***************************************************
                         NOTICE
***************************************************
This document was converted from
Word97 to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page
numbers will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the orginal document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Word97, or Adobe Acrobat versions, if available.
The path and name of the Word97, and Acrobat files
 will be the same as the ASCII Text file except that they  will
end with the letters wp, doc, or pdf  respectively,
instead of the letters txt.
*****************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for
Noncommercial Educational Applicants
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 95-31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 15, 2001	Released: February 28, 2001
By the Commission:  Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading	Paragraph #
I.	INTRODUCTION	1
II.	BACKGROUND AND HISTORY	2
III.	NEW SELECTION PROCESS	4
IV.	REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION	9
A.	Objections to Overall Process	10
1.	Rejection of Lotteries	11
2.	Constitutional Concerns	15
B.	Time for Calculating Points/Enhancement of Proposals	22
1.	Timing for Future Applications	23
2.	Timing and Enhancement for Pending Mutually Exclusive Applications	27
a.	Closed Groups	28
b.	Pending Applications Subject to Future Competition	33
C.	Fair Distribution of Service as a Threshold Issue (Radio Only)	35
D.	Point System Factors	45
1.	Established Local Applicants	45
2.	Technical Parameters	53
3.	Diversity of Ownership	55
4.	State-wide Networks	59
a.	Curriculum	60
b.	Number of Schools Served within Contours of Overlapping Stations	64
c.	Small Institutions/Aggregation of Stations Licensed to Different Entities	68
E.	Point Factors Not Selected/New Point Proposals	71
1.	Local Program Origination and Other Localism Points	72
2.	Radio Reading Services	75
F.	Tie Breakers	76
G.	Attribution of Full Service and Translator Stations	80
H.	Application Processing Issues	86
1.	General Procedures	86
2.	Procedural Issues For Future Window Applications	91
3.	Terminated Hearing Proceedings	94
I.	Settlements	96
V.	PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES	100
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On April 4, 2000 we adopted a new simplified system to select among applicants competing to
construct noncommercial educational ("NCE") broadcast stations, thereby eliminating the lengthy
traditional hearings which we had used for 30 years.  The new approach uses a point system to select
among mutually exclusive proposals to build FM, TV, and FM translator stations on channels reserved for
NCE use.  The system for awarding points is based on such factors as diversity, localism, signal coverage,
and service to schools, with a permit awarded to the applicant with the highest score. When NCE entities
compete on channels also available for commercial use, we concluded that adoption of auction procedures
was statutorily mandated.  We now consider seventeen Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification,
ranging from requests for minor clarifications to advocacy of vastly different policy results.  Upon
considering these views, we basically affirm our initial decision but clarify various details, provide
additional information, and amend several rule sections.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
2. Due to the finite nature of and strong demand for broadcast spectrum, we often cannot
authorize an NCE station to every qualified entity that wants to build one in a particular area.  Rather, we
frequently must choose among multiple applicants.  From the earliest days of broadcasting, the
Commission conducted traditional evidentiary hearings to make these selection decisions. The factors we
considered in hearings depended upon which of two types of channels the applicants wanted to use. For
"reserved" channels, which are for noncommercial educational use only, we considered "the extent to which
each of the proposed operations will be integrated into the overall educational operations and objectives of
the respective applicants."  See New York University, 10 RR 2d 215, 217-18 (1967).  For "non-reserved"
channels, which are for all types of broadcasting, commercial and noncommercial, we used several
comparative criteria.  For example, we considered diversity of ownership and the "integration" of
ownership and management, which presumed that a station would offer better service if its owners were
involved in the station's day-to-day management.  See Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast
Hearings, 1 FCC 2d 393 (1965).  In comparative contests between NCE and commercial applicants on
non-reserved channels, the applicants were evaluated using the commercial criteria.
3. As discussed in greater detail earlier in this proceeding, several events in the 1990's led to our
eventual change of the comparative selection process both for NCE and commercial stations, and for both
reserved and non-reserved channels.  These events included the conclusion of the Commission's Review
Board that the NCE criteria had, over time, become "meaningless" in distinguishing between applicants,
and a federal court's finding that the core integration criterion used to evaluate non-reserved channel
applications was "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful."  FCC v. Bechtel, 10 F.3d 875, 878
(D.C. Cir. 1993) (Bechtel); Real Life Educational Foundation of Baton Rouge, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 2577,
2580, n.8 (Rev. Bd. 1991).  As a result of Commission proceedings soliciting public comment, and
Congress' decision on related matters in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,  we implemented a system of
competitive bidding for awarding permits on non-reserved channels  and adopted new point-based
comparative standards for reserved channel noncommercial educational proceedings.  The NCE rules under
review in this proceeding became effective on August 7, 2000.
III. NEW SELECTION PROCESS
4. Our NCE Order  established that the nature of the channel, not the nature of the applicant,
should govern selection procedures. We decided that we were required by statute to use auctions to select
among all mutually exclusive applicants for non-reserved channels, because such channels can be used for
commercial purposes. We designed a point system, described in greater detail below, to select among
applicants on reserved channels. We determined that this bifurcated, channel-specific selection method is
consistent with the Balanced Budget Act's dual directives to recover for the public the value of
commercially available channels, but to use a different selection method for stations that cannot be used
commercially.  All requests for agency reconsideration or clarification focus on our point system decision
for reserved noncommercial channels; none address our decision to apply auction procedures when NCE
entities are among the applicants competing for non-reserved channels.   Accordingly, in this order we
revisit reserved channel procedures only.
5. The NCE Order requires reserved channel applicants to apply during specific filing windows to
be announced by public notice.  The staff will examine all applications received within the window, to
determine whether any two or more of those proposals are mutually exclusive, i.e. to determine whether the
proposed stations would cause prohibited interference to each other and thus cannot all be authorized. If a
particular application is not mutually exclusive, and the applicant is subsequently found qualified, the staff
will grant that application.  For mutually exclusive applications received during the filing window, the staff
will compare the proposals, considering which would best serve the public interest under our new point
system.
6. When competing FM applications propose to serve different communities, a proposal would be
considered best, as a threshold matter, if it would provide service to significant unserved or underserved
populations.   This threshold factor is considered pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  307(b), which charges the
Commission with ensuring fair distribution of broadcast service. This process does not apply to television
proceedings because fair distribution issues are addressed prior to application by the allotment of TV
channels to particular communities in TV allotment proceedings.
7. Most mutually exclusive FM applications for reserved channels (i.e., those not resolved on
307(b) grounds) and all such TV applications will be compared under a point system, in which we assign
points to aspects of each proposal and select the applicant with the highest score.  We would award points
as follows:  (a) 2 points for diversity of ownership, i.e. if there is no overlap of the principal community
contour of the proposed station and any other station attributable to the applicant; (b) 1 to 2 points for the
best technical proposal in terms of both area and population served; (c) 3 points for applicants that have
been local to the community for at least two years; and (d) 2 points for certain state-wide networks
providing programming to accredited schools.  In the event of a tie, we would apply several tie breakers,
first preferring the applicant with the fewest existing authorizations; and second, the applicant with the
fewest pending applications.  If applicants remain tied after all of these factors are considered, we would
require tied full service applicants to share time equally.  Among tied FM translator applicants, we would
select the first applicant to file.  We would apply these procedures both to pending applications and to
applications received in the future.
8. After completion of this process, we would conduct a study of the tentative selectee's
application to determine whether it meets all of our standards for acceptability. At that time we would also
consider petitions to deny against the tentative selectee only.  If the tentative selectee is found qualified in
all respects, we would award a permit to that applicant.  Applicants prevailing in the point system would be
subject to a four-year holding period, permitting the station's license to be assigned or transferred during
that period only to an entity qualifying for equal or greater points, and for consideration that does not
exceed the assignor's expenses of filing and prosecuting its application and constructing its station's
authorized facilities.
IV. REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION
9. Existing and potential applicants ask us to reconsider or clarify various aspects of our filing
and selection processes.  A few petitioners question our fundamental choices, for example, advocating the
use of lotteries instead of a point system. Most, however, endorse our adoption of a point system, and ask
only that we change or clarify a particular portion of our decision. Some have concerns relating only to
pending applications or to future applications, while others raise issues potentially affecting all
applications.  We consider each of these concerns.
A. Objections to Overall Process
10. Two petitioners object to the point system in its entirety.  Broadcasting for the Challenged,
Inc., a licensee providing programming for disadvantaged individuals, believes that a lottery would have
been far preferable. Broadcasting for the Challenged argues that we did not sufficiently justify our decision
not to use lotteries.  Educational Media Foundation, which operates a nationwide network of 23 FM
stations programmed from a religious perspective, does not advocate a particular alternative but considers
our point system discriminatory.  It argues that the point system favors some speakers over others, to the
detriment of religious broadcasters.
1. Rejection of Lotteries
11. The Commission has authority to use random selection (lottery) procedures to choose among
NCE applicants.  47 U.S.C.  309(i).  If we use such procedures, the statute requires us to weight the
lotteries to provide substantial preferences to racial minorities and applicants with few other stations.  Id.
We considered using such lotteries, but found that a point system was preferable for several reasons.  NCE
Order,   11 - 15.  We identified the primary benefits of lotteries as speed and simplicity.  Against these
benefits, we weighed three major disadvantages of lotteries: (1) greater potential for speculation; (2) no
assurance of selecting the most qualified applicant; and (3) the likely delay from litigation over the required
lottery preferences.  We determined that lotteries would achieve only part of our goal to improve the NCE
selection process, and thus rejected lotteries in favor of a point system.
12. Broadcasting for the Challenged ("BFTC") maintains that the Commission has not adequately
justified rejection of lotteries, and should have supported each concern with empirical evidence, as it
believes is required under Bechtel.  BFTC disputes each of the three drawbacks that we included in our
analysis.  It disagrees with commenters concerned that lotteries would produce speculation, arguing that
there is little potential for financial gain in NCE broadcasting, and that the Commission eliminated this
potential by establishing a holding period.  With respect to applicant qualifications, it argues that it is
impossible to verify whether one qualified applicant will actually be better than another, and thus that we
should consider all applicants as being equal if they meet our basic qualifications.  Finally, BFTC does not
believe that there is any legal impediment to our use of a weighted lottery, as required by statute, because
we previously used such a lottery to select Low Power Television (LPTV) applicants.
13. We are not persuaded to reverse our policy judgment that a point system is preferable to a
lottery for the award of NCE permits.  First, BFTC's reading of the requirements of Bechtel is overbroad.
Bechtel holds simply that any predictive judgments used to select among broadcast applicants must have
factual support. Bechtel does not, as BFTC argues, prevent the Commission from considering concerns
presented in comments and applying its expertise to choose a selection method that it determines would best
serve the public interest. Here, where both lotteries and point systems (a simplified form of comparative
hearing) are presented to the Commission as options by statute, the Commission need not present empirical
data to support the viability of either choice.  Rather, we must select one of these options, offering a
reasonable explanation that is supported by the record.   Then, the value of any predictive factors included
within the option selected must be explained and supported, as we did in adopting point factors.  Further,
BFTC's suggestion that we erred in considering the potential for lotteries to spur speculation is based on its
belief that NCE stations are immune to speculation either because such stations have limited monetary
value or because they are subject to a holding period.  Speculation, however, is not a concept limited to the
quick "turn over" of stations for an inflated monetary value, something that our holding period addresses.
NCE spectrum is a finite resource, with intrinsic value as an outlet for different educational viewpoints.
Lotteries, due to their random nature, encourage mass filings of applications to increase the statistical
"odds" that the applicant will obtain any station, anywhere.  That too is speculation.  Moreover, such
practices are harmful to competing applicants because the random selection of an applicant that could have
met its goals anywhere will preclude the selection of an applicant that can fulfill its mission in only one
location, such as where its campus or school system is located.
14. We cannot agree with BFTC's suggestion that an applicant's basic qualifications are all that
matter in an educational broadcasting context.   The Commission has in NCE broadcasting always sought
to select the best applicant, not just any qualified applicant.  BFTC provides no reason for us to depart
from that policy. Finally, we explained that a decision to use weighted lotteries would likely prompt lengthy
litigation, thereby causing significant delays in initiation of new NCE broadcast service.   It is reasonable
for us to consider the potential for lengthy litigation in making policy choices.   Our previous use of
weighted lotteries in the LPTV service provides no comfort or certainty because those lotteries were held
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), when there was a lesser
likelihood of a challenge to weighted lotteries.
