelists at the February 2000 LPFM forum and other parties 
concerned with the viability of LPFM stations remarked that the proscription of sudden changes in 
  
28  Id. at 6778-80, paras. 33-36. 
29  Id. at 6780-81, paras. 37-39.
30  See MAP Ex Parte filing, Dec. 8, 2004; Second Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6781, para. 40.
31 47 C.F.R.  73.865(a).  
32  See Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 19248, para. 104.  
33  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6770, para. 17.  In a transfer of control, control of the licensee passes to different 
principles, but the identity of the licensee does not change.  By contrast, in an assignment, the authorization passes 
to a new entity.  See Transfers of Control of Certain Licensed Non-Stock Entities, Notice of Inquiry, 4 FCC Rcd 
3403, n.4 (1989) (Non-Stock Transfer NOI).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
7
governing board membership causes unnecessary complications for LPFM licensees.34 Responding to that 
concern, the FNPRM proposed to amend our rules to permit sudden changes of more than 50 percent of 
the membership of governing boards.35  
12. As commenters have since observed, frequent elections and changes in governing board 
membership are common among volunteer organizations and other entities that operate LPFM stations.36  
As LPFM station KVLP-LP noted, experience on the board of an LPFM station can confer valuable 
leadership experience to community members, leading community groups to encourage frequent shuffling 
of board membership.37 Unsurprisingly, then, most commenters favor amending our rules to permit 
transfers of control in the case of a sudden change in a majority of a governing boards membership so 
long as the overall mission of the organization remains unchanged.38  
13. We agree.  In crafting our LPFM rules, the Commission intended to preserve the 
integrity of the LPFM service and of the local organizations operating LPFM stations.  We did not intend, 
however, to hamper the customary governance procedures of those organizations or to make LPFM less 
accessible to community groups.39 To the extent that our rules have blocked that access, we now 
remove that inadvertent barrier and adopt the FNPRMs proposal to allow sudden changes of more than 50 
percent of the membership of governing boards.  Accordingly, we will amend Section 73.865 of our Rules 
to clarify that transfers of control involving a sudden change of more than 50 percent of an LPFM 
licensees governing board shall not be deemed a substantial change in ownership and control.40   
b.  Assignments and Transfers
14. The FNPRM sought comment on whether the Rules should permit the sale of LPFM 
authorizations, for some or no consideration, and whether they should impose a holding period by the 
initial permittee and licensee.41 Noting that at least 221 construction permits have lapsed due to the 
permittees failure to construct facilities, REC Networks (REC) argues that an LPFM permittee or 
  
34  See Testimony of Sakura Saunders, KDRT-LP, LPFM Forum (Feb. 8, 2005); see also MAP Ex Parte (filed 
Aug. 17, 2004); Comments of Prometheus Radio Project, et al., MM Docket No. 99-25 at 22 (filed Oct. 14, 2003) 
(Prometheus Mitre Study Comments).    
35  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6770, para. 17.  
36  See Comments of Limestone at 4; see also Comments of KVLP-LP.  Although the FNPRM sought general 
comments on the structures of governing boards or other organization structures of entities that operate or control 
LPFM stations, no commenter spoke directly to that question.
37 Comments of KVLP-LP.  
38  See, e.g., Comments of Cromwell Group at 2 (Changes in board membership should be easily permitted.); see 
also Comments of Eric Howland.  But see Comments of Cox, Inc. at 6-7 (opposing any change to our rules 
governing transfers of control on the ground that the current rules adequately address transfers of less than a 
controlling interest).  
39  See Prometheus Mitre Study Comments at 22.
40 47 C.F.R.  73.865(a)(1).  
41  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6771, para. 18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
8
licensee should be able to convey its authorization when doing so would prevent the loss of the permit.42  
Indeed, most commenters support amending the rules to permit sales in at least some circumstances, 
although they express diverse views with respect to when such transactions should be allowed.43 At one 
extreme are those commenters who maintain that LPFM stations should be transferable without restriction 
because there is little risk of manipulation or take-over in the market for LPFM authorizations.44 At the 
opposite end of the spectrum are those who contend that transfers of control or assignments should be 
limited to those situations in which the assignee or transferee represents the community and no 
consideration is involved.45  Prometheus argues that the Commission should not allow transfers or 
assignments to be made in exchange for consideration, as such a rule could lead to speculation by those 
with substantial resources, at the expense of local community groups that lack funding.46
15. The for-profit sale of LPFM authorizations to any buyer is fundamentally inconsistent 
with the Commissions desire to promote local, community based use and ownership of LPFM stations.47  
Transfers of control or assignments for consideration will create a market for LPFM licenses and may 
facilitate trafficking in licenses by those who have no interest in providing LPFM services to the public. 
Such a state of affairs would likely interfere with, rather than spur development of, community-based 
programming and hamper the ability of community-based entities to obtain LPFM authorizations. 
Therefore, we will not permit the sale of LPFM licenses for consideration exceeding the depreciated fair 
market value of the physical equipment and facilities of the station,48 and will not allow under any 
circumstances the transfer or assignment of construction permits. 
16. With respect to the imposition of eligibility restrictions on a transferee or assignee of an 
LPFM license, some commenters suggest that we permit the sale of an LPFM authorization to any willing 
buyer.49 Others suggest that we limit the universe of eligible assignees and transferees to other local 
nonprofits.50 We conclude that the appropriate balance is struck by requiring the assignee or transferee of 
an LPFM license to satisfy ownership and eligibility criteria existing at the time of the assignment or 
  
42 Comments of REC.  See also Comments of Daniel Brown.  
43 A minority of commenters, such as the Cromwell Group, argue that LPFM authorizations should not be 
alienable regardless of whether consideration is involved.  Comments of the Cromwell Group at 2.  
44 Comments of Kyle Magrill at 1.  
45  See Comments of David Gowler.
46 Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 25-26.
47  See Comments of Prometheus Radio Project et al. at 26 (arguing that the sales for consideration of LPFM 
authorizations will create a market in which only those with substantial resources and money could obtain a 
LPFM station, effectively preventing local community groups from participating in the LPFM service).
48  See Comments of Prometheus Radio Project, et al. at 26-27. 
49  See Comments of Eastern Sierra Broadcasting at 5.
50  See Comments of Comments of JT Communications at 1 (suggesting that the transferee or assignee of an LPFM 
authorization should be required to certify that it is a local entity under the criteria for local entities specified in 47 
C.F.R.  73.853(b)).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
9
transfer.51 That restriction will prevent entities from using intermediaries to circumvent our LPFM 
eligibility requirements and will further address our concern about potential trafficking in LPFM 
authorizations by ensuring that future LPFM licensees meet the Commission's criteria for LPFM service.  
At the same time, permitting assignments or transfers among qualified parties will allow newly-merged 
local entities, consisting of several eligible organizations, to pool their resources to provide the necessary 
financial support for quality local programming when, standing alone, those entities would be otherwise 
incapable of constructing and operating an LPFM station.  
17. For all transfers and assignments, we will require a three year holding period from the 
issuance of license, during which a licensee cannot transfer or assign the license, and must operate the 
station, as suggested by Prometheus.52 That restriction will prevent entities from using the LPFM 
assignment and transfer process to undermine the Commissions LPFM policies and will ensure that the 
benefits to the public which were the basis for the license grant will be realized.  
c.  Procedures
18. The FNPRM asked what procedures would be appropriate to allow assignments and 
transfers while ensuring the integrity of the LPFM service.  Because many LPFM permittees and licensees 
are entities that do not issue ownership shares, the Commission drew attention to the Non-Stock Transfer 
NOI53 for guidance in establishing the procedures for transfers of control of such licensees.  The Non-
Stock Transfer NOI proposed to treat a sudden change of a governing boards majority as an insubstantial 
transfer for which approval must be sought on an FCC Form 316 (short form) broadcast application.54
The FNPRM sought comment on adopting a similar approach for changes in the governing boards of 
LPFM permittees and licensees that are non-stock entities.55 The FNPRM also sought comment on the 
process by which LPFM stations should seek approval of assignments and transfers of control.56
19. Few commenters addressed the issue of the appropriate procedures for transfers of 
control or assignments of LPFM authorizations.  Christian Community Broadcasters proposed using a 
modified FCC Form 318 LPFM construction permit application to cover all instances of ownership 
changes or changes in board membership.57 Limestone Community Radio suggested instead that entities 
use a modified FCC Form 316 for typical changes in station ownership.58 Still other commenters 
  
51 Certain rules that limit LPFM eligibility contain sunset provisions resulting in the eventual elimination of those 
limitations.  For a discussion of those provisions, as well as the remaining eligibility restrictions, see Section 
III.A.2, infra.   
52 Comments of Prometheus at 27.
53  Transfers of Control of Certain Licensed Non-Stock Entities, MM Docket No. 89-77, Notice of Inquiry, 4 FCC 
Rcd 3403 (1989) (Non-Stock Transfer NOI).  
54  Id.
55  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6772, para. 19.  
56  Id. 
57 Comments of Christian Community Broadcasters.
58 Comments of Limestone Community Radio at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
10
suggest that the Commission should take a more active role in overseeing any LPFM ownership changes 
to ensure ethical use of LPFM licenses.59
20. We will use existing FCC forms for the conveyance of LPFM licenses, rather than 
adopting new forms and filing procedures.  We see no reason to depart from the filing procedures that 
currently are used for other broadcasting services.  Accordingly, we direct LPFM licensees to use 
modified FCC Forms 314 and 315 for assignments and transfers of control, respectively, and FCC Form 
316 for pro forma changes in ownership.  We will apply the Non-Stock Transfer NOI to appropriate 
LPFM licensees, and thus, will interpret a sudden change of a governing boards majority as an 
insubstantial transfer for which approval must be sought on an FCC Form 316 (short form) broadcast 
application.60  Use of these forms offers many advantages, particularly to smaller entities that have few 
resources to dedicate to the application process, such as the ability to retrieve and submit the forms 
electronically.  
2. Ownership and Eligibility Limitations
21. As discussed above, the Rules required that, during the two years following the first 
LPFM filing window, no entity was permitted to own more than one LPFM station, and ownership was 
restricted to local entities.  The Rules gradually relaxed these restrictions. Currently, the Rules limit the 
number of LPFM stations a single entity may own up to ten stations61 and the Rule that allows only local 
entities to apply for LPFM licenses has sunsetted.62 As we explained in the FNPRM, the Commissions 
intention in gradually increasing the ownership limitation from one to ten stations and in allowing the 
local entity restriction to sunset was to make it more likely that local entities would operate this service, 
but to ensure that if no local entities came forward, the available spectrum would not go unused.63  In
connection with its query of whether to allow the sale of LPFM stations, the FNPRM asked if either the 
ownership limitation or the restriction to local entities should be extended or reinstated.
22. Several organizations urge the Commission to maintain strict local and multiple 
ownership requirements, to ensure that LPFM service continues to advance the publics interest in 
  
59 Comments of Jason Ander.  
60  Id. We will apply the principles addressed in the Non-Stock Transfer NOI to both non-stock and stock entities.
61  See 47 C.F.R.  73.855.  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  73.855(b)(3), [a]fter the three years from the date that the 
initial filing window opens for LPFM stations [May 30, 2000], a party may hold an attributable interest in no more 
than ten stations.  Our rule barring any party from owning two LPFM stations within 12 kilometers of one another 
remains in place. Id. 
62  See 47 C.F.R.  73.853. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  73.853(b), [o]nly local applicants will be permitted to submit 
applications for a period of two years from the date that LP100 and LP10 stations, respectively, are first made 
available for application.  Because the first filing window opened on May 30, 2000, the locality restriction has 
sunset.  See Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 10057 (2000).    Therefore, it is unclear 
how to evaluate the arguments of parties that urge us to maintain existing eligibility and ownership limits when at 
least some of those limits no longer exist. See, e.g., Comments of Station Resource Group at 2 (opposing changes 
to rules regarding overall eligibility or the capacity of organizations to assemble multiple LPFM stations). 
63  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6773, para 22. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
11
localism and diversity.64 According to some of these commenters, any relaxation of either the multiple 
ownership restriction or the locality-based restriction is fundamentally at odds with the community 
radio rationale that justifies the existence of LPFM stations.65  Prometheus Radio Project argues that,
even when no local entity applies for an LPFM authorization, non-local entities should be barred from 
applying, because LPFM is not a goal in itself, rather it is a means to promote localism.66
23. We agree. As emphasized in our Report and Order, our two primary goals in 
establishing the LPFM service were to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow 
local groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based organizations, to provide 
programming responsive to local community needs and interests.67 The Report and Order also stated 
that the potential benefit of allowing multiple ownership  increased efficiency  was clearly 
outweighed by the benefit to a community of multiple community-based voices.68 By amending the 
Rules to permanently limit LPFM eligibility, we protect the public interest in localism and foster greater 
diversity of programming from community sources. Thus, we will reinstate the prohibition on the 
ownership of more than one LPFM station.
24. In addition, we agree with those parties that suggest that we reinstate the local ownership 
restrictions.69 Although growing in both usage and recognition, LPFM service is still in its nascence and 
doing away with the locality restriction could threaten its predominantly local character, in particular the 
hallmark of a LPFM stations local character, its local origination of programming. In upholding the local 
origination selection criterion for mutually exclusive applications, our Second Order emphasized that 
local origination is intended to encourage licensees to maintain production facilities and a meaningful 
staff presence within the community served by the station.70  Even outside the limited context of 
mutually exclusive applications, we view local origination as a central virtue of the LPFM service and 
therefore will reinstate the eligibility restriction contained in Section 73.853(b) of the Rules to encourage 
local origination.71 We also wish to clarify our definition of local origination.  According to Prometheus, 
a licensee could theoretically create one program, continually repeat it on a tape loop, and still claim it 
meets the definition of local origination.72 Prometheus asserts that in order to meet the local origination 
  
64 Comments of National Public Radio (NPR) at 5; Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 20-21.  See also
Comments of Amherst Alliance at 3-4 (arguing that only one LPFM license should be available per licensee in 
order to prevent a network of LPFM stations and protect local broadcast programming); Comments of College of 
the Seneca at 3 (supporting ownership restriction of one LPFM station per organization).
65 Comments of Educational Information Corporation at 8-9.  
66 Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 22. 
67 See Report and Order at 2213, para.17.
68 See id. at 2223, para. 44.
69 See, e.g., Comments of Colquitt Community Radio at 2 (arguing that the restriction of local ownership should 
remain in place); Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 22.  
70 Second Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6767, para. 10.
71 47 C.F.R.  73.853(b).
72 Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 21.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
12
requirement, programming cannot be automated, including randomized songs or long blocks of locally 
produced programming run multiple times, and cannot be aired more than two times.73 We agree that 
there is room for abuse here, and as such, we clarify that repetitious automated programming does not 
meet the local origination requirement.  We will only allow a program to be broadcast twice in order to 
meet the local origination requirement.  After its initial broadcast a program can be rebroadcast once and 
still meet our requirement.  After that, the program cannot count toward the local origination requirement.
25. Finally, we adopt the suggestion by Prometheus that we extend the local standard for 
rural markets.74  Pursuant to Section 73.853(b) of the Rules, an LPFM applicant is deemed local if it is 
physically headquartered or has a campus within ten miles of the proposed LPFM transmitter site, or if 75 
percent of its board members reside within ten miles of the proposed LPFM transmitter site.75 The ten-
mile limit was adopted based on the station's likely effective reach.76 Prometheus comments express 
concern that this ten-mile local entity standard is difficult to meet for rural applicants, especially in 
finding board members who reside within ten miles of the proposed transmitter site.77 Prometheus states 
that people in rural communities often listen to and participate in stations that are outside of their home 
coverage area, because they listen to the station while driving to and from work.78 As such, Prometheus
requests modifying the ten-mile requirement to twenty miles for all LPFM applicants for proposed 
facilities in other than the top fifty urban markets, for both the distance from transmitter and residence of
board member standards.79 We agree with Prometheus that applicants for stations located in rural 
communities find it particularly challenging to meet the current ten-mile standard.  We also agree that the 
concept of local should be more expansive in rural areas.  Accordingly, we will revise Section 73.853(b)
of the Rules to reflect Prometheus proposal.  
3. Time-Sharing 
26. The Report and Order established a comparative point system for determining which 
among mutually exclusive LPFM applicants should receive the authorization that they commonly seek.80  
If such applicants have the same point total, two or more of the tied applicants may propose to share use 
of the LPFM frequency by submitting a time-share proposal within 30 days of the release of a public 
notice announcing their tie.81 If the tie among the applicants is not resolved through a voluntary time-
sharing agreement, the tied applicants submitting grantable applications are placed in an involuntary time-
sharing arrangement, and granted equal, successive, non-renewable license terms for the applied-for 
  