2. Constitutional Concerns
15. Educational Media Foundation ("EMF") argues that our point system violates the First and
Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which limit government intrusion on free speech and on the free
exercise of religion, and provide for equal protection under the law.   EMF acknowledges that the
Commission expressed content neutral and speaker neutral reasons for adopting the point system.
Nevertheless, EMF argues that the government's professed content and speaker neutrality does not
necessarily make a rule constitutional, if the rule's effect is to discriminate against certain speakers or
content.  Petition of EMF at 21 citing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641-643,
645 (1994).  While recognizing that no party has an absolute right to receive an NCE license, but rather
has, at most, a right to compete for a license, EMF argues that comparison must be fair and
nondiscriminatory.  EMF argues that our point system is unfair.  It charges that the Commission engaged in
results-oriented rulemaking with the explicit intention of discriminating against private speakers airing
religious content and in favor of government speakers airing secular content.  Thus, it argues that under
"strict scrutiny," we must demonstrate that our point system is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
government interest.   EMF bases its arguments almost entirely on its conclusion that it and six other
religiously oriented NCE broadcasters would not be selected in a point system if competing against
government entities.  It maintains that because religious broadcasters generally run national networks, do
not provide programming to schools, and have many other existing stations and applications, such
broadcasters could not likely qualify for points based on localism or state-wide networks, and would not
fare well in tie breakers.
16. The Center for Media Education ("Media Education") disputes EMF's constitutional
arguments.  It argues that there is no constitutional right to a broadcast license and that EMF's reading of
Turner as requiring strict scrutiny is incorrect.  Media Education cites to language in Turner which states
"such heightened scrutiny is unwarranted when the differential treatment is `justified by some special
characteristics' of the medium being regulated."  Media Education Opposition at 4 citing Turner
Broadcasting v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 660-61 (1994).  It further states that the Supreme Court traditionally
considers broadcast cases under a more relaxed review, due to the special attributes of broadcasting. Id. at
5 citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997).  In any event, it maintains that because our point
system does not require or prohibit the carriage of a particular point of view, it is content neutral, and
would be subject to lesser scrutiny.  Id. citing Time Warner Entertainment v. U.S., 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C.
Cir. 2000).  Media Education believes that the implication that the Commission has an "anti-religion
agenda" is baseless, as evidenced by the Commission's grant of large numbers of licenses to religious
broadcasters.
17. We do not believe that there is any constitutional infirmity in our point system.  Each factor
within the point system is speaker and subject matter neutral. If, as EMF claims, it will be disadvantaged
by the rules, it is not because the rules favor secular applicants over religiously affiliated applicants. Rather
it is because EMF is a national organization that is already the licensee of many NCE stations, while the
Commission sought in the rules to encourage localism and diversity of ownership. A secular national
organization licensed to operate many NCE stations would have the same disadvantage under the point
system.  EMF's religious focus has no bearing on the operation of the rules. In the NCE Order we
explained:
We have considered, but disagree with, the minority viewpoint that a credit for localism
would adversely impact religious organizations or small organizations.  A localism credit
is religion-neutral and size-neutral.  Whether religious or secular, large or small, an
organization based in the local community would qualify for the credit.  Moreover,
organizations both with and without religious affiliation, and of varying sizes support a
credit for localism.
NCE Order 52.
18. Because the point system does not reflect a government preference for the content or viewpoint
of a particular speaker, strict scrutiny does not apply.  See Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,
656-59 (1994); Time Warner Entertainment v. U.S., 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Time Warner).  A
content neutral regulation passes intermediate scrutiny if it advances important governmental interests,
unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary
to further those interests. Time Warner, 211 F.3d at 1318.  A more deferential standard of review has been
applied to broadcast regulation.  See, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978). Our
point system advances important government interests in local broadcasting and education.   Further, the
point system is not a new burden on any particular speaker, but rather a system that incorporates several
longstanding policy goals into one cohesive method for selecting among mutually exclusive applicants.  For
example, the importance of localism in noncommercial educational broadcasting is longstanding and
reflected in the statute.  NCE Order 44-51.  Similarly, the Commission's decision to award a permit in
the event of a tie to the applicant with the fewest existing authorizations, is consistent with our longstanding
focus on diversity of ownership of broadcasting stations.  Our decision to award points to applicants that
are part of state-wide networks is consistent with our longstanding policy of considering an NCE
applicant's participation in state-wide education plans.
19. As EMF acknowledges, there is no constitutional right to a broadcast license.  See Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 388-89 (1969).  Given the nature of spectrum licensing, our
grant of one mutually exclusive broadcast application under any selection method will inevitably mean our
denial of another application. Whether our selection decision is made pursuant to a point system or some
other method, it is well established that denial of an application for a broadcasting license "if valid under
the [Communications] Act, is not a denial of free speech."  National Broadcasting Co. v. United States,
319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).
20. EMF claims that the Commission had some unstated goal to disadvantage religious
broadcasters.  That is simply not so. Indeed, the record indicates that the Commission was responsive to the
concerns of NCE organizations with religious affiliations as well as those without such affiliations.   For
example, we expanded the definition of state-wide network, which was originally expressed in terms of
participation in government educational plans, to also include private networks offering significant service
to schools. NCE Order at  59. We indicated that religious organizations that operate schools, such as the
Catholic Archdiocese or religious universities, might qualify for state-wide network points.  Id. at  57-59.
 Given that our decision concerned award of permits to provide noncommercial educational broadcast
service, we believe that it was eminently reasonable to encourage, though not require, service to schools.
21. Accordingly, we reject the constitutional challenges to our use of a point system.  Having
found that our choice of a point system over other options is sound overall, we now will examine various
aspects of our decision to determine whether modifications or clarifications of that system would be useful.
B. Time for Calculating Points/Enhancement of Proposals
22. Generally, the NCE Order provided that we would award points for the relative merits of an
applicant's proposal as of the time of filing, provided that the applicant maintains the qualities for which
points are awarded.   Several petitioners, including Colorado Christian University and Jimmy Swaggart
Ministries anticipate timing concerns not specifically addressed in our decision or rules and request
clarification.  Of particular concern is how the Commission will view changes that occur after the time of
application, such as an applicant's attempt to enhance its proposal or changes in census data that occur
naturally over time.  This issue is relevant to all NCE proceedings, but is especially of concern to
organizations with pending applications.  In order to address apparent uncertainties regarding both current
and future applicants, we here clarify with more specificity the process for counting points in future
proceedings and the similar, but somewhat modified, process that will govern pending applications.
1. Timing for Future Applications
23. In the NCE Order we established the "time of filing" as the time for determining points.  We
did not provide an in-depth discussion of that choice, however, and we now elaborate in order to clarify our
decision.  We selected the time of filing so that there would be no need for the staff and applicants to
constantly recalculate points and to minimize one-upsmanship.  Applicants may not continuously amend
their proposals and qualifications in attempts to surpass other mutually exclusive applicants, but rather
must present initially, their proposal to provide the best possible service to the public regardless of whether
or what any competing applicants may file. An applicant's characteristics at the time of filing establish a
"snap shot" that we will generally use to determine the applicant's maximum points and its maximum
position in a tie breaker. However, points can be lost through changes that detract from the original
proposal.
24. Our rules require applicants to inform us of material changes in their applications after the
time of filing, which, in the context of a point system, will include all changes that negatively affect its
claimed points and tie breaker position.  47 C.F.R.  1.65.  A future applicant's maximum points and its
standing in a tie breaker can thus go down, but not up as a result of changes made after filing.  For
example, if an applicant loses its transmitter site and amends its application in a way that results in lost
points, the applicant will only be allowed to claim the amended points.  In this way, the applicant will not
benefit from any early proposals that it is unable to honor. However, if the applicant amends and attempts
to enhance points, the applicant will only be allowed to claim its earlier lesser points.  In this manner,
applicants with superior initial proposals will not be disadvantaged by any competing applicant's later
attempts at enhancement.  This will also encourage applicants to come forward with the best possible
proposal and minimize the potential for any manipulation of the system.  In addition, we believe that a
proposal crafted without knowledge of competing proposals is a more reliable indicator of future service
than one crafted with an eye to outdoing a competing applicant.
25. Similarly, for tie breakers, the applicant's best position is established at the time of
application, but can be reduced.  For example, in our primary tie breaker, which selects the applicant with
the fewest number of broadcast authorizations at the time of filing, an applicant cannot enhance its position
by selling one of its existing stations, but can diminish its position by acquiring an additional station.  Thus,
an applicant with no existing stations at the time of application will benefit from its "zero" stations in tie
breakers only until such time as it receives a first authorization.  It will be required, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.
 1.65, to update its pending applications and so will not be able to continue claiming zero authorizations,
when it has, in fact, already had applications granted in several proceedings, perhaps now surpassing a tied
competing applicant in terms of stations authorized.
26. When future applicants report population and other stations serving an area, as they might for
fair distribution purposes under 47 U.S.C.  307(b),  they should use the data that is the most current at
the close of any filing window.  It is inevitable that there will be shifts in population and in number of
services authorized in a region between close of a window and the time we act on an application.  However,
such inevitable changes will not reduce a future applicant's standing, and thus we will not require such
applicants to notify us if these expected changes occur after the close of the window.  Of overall concern to
us in this area is that we are comparing applications that use the same data.  Reliance on information as of
the close of the window will ensure that applicants have essentially a common reference date.  With a
common reference date and a common method of calculating population , the staff will analyze applicants
on a similar basis.
2. Timing and Enhancement for Pending Mutually Exclusive Applications
27. Applicants with pending applications filed prior to adoption of the point system must
supplement their application to provide us with additional information needed to consider their applications
under the new comparative standards.  As we will be unable to consider any pending application that does
not contain the new information, we will assume that any applicant that fails to file a supplement is no
longer interested and dismiss its application.   We now clarify the procedures for filing these supplements,
which will depend upon whether the applicant is in a group that is considered "closed" or "open" in terms
of whether it is subject to future competition from additional parties.
a. Closed Groups
28. Due to a processing freeze that has been in place while we establish and review the NCE
comparative criteria,  there are some groups of mutually exclusive applications which have been pending
for a considerable time, and which are no longer subject to additional competing applications.  These
groups are referred to as "closed" groups. As stated in the NCE Order, existing applicants in these "closed"
groups will need to file supplements to claim points so that we can compare them under the new system.
We delegated to the Mass Media Bureau responsibility to announce the procedures for filing these
supplements.  We did not specify whether longstanding applicants might enhance their proposals and claim
points for changes made in response to the NCE Order.  Colorado Christian University asks us to "freeze"
an existing applicant's points at a particular point in time, to avoid the potential for pending applicants to
become "moving targets." Jimmy Swaggart Ministries suggests that we examine an existing applicant's
points as of the date of application to avoid uncertainties associated with applications that have been
pending for a considerable time.  For example, it argues that, for purposes of our fair distribution analysis,
which considers whether applicants will provide a first or second NCE radio signal to an underserved area,
pending applicants that proposed first or second service at the time of application should benefit, even if the
Commission since has authorized additional stations.
29. Educational Media Foundation notes that, for some pending closed mutually exclusive groups,
we have not issued B cutoff notices.   EMF further notes that under the A/B cutoff procedures that existed
prior to adoption of the point system, applicants could amend as a matter of right until issuance of a "B"
cutoff notice, and the Commission considered these amended proposals, rather than the original proposals,
in comparative hearings.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.3522(b).  Based on this line of reasoning, EMF believes that
we should permit all types of enhancing amendments to existing applications, including technical
amendments.  The National Federation of Community Broadcasters argues that, with respect to changes in
technical proposals, applicants should only be able to enhance their points by making changes considered
"minor" under our rules.
30. We have attached as Appendix D a list of closed mutually exclusive groups, i.e. groups in
which we issued an "A" cut-off list under the old rules and for which the time for filing responsive,
competing applications has closed.  Most of the point principles enunciated above for future applications
will govern our treatment of applications in these pending "closed" groups.  However, we will make several
adjustments to account for the fact that these older applications did not contain point information as filed,
and that applicants must now file supplements to claim points.  To the extent possible, we will use a recent
date for purposes of taking a "snap shot" of applicant qualifications.  As a result, we will be able to
consider recent information rather than information that may be several years old.  A recent "snap shot"
date will also give pre-point system applicants an opportunity to incorporate into their proposals point
factors that we adopted and clarified after their original filing date, and which we have since indicated are
desirable and in the public interest.  Specifically, the date that pending applicants must use for reporting
population/service data for 307(b) determinations and for most point data is the "supplement date," a date
after release of the current decision that the staff will announce by public notice, and by which pending
applicants must file supplements to claim points. By the supplement date, applicants in closed groups must
file either settlement agreements, as discussed infra at paras  96-99, or supplements.  Those filing neither
will be dismissed.  We will use the supplement date to examine all data, except for the applicant's technical
proposal, for which we will use the earlier date discussed further below.  So as not to unduly delay this
proceeding, the staff should set a due date for supplements that is approximately 30 days after the public
notice.  The staff will evaluate any non-technical changes to an applicant's proposal pursuant to the criteria
established in the point system.  For example, if an applicant unconditionally withdraws previously filed
applications or consummates approved assignments of authorized stations to other entities prior to the
supplement date, those stations would not count against the applicant for purposes of a tie breaker,
regardless of how many applications or authorizations they may have held at the time of original
application.    An applicant that changed its board composition or established a local campus in response
to our point system, however, would not be able to claim points as an established local applicant because
our point system  recognizes such local indicia only if they have been maintained for at least two years.
31. With respect to the applicant's technical proposal, we will calculate points based on an earlier
date. We are compelled to reach this result because the staff has already fully studied all applications in
closed groups based on earlier claimed coverage to determine which applications are mutually exclusive.
Technical changes now would cause undue delay, requiring reexamination of new technical proposals for
potential conflict with over a thousand applications on file, not just with respect to other applications within
each closed group.  For closed groups in which both "A" and "B" cut-off notices have issued, we will
calculate technical points as of the date of the "B" notice, which announced applications in the mutually
exclusive group and cut off the opportunity to file amendments as of right under the rules then in effect.
Thus, these applicants will have the same amendment as of right period that they would have received
under our previous rules. For closed groups in which no "B" cut off notice has issued, we will examine
technical proposals as of April 21, 2000, the release date of the NCE Order.  We ceased issuing "A" and
"B" lists as of that date.  Applicants in this category will thus also have had some time to make technical
amendments as of right, albeit less than they might have received had the Commission not eliminated its use
of cut-off lists.  After the relevant date, applicants may not amend their proposals except for good cause
pursuant to 47 C.F.R  73.3522(b), such as an applicant's involuntary loss of its transmitter site.  With
respect to good cause amendments, applicants will not receive additional points, and may lose points for
any such amendments that decrease the applicant's proposal.  A technical amendment that removes a
mutual exclusivity, thereby permitting our grant of an application, would be considered a good cause
amendment.
32. We do not agree with Jimmy Swaggart Ministries that we should use data that dates back
many years in analyzing fair distribution issues for applicants in closed groups. Traditionally, in examining
fair distribution pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, proposals are analyzed as of the
date that 307(b) information is requested.  For many NCE applicants, we have not yet requested any 307(b)
information.  It would not be appropriate or practical to ask such applicants to now submit such
information as of a date long passed, because this would require applicants to undertake a more difficult
process in order to provide the Commission with less accurate information.  For some other NCE
applicants, we may have requested 307(b) information in hearings that were conducted under old standards
and that were not dispositive.  In the NCE Order we established new standards for conducting Section
307(b) analyses, and any information submitted under the old standards would be inadequate or incomplete
under the new standards.  Thus, even applicants that previously submitted 307(b) information will need to
submit different 307(b) information as of the "supplement date."  Accordingly, the supplement date will
serve as the "snap shot" date for 307(b) information.  Applicants supplementing their applications with
population data should use the 2000 census, if available by the supplement date.
b. Pending Applications Subject to Future Competition
33. West Coast Public Radio ("West Coast") seeks special consideration for a specific type of
pending application, i.e., those that are still subject to competing applications because they were neither
filed in response to an "A" notice nor themselves placed on an "A" notice.  We stated in the NCE Order
that, because the opportunity to file competing applications has not yet run, we will consider these pending
applications in the first filing window, along with any additional applications filed during that window.
This result creates a timing issue with respect to when to calculate the points of the pending applications
and the future applications with which they will be competing.
34. West Coast is particularly concerned that future applicants filing in the first window may
attempt to tailor mutually exclusive proposals to claim more points than existing applicants who must also
compete within that window.  West Coast bases this belief on the assumption that existing applicants will
claim points as of their original date of application, whereas the future applicants with whom they will
compete will be able to claim points as of a date within the window.  It suggests that we award additional
points to the existing applicants so that they will be able to compete effectively with future applicants. We
decline to do so. We clarify, however, that such existing applicants may be able to claim more points than
those for which they qualified at the time of their original application.  They have two options available to
them.  First, they may choose to amend their pending applications during the first filing window to enhance
their proposals and provide comparative information. Alternatively, they may withdraw their pending
applications prior to the first filing window and file new proposals in the first filing window.  In either case,
existing applicants that are subject to competition will have the same opportunity as new applicants to
submit their best proposals during the first filing window.
C. Fair Distribution of Service as a Threshold Issue (Radio Only)
35. Several parties ask for clarification of our fair distribution process.  We decided in the NCE
Order that, if mutually exclusive NCE radio applicants specify different communities, we would first
consider, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, whether grant of one proposal over the
other is warranted based on fair distribution of service principles.  An applicant would receive a decisive
preference, as a threshold matter, if it would provide a first or second NCE aural service to 10% of the
people within the proposed station's 60dBu contour, but to no fewer than 2,000 people.  If more than one
applicant meets this standard, we would award a preference only if one proposal provides first or second
service to 5,000 more people than the other.  This standard is similar in some respects to the 307(b)
standard previously applied in traditional NCE hearings, but borrows some factors used in the 307(b)
analysis of commercial applications.  To maintain the benefits of fair distribution, we stated that
applicants selected based on NCE fair distribution standards would not be permitted to downgrade service
to the area on which the credit was based.  Because applicants chosen through fair distribution would not
be subject to a point system, however, they would not be subject to four year holding period provisions,
which require applicants to maintain factors for which they received points and limit the terms on which the
applicant may transfer the station to another party.
36. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries argues that the fair distribution analysis should be expanded to all
mutually exclusive applications, not just those proposing to serve different communities.  In contrast,
Station Resource Group ("SRG"), an association representing NCE licensees, argues that 307(b)
considerations should be given lesser importance, examined as part of a point system, and not as a
threshold issue.  SRG argues that Section 307(b) of the Communications Act does not compel us to
consider fair distribution as a threshold issue, and maintains that in traditional comparative hearings this
factor was given less weight.
37. The scope of our fair distribution analysis was an issue fully considered in the NCE Order.  By
the express terms of 47 C.F.R.  73.7002(a), adopted therein, the 307(b) analysis is conducted only if
applicants propose to serve different communities.  Differences in coverage among proposals to serve the
same community are adequately considered within the point system, which includes a consideration of
technical parameters.  Differences in area and population served within the same community are considered
by awarding points for technical parameters.  See also paras 75-76 infra.  Our decision is entirely
consistent with our responsibility under Section 307(b), as long interpreted by the courts and the
Commission.  The statute is explicit that the Commission must distribute broadcast licenses "among the
several States and the communities so as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio
service to each of the same," but does not mandate a particular procedure that the Commission must
follow. See Competitive Bidding, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15963 (1998).  While Swaggart urges us to expand
the 307(b) threshold to encompass all applications with different reception areas as well as different
communities of license, nothing in the language of the statute, with its explicit reference to "communities"
supports such an extension.  Nor does Swaggart cite any Commission-level precedent in which any
applicant received a preference for such matters. The Commission's use of a threshold 307(b)
determination in NCE cases was thus fully consistent with the statute, as interpreted by the Commission
and the courts. FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358 (1955); Pasadena Broadcasting Co.
v. FCC, 555 F.2d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Competitive Bidding, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15963 (1998).
38. With respect to the question of whether to consider fair distribution individually or to integrate
it into a point system, we concluded that we should give this factor decisive weight prior to any point
system. NCE Order at  24. There is no merit to SRG's suggestion that our approach is inconsistent with
agency precedent.  It relies on New York University, 10 RR 2d 215 (1967), the first NCE comparative
case.  SRG alleges that the modified hearing designation order in that case afforded the Administrative Law
Judge discretion to give whatever weight he deemed appropriate to the 307(b) issue and that the judge did
not give that issue dispositive "threshold" weight.  However, the Review Board's subsequent opinion in that
case makes clear that 307(b) issues can be dispositive, as long as the differences are not slight, as they were
in that proceeding.  New York University, 19 FCC 2d 358, 370-71 (Rev. Bd. 1969).  By means of the
formula prescribed in 47 C.F.R.  73.7002(b), we have ensured that only significant 307(b) differences are
decisional, just as the Review Board envisioned in New York University.  When two applicants have only
small differences under 307(b), we proceed to consider them pursuant to a point system.  Differences
among applicants for the same community are considered under the point system's technical factor, if
significant in terms of both area and population.
39. We do, however, note that our discussion of 307(b) in the NCE Order did not contemplate the
possibility that two applicants offering similar levels of new NCE service pursuant to 307(b), and therefore
proceeding to consideration under a point system, could be part of a larger mutually exclusive group with
applicants proposing to provide service not deserving a 307(b) preference or deserving a lesser 307(b)
preference. We clarify that under such circumstances, only the applicants that are entitled to equal Section
307(b) preferences will proceed to consideration under a point system.   The other applications, which are
entitled either to lesser or no preferences under Section 307(b), will not be considered along with those
applicants in a point system, consistent with our determination that fair distribution of service should be
given decisive weight.
40. Colorado Christian University asks whether the new fair distribution standard developed for
NCE stations will be based only on first or second service received or also, as in commercial allocations
proceedings, on first transmission service licensed to a community.  It is concerned about potential abuses
that may occur if first licensed transmission service is applied in an NCE context. Station Resource Group
also shares this concern. It believes that an applicant proposing to provide a first or second NCE reception
service is providing a more important service than an applicant merely licensed to a community. In
particular, SRG observes that under the rules applicable at the time of its comments, reserved channel
NCE-FM stations had no obligation to place a city grade contour over their nominal communities of
license, and could designate any community within the 60dBu contour as the community of license.
41. The fair distribution standard that we adopted was based only on provision of the first or
second NCE reception service for a significant population.  Applicants would receive no preference by
proposing the first station to be licensed to a city or town, when that community already receives two or
more NCE signals. First aural service licensed to a community is considered in commercial broadcasting,
which has longstanding community coverage requirements, but has not played any significant role in NCE
broadcasting which until recently had no community coverage requirements and now has requirements that
are significantly less stringent than those applicable to commercial broadcasters.   We do not believe that
consideration of first service licensed to a community would serve the same purpose in NCE broadcasting
as it does in commercial broadcasting.  Further, as commenters stated earlier in this proceeding, our
crediting only service received reduces the potential for abuse.  Otherwise, NCE applicants might identify
small communities that they would not fully serve, receiving a decisive preference over applicants with
nearly identical service areas but that propose to be licensed to larger communities.  NCE Order at  22.
Accordingly, our NCE fair distribution analysis is based on new service received, not on first transmission
service licensed to a particular community.
42. Next we consider the views of Munn-Reese Engineering Consultants and the University of
Northern Ohio, which ask us to clarify whether, for purposes of our 307(b) analysis, stations operating
noncommercially in the non-reserved portion of the FM band or in the AM band will count as NCE aural
signals received.  If so, they ask what factors we would use to determine whether such a station provides
NCE service.  Munn-Reese notes, for example, that although stations can operate noncommercially in the
non-reserved portion of the band, some are licensed as commercial stations subject to filing fees, while
others are licensed as noncommercial stations and are exempt from filing fees.