73 Id.
74 Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 23.
75 47 C.F.R.  73.853(b).
76 Report and Order, 2219, para. 33.
77 Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 23.
78 Id.
79 Id. 
80 Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2258-60, paras. 136-39.  
81 47 C.F.R.  73.872(c).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
13
facility of no less than one year each, for a total combined term of eight years.82 The FNPRM proposed 
amending the Rules governing mutually exclusive LPFM applications in two key respects.  First, in 
response to a request by MAP, the FNPRM proposed to extend, from 30 to 90 days, the period allowed for 
applicants to submit a voluntary time-sharing agreement.83 Second, the FNPRM proposed to amend the 
Rules to permit the renewal of licenses granted under the involuntary time-sharing successive licensing 
procedures.84 We address those proposals in turn.
a. Deadline for Submission of Voluntary Time-Sharing Agreements
27. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Report and Order, MAP observed that LPFM 
applicants are largely comprised of small organizations with few administrative resources, and that few 
applicants have access to the expertise of professional engineers.85 Accordingly, few applicants are able 
to identify mutually exclusive applications before receiving notice from the Commission that they are tied 
with others, leaving them only 30 days to contact the other applicants, complete negotiations and execute 
and file their agreements with the Commission.  Because those negotiations likely will be conducted by 
inexperienced volunteers, MAP argues, reaching a successful compromise within that time frame is very 
unlikely.86 Finding MAPs argument persuasive, the FNPRM proposed to extend to 90 days the time 
period within which mutually exclusive LPFM applicants must reach and file a voluntary time-sharing 
arrangement.87
28. All commenters who addressed the issue favor adoption of the proposal to so extend the 
negotiation and filing period to 90 days.  NPR, recogniz[ing] the fundamental importance of a diversity 
of programming services and station ownership, observes that allowing LPFM applicants more time to 
enter into voluntary time-sharing arrangements will promote that diversity.88 Similarly, REC contends 
that 30 days is not enough time in which to reach and file a viable time-sharing agreement.  REC sought to 
assist applicants with negotiations of universal settlements, but found that often basic contact information 
supplied on the applications was inaccurate.89 Drawing from that experience and similar considerations, 
REC urges the Commission to extend the period of time in which mutually exclusive applicants may 
negotiate and file time-sharing agreements.90
  
82 47 C.F.R.  73.872(d).  
83  See FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6774, para. 24; see also Petition for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, 
Clarification of UCC-OC, et al., MM Docket No. 99-25 at 4 (filed Jun. 11, 2001) (UCC 2001 Petition).  
84 FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6774, para. 25.
85 UCC 2001 Petition at 4.
86  Id.
87  FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6774, para. 24.  
88 Comments of NPR at 2.  
89 Comments of REC at 9.  
90 Id. at 10.  See also Comments of Kyle E. Magrill at 3 (recommending that the Commission extend the time in 
which applicants may negotiate and file time-sharing proposals to 90 days).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
14
29. We agree with the views of NPR, REC, and others, and therefore adopt the FNPRMs 
proposal to extend the negotiating and filing period to 90 days.  Mutually exclusive LPFM applicants 
should be given every opportunity to arrive at a negotiated time-sharing arrangement before the LPFM 
rules impose a successive-term licensing scheme on the applicants.  To the extent that the 30-day time 
period in Section 73.872 of the Rules91 has impeded the successful negotiation of time-sharing 
arrangements, we remove that impediment and hope that this will reduce considerably the likelihood that 
involuntary time-sharing arrangements with multiple successive license terms will be necessary.  
b. License Renewal Procedures for Parties to Time-Sharing 
Arrangements
30. Section 73.872(d) of the Rules provides that an LPFM authorization issued under 
involuntary time-sharing arrangements, under which mutually exclusive applicants are granted successive 
license terms, is not renewable.92 The FNPRM also proposed that we change this provision and make 
such authorizations renewable.93 The FNPRM sought comment on how the renewal process should 
operate, given that increased flexibility in the Rules governing assignments and transfers of control may 
lead licensees under such arrangements to negotiate voluntary time-sharing agreements among 
themselves.
31. REC is one of the few commenters to respond to our queries about involuntary time-
sharing arrangements.94 In its submission, REC suggests that if licensees under an involuntary time-
sharing arrangement come up with a universal settlement to engage in a conventional time-share 
arrangement . . . the Commission should grant such an arrangement and remove the non-renewable 
condition of the permit and/or license.95  REC further proposes that, at the end of the eight-year term, all 
licensees in a successive license term group should each be permitted to file a renewal application.  
32. The FNPRM tentatively proposed to make renewable all viable licenses under both 
voluntary and involuntary time-sharing arrangements.96  Making renewable only the authorizations of
those organizations that can reach a mutually acceptable agreement with respect to scheduling, however,
will provide a powerful incentive to licensees that thus far have been unable to reach such agreement.
This will lead to more efficient use of the spectrum.  Accordingly, we agree with REC that when 
  
91 47 C.F.R.  73.872(c).  
92 47 C.F.R.  73.872(d).  
93 FNRPM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6774, para. 25.  
94 Christian Community Broadcasters suggests that we establish frequency sharing for mutually exclusive 
applicants by requiring such applicants to merge into one organization within six months of the applications being 
determined to be mutually exclusive.  Christian Community Broadcasters Comments at 2.  We reject this 
suggestion as unnecessary and overly burdensome.
95 REC Comments at 10.  REC focuses its remarks on the circumstance in which one organization that participates 
in an involuntary time-sharing arrangement subsequently cannot do so, due to the surrender, cancellation or 
termination of its authorization. Id. However, the logic of those remarks applies with equal force to the larger 
questions of whether to grant a renewal expectancy to involuntary time-sharing arrangements, and how best to 
foster cooperation and compromise among mutually exclusive licensees.
96 Second Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6774, para. 25.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
15
organizations subject to an involuntary time-sharing arrangement reach a universal settlement with 
respect to the allocation of time on the relevant frequency, the non-renewable condition of their 
authorizations should be removed.  
33. For the same reasons, we also agree with REC that stations subject to involuntary time-
sharing under successive license terms that subsequently enter into a voluntary time-sharing agreement 
should be permitted to file a renewal application.  However, we are not persuaded that we should 
accommodate those licensees with successive license terms that fail to reach a universal voluntary 
agreement with the ability to renew.  By doing this, we would be rewarding such applicants 
unwillingness or inability to reach such agreements.  We note that, of the more than 1,200 construction 
permits granted in the LPFM service, currently no stations hold authorizations for involuntary time 
sharing.  In this Order, we have extended the 30-day time period in Section 73.872 of the Rules97 for 
applicants to negotiate and file universal voluntary time-share agreements to 90 days.98 We have also 
enabled those applicants originally issued involuntary time-share permits that reach such agreements to 
ultimately acquire renewable licenses.  We believe that these measures will greatly reduce the likelihood 
that involuntary time-sharing arrangements will be necessary. Therefore, we decline to provide a renewal 
expectancy for involuntary time-share licensees.  We strongly encourage any such permittees and 
licensees and future mutually exclusive applicants to enter into universal voluntary time-share agreements.
34. Making renewable the authorizations of parties who time-share who have reached 
voluntary time-sharing agreements raises a number of practical questions with respect to how and when 
those arrangements will supersede involuntary ones.  First, we must determine when a voluntary time-
sharing agreement should replace the successive-term structure of the involuntary arrangement.  As we 
noted in the FNPRM, it is likely that licensees will reach universal time-sharing agreements prior to 
seeking renewal.99 We will therefore construe the superseding agreement as a minor change, allowing 
the licensees who seek to operate under a universal voluntary time-sharing agreement to file the minor 
change application as soon as the agreement is reached, rather than having to wait for a filing window.100  
Expediting our approval of voluntary time-sharing arrangements in this manner will encourage prompt 
negotiations among licensees operating under involuntary time-sharing arrangements and, it is hoped, 
promote a more efficient use of scarce LPFM spectrum than that under the successive licensing terms that 
apply to involuntary time-sharing arrangements.  Accordingly, we will revise the Rules to facilitate those 
voluntary agreements.  We stress, however, that voluntary time-sharing agreements must be genuinely 
universal, involving all permittees and licensees of a particular LPFM facility.  That is, to give rise to a 
renewal expectancy, all of those in a time-share group must be parties to the time-sharing agreement.
35. To ensure that voluntary time-sharing arrangements will result in the most efficient use 
of LPFM spectrum, we also must address how to apportion unused airtime among licensees in a time-
share group.  This circumstance may arise in a number of ways.  For example, a permittee in that group 
could fail to construct its facilities, decide to cease operations, or have its authorization revoked for a 
  
97 47 C.F.R.  73.872(c)
98 Id.  
99 Id.
100 See 47 C.F.R.  73.870(a); see also Second Order, 20 FCC Rcd. at 6767, para. 11 (explaining that [a]n 
application proposing a minor change to authorized LPFM facilities [unlike major modification applications] may 
be filed at any time).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
16
serious violation of the Rules.  There might also be situations in which no permittee or licensee has come 
forward requesting to operate during a certain part of the day or week.  REC points to an example in 
Visalia, California, where one licensee, KFSC-LP, broadcasts from 5 to 9 a.m. Monday through Saturday 
and a second licensee, KQOF-LP, broadcasts from 5 to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday.  No licensee 
broadcasts other than those times.101 REC proposes that, prior to the opening of a new filing window, new 
entrants who can reach a universal settlement with existing stations should be allowed to do so.  REC also 
argues that new entrants should be allowed to apply for periods of unused time once a window for new 
applications has opened.102  
36. We agree with REC that, during filing windows for new applications, new parties should 
be permitted to apply for unused and unwanted time on a particular frequency.  We will not entertain such 
applications outside of an open filing window, however, even when the potential new entrant could 
successfully negotiate a universal settlement with existing licensees.  Aside from the administrative 
burden that such out-of-window filings could create, allowing a new entrant to act before a formally-
announced filing window could prejudice unfairly other potential applicants who, under the comparative 
criteria set forth in Section 73.872(b) of the Rules,103 would be entitled to a preference over the would-be 
new entrants mutually exclusive application.  Restricting applications for unwanted time to new filing 
windows does raise a potential concern in that the restriction will leave periods of time on a particular 
frequency vacant until the Commission elects to open a filing window for new applications.  To alleviate 
that concern, and to promote a more efficient use of available LPFM frequency, we will allow existing 
stations in a voluntary time-share group to apportion among themselves any time that, for any reason, 
becomes unused.  As with the negotiation and execution of voluntary time-sharing agreements by parties 
in an involuntary time-share arrangement, we will deem amendments to a voluntary time-sharing 
agreement to account for unused time requests to be minor modifications that may be filed at any time.
B. Technical Rules
1. Construction Period
37. The Report and Order established an 18-month construction period for all LPFM 
facilities, stating that deadlines would be strictly enforced.104  However, as a temporary measure, the 
FNPRM adopted an interim waiver policy to allow permittees with soon-to-expire permits to request 
additional time to construct their facilities.  Under that policy, the Media Bureau has the authority to 
consider and grant requests for an additional 18 months to construct facilities, upon a showing that the 
permittee reasonably can be expected to complete construction within the extended period.105  
38. As a permanent solution, the FNPRM proposed extending the construction period for 
LPFM stations to 36 months, the construction period afforded to all other broadcast permittees.106 During 
  
101 Comments of REC at 11 n.20.  
102 Id. at 12.
103 47 C.F.R.  73.872(b).  
104 Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2278-79, paras. 189-90.  
105 FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6775, para. 27.
106 See 47 C.F.R.  73.3598(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
17
the six years since the release of the 2000 Report and Order, our assumption that LPFM facilities would 
require significantly less time to build than that required to construct full-power FM facilities has proven 
to be overly optimistic.  LPFM licensees have encountered varying difficulties in locating suitable 
transmitter sites, raising sufficient funds for the proposed facilities, and obtaining the necessary zoning 
permits.107 The FNPRM thus proposed extending the construction period in order to maximize the 
likelihood that LPFM permittees will get on the air.108
39. Many commenters favor extending the construction period.109 Some state that the 
blanket adoption of a 36-month construction period has administrative advantages over a conditional 
extension or case-by-case review of individual waiver requests.110 Moreover, extending the construction 
period to 36 months would put the LPFM and full-power FM services on equal footing and avoid 
disenfranchising able, willing, but inexperienced, LPFM permittees.  Prometheus Radio Project and others 
contend that the better approach is to grant an 18-month extension to complete construction, but only upon 
demonstration of good cause.111 Prometheus argues that such a procedure would give able and willing 
LPFM permittees a total of 36 months to construct their facilities but prevent unable or unwilling LPFM 
permittees from warehousing valuable spectrum, without service to the public, for an extended period of 
time.112
40. We seek to encourage permittees to construct their facilities within 18 months, and 
therefore, decline to adopt a blanket 36-month construction period for LPFM. We agree with Prometheus 
that this approach will prevent unwilling/unable applicants from sitting on valuable spectrum. We 
recognize, however, that some permittees may face difficulties in meeting this deadline. Therefore, we 
will amend the Rules to allow all permittees, including current ones whose construction permits have yet 
to expire, the opportunity to seek an 18-month extension to complete construction of their facilities upon a 
showing of good cause.  Because any such extension should account adequately for the delays resulting 
from the potential inexperience of the permittee, as well as for potential obstacles that may arise during 
the zoning or permitting processes, that extended construction deadline will be strictly enforced, as it is 
  