43. In determining whether a significant population receives NCE aural service, i.e., whether it is
unserved or underserved by existing NCE stations, we will count as first and second signals only reserved
channel NCE-FM stations.  Historically, the Commission has only considered stations operating on
reserved channels to determine the level of NCE service already received, and we see no reason to change
that practice in this context.  See New York University, 10 RR 2d 215 (1967). As we noted in the NCE
Order, stations operating on non-reserved channels voluntarily choose to provide NCE service, but can
readily become commercial stations by filing a simple form with us.  In contrast, noncommercial service on
reserved channels is mandatory and permanent.  Due to this potential for rapid change in the nature of non-
reserved channel stations, we do not believe that the NCE service provided by these stations is sufficiently
fixed to be counted in our analysis.  Thus, in an NCE fair distribution analysis, we would grant an
application proposing to provide the first reserved channel FM service a preference, without regard to
whether nearby AM and non-reserved channel FM stations currently operate with noncommercial
educational formats.
44. Colorado Christian University raises additional fair distribution concerns, asking us to apply
all aspects of our four-year holding period to applicants receiving their permits as a result of a fair
distribution preference.  Colorado Christian acknowledges that we already prevent technical downgrades to
the area on which we granted a fair distribution preference, but believes that other holding period
restrictions should apply as well.   It argues that there is the need to prevent speculation by all successful
applicants, not only those awarded by a point system. It further maintains that because an applicant
receiving a 307(b) preference has a decisive advantage over other applicants, it is especially important to
hold such applicants to every part of their proposals.  We disagree with this reasoning.  To uphold the
integrity of the point system and prevent speculation, we require each point system selectee to operate the
station for four years either itself or by assigning the station to another party with equivalent point
credentials for consideration not to exceed reasonable expenses. If an applicant is selected on the basis of
fair distribution criteria, its point claims are not relevant and are never examined. Thus, a requirement that
any successor in interest have "equal points" would not be especially meaningful and not necessary to
preserve the integrity of our process.  We believe that it would be overly restrictive to require applicants to
maintain attributes for which they claimed points if those attributes are not decisional.  What matters in the
fair distribution context is that any successor in interest continues to provide service to the area for which
the original applicant received its fair distribution preference, as our current rules already require. The
particular weight given to 307(b) considerations does not in itself justify placing additional non-307(b)
obligations on the applicant.
D. Point System Factors
1. Established Local Applicants
45. Our point system awards the largest percentage of points to established local applicants.
Initially, we expressed concern that awarding credits in a point system for an applicant's local
characteristics might be difficult to support under the standards enunciated in the Bechtel case.  As
discussed previously, that case invalidated the use of the "integration" credit, which awarded a significant
comparative advantage to commercial broadcast applicants proposing to work at their proposed stations as
owner-managers.  The court found that there was no empirical evidence supporting the use of this criterion.
 We reexamined our concern, however, in response to strong commenter support for localism points,
including some that provided statistical and historical evidence of the important role that localism plays in
educational broadcasting.  Ultimately, we found the comments sufficiently convincing that we chose
localism as the single most important factor in our NCE point system.  Under the point system, an
applicant that has been local for at least the two years immediately preceding application, i.e., that has
continuously maintained its headquarters, campus, or the primary residences of 75% of its board members
within 25 miles of the central coordinates of its community of license, receives three points out of a
possible seven.  We stated that governments would be considered local within their areas of jurisdiction.
46. Broadcasting for the Challenged (BFTC) argues that the Commission's decision is contrary to
Bechtel.  According to BFTC, our decision was not supported by empirical evidence that an applicant that
is local before filing an application is superior to an applicant that becomes local after its application is
granted.  In response to the Commission's reliance on the 1967 Carnegie Report as historical evidence,
BFTC argues that the Report's use of the term "local stations" did not mean only those built by local
groups.   It maintains that a national group can build a local station and become very involved in the
community.  Similarly, Educational Media Foundation maintains that that there is no nexus between where
a station's board members live or where its headquarters is located and the type of programming it will
carry.  It notes, for example, that the Commission has not set any required amount of time that a local
licensee must devote to locally produced programming or local issues.  EMF argues that the Commission
should not favor local broadcasters based on a belief that national NCE broadcasters can apply elsewhere,
because national NCE broadcasters will likely be competing against a local broadcaster in every market.
47. We affirm our decision in the NCE Order regarding localism for the reasons discussed therein.
 In brief, a localism credit is fully consistent with the Bechtel court's concerns.  Commenters provided
convincing empirical evidence of public benefits resulting from localism in NCE broadcasting.  They also
demonstrated that localism is a factor that has historically been considered the lynchpin of excellent NCE
service because local NCE licensees are knowledgeable of the community's educational needs, responsive,
and accountable to the community.   In response to EMF's concern, we clarify that being knowledgeable
and responsive does not necessarily require that a local NCE licensee must air programs produced by local
citizens, especially if, in the informed judgment of the licensee, other programs are better suited to meeting
the station's educational goals.  Local organizations are, however, more likely to be aware of locally
produced programs that are available and thus to consider such programs.  We do not imply that a non-
local organization that receives a broadcast authorization and begins operating within a community may
not, with time, acquire the knowledge of the community to be responsive to its educational needs and to
become such a part of the community as to have local accountability.  But an organization that has already
been local for two years or more, as required for the credit, has those qualities prior to its very first
broadcast and can thus "hit the ground running."   We also continue to believe that it is efficient to meet the
spectrum needs of NCE applicants in the local areas surrounding their headquarters and campuses because
distant locations may be unsuitable for their needs.  In observing that some non-local applicants with broad
goals will be able to apply elsewhere if they do not prevail in a particular community, we indicate merely
the additional opportunities available to such applicants.  We do not, as EMF indicates, assume that it will
always be easy for such applicants to prevail elsewhere. Finally, we stand by our decision to award 3 out of
a possible 7 points to established local applicants.  This weighting reflects the importance of localism in
NCE broadcasting.  Further, as we noted in the NCE Order, this proportion is similar to one used in the
Instructional Television Fixed Service, another educational communications service in which localism is
strongly encouraged.
48. Having affirmed our three-point credit for established local applicants, we next consider the
proposal of several petitioners that we broaden the class of applicants that would be considered local.  West
Coast Public Radio and Station Resource Group both ask us to expand the measure by which an
applicant's headquarters, campus, and board members are considered local, replacing our 25-mile standard
with a 100-mile benchmark.  According to West Coast, the 25-mile standard is used as a basis for main
studio location  but only because of concerns about studio accessibility, and does not necessarily reflect
what the community considers local.  It states that TV and Class C FM stations may cover as much as 50
miles. The National Federation of Community Broadcasters ("NFCB") similarly proposes a standard of
localism based on each station's coverage area, noting that rural stations may serve larger areas than urban
stations.
49. West Coast and SRG both also ask us to incorporate into 47 C.F.R.  73.7000 the concept
that government applicants are local within their jurisdiction.  Real Life Educational Foundation proposes
that an organization should be considered local if a majority (instead of 75%) of its board consists of local
residents, because control rests with a majority of the board. It further asks us to clarify whether a new
organization would qualify for points if board members who have been local for two years form it.  Real
Life maintains that we should give credit to long time residents regardless of the length of time that their
organization has been in existence, arguing that to do otherwise is arbitrarily giving credit only for "brick
and mortar."  Real Life also asks us to clarify how we will apply our localism criteria to organizations that
have had applications pending for substantial periods.
50. We affirm but clarify the standards for localism announced in the NCE Order.  Applicants
with a headquarters, campus, or 75% of board member residences within 25 miles of the reference
coordinates of the community of license will be considered local.  Governmental units will be considered
local as well within their areas of jurisdiction.  In the NCE Order, we specifically rejected as too broad a
proposal to use 100 miles rather than 25 miles as our localism standard.  We continue to view 25 miles as a
reasonable distance applicable to all full service NCE broadcast stations for the reasons discussed therein.
We decline to individualize the definition of "local" to vary with a particular station's technical capabilities,
finding it preferable to apply uniform mileage standard.  In this manner, an applicant needing to replace a
resigning member of its local governing board will be able to make that decision based on easily understood
mileage standards, without having to determine how the technical capabilities of the proposed station
affects the localism of the new board member. The only instance in which the NCE Order individualized
localism standards concerned governmental entities, in recognition of their broad accountability throughout
their areas of jurisdiction.  Due to recognizable extrinsic factors, such as where a person pays taxes and
what school district he lives in, the government entity can readily identify whether board members live
within the area of jurisdiction.  As several petitioners note, however, our stated policy that governments are
considered local throughout their jurisdiction was not incorporated into any rule.  We agree that it would be
useful to codify this policy into a rule, and hereby modify Section 73.7000 of our rules accordingly.
51. We disagree that it is too stringent to require an applicant without a local headquarters or
campus to have 75% of its governing board members comprised of local residents to qualify for localism
points. The Commission has discretion to exercise judgment in setting thresholds and drawing appropriate
lines.  Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, MM Docket No. 94-150, 14 FCC Rcd 12,559,
12,590 (1999).  We acknowledge that a percentage as low as 51% could constitute a voting majority and
therefore exercise legal control of an organization.  That is why we permit NCE television applicants that
are not governments or schools to establish their basic eligibility by demonstrating that a simple majority of
their board is composed of representative community elements.    Our point system, however, must
distinguish between minimally qualified applicants and exceptionally qualified applicants.  Reducing our
comparative standard to a 51 % local board would, in the case of television applicants, result in the award
of points to all minimally qualified applicants, making the localism credit meaningless in television
proceedings.  Further, we believe that it is reasonable to require a high level of local Board membership - a
super-majority rather than a bare majority - to qualify the applicant for a preference as an established local
applicant.  In our judgment, an NCE applicant Board comprised of 75% established local residents is likely
to be familiar with local needs and interests, and also have extensive ties to the community that will
facilitate continuing interaction with the community.  Equally important, that level of local Board
membership is likely to assure a sufficient level of influence and control over policies and direction of the
licensee such that the local Board members' familiarity with local needs and interests and continuing
interaction with their community will be reflected in the station's policies and programming.  With a 75%
local Board, local members are likely to control station decisions even if one local board member is absent
or abstains from a particular decision.  Finally, we note that it is far easier for an applicant to establish
local credentials by appointing local residents to its board than by maintaining a physical presence by
means of a school or headquarters.  Thus, there is a greater potential for abuse of the point system among
applicants that establish their credentials by appointing local board members.  Requiring 75% local board
members, rather than a mere majority, reduces the potential for abuse of our process. Thus, we decline to
reduce the level of local Board membership required to qualify for points as an established local applicant
where the applicant has no local school campus or headquarters and is not a local government authority.
52. With respect to new organizations formed by local citizens, an organization in existence for
less than two years prior to our "snap shot" date may be "local" but cannot be considered "established."
Thus, it would not receive points as an "established local applicant."  Comments received earlier in this
proceeding indicated a concern that if the Commission did not set a minimum period of time for which an
organization itself must be local, non-local organizations would likely engage in abuse by "renting" local
citizens for their boards, or by setting up new local corporations with "straw-men" local incorporators.  It
would be too difficult without a lengthy hearing process for the Commission to distinguish between such
abusive "local" applications, and legitimate local applications.   Thus, in adopting the requirement that
organizations be "established" in the NCE Order, we stated that this requirement would serve to limit the
feigning of local qualifications, to establish the applicant's educational credentials in a particular locality,
and to foster participation by truly local entities in noncommercial educational broadcasting.  Accordingly,
we affirm our decision to grant localism points only to organizations that have been established in the
community for at least two years prior to application, similar to the standard adopted for Low Power FM
applications.    Regarding applications currently on file, the applicant must have qualified as a local
applicant continuously for two years prior to the supplement date to be considered for points as an
established local applicant.  It cannot claim such a credit now by virtue of adding local citizens to its board,
regardless of the length of time those citizens have lived in the community.
2. Technical Parameters
53. We adopted a credit for the applicant with the best technical proposal.  Specifically, we
determined that the applicant proposing to cover the largest area and population of all those in a mutually
exclusive group would get 1 point if its proposed area and population is 10% greater than the next best
proposal or 2 points if 25% greater than the next best proposal.   Connecticut College Broadcasting
Association asks if and how this standard will be applied to applications seeking modifications of existing
facilities.  In particular, it asks whether, among two applications for major modification, we would
compare only the newly proposed coverage of the stations or their total coverage areas (existing coverage
as well as proposed).
54. We clarify that factors in the point system are applicable to applications for major
modifications of existing stations as well as to applications for new stations.  When we examine a station's
technical parameters, we will focus on the applicant's proposal.  For modification applications, the
proposal is the area of newly added service only. For new stations the proposal is the entire area to be
served by the new station.  We recognize that, as so viewed, a proposal for new service is much more likely
to receive points for its technical parameters than a competing proposal to modify existing facilities.  This
result is consistent with our desire to provide additional service to as many people, living in as broad an
area, as possible.  Specifically, our grant of an application to construct a new station will bring a new
signal to the entire area and population within the new station's service area, whereas our grant of a major
modification brings new service to only a portion of the population within the modified station's service
area.
3. Diversity of Ownership
55. Our point system awards two points for local diversity, i.e., if the proposed station's principal
community (city grade) contour  does not overlap such contours of any other station in which the
applicant, its parent, subsidiaries, or members of their governing boards, have any attributable interests.
We stated that this point factor would enable the listening public to receive the viewpoints of different NCE
broadcasters.  We recognized that the governing boards of NCE entities change frequently, and that
differences in attributable broadcast interests of incoming and outgoing board members create an
uncertainty about whether an organization that qualifies for the credit today will be able to maintain
diversity into the future.  Accordingly, we stated that we would award credit for diversity only to applicants
whose own governing documents require that diversity of ownership is maintained.
56. Two petitioners ask us to clarify the governing document requirement.  First, Jimmy Swaggart
Ministries asks us to clarify whether pending applicants can amend their governing documents now, and
thus be considered for diversity points even if their governing documents did not contain such provisions at
the time of application.  As established above, for pending applicants, we will calculate the applicant's
maximum points as of a "supplement date" to be announced by public notice.  A pending applicant can
claim points for diversity if, as of that supplement date, it has no stations with overlapping principal
community contours, and it has included in its governing documents a provision to maintain that diversity
in the future.
57. Next, we consider a question from the University of Kansas ("Kansas"), which asks us to
clarify how an organization without traditional governing documents will be able to meet the governing
document requirement.  This question is relevant both to pending and future applicants. Unlike NCE
corporations, governed by a constitution and bylaws that members or a board can readily amend, Kansas is
organized by a state charter passed in 1863, and its operation is, in part, governed by state statute.  Kansas
maintains that any change would require an act of the state legislature.  It requests an exemption from the
governing document safeguard, and offers instead to certify that it will not apply for any facilities that
create contour overlap with other facilities for which it has applied or has been authorized.  It would agree
that any failure to meet this requirement would result in dismissal of its future applications.  It further
argues that the governing documents provision is overbroad, because it could prevent applicants from
applying for stations in proceedings where it is not seeking any diversity credit.
58. The governing document safeguard aims to maintain governing board characteristics for which
the applicant received credit, even if the composition of that board and its attributable broadcast interests
change due to resignation and replacement of board members.  We do not believe that the requirement is
overbroad.  Applicants may word the language as they deem best for their organization.  For example, they
may specify that this future safeguard provision will become effective only if the applicant claims a credit
for diversity and receives an authorization as a result of that claim.  Kansas' proposal to certify that it will
not apply for additional stations does not fully address the purpose of the governing document requirement,
because Kansas does not address the potential that future members of its governing board may hold or
acquire attributable interests in broadcast stations licensed to others.  We do, however, recognize that it
might be very difficult for state-chartered organizations, like the University of Kansas, to obtain legislative
amendments to their charter.  While we will not exempt such organizations from providing a safeguard, we
will consider alternative safeguards from such organizations if they reasonably assure that board
characteristics will be maintained during the four-year holding period.  For example, the University of
Kansas states that it is governed by a Board of Regents appointed by the governor.  We would consider a
certification from University making a commitment to maintain the Board characteristics on which it bases
its diversity claim, accompanied by a description of procedures it has in place to effectively notify
appointing officials and board members, both current and future, of their need to act consistently with the
University's diversity representations to the Commission.  While it would be preferable and simpler to have
the commitment in the organization's charter, if possible, we believe that in circumstances such as those
that Kansas describes we can rely on appointing officials, who know of the organization's representations
to the Commission, to make appointments consistent with those representations. We specifically limit the
availability of this option to entities whose governing documents cannot be amended without legislative
action.
4. State-wide Networks
59. The Commission has long recognized the value of state-wide networks of NCE stations
operating pursuant to state-wide educational plans. State-wide networks have been pioneers in NCE
broadcasting, particularly in television, ensuring that educational programming is available throughout an
area in a coordinated and organized manner, especially to schools.   We adopted a two-point credit in the
NCE Order for state-wide networks serving large numbers of accredited schools, and repealed a rule that
required more general consideration of applicant participation in state-wide plans.  See NCE Order at  61
citing 47 C.F.R.  73.502.  We recognized that, due to the locations of the multiple school campuses or
school districts they serve, state-wide networks may be unable to avoid overlapping signals, and thus may
not be able to qualify for diversity of ownership points.  By awarding an equal two-point credit for state-
wide networks whose service to schools disqualifies them for diversity of ownership points, we intended to
level the playing field.  Thus, applicants providing service to many schools, that cannot do so without some
signal contour overlap and resulting loss of the diversity credit, would not be placed at a disadvantage in
comparison to applicants serving a smaller number of schools or serving general listeners in locations that,
unlike schools, are not site-specific.  The credit is available to public and private state-wide networks, as
defined in 47 C.F.R.  73.7003(b)(3).  That rule generally requires that the applicant's stations will provide
programming to 50 accredited full time elementary/secondary schools, or five accredited full time college
campuses in a single state, in furtherance of the school curriculum. Several petitioners urge us to either
eliminate or modify our credit for state-wide networks.  They object primarily to our inclusion of school
curriculum in the definition of state-wide network and to the large number of schools that applicants must
serve to qualify for the credit.
a. Curriculum
60. Educational Media Foundation (EMF) and Station Resource Group (SRG) seek elimination of
the state-wide network credit.  EMF believes that the credit amounts to a value judgment that instructional
programming is better than general educational programming.  It believes that the Commission is trying to
limit the programming that an NCE station can broadcast, contrary to a recent decision in which the
Commission withdrew advice on the types of programming that are educational.  Station Resource Group
opposes the credit on different grounds, arguing that virtually no radio broadcaster would qualify for the
credit as currently defined, and that it would be preferable to substitute different, more readily available,
credits.  Colorado Christian University and West Coast Public Radio would retain the credit for state-wide
networks, but would delete the requirement that programming be used in furtherance of a school
curriculum.  According to Colorado Christian University, 65% to 75% of its adult students enroll at the
college after listening to non-curriculum programs on the radio.  Several commenters argue that the credit
is of more value to television applicants than to radio applicants because radio stations are not as readily
used as an instructional medium as television stations.
61. As indicated, we adopted points for state-wide networks to recognize a compelling educational
reason that some NCE applicants may not be able to achieve the desirable goal of local diversity, and to
avoid disadvantaging those applicants under our point system.  When service to large numbers of schools is
the reason for an educator's inability to qualify for the "diversity" credit, our point system values service to
schools equally with diversity of ownership. We disagree with EMF's view that favoring school-based
education on educational broadcast channels favors government speakers over private and religious
speakers. A wide range of speakers, public and private, religious and secular, operate schools.  A wide
range of broadcast programming can further the curriculum of such schools.  Perhaps, as some parties
note, some applicants that operate schools will not qualify for this credit, because they target their
broadcast service at the broader public, do not use their stations in connection with their school curriculum,
or operate only one school. Perhaps, as others contend, television applicants will be more likely to qualify
than radio applicants will.   None of these factors would diminish our commitment to this credit.  We did
not expect this to be a widely available credit, but rather a tailored credit meant specifically to
counterbalance the disadvantage otherwise suffered by applicants that lose diversity points because they
regularly provide curriculum service to large numbers of schools.  If fewer radio licensees will qualify for
the state-wide network credit, that is only because fewer such entities will suffer the disadvantage under our
point system for which this credit is intended to compensate.  State-wide networks have played a more
prominent role in television than in radio, and thus it is not surprising that more television than radio
applicants would qualify.  Moreover, television applicants serving schools may need this credit more than
radio applicants may because television stations cover greater distances and have greater potential for
overlap with co-owned stations.
62. We will not eliminate the inclusion of curriculum in our definition of state-wide networks.
Under the non-curriculum-based credit urged by some commenters, any large system of schools or colleges
would get the credit, regardless of whether its stations play any role in student education.  The compelling
reason for the applicant's inability to qualify for the diversity credit -- the applicant's need to serve the
schools -- would no longer exist.  The proponents of the alternative definition do not demonstrate that large
schools that want to operate multiple stations for non-curriculum purposes should be treated any differently
from other NCE applicants that want to operate multiple stations for non-curriculum purposes.
63. Connection to a school curriculum must be more than, as one petitioner suggests, a potential
recruitment tool to attract students to attend a university.  However, programming that furthers a
curriculum need not be solely "instructional" i.e., a broadcast of a teacher in a classroom.  A college radio
station operated by students as part of a class on broadcasting could also qualify regardless of the type of
programming the students select.  News or public affairs programming could further a curriculum if
designed for use in a school to teach journalism or current events.  Music and drama programs could be
scheduled for use in a music or art appreciation curriculum.
b. Number of Schools Served within Contours of Overlapping Stations
64. Petitioners also ask us to adjust the number of schools that an applicant must serve to be
considered for the credit.  Station Resource Group believes that our numbers are arbitrary, failing to
account for different sizes of student populations.  It states, for example, that an applicant providing
service to five small colleges would qualify for the credit, while an applicant providing service to 45 large
high schools would not qualify, even if the high schools had more students than the colleges.
65. Colorado Christian University similarly asks that we loosen a requirement in the state-wide
network credit concerning station contours.  As adopted, the combined contours of the applicant's
authorized stations and the one proposed station, must encompass the schools to be served.  Colorado
Christian asks that we consider the contours of all of the applicant's pending proposals.  It maintains that
applicants may want to serve large numbers of campuses, but that stations needed to cover those schools
have not yet been authorized due to their mutual exclusivity with stations proposed by other applicants.
66. With respect to identifying an applicant's stations that will count as serving schools in our
analysis, we will consider only existing authorizations, and the one proposed station under consideration.
The diversity credit that we seek to counterbalance limits consideration to these same stations. As an
applicant would not be disadvantaged by any other proposed stations for purposes of the diversity credit,
we will not consider such proposals for purposes of the state-wide network credit.  Further, while an
educator may have applications pending to construct additional stations that could serve more schools, it
may or may not ever be authorized to operate such stations.
67. We clarify that the schools to be served need not be of a particular size, because the size of the
student population served is not necessarily related to the applicant's inability to avoid overlapping service
contours.  We recognize, as SRG predicts, that there may be individual instances in which an applicant
serving fewer students will receive a credit as a state-wide network over an applicant serving more
students.  Such a result is not troublesome because the state-wide network credit is not, for example,
intended to promote service to colleges with large enrollments over colleges with small enrollments.
Rather, we are making a distinction based on the number of campuses receiving broadcast service.  A
college that operates multiple stations to provide broadcast signals to each of its many campuses is more
likely to experience overlap of its signals than another college in the same state seeking to provide
broadcast service to fewer campus locations.  Accordingly, to counteract any disadvantage in qualifying for
a diversity credit, it is appropriate for the state-wide network credit to consider number of campuses rather
than student population.
c. Small Institutions/Aggregation of Stations Licensed to Different Entities
68. We also clarify that even small schools and colleges with few campuses can qualify for the
state-wide network credit if, through consortia arrangements, they will provide curriculum programming to
schools in additional to their own.  We make this clarification in response to concerns of Santa Monica
Community College District ("Santa Monica") and the American Association of Community Colleges
("AACC"), which represents over 1,100 community colleges nationally. For example, AACC notes that
although Rhode Island and Delaware community colleges operate pursuant to state-wide educational plans
they each have fewer than five campuses. AACC also states that community colleges often are not part of
the state university system, and that because the degree of centralized authority at the state level varies,
there is some uncertainty over which schools individual community colleges could count within their
network.   For example, Santa Monica operates only one college campus.  It is concerned that it might not
receive a state-wide network credit for future stations, because Santa Monica does not have authority over
campuses licensed to other districts within California, and does not provide programming to any single
institution with more than five campuses.