107 See KVLP Comments at 1 (discussing difficulties in financing construction); see also Second Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 6775, para. 26 (recognizing that zoning and permitting processes could delay construction). 
108 FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6775, para. 26.  
109 NPR, REC, Eureka College, Virden Broadcasting Corporation, Kaskaskia Broadcasting, Inc., JT 
Communications, Kyle E. Magrill, Matthew Lasar, Elizabeth Currans, Meagen Grundberg, and Richard Whitmore 
favor extending the 18-month requirement to three years; Colquitt Community Radio, Inc., Optima Enrichment 
Inc., and Martin L. Hensley oppose any extension of the current 18-month requirement.
110 See Comments of Eastern Sierra Broadcasters at 2 (favoring an automatic extension for reasons of 
administrative ease, but would limit the extension to a total of 24 months).  
111 See Comments of Prometheus at 26 (filed Aug. 22, 2005); Reply Comments of Christian Community 
Broadcasters at 2 (filed Sept. 21, 2005); Comments of Christian Community Broadcasters at 3 (filed Aug. 22, 
2005); Comments of Dane Scott Undenburg (filed July 18, 2005). 
112 See Comments of Prometheus at 26 (filed Aug. 22, 2005).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
18
with all other radio broadcast stations; we do not expect to entertain, and most likely will not grant, waiver 
requests or those for further extensions.113  
2. Technical Amendments
41. Section 73.871 of the Rules limits the ability of applicants to propose site changes by 
minor amendment to relocations of 3.2 kilometers or less for an LP10 station, and 5.6 kilometers or less 
for an LP100 station.114 That Rule prevents time-sharing applicants from relocating their transmitters to a 
central location unless the site falls within those distance limits.  To increase flexibility for time-sharing 
applicants and thereby promote voluntary time-sharing agreements, the FNPRM proposed to allow time-
sharing applicants to file minor amendments to relocate their transmitters to a central location, 
notwithstanding the site relocation limits imposed by Section 73.871 of the Rules.115  
42. Few commenters have responded to our queries about technical amendments by time-
sharing applicants under Section 73.871 of the Rules.116 In 2001, UCC requested that we amend the Rules 
to allow applicants that submit a voluntary time-share agreement to relocate the transmitter to a central 
location, provided that one is available.117 The Commission has a long-standing policy of providing 
mutually exclusive applicants with maximum flexibility to enter into time-share agreements in order to 
facilitate rapid licensing in the service.  For instance, in 2003, the Commission by public notice waived 
Section 73.871 of the Rules for a time to permit all LPFM settling applicants the ability to file major 
change amendments specifying new FM channels.118 Permitting parties to file time-share agreements to 
specify a central location beyond the current minor amendment distance limitations would remove one 
more potential impediment to such agreements.  Accordingly, we amend Section 73.871 of the Rules to 
permit time-sharing applicants to specify a central transmitter location with a minor amendment without 
regard to the respective 3.2 and 5.6 kilometer limitations on such amendments.  These agreements, which 
permit a number of different organizations to reach local audiences, promote diversity.  Providing 
applicants additional flexibility and the opportunity to avoid the construction of duplicate facilities also 
serves the public interest.  For the same reason, we amend that Rule to allow permittees and licensees that 
reach a voluntary time-sharing agreement after their permits have been granted to submit such site change 
applications by minor submission.  We anticipate that this rule change will encourage time-share 
applicants, permittees and licensees to consolidate transmission and studio facilities. 
3. LPFM - FM Translator Interference Priorities
43. The FNPRM identified several possible ways to modify the LPFM-FM translator 
interference protection requirements.  Currently, stations in these two services operate on a substantially 
  
113 We note that this expectation does not affect the tolling provisions of 47 C.F.R.  73.3598(b).
114 47 C.F.R.  73.871(c).  
115  See FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6776, para. 28 (citing UCC 2001 Petition at 7).
116 47 C.F.R.  73.871(c).   
117 UCC Petition at 7.  
118 See Settlement Period Announced for Closed Groups of Pending Low Power FM Mutually Exclusive 
Applications, Public Notices, 18 FCC Rcd 18048, 18 FCC Rcd 19726 (MB 2003).    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
19
co-equal basis, with a facility proposed in an application having priority over one specified in any 
subsequently filed application.  The FNPRM sought comment on whether, and if so, under what 
circumstances LPFM applications should be treated as having priority status over prior-filed FM translator 
applications and granted authorizations.  In particular, the Commission sought comment on how to 
overcome the significant preclusive impact of the 2003 Auction No. 83 translator filing window, asking 
among other things whether all pending applications for new FM translator stations filed during the 
window should be dismissed.  The FNPRM explained that the staff already had granted approximately 
3,500 new station construction permit applications from the singleton filings, a number nearly equal to 
the total number of FM translator stations licensed and operating prior to the filing window, that 7,000 
applications remained on file, that very few opportunities for LPFM stations in major markets remained 
prior to the 2003 translator filing window, and that the Auction No. 83 filing would have a significant 
preclusive impact on future LPFM licensing opportunities.119  The voluminous comments submitted in 
response to the priority issue focus on two possible theories supporting modification of the current Rule:  
(1) that LPFM provides a preferred radio service to that offered by translators; and (2) that priority 
status for LPFM applications is necessary to overcome the preclusive impact of the over 13,000 technical 
proposals filed during the 2003 Auction No. 83 FM translator window.
44. LPFM advocates contend that their service is preferable to translator service.120 They 
note that the Rules require LPFM stations to be locally owned and permit local program origination.121  
They note that, in contrast, many translators merely rebroadcast satellite-distributed national
programming.  Some LPFM advocates request priority status for only those LPFM stations that originate 
programming.122 Others request priority status over all distant translators, i.e., translators that 
rebroadcast the signals of non-local stations. 123
45. NAB, NPR, the various state broadcast associations, and virtually all full-service 
commercial and NCE broadcasters support retention of the current interference protection rules.  They 
argue that there are no simple ways to distinguish preferred stations or programming.124 They also claim 
that there is no such thing as a typical LPFM or FM translator station.125  They reject as unfounded the 
contention that program origination or local ownership correlates to more desirable programming.126 They 
  
119 See FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6776-78, paras. 29-33. 
120 See, e.g., Comments of KZQP-LP at 1-2.  
121 See, e.g., Comments of KYRS-LP at 1-2.  
122 See, e.g., Reply Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at 28-31; Comments of Highland Community 
Broadcasting at 1-2.  
123 See, e.g., Comments of The Amherst Alliance at 2; Comments of REC at 16; Reply Comments of REC at 2.
124 See, e.g., Comments of Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc. at 6-7; Comments of Educational Media Foundation 
Comments at 6-9; Reply Comments of MBC Grand at 1-3; Reply Comments of NAB at 3-4; Comments of Public 
Radio Regional Organization at 10-15.
125 See, e.g., Comments of the National Translator Association at 2-3; Comments of the Public Radio FM 
Translator Licensees at 3-6.
126 See, e.g., Comments of Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc at 7; Reply Comments of Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc. at 
4; Comments of NAB at 24-26; Reply Comments of NAB at 9-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
20
note that LPFM licensees have limited service responsibilities with regard to their communities of license: 
LPFM stations need not originate programming; many serve the needs of niche interest groups rather than 
their entire communities of license; they are not required to maintain a main studio or public file; and they 
are required to operate for only 35 hours per week.127 Many broadcasters contend that, because the LPFM 
service is still in its infancy, it is premature to reassess the co-equal status of LPFM and FM translator 
stations.128 NCE and public radio broadcasters argue that giving LPFMs priority over operating FM 
translator stations would significantly disrupt established and valued translator service to millions of 
listeners, particularly those in rural areas129 and in situations in which broadcasters rely on chains of 
translators to distribute programming.130 The public radio commenters note that translators are a critical 
component of the public radio infrastructure.131  A number of other commenters urge that a fill-in 
translator should be treated as the equivalent of its associated primary full-service station and, therefore, 
always preferred to an LPFM station.132
46. With regard to the potentially preclusive impact of the over 13,000 FM translator 
applications filed in 2003, some commenters argue that the LPFM service is not entitled to any special 
consideration because LPFM applicants had the first opportunity during the 2000-2001 national LPFM 
windows to apply for new stations.133 Translator advocates note that their last opportunity for non-
reserved band FM translators occurred in 1997.134 Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc. (Edgewater) submits 
an extensive analysis of the preclusive impact of the construction permits issued out of the 2003 translator 
filing window and the more limited impact of the over 1,000 permits issued to it and its commonly-owned 
Radio Assist Ministries.135 Edgewater contends that the preclusive impact has been miniscule, notes 
that the Commission received no LPFM applications to serve many of the areas specified in its translator 
filings, and argues that its studies demonstrate that vast areas in the country remain available for new 
LPFM stations.136 REC also submits both national and market-specific analyses and identifies several 
  
127 See, e.g., Comments of Educational Media Foundation at 10-11; Comments of National Translator Association 
at 3-4; Reply Comments of Station Resource Group at 4.  
128 See, e.g., Comments of Named State Broadcaster Associations (NSBA) at 3.  
129 See, e.g., Comments of Public Radio FM Translator Licensees at 3-6; Comments of The Public Radio Regional 
Organizations at 11-15; Comments of Educational Media Foundation at 2-4
130 See, e.g., Comments of NAB at 26-27.   
131 See, e.g., Comments of NPR at 5-9; Comments of Station Resource Group at 5-8.   
132 See, e.g., Comments of Bayard H. Walters at 2-3; Joint Comments of Galaxy Communications, L.P. and Desert 
West Air Ranchers Corp. at 6 n.11; Reply Comments of REC at 5-6.
133 See, e.g., Comments of Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc. at 3-4; Comments of Public Radio Regional Organizations 
at 19-20.
134 See, e.g., Comments of Public Radio Regional Organizations at 19-20.   
135 See, e.g., Comments of Edgewater at Exhibits 1-3.  
136 Comments of Edgewater at 4-6.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
21
communities in which 2003 window filings have allegedly precluded or diminished LPFM station 
licensing opportunities.137
47. The Station Resource Group, an alliance of 45 public radio broadcasters that operate 168 
radio stations, contends that the chief contributor to LPFM station preclusion is a maxed out spectrum 
situation which prevents any broadcasters, NCE or commercial, translators or LPFM stations, from 
obtaining new licenses in virtually all major markets and many medium-sized markets.138 Several 
commenters argue that the statutory third-adjacent channel LPFM protection requirement blocks many 
otherwise-licensable LPFM opportunities.139
48. A number of commenters argue that the Commissions concern is misdirected.  They 
urge the Commission to instead move vigorously against alleged FM translator filing abuses, speculators, 
and deficient application filings.140 They suggest imposing numerical application filing limits, either on a 
prospective basis or with regard to the still-pending translator applications.141 Several contend that the 
high demand for new FM translators is unsurprising, given the extended freeze on non-reserved band 
licensing.142
49. As demonstrated by the comments filed on this issue, the LPFM and FM translator 
services are each valuable components of the nation's radio infrastructure.  We agree with the advocates 
for each of these services regarding the important programming that these stations can provide to their 
local communities.  We do not reach the merits of the priority rules between these two services here.  
Instead, we seek further comment in the attached Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
develop a better record on whether and how our current rule affects our core goals of localism, diversity 
and competition.  The current rules will remain in effect until the Commission resolves the issue in that 
proceeding.  
50. We also must consider the question of whether Auction No. 83 filing activity has 
adversely impacted our goal to provide to both LPFM and translator applicants reasonable access to 
limited FM spectrum in a manner which promotes the fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio 
service . . . .143 This issue has taken on much greater significance over the past few years as demand for 
new radio stations has increased dramatically while the spectrum for such stations has become 
increasingly scarce, particularly in many mid-sized communities and in virtually all urbanized areas.  
Station Resource Group is correct  the primary licensing impediment is the nations maxed out 
  
137 Reply Comments of REC at 3; See also Reply Comments of Prometheus Radio Project at Appendix A and 
Appendix B.
138 Comments of Station Resource Group at 5.   
139 See, e.g. Comments of REC at Appendix D. 
140 See, e.g., Comments of Station Resource Group at 8; Comments of the Public Radio Regional Organizations at 
19-22.
141 Comments of Station Resource Group at 8-9; Comments of the Public Radio Regional Organizations at 19-20; 
Comments of the National Translator Association at 7-8; Reply Comments of REC at 5-6.  
142 See, e.g., Comments of Saga Communications at 7; Comments of Named State Broadcaster Associations at 9.  
143 47 U.S.C.  307(b).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
22
spectrum situation.  New Jersey LPFM licensing activity is illustrative of the limited new station 
opportunities in spectrum-congested areas.  Only 29 New Jersey LPFM applications were filed during that 
states June 2001 window.  Of those submissions, the Media Bureau has issued only eleven construction 
permits and only one additional authorization possibly may be granted.  Only seven LPFM stations are 
currently operating in the state.  We find these statistics more probative of the LPFM services growth 
potential than the studies completed by Edgewater because LPFM stations, due to their limited service 
area potential, generally require higher population densities to be viable. It seems unlikely that the 
availability of spectrum in the vast rural portions of the nation will generate significant levels of LPFM 
station licensing. 
51. Demand for radio spectrum is, if anything, increasing.  The number of applications filed 
during the AM new and major change windows jumped from 258 in 2000 to more than 1,300 in 2004.  
Competitive bidding activity for FM new station construction permits has been robust since the 
commencement of open FM auctions in 2004.  The 2003 FM translator window provides further evidence 
of this trend, especially when compared to historic licensing levels for this service.  As of September 30, 
1990, a total of 1,847 licensed FM translators and (co-channel) boosters operated throughout the nation.  
As of December 31, 1997, shortly after the date on which the Commission imposed a freeze on new non-
reserved band translator filings (but not on new boosters or new reserved band stations), a total of 2,881 
FM translators operated nationally.  The number of licensed stations continued to grow modestly over the 
next six years, chiefly as a result of ongoing reserved band filing activity.  A total of 3,818 licensed 
stations were in operation in March 2003 when the Commission opened the FM translator window, a total 
of 3,897 licensed stations when the Commission imposed the Auction No. 83 construction permit freeze in 
March 2005.  
52. Measured against this historical licensing record, Auction No. 83 window filing activity 
was significant.  Proposals exceeded authorized stations by a factor of three in a service in which little 
licensing was done before the 1980s.  The 2003 window already has nearly doubled the total number of 
authorized stations.  To date, three times more translator stations have been authorized out of this one 
window than LPFM stations authorized through the initial LPFM window filing process.  Approximately 
7,000 translator applications remain pending.  The Commission faces two chief difficulties in trying to 
balance spectrum allocations for LPFM stations and translators.  First, FM translators are licensed under 
substantially more flexible technical rules.  Thus, some of the Auction No. 83 filing activity involves 
spectrum which is unavailable for LPFM use.  By the same token, LPFM station proponents have far 
fewer licensing opportunities in spectrum-congested markets because LPFM technical rules are 
substantially less flexible.  Second, it is impossible to accurately predict future demand for LPFM station 
licenses.  While engineering studies can identify areas in which additional licensing is technically 
permissible, the interest of local organizations to apply for, construct, and operate new LPFM stations can 
only be determined at the time a window is opened.  
53. Although precise preclusionary calculations are not possible, we believe that processing 
all of the approximately remaining 7,000 translator applications would frustrate the development of the 
LPFM service and our efforts to promote localism.  Several factors support the adoption of some remedial 
measures.  The sheer volume of Auction No. 83 filings, when compared to historic translator and LPFM 
licensing levels, is a significant concern.  We recognize that LPFM proponents had the first opportunity 
to file for the spectrum which Auction No. 83 filers now propose to use.  However, it is apparent that the 
translator filings have precluded or diminished LPFM filing opportunities in many communities.  For 
example, a REC national study found that 16 percent of all census designated communities that otherwise 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
23
would have LPFM channels available in their communities have been precluded by the translator filings 
and that the greatest preclusionary impact has been in the largest such communities.144 Moreover, the 
Media Bureau has found that its efforts to identify alternative channels for LPFM stations either causing 
or receiving interference have been significantly limited in numerous cases by the requirement to protect 
pending FM translator applications and authorizations granted out of the 2003 window.  The licensing 
asymmetries between these two services also support this finding.  Translator filings can materially impact 
LPFM new station options which are far more limited than FM translator filing opportunities.  In contrast, 
it is unlikely that LPFM filings will materially affect translator licensing options.  FM translator contour-
based station licensing is substantially more flexible than the strict distance separation requirements which 
LPFM stations must satisfy.  This difference is tied in part to the fact that unlike an LPFM station, an FM 
translator station must cease broadcast operations if it is causing actual interference to any authorized 
broadcast station.145 In short, any translator station construction is at the risk of the permittee.  The level 
of Auction No. 83 filing activity and the fact that many applications were filed for facilities in the top 100 
markets both illuminate the significant difference in the licensing opportunities between these two 
services.  The next LPFM window may provide the last meaningful opportunity to expand the LPFM 
service in spectrum-congested areas.  In contrast, we expect significant filing activity in many future 
translator windows.
54. Certain equitable considerations also tilt in favor of adopting remedial measures to limit 
the preclusive impact of Auction No. 83 filings.  Each applicant filing in Auction No. 83 submitted one
Form 175 Application to Participate in an FCC Auction and a separate Form 349 Tech Box for each 
translator proposal.  861 filers submitted 13,377 such proposals in the window. Applicant filing activity 
divided between the hundreds of applicants who filed a limited number of applications and a very small 
number of applicants who filed for hundreds or thousands of construction permits.  For example, 
approximately half the filers submitted one or two proposals.  Approximately 80 percent of filers 
submitted 10 or fewer proposals. 97 percent filed 50 or fewer proposals.  In contrast, the two most active 
filers, commonly-owned Radio Assist Ministries and Edgewater (collectively, RAM), filed 4,219 
proposals, constituting almost one-third of all Auction No. 83 filings.  The fifteen most active filers were 
responsible for one-half of all Tech Box submissions.
55. We are concerned that the heavily skewed filing activity in Auction No. 83 raises 
concerns about the integrity of our FM translator licensing procedures. Even if lawful, it is fair to 
question whether the acquisition of unprecedented numbers of FM translator authorizations by a handful 
of entities through our window filing application procedures promotes either diversity or localism. The 
rapid flipping of hundreds of permits acquired through the window process for substantial consideration 
does suggest that our current procedures may be insufficient to deter speculative conduct.  Some 
commenters have been critical of RAMs business strategy.  The [National Translator Association] 
considers those applicants who intend to obtain construction permits and then sell those permits to be 
simply speculators for profit.146  Most fundamentally, it appears that our assumption that our competitive 
bidding procedures would deter speculative filings has proven to be unfounded in the Auction No. 83 
context.  RAM, alone, has sought to assign more than 50 percent of the 1,046 construction permits it has 
been awarded through the window and has consummated assignments for over 400 of all such permits.  
  