69. Community colleges or other small entities are not by virtue of size or organizational structure
precluded from qualifying as state-wide networks, but the manner in which any particular organization
might qualify for the credit will vary depending on such factors.  First, if a central community college
board or similar entity exerts control over individual districts, in the same manner that a parent entity
controls subsidiaries that have their own governing boards, the stations of any community college district in
the state would be attributable to the same parent entity.  If the applicant's stations encompass five
campuses with a common parent entity, and are used in the curriculum of those campuses, it could qualify
for the state-wide network credit.  This might occur, for example, if one district has a particular expertise
in broadcasting, and therefore sister districts choose to use the service of this district rather than to operate
their own stations.
70. Alternatively, an applicant could qualify for the credit if its multiple stations are used in the
curriculum of its own single campus and those of four separately operated college campuses, through an
agreement with the separate colleges.  For example, public and/or private four-year universities might
regularly use a community college's broadcast programs that also relate to their curriculum.  Similarly, a
school district with fewer than 50 elementary and secondary schools could qualify for the state-wide
network credit if it also will provide programming to a neighboring school district, if the requisite number
of schools in both districts combined will use the programming in their respective curricula. Accordingly,
we clarify that consortiums of schools coordinating broadcast programming for use in their respective
curricula, and non-schools serving such consortiums, can qualify for the state-wide network credit pursuant
to 47 C.F.R.  73.7003(b)(3)(c),  if in the aggregate they serve five college campuses or 50 elementary
and/or secondary schools. Applicants cannot, however, aggregate colleges and elementary/secondary
schools served.  For example, an applicant serving four college campuses and ten high schools, will not be
treated as equivalent to an applicant serving five college campuses.  As colleges tend to be spaced further
apart than lower level schools, it is not unanticipated that there would be several elementary/secondary
schools within the vicinity of a college and vice/versa.  Serving these additional schools would not generally
require the applicant to cover a significantly larger area, and thus would not affect its ability to receive a
diversity credit. Additionally, if the applicant is simply operating multiple radio stations to serve its own
single campus and to reach the general public beyond its campus, without being used in a curriculum by the
requisite number of schools, it would not be able to receive a state-wide network credit regardless of the
number of schools that might happen to be located within its service area.  In sum, applicants that provide
curriculum service to the requisite number of schools, through arrangements with those schools, can claim
a state-wide network credit even if all of the schools are not under one common authority.
E. Point Factors Not Selected/New Point Proposals
71. In the NCE Order we considered, but decided not to adopt, several other point system factors.
A few petitioners urge us to reconsider factors previously rejected, or to consider adding new factors to the
point system.
1. Local Program Origination and Other Localism Points
72. Broadcasting for the Challenged and National Federation of Community Broadcasters believe
that we should provide credit for additional local factors beyond the established local applicant credit
discussed above.  BFTC states that it is inconsistent to award a credit for established local applicants, but
not for local program origination by non-local applicants. It urges us to give three points to non-local
applicants that intend to involve the local community in their stations, as a way to recognize that, in
BFTC's opinion, community-minded non-local broadcasters are equivalent to those already present in the
local community.  Specifically BFTC urges us to award credits for applicants that would (a) establish local
advisory boards; (b) employ 80% local employees; (c) train local interns and students; and (d) provide at
least 50% locally produced programming.  NFCB supports credits for local program origination as well.  It
notes that LPFM stations can receive points for local program production, and states that LPFM service is
not a substitute for full service local programming.  NFCB argues that a credit for locally produced
programming would be consistent with Commission and court cases supporting local program origination
and believes that the NCE Order does not adequately explain the reason for departure from an existing
policy.  Further, NFCB would award points to stations that are locally funded, which it believes is a good
indication of community support, and for use of local talent or provision of airtime to local residents, which
it believes will increase diversity of viewpoint.   Community Television, Inc. opposes these suggestions.  It
views our existing localism points as disfavoring religious-oriented broadcasters, and argues that adding
more localism factors would be entirely unsupportable.
73. With respect to BFTC's suggestion of awarding points to a non-local applicant planning to
provide community service, we note that the various steps that BFTC identifies may be helpful to non-local
applicants in efforts to learn about the community's educational needs and to maintain good community
relations.  We decline, however, to award points based on an applicant's mere intention to implement such
procedures.  BFTC's suggestions involve plans for the future, and are not readily verifiable upon
application.  An applicant with the best of intentions may fail to live up to such promises if, for example, it
finds that there are insufficient local residents skilled in broadcasting and thus it cannot fulfill its earlier
plan to hire locally. We believe that it is better policy to award points for factors that can be verified at the
time of application.  Further, the record before us does not identify non-local NCE licensees that have
instituted such policies in the past or provide information about the service records of any such stations.
Thus we do not have a sound basis on which to conclude that non-local applicants would provide service
equivalent to local applicants if the former were to establish local advisory boards, employ local residents,
or train local interns and students.  Nor does it appear to us that any of those mechanisms would ensure
that a station's service is responsive to local community needs and interests to the same extent as if the
licensee were awarded to a locally based organization.  Accordingly, we will not adopt BFTC's suggestion.
74. NFCB's proposed credits for local programming, public access, and local funding are similar
to proposals considered but rejected in the NCE Order.  We decline to adopt those factors for the reasons
stated therein.  Given the difficulties in receiving financial backing for a non-profit venture like
construction of an NCE station, applicants should have the flexibility to finance construction using
whatever sources, local or non-local, are available.  Similarly, full service NCE applicants should have the
flexibility to air the programming that they conclude will best serve the needs and interests of the
community, whoever produces it, and wherever that production takes place.
2. Radio Reading Services
75. West Coast Public Radio suggests that we award two points to FM applicants that would
make their subcarrier frequencies available to organizations that provide reading services for the blind.
NFCB, while acknowledging the good work of radio reading services, opposes this suggestion because the
proposal does not take into account whether reading services in an area need more outlets to transmit their
services, or whether existing options are already adequate.  We agree with NFCB's critique.  We also note
that radio reading services are but one of many possible ways which FM subcarrier frequencies might be
used to address a community need.  For example, such frequencies can also be used to provide foreign
language programming.  Further, regardless of whether subcarriers are used for radio reading services or
other worthwhile endeavors, subcarrier signals are not received by the general public, but only by a distinct
subset of listeners with specially designed receivers.  Therefore, to establish a credit for radio reading
services, we would need to conclude that reading services are superior to all other possible subcarrier uses,
and that subcarrier service requiring special receive equipment deserves points similar to radio service that
everyone can receive.  Such conclusions are not supportable under the current record.  Thus, we will not
award any points for this factor.
F. Tie Breakers
76. In the NCE Order we recognized that some mutually exclusive applicants might qualify for
equal points.  For such scenarios we established tie breaker mechanisms.  If applicants differ in terms of
their number of existing authorizations, we would award the permit to the applicant with the fewest
authorizations.  If that factor fails to break the tie, we would select the applicant with the fewest pending
applications.  If applicants nevertheless remain tied, and are unable to settle among themselves, we
instituted mandatory time sharing as a tie breaker of last resort for full service stations.
77. Several commenters object to our tie breakers.  Broadcasting for the Challenged argues that an
applicant's distant stations and applications are irrelevant because they have no impact on the proposed
station or local listeners.  Station Resource Group argues that our tie breakers are inconsistent with our
recognition elsewhere of the benefits of centralized NCE operations, and with our grant of main studio
waivers.  Educational Media Foundation is concerned that a speculative applicant without any existing
stations would prevail over an existing broadcaster with stations in a different part of the country.  It also
questions the propriety of counting stations without considering the size of the communities served.   It
gives as an example, a tie breaker between an applicant with one existing station serving a million people,
and a competing applicant with two stations serving rural areas with far fewer people combined.  EMF
argues that we should not favor the first applicant just because it has fewer stations, as it would be
inaccurate to consider the first applicant as having a more limited opportunity to air its viewpoint to the
public.  NFCB, while supporting our tie breakers based on authorizations and applications, objects to use
of time sharing as a tie breaker of last resort.  It views mandatory time sharing as an abdication of the
Commission's responsibility for choosing among applicants, which aims to force applicants into private
negotiations among themselves.
78. We acknowledge that the tie breaker selection factors highlight relatively minor differences
between applicants. We also acknowledge that mandatory time sharing is unpopular and can be difficult for
applicants with different missions, philosophies, or formats.  Thus, these factors are considered only as tie
breakers among applicants that are equally qualified under the primary selection factors.  As tie breakers,
these factors are fair.  An applicant with more stations than its competitor already has more outlets to air
its viewpoint and programming.  It would be unnecessarily complex to compare for tie breaking purposes
whether any of those stations are superior to others in terms of coverage or population served. Moreover, it
is an efficient use of limited spectrum to award a permit to the applicant that applies in a few carefully
chosen areas most suitable to its educational goals.  An equally qualified applicant that has additional
applications pending for other locations has more options available to it. As a last resort, time sharing
recognizes the equal qualifications of applicants that have survived several tie breakers by giving the
applicants partial, but equal, authority to broadcast.  It has been a longstanding Commission practice to use
time sharing to break ties in comparative broadcast cases, and we do not consider it an abdication of
responsibility. See, e.g., Southeastern Bible College, Inc., 85 FCC 2d 936 (Rev. Bd. 1981).
79. Whatever shortcomings our tie breakers may have, the petitioners suggest no better
alternatives.   The only alternative presented is a tie breaker lottery.  As noted in the NCE Order, the statute
governing our use of lotteries requires that substantial preferences be given in lotteries for minority control,
a requirement that may well be challenged on constitutional grounds, resulting in litigation that would delay
the award of licenses under our new procedures.  Such additional delays would be particularly intolerable
after the prolonged delays in processing NCE applications due to the comparative hearing freeze.  Further,
we do not see how use of a lottery, a process of random selection, is likely to result in the licensing of the
applicant best qualified to serve its proposed audience, the factor that the petitioners argue is lacking in our
chosen tie breaker system.  Accordingly, we affirm our tie breaker system.
G. Attribution of Full Service and Translator Stations
80. Because several factors in the NCE point system, including diversity of ownership, localism,
and tie breakers, are based on whether the applicant also has interests in other broadcast stations, we
established attribution rules for NCE organizations.  These rules are similar to those applicable to
commercial broadcasters, attributing the interests of the applicant, its parents, and its subsidiaries, their
officers and members of their governing boards.  To implement these attribution standards we modified
Section 73.3555 of our rules concerning ownership.  The rule, which previously stated that none of its
provisions applied to NCE applicants, now says that the rule, including its attribution provision, is
applicable to NCE applicants to the extent that they are compared pursuant to Subpart K, which sets forth
our new comparative criteria.
81. DeLaHunt Broadcasting states that the relevance of attribution to NCE applicants is not
limited to the point system in Subpart K.  For example, it notes that Subpart G, which governs the low
power FM (LPFM) service, provides that a party with an attributable broadcast interest cannot hold an
attributable interest in a low power FM (LPFM) licensee.  DeLaHunt also believes that Subpart I,
governing auctions of non-reserved channels, counts attributable interests in noncommercial stations for
determining whether an applicant qualifies for a noncommercial bidding credit.  In amending the notes to
Section 73.3555, we meant to clarify that commercial attribution standards also apply to NCE stations, to
the extent that attribution is relevant to such stations.  Attribution is certainly relevant for Subpart K, but
we should have included it as an example only.  Accordingly, we will now modify Section 73.3555 to use
Subpart K as an example only.  Whenever attribution issues are relevant for NCE purposes, the standards
in Section 73.3555 will apply.
82. Educational Communications of Colorado Springs asks whether the Commission will provide
attribution relief similar to that provided to commercial entities, in considering the attributable interests of
officers and directors whose responsibilities are wholly unrelated to broadcasting.   For example, it notes
that an officer of an NCE applicant may sit on the board of a university or church whose primary mission
is distinct from broadcasting, but which may have a broadcast station.  Educational Communications of
Colorado Springs believes that the officer should be relieved from attributable interests if he is willing to
recuse himself from the secondary broadcast-related business of the other organization.  As a safeguard, it
proposes that an officer no longer willing to recuse himself on one board, must resign from the other.
83. We clarify that the commercial attribution principles contained in the notes to Section 73.3555
are generally applicable to NCE applicants for comparative purposes.  The specific provision to which the
petitioner refers, 47 C.F.R.  73.3555, n.2(h), establishes that if an entity engages in a primary business
other than broadcasting, applicants may request that the Commission waive attribution for any officer or
director of the company whose responsibilities are wholly unrelated to broadcasting.   NCE applicants may
similarly request waivers, asking us to find as non-attributable an officer's position with another entity
because it has demonstrated that the officer's duties and responsibilities with that entity are wholly
unrelated to that entity's broadcast business. Applicants should indicate the points for which it would
qualify both if the waiver were granted and if the waiver were denied, so that we will not need to request
additional information from the applicant.
84. We also clarify sua sponte, the extent to which applicants should count translator stations in
determining local diversity and tie breaker matters. The text of the NCE Order and the full service rules
adopted therein, generally reflect our intent that for determining local diversity points we will consider
overlap of the proposed station with attributable NCE and commercial stations, "comparing radio to radio
and television to television."  NCE Order at  35; 47 C.F.R.  73.7003(b)(2).  Similarly, for tie breakers,
they state that we would consider the number of an applicant's existing authorizations and applications "in
the same service (radio or television)."  NCE Order at 72; 47 C.F.R.  73.7003(c)(1).  See also 47 C.F.R.
 73.7003(c)(2) ("same service").  We note, however, that tie breaker language elsewhere in the document
could give a mistaken impression that we intended translator stations to have no tie breaking impact on full
service stations and vice versa.  See NCE Order, n.59; Appendix A (Tiebreaker A); 47 C.F.R. 
74.1233(e)(3).   Accordingly, as discussed below, we clarify our intent.
85. In applying for a reserved channel station, whether full service or FM translator, the radio
applicant generally should include its translators for purposes of determining diversity points and tie
breakers.  It would report all attributable commercial and noncommercial radio stations: AM, FM, and
non-fill-in FM translators, i.e., translators that extend the area of a full service station.  We will recognize
an exception to this principle, however, for any radio translator licensee that, in the particular application
involved, is seeking a full service station to replace its existing translator station(s).  Such applicants may
exclude, on that application, any existing translator station that will cease operating when the proposed full
service station commences operation.  We will, however, permit full service television applicants to exclude
TV translators and Low Power Television (LPTV) stations when reporting attributable commercial and
noncommercial TV stations. As a result of the transition from analog to digital television, translators may
be an important resource in resolving interference issues, and we do not wish to preclude that possibility
until that matter has been addressed.  Due to the impact the transition to DTV has on LPTV and TV
translator stations, we will not require full service television applicants to count LPTV or TV translators.
Accordingly full service TV applicants applying for reserved channels should report all attributable
commercial and noncommercial television stations: UHF and VHF, and Class A, but excluding TV
translators and LPTV stations.
H. Application Processing Issues
1. General Procedures
86. The manner in which we will process applications is relevant both to pending applications and
future applications.  For pending reserved channel applications in closed groups, which are not subject to
additional competing applications, the staff has already reviewed these proposals for mutual exclusivity
only and has determined the members of each closed group.   As described previously, these applicants
will need to supplement their applications to provide point information.  As to future applications, in the
NCE Order we decided to open short filing windows periodically.  These applications will be filed on a new
Form 340, which asks for the information needed to determine the points for which an applicant would
qualify. All applications received during a particular window will be examined initially for mutual
exclusivity only. As described above, and for the first filing window only, the staff will examine for mutual
exclusivity any applications filed prior to adoption of the NCE Order which are still subject to competing
applications, along with applications filed within the first window.
87. After analyzing mutually exclusive applications under our new comparative standards, the
Commission will issue an order or decision letter announcing the tentative selectee in a particular
proceeding.  As we will have initially examined applications for mutual exclusivity only, we will consider
whether any tentative selectee's application (FCC Form 340 or 349) has defects.  If found acceptable, we
will announce that fact by a public notice generated by the Consolidated Database System (CDBS) entitled
"Broadcast Applications."  Petitions to deny the application must be filed within 30 days following release
of the Broadcast Applications Public Notice announcing acceptance of the application at issue.  Interested
parties should monitor these Broadcast Applications public notices.  If a tentative selectee's application has
acceptability defects, it will be returned so that the applicant may have one opportunity to cure the defect.
If the defect is cured consistent with the standards for acceptable applications the staff will generate a
public notice via CDBS, triggering a 30-day period for petitions to deny.  Failure to correct the defect,
however, will render the application unacceptable and we will proceed to tentatively select the applicant
with the next highest number of points. So that interested parties may verify or dispute the tentatively
selected applicant's point tally, we would require applicants to file documentation of their point claims at
the time of application both in their local public inspection files and with the Commission.  The staff also
would conduct random audits of points claimed.  Other than specifying these broad guidelines, we did not
establish processing procedures either for pending or future applications, instead delegating that
responsibility to the Mass Media Bureau. Several petitioners ask us to clarify or establish additional
processing requirements and guidelines, which would be generally applicable both to pending and future
NCE applicants.
88. First, we consider a request from Spring Arbor College, which asks us to clarify that we will
enable competing applicants to act as private attorneys general, disputing a tentative selectee's claims,
rather than just conducting random audits. We clarify that the applicant's documentation, as specified and
submitted in accordance with the instructions to the NCE application, Form 340, will be available for
public review.  Interested parties can provide useful analysis of such information in the context of petitions
to deny or informal objections filed in response to public notices announcing our choice of tentative
selectees.  For example, if our tentative selectee claimed points as a state-wide network, it would have been
required to provide information about the schools to be served.  Interested parties will be able to examine
the basis for the applicant's certification, and thus may independently verify, for example, whether the
schools served operate full time and are accredited, as required.  In addition, the Commission will randomly
conduct audits of the information submitted.  The process adopted thus provides reasonable assurance that
the statements made will be verified for accuracy, either by competing applicants, the Commission, or the
general public.
89. Next, we consider two petitions asking us to specify the processing order of applications.
Station Resource Group, which focuses on pending applications, suggests a chronological order, resolving
the earliest groups to file before considering later filed pending groups.   University of Northern Ohio
("Northern Ohio"), whose views raise issues relevant to all applications, suggests geographical processing,
and would only use chronology if there were two groups of applications for the same city.  In support of
this position, Northern Ohio states that local competing applications may be in conflict with a distant co-
channel operation and that, by approaching the applications geographically, we could maximize the number
of licenses awarded.  For example, it maintains that in a situation where there is a chain of mutually
exclusive applications, it is possible that applications at either end of the chain would not be mutually
exclusive with each other, except for the existence of the middle applicant(s).  Northern Ohio asks us to
resolve the middle applications first, and then, if the resolution of that situation removes a conflict with
another proposal, to grant that other proposal as well.
90. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary at this time to specify in the abstract a
particular processing order, i.e., the order in which we will resolve the mutually exclusive groups of NCE
applications on file or the order in which we will analyze any particular applications within those groups.
We will process applications in a manner that will be most administratively efficient and that will be most
likely to result in selection of the best qualified applicants as judged by the point system adopted in this
proceeding. In that regard, we note that, while the "upside" of Northern Ohio's "geographic" proposal is
that it may permit the selection of more than one applicant from any single mutually exclusive group, it
also has a clear "downside." Specifically, after the best qualified applicant is selected, it is possible that
remaining applicants that are not mutually exclusive with this primary selectee and thus potentially
secondary selectees, may also be significantly inferior to other applicants that are eliminated because they
are mutually exclusive with the primary selectee.  Rather than issue authorizations to applicants whose
potential for selection stems primarily from their position in the mutually exclusive chain, we believe it is
appropriate to dismiss all of the remaining applicants and permit them to file again in the next filing
window.
2. Procedural Issues For Future Window Applications
91. Station Resource Group and West Coast Public Radio raise processing issues relevant
specifically to applications filed in future windows.  First, to limit potential speculation, they ask us to limit
to five or ten the number of applications that any organization may file in a single filing window.  Second,
they ask us to commit to open at least one window, scheduled to coincide with the due date of funding
requests to the Public Telecommunications Funding Program (PTFP), which is administered by the
National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA), and upon which many NCE applicants rely.
Because NTIA accepts funding requests only once a year, and requires their applicants to indicate that they
have filed a broadcast application with the Commission, some organizations are concerned that they may
lose the opportunity to apply in an NTIA funding cycle if we do not open an application filing window
immediately before NTIA applications are due.
92. The suggestion to limit the number of applications submitted in any particular filing window is
essentially the same as one that was considered but rejected in the NCE Order.  NCE Order at  85-86.
We did not believe that such limits were needed to prevent speculative applications, because other aspects
of our new procedures, including the window procedure itself and a four-year holding period, serve to
discourage speculation.  Further, the tie breaker mechanism favors applicants with fewer applications.  We
do, however, reserve the right to establish such a limit in the future by public notice, if the number of
applications filed exceeds our expectations.  Petitioners do not provide persuasive reasons for changing our
decision at this time.
93. With respect to funding, we appreciate concerns of commenters that need to apply to the
Commission in time to also apply for funding available from another agency.  The Commission and its staff
are well aware of the importance of PTFP funding, especially to smaller organizations that could not
construct a station without this program's financial assistance.  Our staff therefore has always coordinated
closely and in a timely manner with NTIA staff to ensure that both agencies can fully consider the
applicants' related proposals. We expect that coordination between the Commission and NTIA will
continue and will result in the opening of sufficient Commission filing windows for applicants to meet the
requirements of NTIA.
3. Terminated Hearing Proceedings
94. In the NCE Order, we terminated "any traditional comparative hearing proceedings to which a
noncommercial educational applicant is a party."  NCE Order at  129.   Jimmy Swaggart Ministries
("Swaggart") and Real Life Educational Foundation of Baton Rouge, Inc. ("Real Life"), which are
mutually exclusive with each other and have already been through a comparative hearing in MM Docket
No. 88-308, ask for clarification of the process that will apply to former hearing applicants.  Real Life
believes that the prior hearing process has been replaced by a point system which will apply to such
applicants, while Swaggart maintains that it would be inefficient and unfair to completely discard the
results of hearings that have already taken place.
95. We believe that the proceeding between Real Life and Swaggart is the only pending proceeding
that was once subject to a full evidentiary hearing.  That case is essentially before us for a new initial
selection among the applicants.  We will apply a point system to that proceeding, identical to that applied to
all other pending applications for which no initial selection was made prior to the effective date of the point
system.   Although not specifically suggested by Swaggart or Real Life, we considered the possibility of
using the old hearing results as a final tie breaker, in the event that the hearing parties are found otherwise
equal under the point system and the usual tie breakers set forth in 73.7003(c) do not result in a winner.
However, given the vagueness of our former hearing standards, we cannot say with a certainty that such
result would be better than time sharing, the ultimate tie breaker that would otherwise resolve the matter.
In fact, the hearing case between Real Life and Swaggart was one which was an impetus for revamping the
standards for comparing NCE applicants, with the Review Board finding very little distinguishing among
their proposals under the vague hearing criteria then in effect.   Accordingly, the pending Real Life and
Swaggart applications will be considered under the new point system in all respects.
I. Settlements
96. We briefly discussed settlements in the NCE Order.  We stated that settling parties would be
limited to reimbursement of their reasonable and prudent expenses.  We also stated that we would not
"adopt a formal settlement period, so as not to unduly delay the award of points in cases where the parties
are not interested in settlement, but stress that parties are free to settle at any time during the process."