144 See Reply Comments of Prometheus at 17-18.
145 See 47 C.F.R.  74.1203(a)(1).
146 Comments of National Translator Association at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
24
56. In order to further our twin goals of increasing the number of LPFM stations and 
promoting localism, we find it necessary to take action.  Accordingly, we will limit further processing of 
applications submitted during the Auction No. 83 filing window to ten proposals per applicant.  
Applicants with more than ten proposals pending will be provided an opportunity to identify those 
applications which they wish to have processed and those for which they seek voluntary dismissal. The 
Media Bureau is directed to complete its processing of the approximately 100 pending but frozen 
singleton long-form applications without regard to the ten application limit.  However, construction 
permits granted from this group will count toward the limit for future Auction No. 83 licensing purposes.  
This cap will only apply to short-form applications, and will not impact the ability of Auction No. 83 
filers with granted construction permits or pending long-form applications to obtain licenses to cover.
This limit will not have an adverse impact on the more than 80 percent of those who filed ten or fewer 
proposals in the Auction No. 83 filing window.  It will require certain filers to identify priority proposals.  
This cut-off will limit the preclusive impact of Auction No. 83 filings on LPFM licensing opportunities by 
barring the processing of thousands of applications filed by a very small number of applicants, without 
impacting the approximately 80 percent of filers who filed ten or fewer applications. Although we 
recognize the equitable interests of the remaining 20 percent of filers in the processing of all of their short-
form applications, on balance we conclude that the public interest requires a bar on the processing of more 
than ten applications per filer. We are hopeful that as a result of this cap the Media Bureau will be able to 
shorten the period between windows for both new LPFM and FM translator stations.  We direct the Media 
Bureau to issue a public notice announcing the opening of the settlement window required by Sections 
73.5002 (c) and (d) of the Rules.147  Applicants must select the ten applications they wish to preserve 
before the settlement window opens.  With the imposition of this cap, we direct the Media Bureau to 
resume the processing of Auction No. 83 filings.  Specifically, the Media Bureau is to expeditiously 
process the applications of any applicant that is now in compliance or brings itself into compliance with 
the ten proposal cap.
57. We are mindful of the expenses that translator applicants have incurred in preparing their 
non-feeable Form 175 short-form applications and Form 349 Tech Box submissions but believe that the 
imposition of this cap treats all applicants equitably.  We have attempted to accommodate applicants to 
the greatest extent possible, consistent with statutory requirements and competing Commission goals.  All 
applicants will benefit from expedited processing and the Media Bureaus ability to open future windows 
more quickly.  Thus, this action is entirely consistent with Commission Rules and precedent for the 
dismissal of pending applications as a necessary adjunct of efficient and effective rulemaking.148 Finally, 
we note that there is ample precedent for the mass dismissal of applications based on a rule or policy 
change.149  This procedural change is a reasonable exercise of the Commissions administrative discretion. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the imposition of a cap in these circumstances is lawful.
  
147 47 C.F.R.  73.5002 (c) and (d).
148 See, e.g., Elleron Oil Company WVI Partners, Inc., Order, 13 FCC Rcd 17250 (WTB 1998); Chadmoore 
Commns, Inc. v. FCC, 113 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Kessler v. FCC, 326 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
149 See, e.g., Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commissions Rules, Second Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2739-40 (1997) (dismissing all pending paging applications and 
all applications filed after a certain date to facilitate transition to new geographic-area licensing system); Elleron Oil 
Company WVI Partners, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd at 17252.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
25
4. Interference Protection from Subsequently Authorized Full-Service FM 
Stations
58. Background. The Report and Order establishing the LPFM service set minimum 
distance separation requirements to ensure that LPFM stations protect existing commercial and NCE full-
service FM stations, as well as FM translator and booster stations.150 The Report and Order also 
concluded that existing full-service stations would not be required to protect proposed LPFM facilities.  
Moreover, operating LPFM stations will not be protected against interference from subsequently 
authorized full-service facility modifications, upgrades, or new FM stations.151 Conversely, an LPFM 
station is not permitted to cause interference within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dB?) contour of a full-service FM 
station.152 An LPFM station generally may continue to operate within that contour so long as it can 
demonstrate that actual interference is unlikely to occur.  Section 73.809 of the Rules sets forth detailed 
complaint procedures to resolve disputes over the likelihood of actual interference and the sufficiency of 
actions taken by LPFM stations to eliminate that interference.153
59. In September 2000, the Commission dismissed a motion to reconsider the regulatory 
status of LPFM stations.154 In the FNPRM, however, the Commission stated that it would be useful to 
consider whether to limit the Section 73.809 interference procedures to situations involving co- and first-
adjacent channel predicted interference, where the predicted interference areas are substantially greater 
than for second and third-adjacent channel interference.155 The Commission also asked whether an 
LPFM station should be permitted to remain on the air if the full-power FM station did not serve the area 
of predicted interference prior to the facilities modification (in the case of an existing station) or the grant 
of the construction permit (in the case of a new station).  Similarly, the Commission sought comment on 
whether an LPFM station should be permitted to remain on the air if the full-service stations community 
of license would not be subject to interference.  Finally, the Commission asked whether an amendment to 
Section 73.809 of the Rules would be consistent with Congress directive mandating third-adjacent 
channel interference protection from LPFM stations.156  
60. Although, to date, only one LPFM station has been forced off the air pursuant to the 
requirements of Section 73.809 of the Rules, some commenters believe that numerous LPFM stations are 
under a significant threat of such encroachment.157 In 2005, REC released a study claiming that 134 
  
150  Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2230, para. 63.
151  Id. at 2231, para. 65.
152  Id. at 2232, para. 66.  
153 47 C.F.R.  73.809.
154  Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 19220, para. 29.  
155  See FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6780, para. 38 (noting that the public interest may favor continued LPFM 
second- and third-adjacent channel operations over a subsequently authorized upgrade or new full-service 
station).
156  Id. at 6781, para. 39.
157 See, e.g., Prometheus Reply Comments at 2.  On March 5, 2007, the Commission received a petition for 
rulemaking requesting: (1) immediate issuance of a moratorium on the displacement of licensed LPFM stations and 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
26
LPFM construction permits and licenses were then at risk of being cancelled due to pending full-power 
station modification applications for vacant allotments.158 The study also claimed that hundreds of LPFM 
stations faced less significant levels of increased interference.159 REC has updated this analysis to assess 
the impact of applications filed under the recently-adopted rules that established streamlined community
of license modification procedures.  This study claims that 257 LPFM stations could suffer at least some 
signal degradation as a result of these facility changes and that 38 of these LPFM stations might be 
required to cease operations.  Prometheus and other commenters call for the Commission to grant LPFM 
stations co-equal protection status with full-power stations.  Alternatively, they suggest that a full-power 
station proposing to eliminate or seriously degrade the listening area of an LPFM station be required to 
receive full Commission approval for such a modification.  At a minimum, these commenters request that 
impacted LPFM stations be provided with the ability to make major engineering changes to preserve 
service.160
61. Conversely, many other commenters believe that no changes to Section 73.809 of the 
Rules are warranted.161 Instead, NAB proposes that flexible procedures be put in place to encourage 
LPFM stations to relocate.162 NPR contends that the Commission should maintain the current interference 
protections between FM and LPFM stations.  Indeed, NPR and others suggest that the Commission lacks 
statutory authority to eliminate second and third-adjacent channel protections.163 Educational Media 
Foundation states that relaxing Section 73.809 of the Rules would be harmful to listener-supported NCE 
stations.164 Finally, NSBA contends that there is a strong likelihood of harmful interference to full-service
FM stations if the Rule is changed and that harm outweighs any speculative benefit to the public interest 
that would result from a rule change.165
62. Discussion.  In the Report and Order, we declined to provide LPFM stations with an 
interference protection right that could prevent a full-service station from seeking to modify its 
transmission facilities or could foreclose future new full-service radio station licensing opportunities.166  
(Continued from previous page)    
Class D Educational stations by new, relocating and/or upgrading full-power radio stations, and (2) a proposed rule 
permanently prohibiting or otherwise restricting such displacement. See Petition for Rulemaking of the Amherst 
Alliance, Talk Radio of Pahrump, Midwest Christian Media, Providence Community Radio and Nickolaus E. 
Leggett N3NL at 1. In light of the discussion herein, we dismiss this petition.  
158  See www.recnet.com/lpfminfo/encr0205.pdf.   
159Id.  
160 See Prometheus, et. al., comments at 12-17.   
161 See Comments of NAB; Cox Radio, Inc.; Educational Media Foundation; Galaxy Communications, L.P.; Desert 
West; Air Ranchers Corp.; and NSBA.  
162 See NAB Reply Comments at 16-17; see also Comments of Cox Radio, Inc., and Galaxy Communications, L.P. 
163 See NAB Comments at 14; see also NSBA Reply Comments at 12-13.    
164 See Educational Media Foundation Reply Comments at 7.
165 See NSBA Reply Comments at 10.
166 See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2231. See also n.16 and accompanying text.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
27
Our experience to date confirms our belief that in most instances the interests of both full-service and 
LPFM stations can be accommodated. We applaud those full-service stations that have provided technical 
and/or financial assistance to LPFM stations that have been required to undertake facility modifications to 
remain on the air.  We are particularly appreciative of those broadcasters that have consented to short-
spacings to avoid LPFM station displacements.167 We urge licensees seeking community of license 
modifications or other changes that could lead to LPFM displacement or signal degradation to continue 
these cooperative efforts on a going-forward basis.  The Media Bureau also has played an important role 
in crafting technical solutions to preserve LPFM stations potentially at risk from new station and facility 
modification proposals.  It already has taken action on dozens of LPFM modification applications that 
were filed to eliminate or reduce caused interference to or received interference from a full-service FM 
station.  We direct the Media Bureau to continue to attempt to resolve conflicts between full-service and 
LPFM stations in ways that accommodate the interests of both services.  
a. Section 73.809 Interference Procedures
63. Circumstances have changed considerably since we last considered the issue of 
protection rights for LPFM stations from subsequently authorized full-service stations.  Most importantly, 
the January 2007 lifting of the freeze on the filing of FM community of license modification proposals 
combined with the implementation of new streamlined licensing procedures resulted in a one-time flurry 
of filing activity, with approximately 100 FM community of license modification proposals submitted in 
the first week of the new Rules.  In all, over 200 community of license modification applications have 
been filed under the new rules.  Increased filings under the new Rules and the arguments of LPFM 
advocates persuade us that the Commission should put policies in place to address current and future 
LPFM station displacement threats.  The Media Bureau has identified approximately 40 LPFM stations 
that could be forced to cease operations.  In these circumstances, we find that the Rules should be 
amended to limit Section 73.809 interference procedures to situations involving co- and first-adjacent 
channel interference.168 Thus, Section 73.809 will no longer apply to situations involving predicted 
second-adjacent channel interference. We encourage full-service and LPFM stations to work 
cooperatively to minimize or eliminate the impact of the full-service station proposal on both stations.  In 
this regard, we encourage each encroaching full-service station to provide technical and financial 
assistance to any LPFM station at risk from a full-service station facility proposal and to identify and 
facilitate the implementation of measures to ameliorate any potential increase in received interference by 
the LPFM station.  As described in more detail below, second-adjacent channel interference to a full 
service station is generally predicted to occur only in the immediate vicinity of the LPFM station 
transmitter site.  Predicted interference to listeners can be substantially reduced or eliminated in these 
situations by various techniques, e.g., increasing LPFM antenna height, relocating LPFM transmission 
facilities away from populated areas, etc.  
  
167  Letter to John Snyder from Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, 21 FCC Rcd 11,945 (MB 
2006).
168 We note that, contrary to the suggestion in the FNPRM, Section 73.809 does not require LPFM stations to 
resolve complaints of actual interference to subsequently authorized third-adjacent channel full service stations.  
Thus, this Rule change does not eliminate or reduce third-adjacent channel protection requirements and therefore 
comports with statutory requirements.  See 2001 DC Appropriations Act.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
28
b. Section 73.807 Second-Adjacent Channel Waiver Standard
64. The Media Bureau has identified for many of the stations now at risk of displacement 
alternate channels that would require waivers of Section 73.807 of the Rules169 because operations on the 
new channels would be short-spaced to full service stations operating on second-adjacent channels. Based 
on the potential harm to this small but not insignificant number of LPFM stations, we believe that it would 
be beneficial to establish a procedural framework for the consideration of showings from LPFM stations 
that may seek such waivers to avoid displacement, as well as to avoid unnecessary disruption of LPFM 
service to the public during such consideration.  This procedure will apply to both pending applications 
and those filed, but not disposed of, prior to the effective date of any Rule changes proposed in the Second 
Further Notice. The clarification of our second-adjacent channel LPFM waiver standards set forth below 
is intended to avoid the unwarranted loss of many LPFM stations while the Commission considers certain 
Rule changes set forth in a Second Further Notice that we also adopt today.  The interim procedural 
protections we establish in connection with such waiver standards are designed to safeguard the interests 
of all affected parties and to aid the Commission in identifying those situations in which strict compliance 
with our Rules would not serve the public interest.  We also provide guidance below regarding processing 
standards that the Commission will apply to full-service station modification applications where the 
modification would place an LPFM station at risk of displacement and no alternate channel is available.  
In such circumstances, we will consider waiving the Commissions Rule making LPFM stations secondary 
to subsequently-authorized full-service stations and denying the modification application to protect an 
LPFM station that is demonstrably serving the need of the public from being required to cease operations.
65. In evaluating whether the public interest would be served by grant of a waiver of Section 
73.807 of the Rules for a second-adjacent channel short-spacing to an LPFM station at risk of 
displacement, the Commission must balance the potential for new interference to the full-service station 
against the potential loss of an LPFM station.  An LPFM station operating within the 60 dB? contour of a 
second-adjacent channel full-service station would cause interference to the full-service station in the 
immediate vicinity of the LPFM transmitter site.  Based on desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal strength 
ratio calculations, in most circumstances interference would be predicted to extend from ten to two 
hundred meters from the LPFM station antenna.  Clearly, it will be advantageous to an LPFM applicants
waiver showing to propose modifications that minimize the area of predicted interference, e.g., by 
proposing maximum possible antenna heights above average terrain, and by selecting transmitter sites not 
located near densely populated areas.  We encourage the encroaching full-service station licensee to 
provide technical assistance to LPFM stations to develop modification proposals that would avoid 
impacting current radio listening patterns.170  
66. The following procedures will be limited to those situations in which implementation of 
the full-service new station or modification, including community of license, proposal would result in the 
full-service and LPFM stations operating at less than the minimum distance separations set forth in 
Section 73.807 of the Rules.  In addition, implementation of the full-service proposal must result in either 
an increase in interference caused to the LPFM station or result in the displacement, i.e., the suspension or 
  
169 47 C.F.R.  73.807.
170 Based on this very limited potential for second-adjacent channel interference, the FNPRM sought comment on 
a closely related proposal to limit LPFM displacement  whether to limit complaint procedures under Section 
73.809 of the Rules to situations involving only co- or first-adjacent channel predicted interference.  FNPRM, 20 
FCC Rcd at 6780, para 38.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
29
termination of LPFM station operations pursuant to Section 73.809 of the Rules, of the LPFM station.  
These procedures will not be available where an alternate, fully-spaced, and rule-compliant channel is 
available for the LPFM licensee or permittee.  Finally, Special Temporary Authorizations (STA) will be 
available pursuant to these procedures only if the LPFM station is proposing a waiver (or waivers) of 
LPFM second-adjacent channel spacing requirements.171
67. We direct the Media Bureau to contact LPFM stations that are currently, or in the future 
may become, eligible to seek facility modifications under these procedures.  To receive consideration, an 
LPFM station must file promptly an application on Form 318 and include a Section 73.807 of the Rules 
waiver request and showing.  If the Media Bureau determines that the request falls within the scope of 
these procedures, it will issue an order to show cause172 to the potentially impacted full-service station(s) 
as to why the modification of such station license(s) to allow a second-adjacent channel short-spacing 
would not be in the public interest.  In the event that the Media Bureau concludes that the public interest 
would be better served by waiving Section 73.807 of the Rules, it will retain the LPFM stations 
application in pending status and issue an STA for the proposed LPFM station modifications.  STAs 
issued pursuant to these procedures will be subject to any action taken by the Commission in the Second 
Further Notice. The Commission will withhold final determination of the waiver request until action on 
the Second Further Notice proposals.  We encourage each encroaching full-service station to provide 
technical and financial assistance to any LPFM station which avails itself of these procedures.  We also 
direct the Media Bureau to include a condition, as appropriate, in the encroaching full-service stations 
construction permit requiring such station to provide technical assistance and assume financial 
responsibility for all direct expenses associated with resolving actual interference complaints, e.g., the 
purchase of radio filters, etc.  
c. LPFM Station Displacement
68. In certain circumstances no alternative channel will be available for an LPFM station at 
risk of displacement.  With regard to full-service modification applications filed after the release of this 
Order, we provide the following guidance on the standards that the Commission will use to determine 
whether grant of such applications are in the public interest.  Generally, the Commission will favor grant 
of the full-service station modification application.  However, we believe that it is appropriate to apply a 
presumption that the public interest would be better served by a waiver of the Commission Rule making 
LPFM stations secondary to subsequently authorized full-service stations and the dismissal of an 
encroaching community of license reallotment application when the threatened LPFM station can 
demonstrate that it has regularly provided at least eight hours per day of locally originated programming, 
as that term is defined for the LPFM service.173 This presumption will apply only when implementation of 
a community of license modification would result in the displacement of an LPFM station or result in such 
a significant increase in caused interference to the LPFM station such that continued operations are 
  
171 The Commission appears to be without authority to waive third-adjacent channel spacing requirements.  See 
2001 DC Appropriations Act.  There is a significant potential for interference from short-spaced co- and first-
adjacent channel LPFM station operations.  Accordingly, the waiver procedures set forth herein will not apply in 
these contexts.
172 See 47 U.S.C.  316.
173 See 47 C.F.R.  73.872(b)(3); see also infra at  24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
30
infeasible, i.e., when the LPFM transmitter site is located within the interfering contour174 of a co- or first-
adjacent channel community of license modification proposal.  This presumption will also be limited to 
those situations in which no suitable alternate channel is available for the LPFM station.175 This 
presumption will not apply where opportunities are available for the impacted LPFM station to alter 
operations in order to avoid conflict with a full-service station.  
69. Our evaluation of these competing demands for scarce spectrum will take into account 
the benefits of the move-in proposal under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, the amount of locally originated programming by the LPFM station, the extent to which other 
LPFM stations are licensed to and/or provide service to the area currently served by the threatened LPFM 
station, the extent to which other noncommercial educational (NCE) radio stations are providing locally 
originated programming to listeners in the LPFM stations service area, the number of LPFM stations at 
risk of displacement from the proposed community of license modification proposal, and any other public 
interest factors raised by the full-service and LPFM station applicants or other parties.  LPFM stations that 
wish to make a showing under this waiver standard must file an informal objection to the encroaching 
community of license modification application within sixty days of the Federal Register notice of such 
application filing.  Oppositions and replies may be filed in accordance with Section 1.45 of the Rules.  
This presumption is rebuttable and does not bind the Commission to a particular result.  We caution 
parties that even if the required showing is made, the Commission in the exercise of its discretion may 
conclude that denial of the full-service station application and grant of the waiver would not serve the 
public interest.
70. We intend to narrowly limit this policy to the class of LPFM stations that are 
demonstrably serving the needs of local listeners.  Moreover, this policy will not apply in a situation in 
which a full-service station proposes a facility change to improve service to its current community of 
license.  We emphasize that we will dismiss a community of license modification proposal only when no 
technically reasonably accommodation is available and the LPFM station makes the requisite waiver 
showing.  We conclude that this processing policy appropriately balances the interests of full-service and 
LPFM stations, and recognizes the role that each service plays in promoting diversity and localism.  The 
Commission is seeking comment on the presumption in the attached Second Further Notice and may 
modify it based on the comments received in response thereto.  
71. We believe that Section 73.807 of the Rules and LPFM displacement standards will 
effectively balance the interests of LPFM and full-service broadcasters while the Commission considers 
the Second Further Notice proposals. While REC has identified many LPFM stations that ultimately may 
be required to modify their facilities as a result of encroachment, we do not see this as a threat to the 
viability of the LPFM service, especially with the additional protections and procedures we adopt herein.  
RECs claim that many LPFM stations face interference merely describes a basic feature of the service in 
todays congested FM broadcast radio spectrum.  Opportunities exist for many LPFM stations to change 
locations, reduce power, or change channels, in the event that a conflict arises with a full-service station.  
Furthermore, the majority of the stations identified as less significant risks by REC solely exist today 
  
174 See 47 C.F.R.  73.215 and 73.509.
175 An alternate channel is suitable if the distance between the LPFM transmitter site and the protected 
authorization or application  satisfies the required distance separation minimums set forth in 47 C.F.R.  73.807. 
The spacing need not meet the co- and first-adjacent channel minimum separations for no interference received 
from maximum class facilities, as set forth in this Rule.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
31
because of the flexible nature of the spacing rules under Section 73.807 of the Rules.176 Section 73.807 
clearly identifies the distance separations necessary for LPFM stations to avoid received interference but 
does not require LPFM stations to meet this stringent standard.  This Rule fully protects nearby full-power 
FM stations while also allowing interference to LPFM stations in some instances.  Therefore, LPFM 
stations at distances less than those specified in Section 73.807 of the Rules in the column labeled for no 
interference received from max. class facility can expect to receive interference.177
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
72. Today, the Commission adopts a series of wide-ranging rule changes to strengthen and 
promote the long-term viability of the LPFM service, and the localism and diversity goals that this service 
is intended to advance.  We also recommend to Congress that it remove the requirement that LPFM 
stations protect full-power stations operating on third adjacent channels.  We intend to resolve the 
following issues within six months.  The next filing window for a non-tabled aural broadcast service will 
be for new LFPM stations.  We plan to open this window after the Commission has resolved the issues 
raised in this Second Further Notice, and has resolved other issues that could significantly impact the 
availability of future spectrum for LPFM applicants, including the disposal of substantially all of the 
applications filed in the recent NCE FM window.  
73. Based on numerous meetings with LPFM service proponents, filings, and presentations 
at various forums and hearings convened by the Commission over the past two years, we believe that it is 
appropriate to consider whether additional LPFM service and technical rule changes are warranted.  We 
seek comment on the several issues set forth below.
A. Section 73.807 Second-Adjacent Channel Waiver Standard
74. The Third Report and Order details an interim processing policy that the Commission 
will use to consider Section 73.807 of the Rules waiver requests from certain LPFM stations.  As set forth 
more fully therein, when implementation of a full-service station community of license modification 
would result in an increase in interference caused to the LPFM station or its displacement, the LPFM 
station may seek a second-adjacent channel short spacing waiver in connection with an application 
proposing operations on a new channel.  We seek comment generally on whether to codify the waiver and 
processing policies set forth in the Third Report and Order.  Would modifications to these policies better 
balance the interests of LPFM and full-service stations?  Should the procedures be narrowed to apply only 
when the LPFM station is subject to displacement pursuant to Section 73.809 of the Rules?  Should the 
Rules provide a deadline for the filing of the LPFM alternate channel application and waiver request and, 
if so, what should the deadline be?  Should waivers be limited to second-adjacent channel short-
spacings?178 Should waivers be granted only when the LPFM station can demonstrate no actual 
interference due to lack of population, terrain, or other factors, as we allow in the FM translator 
service?179 Should continued LPFM operations be subject to the resolution of all bona fide actual 
  
176 47 C.F.R.  73.807.    
177 See 47 C.F.R.  73.807(a)(1)-(2).  
178 Third-adjacent channel waiver short-spacings appear to be explicitly barred under the 2001 DC Appropriations 
Act. 
179 See 47 C.F.R.  74.1204(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
32
interference complaints?  Should the encroaching full-service station be responsible for providing 
technical assistance and assuming financial responsibility for all direct expenses associated with resolving 
all bona fide actual interference complaints, e.g., the purchase of radio filters, etc.?  Do the orders to show 
cause procedures fully protect impacted stations due process rights?  Would additional procedures help 
ensure that the Commission has a full record on which to evaluate waiver requests?  Should these 
procedures be expanded to include co- and first-adjacent channel situations?  Finally, we seek comment 
on whether rule changes are warranted to provide additional flexibility to propose LPFM station 
modifications.
B. LPFM Station Displacement
75. As detailed more fully in the Third Report and Order, the Commission is adopting a 
processing policy to evaluate on a going forward basis each community of license modification proposal 
that would result in the displacement of an LPFM station or stations.  We seek comment generally on 
whether the Commission should amend Section 73.809 of the Rules to establish a licensing presumption 
that would protect certain operating LPFM stations from subsequently proposed community of license 
modifications.  We also seek comment on each aspect of the current processing policy.  Specifically, 
should the presumption be limited to those LPFM stations that have regularly provided eight hours of 
locally originated programming daily?  What criteria should the Commission use to determine whether an 
LPFM station has regularly satisfied the eight-hour programming requirement?  Should the presumption 
be extended to protect LPFM stations against subsequently filed petitions for rulemaking for new FM 
allotments and/or modification applications not proposing community of license changes?  Finally, we 
seek comment on other approaches to resolve LPFM station displacement conflicts and the reasons why 
such alternative approaches would more appropriately balance the interests of these services.
C. Obligations of Full-Service New Station and Modification Applicants to Potentially 
Impacted LPFM Stations
76. Currently, a full-service station applicant has no obligation to assist an LPFM station 
potentially impacted by implementation of its new station or modification proposal.  We believe that this 
policy is inconsistent with the comity and respect to which LPFM stations are entitled and with certain 
reimbursement policies which the Commission has established for full-service stations which are 
involuntarily required to change channels.180 As proposed in part by the Station Resource Group,181 we 
tentatively conclude that an applicant for a new or modified station should be required to assume certain 
technical, financial, and notice obligations if implementation of the proposal could impact an LPFM 
station.  Specifically we tentatively conclude that in these circumstances, the full-service station should be 
required to provide notice of its application filing to the LPFM station.  As part of its application filing, 
the full-service station should be required to include the results of its search for an alternate LPFM 
channel.  It should also be required to cooperate in good faith with the LPFM station in developing the 
best technical approach, including a possible LPFM site relocation, to ameliorate the interference and/or 
displacement impact of its proposal.  In addition, the encroaching full-service station should be 
responsible for certain expenses relating to any LPFM station channel change and/or transmitter site 
  
180  See Circleville, OH, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC 2d 159 (1967); Harold A. Jahnke, 46 RR 2d 659 
(1979).
181 See Station Resource Group Reply Comments at 5. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
33
change necessitated by the full-service station proposal.  We tentatively conclude such expenses should be 
limited to the physical changes in the LPFM stations transmission system.  We seek comment on each of 
these tentative conclusions and on other measures to ensure the equitable treatment of LPFM stations.
77. We believe that these procedures should apply if the LPFM authorization was issued or a 
pending LPFM facility application was filed prior to the filing of a full-service station application for 
construction permit or license, including one that proposes a community of license modification.  We 
tentatively conclude that these procedures should be limited to those situations in which implementation 
of the full-service proposal would result in the full-service and LPFM stations operating at less than the 
minimum distance separations set forth in Section 73.807 of the Rules and could result in either an 
increase in interference caused to the LPFM station or the permanent displacement of the LPFM station.  
We seek comment on these proposed limitations on the scope and extent of these remedial procedures.
D. Contour Protection-Based Licensing Standards for LPFM Stations
78. An LPFM new station or modification application must protect all existing stations and 
prior filed applications on the basis of distance separations set forth in Section 73.807 of the Rules.182  
This methodology, used in connection with virtually all FM non-reserved band full-service station 
licensing, provides a straight-forward standard for determining technical acceptability.  As a result of this 
methodologys simplicity, the Commission was able to provide an on-line channel finder utility prior to 
the first series of LPFM filing windows.  This tool enabled unsophisticated potential applicants to identify 
without expense available FM spectrum in their local communities.
79. Prometheus and other LPFM advocates argue that the Commission should adopt a more 
flexible contour methodology for the licensing of LPFM stations.183 Although full-service NCE FM 
stations are licensed pursuant to a contour methodology,184 it appears that these parties are urging the 
Commission to permit LPFM station licensing pursuant to the FM translator protection rule, Section 
74.1204 of the Rules.  As demonstrated by the filing of over 13,000 applications in the 2003 window for 
new non-reserved band FM translator construction permits, adoption of this standard would vastly expand 
LPFM licensing opportunities throughout the nation and create the possibility of locating new LPFM 
stations in a number of major and spectrum-congested markets. 
80. The flexibility of FM translator licensing is based on four key factors.  Translators, like 
LPFM stations, may only operate with limited power.  This necessarily limits distances from the proposed 
stations transmitter site to its co- and adjacent-channel interfering contours.  Secondly, a protection 
methodology based on contours is, itself, a more flexible licensing approach.  Although contour and 
distance separation requirements are derived from common principles, the contour methodology requires 
applicants to protect actual  rather than class maximum  facilities.  Thus, modifying our Rules to permit 
LPFM applicants to engineer in new proposals on the basis of contour protection standards would result 
in new licensing opportunities.
81. The two other factors are closely tied to the fact that FM translators are licensed on a 
secondary basis.  As a secondary service, translators are licensed without regard to the extent of received 
  
182 47 C.F.R.  73.807.
183 See, e.g., Prometheus Radio Project Letter to Chairman Kevin Martin (Nov. 13, 2007). 
184 47 C.F.R.  73.509.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
34
interference they would receive.185 LPFM stations also receive the benefit of this flexibility.186 The 
fourth factor is the Section 74.1204(d) exception to the Section 74.1204(a) of the Rules contour 
methodology.  Under paragraph (d) of that section, the general FM translator contour overlap provisions 
will not apply if it can be demonstrated that no actual interference will occur due to intervening terrain, 
lack of population or such other factors as may be applicable.187 For many years, the Commission has 
permitted FM translator applications to use the D/U signal strength ratio methodology to establish the area 
of predicted interference and to demonstrate the lack of population within this area to satisfy the 
requirements under Section 74.1204(d) of the Rules.188
82. However, the FM translator technical rules include a second and essential requirement:  
the inflexible obligation to resolve all bona fide actual interference complaints pursuant to Section 
74.1203(a) of the Rules.  A translator station that cannot resolve all complaints must suspend 
operations.189 The two Rules operate in tandem.  The flexibility of Section 74.1204(d) of the Rules is 
backstopped by the permanent Section 74.1203(a) secondary service obligation to resolve actual 
interference complaints.
83. We tentatively conclude that the licensing of LPFM stations pursuant to the standards of 
Section 74.1204 of the Rules or some other contour-based methodology is in the public interest.  We 
tentatively conclude that an LPFM station licensed under this standard would be required to resolve all 
actual interference complaints or cease operations.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  We 
also tentatively conclude not to allow the use of alternative propagation methodologies, such as Longley 
Rice, to show lack of interference.  These showings impose enormous staff processing burdens and are 
typically subject to opposition.  Additionally, as demonstrated by the significant number of FM translator 
proposals submitted in the 2003 filing window, we believe that permitting D/U ratio showings to establish 
lack of population subject to interference provides ample licensing flexibility.  We seek comment 
specifically on whether it is appropriate to license LPFM stations to community groups, which often have 
limited resources and technical expertise, under a standard that subjects such stations to the constant risk 
of being forced off the air if they cannot resolve interference complaints promptly.  We also seek 
comment on whether it is appropriate to adopt an LPFM technical licensing regime that would require the 
use of consulting engineers.  We tentatively conclude that Section 73.807 of the Rules should be retained 
if a contour rule is adopted in this proceeding.  Stations holding licenses issued pursuant to the current 
Rule would not be required to resolve actual interference complaints except in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 73.809 of the Rules.  We seek comment on this approach which would provide 
differing levels of protection to operating LPFM stations based on each stations choice of technical 
processing standards.  
  
185 NCE FM Class D stations, which operate on a secondary basis, are also licensed without regard to the extent of 
interference that the proposed facilities would receive.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.512(d). 
186 The magnitude of received interference LPFM licensing flexibility with regard to authorized FM stations is 
the difference between the separations set forth in the rule for no interference received from maximum class 
facility and the lesser required separation.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.807(a). 
187 47 C.F.R.  74.1204(d) (emphasis added). 
188 See Living Way Ministries, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 17054, 17055-60 (2002) petitions 
for recon. pending.
189 47 C.F.R.  73.1203(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
35
E. LPFM  FM Translator Protection Priorities  
84. The Third Report and Order does not reach a conclusion on the co-equal status 
between LPFM stations and FM translator stations.  Under the Rules for these services, a first-filed LPFM 
or FM translator application must be protected by all subsequently filed LPFM and FM translator 
applications.  Localism, diversity and competition remain our key radio broadcasting goals.  We find that 
it would be useful to develop a better record on whether and how these goals would be advanced by 
altering the priorities between these two services. We seek comment on this issue.  In particular, we seek 
comment on whether we should distinguish between translators that are fed by satellite and those that 
received and retransmit programming delivered terrestrially.  We also seek comment on the extent to 
which providing priority to LFPM stations could impact established listening patterns or disrupt 
established translator signal delivery systems that NCE broadcasters rely on extensively to disseminate 
programming.  We also seek comment on the Prometheus proposal to limit the number of translator 
stations that would have priority over subsequently applied for LPFM facilities.190  Prometheus proposes 
to limit priority status to 25 translator stations for each originating station but would not consider full 
power repeaters as originating stations.  We seek comment both on this proposed cap and Prometheus 
proposed definition of originating station, for the purpose of applying this cap. We also seek comment 
on whether such an approach is administratively feasible given the fact that an FM translator may without 
prior consent or notice to the Commission change its primary station.
V. CONCLUSION
85. The rules and policies adopted herein will promote the continued operation and 
expansion of LPFM service.  Our actions today further the public interest and ensure that we maximize 
the value of LPFM service without harming the interests of full-power FM stations or other Commission 
licensees. To further these goals, we also recommend to Congress that it remove the requirement that 
LPFM stations protect full-power stations operating on third adjacent channels.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. Filing Requirements
86. Ex Parte Rules.  The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding 
will be treated as a permit-but-disclose subject to the permit-but-disclose requirements under Section 
1.1206(b) of the Rules.191  Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with 
Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, 
are generally prohibited.  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum 
summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a 
listing of the subjects discussed.  More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented is generally required.192 Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations 
are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).
  
190 See November 13, 2007, Prometheus Radio Project Letter to Chairman Kevin Martin at unnumbered page 2.
191 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b), as revised.  
192 See id.  1.1206(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
36
87. Comments and Reply Comments.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Rules, 47 
CFR  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using:  (1) the Commissions 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Governments eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by 
filing paper copies.193  
 Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for 
submitting comments.  
 For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable 
docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, 
and include the following words in the body of the message, get form.  A sample form 
and directions will be sent in response.
 Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).  All filings must be addressed to the Commissions 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
 The Commissions contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commissions Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, 
Washington, DC  20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All 
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building.
 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
 U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
  
193 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
37
88. Availability of Documents.  Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will 
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., CY-A257, Washington, D.C., 20554.  Persons with 
disabilities who need assistance in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0267 
(voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY), or bill.cline@fcc.gov.  These documents also will be available from the 
Commissions Electronic Comment Filing System.  Documents are available electronically in ASCII, 
Word 97, and Adobe Acrobat.  Copies of filings in this proceeding may be obtained from Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C., 20554; they can also 
be reached by telephone, at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160; by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com; or via 
their website at http://www.bcpiweb.com.  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
89. Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 
as amended (RFA),194 requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment 
rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.195 The RFA generally defines the 
term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and 
small governmental jurisdiction.196 In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the 
term small business concern under the Small Business Act.197 A small business concern is one which: 
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies 
any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).198 By the issuance of 
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the impact our suggested 
proposals would have on small business entities.  The complete initial regulatory flexibility analysis is 
attached as Appendix C.
90. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,199 the Commission has prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Third Report and Order.  The FRFA is set forth 
in Appendix D.
  
194 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601  612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
195 5 U.S.C.  605(b).
196 Id.  601(6).
197 Id.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small business concern in the Small Business Act, 
15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.
198 15 U.S.C.  632.
199 See 5 U.S.C.  604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
38
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
91. This Third Report and Order contains new and modified information collection 
requirements which were proposed in the FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 6763 (2005), 70 FR 39217 (July 7, 2005), 
and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).200  
92. We have assessed the effects of requiring documentation in relation to: (1) the proposed 
changes to Forms 314, 315 and 316 for the transfer and/or assignment of LPFM licenses;201 and (2) the 
proposed changes to Form 318 for the relocation of transmitter sites for voluntary time-share applicants.202
We find that to the extent that this Third Report and Order imposes any burdens on small entities, the 
resulting impact on small entities is favorable because the rules expand opportunities for LPFM 
applicants, permittees, and licensees to transfer and assign licenses, relocate transmitter sites, and extend
construction deadlines. These information collection requirements were submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.  In addition, the general 
public and other Federal agencies were invited to comment on these information collection requirements 
in the NPRM.203  We further note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,204 we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.  We received no comments 
concerning these information collection requirements.  On August 25 and 30, 2005, the Commission 
obtained OMB approval for these information collection requirements, encompassed by OMB Control 
Nos. 3060-0031 (Forms 314-315), 3060-0009 (Form 316) and 3060-0920 (Form 318).  This Third Report 
and Order adopts portions of the above information collection requirements, as proposed. Additional 
changes are necessary to Forms 314, 315, 316 and 318, and will be submitted to OMB for approval.
93. This document also contains additional proposed information collection requirements for 
which we have not yet assessed the effect.  In this Third Report and Order, we require documentation in 
relation to: (1) an optional 18-month extension of a construction permit upon a showing of good cause; (2) 
the voluntary withdrawal of Form 349 tech box proposals in order to come into compliance with the cap 
of 10 proposals; (3) the voluntary filing of a request, on Form 318, for waiver of Section 73.807 of the 
Rules for a second-adjacent short-spacing to an LPFM station at risk of displacement by a full-service 
station; and (4) the voluntary filing of waiver of the Commission Rule making LPFM stations secondary 
to subsequently authorized full-service stations, where an LPFM station at risk of displacement by a full-
service station can demonstrate that it provides at least eight hours a day of locally originated 
programming and that no suitable alternate channel is available. As discussed above, additional changes 
are necessary to Forms 314, 315, 316 and 318, and will be submitted to OMB for approval.  In addition, 
the Second Further Notice may require a full-service station to provide: (1) notice of its application filing 
to any LPFM station potentially impacted by its proposal, and (2) the results of its search for an alternate 
  
200 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of 
Title 44 U.S.C.).
201 See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, 70 FR 39217, 39218 (2005).
202 See id. 
203 NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 6763; 70 FR 39217 (July 7, 2005).
204 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) 
(codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C.  3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
39
LPFM channel to the Commission in its application filing, which may require changes to Forms 301 and 
302.  The Second Further Notice also: (3) proposes codification of the waiver requests proposed in the 
Third Report and Order, which would require a change to Form 318, and (4) proposes adoption of a 
contour methodology showing by LPFM applicants who wish to use this standard, which would require
a change to Form 318.  The new information collection requirements will be submitted to OMB for review 
under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.
D. Congressional Review Act
94. The Commission will send a copy of this Third Report and Order and Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
E. Additional Information
95. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Peter Doyle, Audio 
Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2700, or Holly Saurer, Policy Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-
7283.
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
96. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 403 
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C  151, 152, 154(i), 303,, 403, and 405, this Third 
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 303, 303(a), 303(b), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i), 303, 
303(a), 303(b), and 307, the Commissions Rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B.
It is our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any 
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent 
permitted by law.
98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rules as revised in Appendix B SHALL BE 
EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication of the Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register.  Changes to FCC Forms 314, 315, 316 and 318 will be 
effective 60 days after Federal Register publication of OMB approval of the forms. With respect to 
renewal applications, we will evaluate compliance with these requirements in applications filed in the next 
renewal cycle.  Licensee performance during any portion of the renewal term that predates the effective 
date of the rules in the Third Report and Order will be evaluated under current rules, and licensee 
performance that post-dates the effective date of the revised rules will be judged under the new provisions.
99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.201-.204 of the Commissions 
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.201-.204, and Section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C.  155(c)(1), the Chief, Media Bureau, IS DELEGATED AUTHORITY to act as described in 
paragraphs 40, 56, 62 and 67 herein.
100. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Amherst 
Alliance, Talk Radio of Pahrump, Midwest Christian Media, Providence Community Radio, and 
Nickolaus E. Leggett N3NL IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
40
101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissions Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
102. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Third 
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress 
and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.  
801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
41
APPENDIX A
List of Commenters and Reply Commenters
Abundant Family Life Center
Allen England
Amherst Alliance
Arn Stolp
Auburn Chinese Ministry Association
Beth Wolfe
Big Bend Broadcasting
Bob Gardner
Brent Newland
Brett Reese
Bruce Quinn
Charles Cookson
Christian Community Broadcasters
Colquitt Community Radio, Inc.
Columbus Community Radio (WHUM-LP)
Cox Radio, Inc.
Crisis Pregnancy Help Center of Slidell, Inc.
Cromwell Radio Group and Affiliates
Dale Hardman
Dane Scott Udenberg
Daniel Brown
David A. Gowler
DuBois Area Broadcasting, Inc.
Eastern Sierra Broadcasting
Edgewater Broadcasting/Radio Assist Ministry
Educational Information Corporation (WCPE)
Educational Media Foundation
Edward Schober
Elizabeth Currans
Eric Howland
Erik Anderson
Eureka College
Fisher Radio Regional Group
Galaxy Communications/Desert West Air Ranchers
Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting Companies
Highland Community Broadcasting (Harold Kozlowski)
Hugh Cushing
Jason Ander
Jason Turgeon
Joseph DAlessandro
JT Communications
Kaskaskia Broadcasting, Inc.
Kevin M. Fitzgerald
KL Ward
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
42
KVLP-LP Visalia Local Power
Kyle Magrill
KYRS-LP
KZQX-LP
Limestone Community Radio
Mark Snow
Martin L. Hensley
Matthew Lasar
MBC Grand Broadcasting, Inc.
Meagen Grundberg
Michigan Music is World Class!, et al.
Midwest Christian Media
Mountain Area Information Network
Named State Broadcasters Associations
National Association of Broadcasters
National Public Radio
National Translator Association
New Jersey Broadcasters Association
New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority 
Nickolaus Leggett
NRC Broadcasting, Inc.
Optima Enrichment, Inc.
Pacifica Foundation
Paul Griffin
Paul McCarthy
Point Broadcasting Company, et al.
Press Communications, LLC
Progressive Broadcasting System/Christian Friends
Prometheus Radio Project, et al.
Public Radio FM Translator Licensees
Public Radio Regional Organizations
Radio Training Network, Inc.
REC Networks
RGS Communications, Inc.
Richard VanZandt
Richard Whitmore
Rick Vogel
Rocky Mountain Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sacred Heart University
Sadie Vela
Saga Communications, Inc.
Samuel Reese
Simmons Stations of North Dakota
Station Resource Group
Summit Media Broadcasting, LLC
Taylor University Broadcasting, Inc.
Ted M. Coopman
Temple University Public Radio
The Colleges of the Seneca
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
43
The Walt Disney Company
Thomas C. Smith
University of Southern California
Virden Broadcasting Corp.
Virginia Center for Public Press
WAY-FM Media Group
West Michigan Community Help Network
Western North Carolina Public Radio, Inc.
Wil Hadley
WFCR Amherst, MA
WRBG-LP
WSLR-LP
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
44
APPENDIX B
Part 73 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  
PART 73  RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1.   The citation authority for part 73 to read as follows: 
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.  
1.  Section 73.809 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
 73.809 Interference protection to full service FM stations.
(a) If a full service commercial or NCE FM facility application is filed subsequent to the filing of an 
LPFM station facility application, such full service station is protected against any condition of 
interference to the direct reception of its signal caused by such LPFM station that operates on the same 
channel, first-adjacent channel or intermediate frequency (IF) channel as or to such full service station, 
provided that the interference is predicted to occur and actually occurs within:
(1) The 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such full service station;
(2) The community of license of such full service station; or
(3) Any area of the community of license of such full service station that is predicted to receive at least a 
1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal. Predicted interference shall be calculated in accordance with the ratios set forth 
in  73.215(a)(1) and 73.215(a)(2). Intermediate Frequency (IF) channel interference overlap will be 
determined based upon overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50) contours of the FM and LPFM stations. Actual 
interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the 
signal radiated by the LPFM station.
(b) An LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate in connection with the processing of 
the commercial or NCE FM application that interference as described in paragraph (a) of this section is 
unlikely. If the LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it will be required to cease operations upon the 
commencement of program tests by the commercial or NCE FM station.
3. Section 73.853 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 
 73.853 Licensing requirements and service.
* * * * * 
(b) Only local applicants will be permitted to submit applications.  For the purposes of this 
paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local if it can certify that:
(1) The applicant, its local chapter or branch is physically headquartered or has a campus within 
16.1 km (10 miles) of the proposed site for the transmitting antenna for applicants in the top 50 urban 
markets, and 32.1 km (20 miles) for applicants outside of the top 50 urban markets;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
45
(2) It has 75% of its board members residing within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the proposed site for 
the transmitting antenna for applicants in the top 50 urban markets, and 32.1 km (20 miles) for applicants 
outside of the top 50 urban markets; or
(3) In the case of any applicant proposing a public safety radio service, the applicant has 
jurisdiction within the service area of the proposed LPFM station.
4.  Section 73.855 is revised to read as follows: 
 73.855 Ownership limits. 
(a) No authorization for an LPFM station shall be granted to any party if the grant of that 
authorization will result in any such party holding an attributable interest in two or more LPFM stations. 
(b) Not-for-profit organizations and governmental entities with a public safety purpose may be 
granted multiple licenses if: 
(1) One of the multiple applications is submitted as a priority application; and 
(2) the remaining non-priority applications do not face a mutually exclusive challenge.
5.  Section 73.865 is amended by revising section (a) and adding sections (c), (d) and (e) to read as 
follows: 
 73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM licenses.
(a) Assignment/Transfer: No party may assign or transfer an LPFM license if: 
(1) Consideration promised or received exceeds the depreciated fair market value of the physical 
equipment and facilities; and/or
(2) The transferee or assignee is incapable of satisfying all eligibility criteria that apply to a LPFM 
licensee.
(b) A change in the name of an LPFM licensee where no change in ownership or control is involved 
may be accomplished by written notification by the licensee to the Commission.
(c) Holding Period:   A license cannot be transferred or assigned for three years from the date of 
issue, and the licensee must operate the station during the three year holding period.  
(d) No party may assign or transfer an LPFM construction permit at any time.
(e) Transfers of control involving a sudden change of more than 50 percent of an LPFMs governing 
board shall not be deemed a substantial change in ownership or control, subject to the filing of an FCC 
Form 316.
 
6.  Section 73.870 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast station applications.
(a) A minor change for an LP100 station authorized under this subpart is limited to transmitter site 
relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less. A minor change for an LP10 station authorized under this subpart is 
limited to transmitter site relocations of 3.2 kilometers or less. These distance limitations do not apply to 
amendments or applications proposing transmitter site relocation to a common location filed by 
applicants that are parties to a voluntary time-sharing agreement with regard to their stations pursuant to 
Sections 73.872(c) and (e). Minor changes of LPFM stations may include:  
(1) changes in frequency to adjacent or IF frequencies or, upon a technical showing of reduced 
interference, to any frequency; and 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
46
(2)  amendments to time-sharing agreements, including universal agreements that supersede 
involuntary arrangements.  
* * * * * 
(f)  New entrants seeking to apply for unused or unwanted time on a time-sharing frequency will 
only be accepted during an open filing window, specified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 
7. Section 73.871 is amended by revising paragraph (c) as follows: 
73.871 Amendment of LPFM broadcast station applications.
* * * * * 
(c) Only minor amendments to new and major change applications will be accepted after the close of 
the pertinent filing window. Subject to the provisions of this section, such amendments may be filed as a 
matter of right by the date specified in the FCC's Public Notice announcing the acceptance of such 
applications. For the purposes of this section, minor amendments are limited to:
(1) Filings subject to subsection (c)(5), site relocations of 3.2 kilometers or less for LP10 stations;
(2) Filings subject to subsection (c)(5), site relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less for LP100 stations 
(3) Changes in ownership where the original party or parties to an application retain more than a 50   
percent ownership interest in the application as originally filed; 
(4) Universal voluntary time-sharing agreements to apportion vacant time among the licensees; 
 (5) Other changes in general and/or legal information; and
 (6) Filings proposing transmitter site relocation to a common location submitted by applicants that 
are parties to a voluntary time-sharing agreement with regard to their stations pursuant to Sections
73.872(c) and (e). 
8. Section 73.872 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: 
 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually exclusive LPFM applications.
* * * * * 
(c) Voluntary time-sharing. If mutually exclusive applications have the same point total, any two or 
more of the tied applicants may propose to share use of the frequency by submitting, within 90 days of 
the release of a public notice announcing the tie, a time-share proposal. Such proposals shall be treated as 
minor amendments to the time-share proponents' applications, and shall become part of the terms of the 
station authorization. Where such proposals include all of the tied applications, all of the tied 
applications will be treated as tentative selectees; otherwise, time-share proponents' points will be 
aggregated to determine the tentative selectees.
(1) Time-share proposals shall be in writing and signed by each time-share proponent, and shall 
satisfy the following requirements:
(i) The proposal must specify the proposed hours of operation of each time-share proponent;
(ii) The proposal must not include simultaneous operation of the time-share proponents; and     
(iii) Each time-share proponent must propose to operate for at least 10 hours per week.
(2) Where a station is authorized pursuant to a time-sharing proposal, a change of the regular 
schedule set forth therein will be permitted only where a written agreement signed by each time-sharing 
permittee or licensee and complying with requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section 
is filed with the Commission, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, prior to the date of the change.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
47
(3) Where a station is authorized pursuant to a voluntary time-sharing proposal, the parties to the 
time-sharing agreement may apportion among themselves any air time that, for any reason, becomes 
vacant.  
(4) Successive license terms granted under subsection (d) may be converted into voluntary time-
sharing arrangements renewable pursuant to Section 73.3539 by submitting a universal time-sharing 
proposal.  
(d) Successive license terms.  
(1) If a tie among mutually exclusive applications is not resolved through voluntary time-sharing in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the tied applications will be reviewed for acceptability and 
applicants with tied, grantable applications will be eligible for equal, successive, non-renewable license 
terms of no less than one year each for a total combined term of eight years, in accordance with  73.873. 
Eligible applications will be granted simultaneously, and the sequence of the applicants' license terms 
will be determined by the sequence in which they file applications for licenses to cover their construction 
permits based on the day of filing, except that eligible applicants proposing same-site facilities will be 
required, within 30 days of written notification by the Commission staff, to submit a written settlement 
agreement as to construction and license term sequence. Failure to submit such an agreement will result 
in the dismissal of the applications proposing same-site facilities and the grant of the remaining, eligible 
applications.
* * * * * 
3) If successive license terms granted under this subsection are converted into universal voluntary time-
sharing arrangements pursuant to section (c)(4), the permit or license is renewable pursuant to sections 
73.801 and 73.3539.         
* * * * * 
(e) Mutually exclusive applicants may propose a settlement at any time during the selection process 
after the release of a public notice announcing the mutually exclusive groups. Settlement proposals must 
include all of the applicants in a group and must comply with the Commission's rules and policies 
regarding settlements, including the requirements of Sections73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589. Settlement 
proposals may include time-share agreements that comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this 
section, provided that such agreements may not be filed for the purpose of point aggregation outside of 
the 90 day period set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.  
8.  Section 73.3598 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 
 73.3598 Period of Construction.
(a) Each original construction permit for the construction of a new TV, AM, FM or International 
Broadcast; low power TV; TV translator; TV booster; FM translator; FM booster station; or to make 
changes in such existing stations, shall specify a period of three years from the date of issuance of the 
original construction permit within which construction shall be completed and application for license 
filed. Each original construction permit for the construction of a new LPFM station shall specify a period 
of eighteen months from the date of issuance of the construction permit within which construction shall 
be completed and application for license filed. A LPFM permittee unable to complete construction within 
the time frame specified in the original construction permit may apply for an eighteen month extension 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
48
upon a showing of good cause. The LPFM permittee must file for an extension on or before the 
expiration of the construction deadline specified in the original construction permit.
* * * * * 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
49
APPENDIX C
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,1 the Commission has 
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the Second Further Notice provided in paragraph 87. The Commission will send a copy of this entire 
Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Second Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.3
A. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.  
The Second Further Notice has been initiated to obtain comments concerning proposed low power FM 
(LPFM) service and technical rule changes to address the potential interference to, or displacement of, 
certain LPFM stations caused by subsequently implemented full-service station community of license 
modifications.  Specifically the Second Further Notice recommends that Congress remove the 
requirement that LPFM stations protect full service stations operating on third-adjacent channels.  It 
seeks comment on whether to modify the LPFM technical rules to codify the second-adjacent channel 
waiver and displacement policies adopted in the Third Report and Order. It also tentatively concludes 
that when implementation of a full-service station facility proposal would impact an LPFM station, the 
full-service station would be required to provide the LPFM station notice of its application filing, provide 
technical assistance in identifying alternative channels, and reimbursement for any resulting LPFM 
facility modifications.  
The Second Further Notice tentatively concludes that the LPFM technical rules should be modified to 
permit the licensing of LPFM stations by using a contour, as opposed to a distance separation, 
methodology in order to expand LPFM station licensing opportunities.  It also tentatively concludes that 
the Commission should retain as an alternate licensing scheme the current LPFM distance separation rule 
in the event that a contour rule is adopted.  
Finally, the Second Further Notice seeks additional comment on the issue whether the Commission 
should retain the current co-equal status between the LPFM and FM translator services.
he Commission believes that adoption of these proposed rule changes will strengthen and 
promote the long-term viability of the LPFM service, and the localism and diversity goals that this 
service is intended to advance by streamlining and clarifying the process by which LPFM stations can 
resolve potential interference issues with full-power stations.  
  
1 See 5 U.S.C.  603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
3 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
50
B. Legal Basis.  
The authority for this Second Further Notice is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 403 and 405 
of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C  151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 403. 
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply.
The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules.4  The RFA generally defines the 
term "small entity" as encompassing the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small 
governmental entity."5  In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small 
business concern under the Small Business Act.6 A small business concern is one which:  (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").7
LPFM Radio Stations.  The proposed Rules and policies potentially will apply to all low power 
FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station 
that has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.8 A radio broadcasting station is an 
establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.9 Included in this 
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations.10 Radio broadcasting stations 
which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are 
similarly included.11 As of the date of release of this Second Further Notice, the Commissions records 
indicate that more than 1,286 LPFM construction permits have been granted.  Of those permits, 
approximately 809 stations are on the air, serving mostly mid-sized and smaller markets.  It is not known 
how many entities ultimately may seek to obtain low power radio licenses.  Nor do we know how many 
of these entities will be small entities.  We expect, however, that due to the small size of low power FM 
stations, small entities would generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.   
  
4 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3).
5 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
6 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small business concern in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies unless 
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.
7 15 U.S.C.  632.  
8 See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS Code 515112.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
51
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements.  
None.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered.  
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather 
than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.12  
In this Second Further Notice, the Commission (1) recommends that Congress remove the 
requirement that LPFM stations protect full service stations operating on third-adjacent channels; (2)
seeks comment on whether to modify the LPFM technical rules to codify the second-adjacent channel 
waiver and displacement policies adopted in the Third Report and Order; (3) tentatively concludes that 
when implementation of a full-service station facility proposal would impact an LPFM station, the full-
service station would be required to provide the LPFM station notice of its application filing, provide 
technical assistance in identifying alternative channels, and reimbursement for any resulting LPFM 
facility modifications; (4) tentatively concludes that the LPFM technical rules should be modified to 
permit the licensing of LPFM stations by using a contour, as opposed to a distance separation, 
methodology in order to expand LPFM station licensing opportunities, and (5) tentatively concludes that 
the Commission should retain as an alternate licensing scheme the current LPFM distance separation rule 
in the event that a contour rule is adopted.  
In light of changed circumstances13 since the Commission last considered the issue of protection 
rights for LPFM stations from subsequently authorized full-service stations, the Commission found it 
necessary to consider these rule changes to avoid the potential loss of LPFM stations.  The Commission 
considered maintaining the status quo, but rejected this idea because it would create an inappropriate 
burden on LPFM stations by allowing the issue of interference caused by encroaching full-service 
stations to go unresolved.  By contrast, the Second Further Notice proposes a codified approach to 
resolving interference issues with encroaching full-service stations, which will, in turn, allow more 
LPFM stations to remain on-the-air.
LPFM service has created and will continue to create significant opportunities for new small 
businesses by allowing small businesses to develop LPFM service in their communities. In addition, the 
Commission generally has taken steps to minimize the impact on existing small broadcasters.  To the 
  
12 5 U.S.C.  603(b).
13 Specifically, the January 2007 lifting of the freeze on the filing of FM community of license modification 
proposals combined with the implementation of new streamlined licensing procedures resulted in a one-time flurry 
of filing activity, with approximately 100 FM community of license modification proposals submitted in the first 
week of the new Rules.  In all, over 200 community of license modification applications have been filed under the 
new Rules.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
52
extent that the Second Further Notice imposes any burdens on small entities, these burdens are only 
incidental to the benefits conferred by the creation of a set of Rules that would allow LPFM stations to 
resolve potential interference and/or displacement conflicts with encroaching full-service FM stations by 
making the requisite showings under the proposed Rules.
F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commissions 
Proposals. 
None.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
53
APPENDIX D
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making in this proceeding.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need For, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order.  
The policies and rules set forth herein are required to ensure that the Commission advances the 
goal of maximizing the value of LPFM service without harming the interests of full-power FM stations or 
other Commission licensees.  In this Third Report and Order, the Commission (1) eases the paperwork 
burdens on LPFM licensees, by clarifying that transfers of control involving a sudden change of more 
than 50 percent of an LPFM licensees governing board shall not be deemed a substantial change in 
ownership and control, as LPFM boards can be subject to substantial turnover; (2) allows for the 
transfer and assignment of LPFM stations subject to certain conditions, such as: a cap on the sale price to 
the depreciated fair market value of the physical assets of the facility; (3) the imposition of a three year 
holding period during which the initial licensee must operate the station, a requirement that the assignee 
or transferee of an LPFM license is required to satisfy the ownership and eligibility criteria existing at 
the time of the assignment or transfer, and a prohibition on the assignment or transfer of construction 
permits; (4) reinstates the LPFM local ownership eligibility restriction;4 (5) allows an 18 month 
extension for good cause of the LPFM construction period; and (6) provides for additional technical 
amendments, such as allowing time-sharing applications to seek authority to place their transmitter at a 
central location, limiting the processing of applications submitted during the Auction No. 83 filing 
window to ten proposals per applicant,5 amending the Rules to limit Section 73.809 interference 
procedures to situations involving co- and first-adjacent channel interference, and a procedural 
framework for the consideration of showings from LPFM stations that may seek waivers of Section 
73.807 of the Rules to avoid displacement, as well as to avoid unnecessary disruption of LPFM service to 
the public.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the 
IRFA.  
None.
  
1See 5 U.S.C.  603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6790.
3 See 5 U.S.C.  604.
4 See Third Report and Order at para. 23.
5 Id. at paras. 56-57.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
54
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Adopted 
Rules Will Apply.
The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.6  The RFA generally defines 
the term "small entity" as encompassing the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small 
governmental entity."7  In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small 
business concern under the Small Business Act.8 A small business concern is one which:  (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").9
LPFM Radio Stations.  The proposed rules and policies potentially will apply to all low power 
FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station 
that has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.10 A radio broadcasting station is an 
establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.11 I ncluded in this 
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations.12 Radio broadcasting stations 
which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are 
similarly included.13 As of the date of release of this Third Report and Order, the Commissions records 
indicate that more than 1,225 LPFM construction permits have been granted. Of those permits, 
approximately 820 stations are on the air, serving mostly mid-sized and smaller markets.  It is not known 
how many entities ultimately may seek to obtain low power radio licenses.  Nor do we know how many 
of these entities will be small entities.  We expect, however, that due to the small size of low power FM 
stations, small entities would generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.   
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements. 
The rules adopted in this Third Report and Order will impose different reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements on existing LPFM stations. First, the clarification that transfers of control 
involving a sudden change of more than 50 percent of an LPFM licensees governing board shall not be 
  
6 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3).
7 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
8 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small business concern in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies unless 
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.
9 15 U.S.C.  632.  
10 See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS Code 515112.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
55
deemed a substantial change in ownership and control, will ease paperwork burdens upon licensees.  
The Third Order will also involve additional paperwork burdens.  First, as this Third Order will allow 
for the transfer and assignment of LPFM licenses, the Commission will require the collection of 
information necessary for the purposes of processing such applications.14 Second, this Third Order 
clarifies the renewal process for time-sharing entities, and the process for the administration of such 
applications.  Third, Auction 83 applicants that filed more than 10 applications must select the ten 
applications they wish to preserve, versus those that will be automatically dismissed, after the Media 
Bureau issues a Public Notice on this subject. There is no disproportionate impact on small entities as 
these additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements since these requirements are imposed equally 
on large and small entities.  
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather 
than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.15  
Consideration of alternatives methods to reduce the impact on small entities is unnecessary.  The 
Third Report and Order decreases existing burdens on small entities and increases their flexibility.  .  
First, the clarification that transfers of control involving a sudden change of more than 50 percent of an 
LPFM licensees governing board shall not be deemed a substantial change in ownership and control, 
will ease paperwork burdens upon LPFM station, many of which are small entities.  Further, the changes 
in the ownership rules will allow greater flexibility for LFPM licensees.  Finally, the changes in the 
technical rules will allow more small entity LPFM stations to exist.  In addition, the Third Report and 
Order does not impose different burdens on large and small entities. The record keeping requirements
will help facilitate the transfer and assignment of licenses and clarifies the renewal process for time-
sharing entities, including the administration of such applications. 
LPFM service has created and will continue to create significant opportunities for new small 
businesses by allowing small businesses to develop LPFM service in their communities. In addition, the 
Commission generally has taken steps to minimize any burdensome regulation on existing small 
broadcasters.  To the extent that the Third Report and Order imposes any burdens on small entities, these 
burdens are only incident to the benefits conferred: greater flexibility of LPFM stations in transferring, 
assigning and renewing LPFM stations.
  
14 See FCC Forms 314, 315 and 316, available at http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html.
15 5 U.S.C.  603(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
56
F. Report to Congress. 
The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a 
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.16 In addition, the Commission 
will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA.  A copy of the Third Report and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.17  
  
16 See 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
17 See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
57
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re:  In the Matter of Creation of A Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order And Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Low Power FM provides a lower cost opportunity for additional new voices to get into the local radio 
market.  Todays item facilitates LPFM stations access to limited radio spectrum by significantly 
reforming our LPFM rules.
In order to ensure that the American people have the benefit of a competitive and diverse media 
marketplace that serves their local communities, we need to create more opportunities for different, new 
and independent voices to be heard.  We need to address the concern that there are too few local outlets 
available to minorities and new entrants. 
The limited number of channels in the radio spectrum bands and the high start-up cost of building a 
station are significant barriers to entry in broadcasting.  It can be very difficult for anyonein particular 
a new voiceto find an available channel and gather enough capital to build a new broadcast station. 
Today the Commission takes several important steps to improve our Low Power FM rules to better 
promote entry and ensure local responsiveness without harming the interests of full-power FM stations or 
other Commission licensees.  To preserve opportunities for new LPFM stations, the Order restricts the 
number of FM translator applications we will grant from the 2003 window.  In addition, the Order 
streamlines and clarifies the process by which LPFM stations can resolve potential interference issues 
with full-power stations.  The Order also establishes a going-forward processing policy to help those 
LPFMs that have regularly provided eight hours of locally originated programming daily in order to 
preserve this local service.  
Our work in this area is important for localism.  I look forward to working with my fellow 
Commissioners to adopt additional rules that continue to ensure a competitive and diverse media 
marketplace that serves local communities.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
58
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re:  In the Matter of Creation of a Low Power Radio Service
It often seems like those of us troubled by media consolidation are relegated to playing defense.
The big media companies are nothing if not persistent: lobbying for the elimination or relaxation of 
ownership limits, seeking waivers of existing rules, proposing merger upon merger and daring regulators 
to draw the line. In radio, the results have been particularly distressing. Runaway consolidation since 
the 1996 Act has left us with homogenized content, national play lists, outsourced news, a dumbed-down 
civic dialogue, and shameful levels of minority and female ownership.
Thats why low power radio is such a breath of fresh air. It is a positive response to what ails 
us. These are truly local stations run by local organizations. They provide an outlet for local voices and 
local talent. They cover issues of importance to local and very often under-served communities. Low 
power is truly radio of the people, by the people, and for the people. We cannot let it perish from the 
earth.
This item makes good progress in putting LPFM on a firmer foundation. In particular, I welcome 
the decisions on ownership and eligibility that will ensure that LPFM retains its local character; the 
initial steps we take to limit the preclusive effect of existing translator applications on LPFM; and the 
initial steps we take to protect LPFM from full-power station encroachment. But we have a lot of work 
ahead of us. In this regard, I am pleased that my colleagues have committed to further addressing some 
of the key issues within the next six months, including the priority between LPFM and translator stations, 
full-power encroachment, and a proposal to permit LPFM stations to use a more flexible contour-based 
methodology for locating available channels. These proposalsespecially if Congress adopts the 
important recommendation in this item to remove the third adjacency restrictionscould vastly expand 
licensing opportunities for LPFM stations. Our united goal should be to clear away obstacles to low 
power and to open a window to license many more such stations as soon as we can.
As important as LPFM is, however, lets never allow ourselves to see it as a complete substitute 
for full power service. Nor should we ever be lulled into a mind-set that says, Well, let low power cover 
that stuff and let the full power stations continue on their happy way. The American people still rely on 
full power stations for much of their news, information and entertainment. And those full power stations 
are on the air because they pledged to serve the public interest in return for being allowed to make what 
is still a very good living. The emergence and strengthening of LPFM does not affect our duty, in any 
shape, manner or form, to ensure that all broadcasters serve the core public interest goals of localism, 
competition and diversity.
I am pleased to support this as a good step forward, I thank my colleagues and the Bureau for 
their work. And I want to commend all those many dedicated members of the low power community 
who have worked so hard and accomplished so much in an environment that has been far less friendly 
towards them than it should have been. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
59
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re:     In the Matter of Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order And Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
When the FCC created low-power FM (LPFM) service in 2000, some argued that there was no 
viable business model for such a localized medium, while others argued that LPFM stations would 
undermine the economic stability of existing full-power FM stations.  Time, however, has revealed that 
neither prediction was accurate.  There continues to be great public demand for radio spectrum, 
especially LPFM stations.  Full-power FM stations continue to be scarce, and they remain as valuable 
financial assets.  In spite of initial and considerable skepticism, LPFM stations have proven to be a great 
success story of communications policy.  Creating LPFM is one of the few steps that the Commission has 
taken in recent history to democratize the public airwaves. 
Today, the Commission takes steps to reaffirm the non-commercial, local nature and orientation 
of LPFM stations, and to enhance opportunities for new voices to be heard on the radio dial.  
Additionally, the Commission finally recognizes the value of LPFM stations as a service that is worthy of 
some, albeit very limited, channel protection from full-power stations.  The clear goals of the rules we 
adopt today are to increase the number of LPFM stations that are on the air and providing service to the 
public; and promote the continued operation of LPFM stations already broadcasting, while avoiding 
interference to existing FM service. I believe through this Order we have taken several important steps 
toward these goals.  The item reflects a fair and measured approach, but it unmistakably advances the 
growth and sustainability of LPFM service for years to come.  
In this Order, we appropriately strike the balance of providing LPFM stations with some 
regulatory flexibility, while preserving the local integrity of the service.  We reduce the administrative 
and management burden on community organizations operating LPFM stations, making it possible for 
them to operate under a voluntary time-sharing agreement and to change the composition of their 
governing boards without having to wait for a designated filing window.   We also provide LPFM 
construction permit holders, with a showing of good cause, the opportunity for a one-time 18-month 
extension to current and future construction permits.
In addition to these reforms, we preserve the non-commercial, local nature of LPFM stations by 
prohibiting most sales of licenses and outright ban any transfer or assignment of construction permits.  
Preventing the creation of a market for the sale of LPFM licenses and construction permits will help 
protect the true local quality and community service orientation of LPFM stations that have made them
thrive.  
Perhaps more than any measure in this item, I am especially pleased that we have tightened 
LPFM ownership rules.  Simply put, we cannot allow what has happened to commercial radio to happen 
to LPFM.  Accordingly, I strongly support the fact that we reinstate the restrictions on local LPFM 
ownership. In doing so, we explicitly recognize that doing away with the locality restriction could 
threaten its predominantly local character, in particular the hallmark of the LPFMs stations local 
character, its local origination of programming.  And, equally important, we clarify that repetitious,
automated programming does not meet our local origination requirement.
While this item goes a long way to implement thoughtful reform measures to improve the 
stability of LPFM service, I am very concerned about the impact FM translators, particularly the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
60
applications filed in the 2003 Auction No. 23 translator filing window, will have on LPFM.  I am deeply 
concerned about the preclusive impact of the over 13,000 FM translator applications filed in 2003 will 
have on the future of LPFM service.  Some have argued that these translators could potentially foreclose 
opportunities for LPFM in the top 50 media markets.  This troubles me, as the Commission finds that 
processing all of the remaining 8,000 translator applications would frustrate the development of LPFM 
service and our efforts to promote localism.  Many of these translator applications were filed by 
speculators who do not have any connection to the local community whatsoever.  
I am, therefore, pleased that my colleagues have agreed to limit the number of permissible 
translator applications filed by an entity to ten.  It is my understanding that this limitation will not affect 
80 percent of pending applications.  Moreover, translator applicants will now have to select their 10 
applications before we open a settlement window to resolve mutually exclusive applications. 
I am equally concerned about the displacement and interference of licensed LPFM stations 
caused by newly authorized full-power FM stations or city of license modifications.  While the 
Commission should not give LPFM interference protection that could prevent a full-power station from 
modifying its signal or foreclose future full-power FM service or compromise the integrity of the FM 
spectrum, LPFMs need some stability in order to be successful.  In todays Order, we address this 
problem by affirming that LPFMs will remain secondary to full-power FM stations, but we will consider 
waivers on a case-by-case basis when there is not a suitable alternate channel for the LPFM.  The Order 
implements this as a policy change, and the Further Notice seeks comment on it as a permanent rule. 
Finally, to address some of the imbalances between translators and LPFM, we seek comment on 
permitting LFPM licensees to use contour protection based licensing standards and limiting the number 
of translators for each originating station that would have priority over an LPFM.  These proposals would 
enhance opportunities for new voices and thereby promote a diversity of viewpoints over the public 
airwaves. They are worth pursuing, and I look forward to the public comments.
One of the central goals of the Commission is to promote a fair and equitable use of the 
broadcast spectrum and to expand opportunities to new voices, such as community-based schools, 
churches and civic organizations. Establishing LPFM stations, particularly as a noncommercial 
educational service, to allow these local groups to provide programming that is responsive to local 
community needs and interests, is one of the most effective ways this Commission can promote such 
goals.  As the record shows, LPFM stations are serving very localized communities and underrepresented 
groups within communities.  Todays reforms should permit LPFM to continue to live up to this dream.  
Accordingly, it is my pleasure to support this item because it provides the American people an 
opportunity to enjoy one of this nations greatest resources  the public airwaves. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
61
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order
I appreciate that the hallmarks of LPFM radio stations are its local character and locally originated 
programming.  In fact, I had the opportunity to visit RadioFree Nashville last spring and talk with many 
of the original founders as well as the staff and radio show hosts. They provide a variety of informational 
and educational programming, talk shows and unique music formats to West Nashville.  In fact, a former 
colleague, George Haley has a regular show regarding issues affecting individuals facing mental and 
behavioral health issues and it is precisely this type of forum that LPFM can provide listeners.
I support much of what is in the further notice.  In fact, that is a more appropriate place for the majority 
of the action we take in this item today.  I believe that we need to have more input and further comment 
before taking some of these broad and expansive actions regarding the status and protections of both 
LPFM and primary or licensed full-power stations and therefore I approve in part and dissent in part.
At present, there are several bills pending before Congress and it would seem appropriate to wait on their 
instruction before moving forward, especially before moving beyond what is included in the legislation 
regarding 3rd adjacent channel interference.  I also think that we should have a rational basis for setting 
the standards for Low Power FM, perhaps using the minimum operating guidelines for the required 
number of hours of operation.  Regarding the applications for additional translators, again, I would have 
preferred a more measured approach, rather than an 80% cut: from 50 to 10.  Finally, enhancing the 
status of  Low Power FM licensees as compared to full power FM stations, or creating new status and 
protections, is beyond the scope of the NPRM and is more appropriately addressed in the Further Notice 
we are issuing today.  Such a sweeping change by an agency should require further notice, consideration, 
and comment.
Therefore, I dissent from this Orders finding of a ten application limit on translators, from the finding 
regarding second-adjacent channel waivers, and from the portion of this Order that places Low Power 
FM in a superior position to full power.  I find no justification in the record for such a complete shift in 
well-established policy.  Low Power FM licensees provide a great service to their communities, but they 
accept their license knowing that they are a secondary service, and accept both the risks and rewards that 
status entails.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
62
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking
As weve traveled across the country for the Commissions field hearings on media ownership, 
we have heard from many citizens about the benefits low power radio stations bring to their local 
communities by enhancing viewpoint diversity.  In establishing the LPFM service, the Commission 
sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local groups, including 
schools, churches and other community-based organizations, to provide programming responsive to local 
community needs and interests.  I am pleased to hear that these new voices are succeeding in 
accomplishing that goal and are drawing loyal audiences within their communities.  
In todays Order, we adopt several rule changes regarding ownership, eligibility, time-sharing 
and construction deadlines.  We hope that these actions will strengthen and promote the long-term 
viability of the LPFM service, and the localism and diversity goals that this service is intended to 
advance.  
Also, in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on whether additional 
technical rule changes are warranted.  Specifically, we consider the following:  (1) whether an LPFM 
station may seek a second-adjacent channel short spacing waiver where implementing a city of license 
modification for a full-service station would result in interference to or displacement of the LPFM station 
to an alternate channel, and whether such a procedure can be expanded to include co- and first-adjacent 
channel situations; (2) whether to impose certain obligations on full service stations with respect to 
LPFM stations affected by a new station or modification proposal; (3) whether to adopt a flexible 
contour methodology for the licensing of LPFM stations; and (4) whether to retain the co-equal status 
between LPFM stations and FM translator stations.  These may be viable proposals for finding additional 
channels on the crowded radio band for low power stations.  They raise important questions regarding the 
relationship between primary and secondary radio services, however, and require careful consideration.  
We have committed to resolve the issues in the Further Notice expeditiously, within six months.  I look 
forward to the comments we receive on these issues.
However, I dissent in part on three specific issues involving both process and substance.  First, 
the Order adopted by the majority jumps ahead of the rulemaking proceeding by adopting interim 
processing policies for the second-adjacent channel waivers immediately.  This waiver policy would 
apply retroactively to LPFM stations that must move to an alternative channel because of a pending full-
power stations community of license modification.  This processing policy is premature.  In this context, 
certainly, we should not make rules through waiver policies or processing policies.  Rather, we should 
abide by our duties under the Administrative Procedure Act to seek and consider public comment before 
crafting and implementing rules.  
Secondly, the majority amends our rules to establish a licensing presumption to protect certain 
operating LPFM stations from subsequently proposed city of license modifications where there would be 
no alternate channel available to the LPFM station.  Adopting this rule at this juncture is a radical 
departure from prior Commission precedent made without sufficient public notice.  In the 2005 Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that led to this Order, we considered a request to adopt a processing 
policy that would permit the denial of a full service FM station's modification application if a LPFM 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-204
63
station would be displaced entirely by the full-power stations move.  We did not seek comment on this 
issue.  Instead, in 2005, we concluded: 
[W]e disagree with the basic thrust of this proposal, which effectively would provide 
primary status to LPFM stations with respect to subsequently filed applications for new
or modified full service station facilities. As we stated in the Report and Order, [w]e 
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.1
Clearly, the 2005 Commission recognized and upheld our long-standing policy to treat full-power radio 
stations as primary to secondary services such as LPFM and FM translators.  The majority should not 
have reversed this precedent without at least seeking further public comment.
Lastly, we limit further processing of FM translator applications submitted during our Auction 
83 filing window to 10 proposals per applicant.  This number is much too low.  It is lower even than the 
numbers suggested by LPFM advocacy groups in the record.  The result is that the service provided by 
FM translators in many unserved areas may suffer interference.  
Accordingly, I dissent in part to this Order.  Nonetheless, I support the remainder of the Order.  
And I thank the Media Bureau for their hard work on these important issues.
  
1 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, 20 FCC Rcd 6763,  38 (2005).