NCE Order at  74. See 47 C.F.R.  73.7003(d).  Although pending NCE applicants have been able to
settle with each other for a considerable time, both before and after the NCE Order, few have filed
settlements. To foster settlements, the University of Kansas believes that we should provide for existing
applicants to amend out of a mutually exclusive group by specifying any other available channel for which
no one has applied.  It asks us to modify Section 73.3573 of our rules to consider such action as a minor
change.  Kansas believes that such action would be consistent with 74.1233(e)(2) used to resolve mutually
exclusive FM translator applications.
97. We do not adopt Kansas's proposal because it would preclude other full service applicants
from applying for the available frequencies in the next filing window. Under existing rules, an applicant
may make engineering changes to bring about a settlement if the change is "minor", e.g., proposing to move
to an adjacent channel.  47 C.F.R.  73.3573.  Because existing stations can also file applications for
minor changes outside of filing windows, minor changes to pending applications made outside of filing
windows do not adversely affect the rights of existing licensees.  In contrast, the settlements based on major
changes that Kansas proposes could preclude existing stations from filing major changes in the next
window.  We will not permit this.  If the applicant that desired to make the major change to its proposal
does not prevail in a point proceeding, it may file its alternate proposal in the next filing window, subject to
competition from any additional applicants with similar plans for that channel.  We recognize that our rules
are more lenient, in this regard, for FM translator stations.  Translators are secondary services, however,
and thus allowing a translator to amend to another channel does not have a preclusive effect on future
applicants for full service stations.
98. We will, however, provide additional clarification of the settlement policies that will apply to
mutually exclusive NCE groups.   Settlement of NCE proceedings can be beneficial both to applicants and
to the Commission.  Applicants are able to achieve a solution that is most acceptable to the parties, and the
Commission is able to conserve the resources we would spend to select among them. Two types of
settlement agreements will be acceptable: universal settlements and technical settlements, each of which
allows immediate grant of an authorization.  Universal settlements resolve the claims of all applications
within a mutually exclusive group.   Technical settlements make it possible, by means of minor engineering
changes, for one applicant to remove itself from the group on the four corners of its own application
without affecting the viability of any other applicants.  Thus, through a technical settlement, the
Commission can authorize one applicant immediately, while also considering later which of all of the other
applicants should build a second NCE station.   An example is a unilateral action or agreement between
applicants at the end of a chain, making it possible to grant one of those applicants, while not affecting the
rights of the others to compete.  We will not accept partial settlement agreements such as those in which
applicants withdraw from one proceeding in return for the promise of a competing applicant to withdraw
from another proceeding, but fail to achieve any grantable application or to settle with the remaining
applicants in each group.  Such settlements potentially prejudice the remaining non-settling applicants.
Partial settlements also encourage applicants to eliminate the best competing proposals without any
resulting public benefit such as faster initiation of service. Considering proceedings with partial settlements
would not take any less time, and could actually take longer because the settlement creates a two-step
process for the Commission (acting on the settlement and comparing the remaining group or groups of
applicants) instead of the one-step process of comparing all of the applicants.
99. Finally, for a short period ending with the date on which existing groups of mutually exclusive
NCE applicants must file supplements to claim points, we will entertain settlement agreements that exceed
the applicant's reasonable and prudent expenses.  We have been unable to process mutually exclusive NCE
applications since 1995 due to the lack of workable NCE comparative standards.  Under similar
circumstances, we permitted competing ITFS applicants to settle without any limitations on payments to
withdrawing applicants.  See First Report and Order, Competitive Bidding, 13 FCC Rcd 15920,  206
(1998). We believe that our consideration of such settlements among closed groups of NCE applicants will
facilitate resolution of these long-frozen comparative initial licensing proceedings.  Thus, by the date that
the staff announces for the acceptance of supplemental filings, applicants will file either supplements to
claim points, universal settlements resolving the entire group, or technical settlements providing for the
grant of an application as a result of minor engineering changes. Any applicants that have settlement
agreements already on file pursuant to previous settlement policies may continue to pursue those settlement
agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement
date referencing the pending settlement.  Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the
supplement date will be dismissed.  For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will
waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R.  73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other
consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application,
but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against "white knight" settlements
involving non-applicant third parties.  This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
beyond the period provided herein.  Thus, while we always encourage settlements among NCE applicants,
any settlements filed after the deadline for point supplements will be subject to the monetary limits in our
rules.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES
100. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., a Supplemental
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been completed and is attached as Appendix C hereto.
101. Authority for issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order is contained in Sections
4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r),
403, and 405.
102. The actions taken in this Memorandum and Order have been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and found to impose no new or modified reporting and recordkeeping
requirements or burdens on the public.
103. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration and clarification
listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein and otherwise ARE DENIED
pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405, and Section 1.429(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
1.429(i).
104. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order including
the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
105. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set forth
in Appendix B. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
and the rule amendments set forth in the Appendix SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days following publication
in the Federal Register.
106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
107. For additional information concerning this proceeding, contact Irene Bleiweiss, Mass
Media Bureau, Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD W. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
In re Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for
Noncommercial Educational Applicants
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 95-31
I write today to acknowledge the constitutional concerns expressed by religious broadcast advocates, such
as the Educational Media Foundation, in this proceeding.  As I have stated before, the Commission must be
diligent in crafting rules that fully respect the spectrum of freedoms guaranteed to all Americans under the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  While the point system refinements adopted by the
Commission today are not perfect, they are in the main, speaker and subject matter neutral.  Suffice it to
say, the point system is far more preferable, and less constitutionally suspect, than the comparative hearing
process, a lottery system, or any other existing regulatory mechanism in selecting among competing
applicants for broadcast services on channels reserved for noncommercial educational use.
APPENDIX A
List of Participants
American Association of Community Colleges
Broadcasting for the Challenged, Inc.
Center for Media Education, et al.
Colorado Christian University
Community Television, Inc.
Connecticut College Broadcasting Association, Inc.
De La Hunt Broadcasting
Diocese of St. Augustine
Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc.
Educational Media Foundation
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries
Lay Catholic Broadcasting Network
Munn-Reese, Inc.
National Federation of Community Broadcasters, et al.
Real Life Educational Foundation of Baton Rouge, Inc.
Santa Monica Community College District
Spring Arbor College
Station Resource Group
University of Kansas
University of Northern Iowa
WAY-FM Media Group, Inc.
West Coast Public Radio, et al.
APPENDIX B
RULE CHANGES
Parts 73 and 74 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 73 - RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1.  The authority citation for part 73 continues to read:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2.  Section 73.3555 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (f) to read as follows:
 73.3555 Multiple ownership.
(f) * * * However, the attribution standards set forth in the Notes to this section will be used to determine
attribution for noncommercial educational FM and TV applicants, such as in evaluating mutually exclusive
applications pursuant to Subpart K.
3.  Section 73.7000 is amended by adding a final clause to the definition of Local Applicant to read as
follows:
 73.7000 Definition of Terms (as Used in Subpart K only).
*****
Local Applicant: an applicant physically headquartered, having a campus, or having 75% of board
members residing within 25 miles of the reference coordinates for the community to be served, or a
governmental entity within its area of jurisdiction.
*****
4.  Section 73.7002 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
 73.7002 Fair distribution of service on reserved band FM channels.
*****
(b) In an analysis performed pursuant to paragraph (a), a full service FM applicant that will provide the
first or second reserved channel noncommercial educational (NCE) aural signal received by at least 10% of
the population within the station's 60dBu (1mV/m) service contours will be considered to substantially
further fair distribution of service goals and to be superior to mutually exclusive applicants not proposing
that level of service, provided that such service to fewer than 2,000 people will be considered insignificant.
 First service to 2,000 or more people will be considered superior to second service to a population of any
size.  If only one applicant will provide such first or second service, that applicant will be selected as a
threshold matter.  If more than one applicant will provide an equivalent level (first or second) of NCE aural
service, the size of the population to receive such service from the mutually exclusive applicants will be
compared.  The applicant providing the most people with the highest level of service will be awarded a
construction permit, if it will provide such service to 5,000 or more people than the next best applicant.  If
none of the applicants in a mutually exclusive group would substantially further fair distribution goals, all
applicants will proceed to examination under a point system.  If two or more applicants will provide the
same level of service to an equivalent number of people (differing by less than 5,000), only those equivalent
applicants will be considered together in a point system.
*****
5.  Section 73.7003 is amended by revising adding two new sentences to the end of paragraphs (b)(2) and
(c)(1) and adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
 73.7003 Point system selection procedures.
*****
(b) ***
(2) *** Radio applicants will count commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and FM translator stations
other then fill-in stations.  Television applicants will count UHF, VHF, and Class A stations.
*****
(c) ***
(1) *** Radio applicants will count commercial and noncommercial AM, FM, and FM translator stations
other than fill-in stations.  Television applicants will count UHF, VHF, and Class A stations.
*****
(e) For applications filed after April 21, 2000, an applicant's maximum qualifications are established at the
time of application and will be reduced for any post-application changes that negatively affect any
evaluation criterion.
(f) For applications filed on or before April 21, 2000, applicants will establish their qualifications
according to the following: (1) If the applicant is in a group for which a "B" cutoff notice issued prior to
April 21, 2000 its maximum non-technical qualifications are established as of the date by which applicants
must supplement their applications to supply point information, and its maximum technical qualifications
are established as of the date of the "B" cut-off notice; (2) If the applicant is in a group for which an "A"
cutoff notice issued prior to April 21, 2000 but for which no "B" cutoff notice issued, its maximum non-
technical qualifications are established as of the date by which applicants must supplement their
applications to supply point information, and its maximum technical qualifications are established as of
April 21, 2000; (3) If the applicant was neither placed on an "A" cut-off list prior to April 21, 2000 nor
filed in response to such an "A" cutoff list, it is subject to competition from applications filed within the
first filing window, and its maximum technical and non-technical qualifications will be determined as of the
close of the first filing window.  After the relevant date for determining an applicant's maximum points,
points will be reduced for any changes that negatively affect any evaluation criterion.
PART 74 - EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1.  The authority citation for part 74 continues to read:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 554.
2.  Section 74.1233(e)(3) is amended by revising subparagraph (e)(3) to read as follows.
 74.1233 Processing FM translator and booster station applications.
*****
(e) * * *
(3)***
(i) Existing Authorizations.  Each applicant's number of existing radio authorizations
(licenses and construction permits for AM, FM, and FM-translators but excluding fill-
in translators) as of the time of application shall be compared, and the applicant with
the fewest authorizations will be chosen as tentative selectee.  If each applicant is
applying for a fill-in translator only, and consideration of its other radio stations is not
dispositive, its number of existing fill-in translator authorizations will also be
considered, and the fill-in applicant with the fewest fill-in authorizations will be chosen
as tentative selectee.
(ii) Existing Applications.  If a tie remains, after the tie breaker in section (i), the
remaining applicant with the fewest pending radio new and major change applications
(AM, FM, and non fill-in FM translators) will be chosen as tentative selectee.  If each
applicant is applying for a fill-in translator only, and consideration of its other radio
stations is not dispositive, its number of existing fill-in translator applications  will
also be considered, and the fill-in applicant with the fewest fill-in authorizations will
be chosen as tentative selectee..
*****
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),  an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
("IRFA") was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)was incorporated in the Report and Order.  This present Supplemental Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("Supplemental FRFA")  conforms to the RFA.
Need For and Objectives of the Memorandum Opinion and Order:
In the Report and Order, the Commission established a point system, a type of simplified paper hearing, to
select among applicants competing to construct new noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations
on channels reserved for NCE use. The Commission received petitions requesting reconsideration and
clarification of a variety of issues.  This Memorandum Opinion and Order affirms the use of a point system
and the elements therein, but makes the following clarifications: (1) attribution standards applicable to
NCE stations are clarified, (2) the stated policy that government entities are considered local throughout
their areas of jurisdiction is incorporated into the rules, (3) it is clarified that first and second NCE aural
signals received, rather than those licensed to a community, will be considered for the threshold fair
distribution analysis and that, if fair distribution is not decisive only equivalent mutually exclusive
applications with respect to fair distribution will proceed to be considered under a point system, (4) the
manner in which applicants will claim points is clarified, (5) the manner in which to count translator
stations is clarified.  Additionally, the Memorandum Opinion and Order gives applicants in pending closed
groups of mutually exclusive applications a limited opportunity to settle for more than reasonable and
prudent expenses.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the FRFA:
No comments were received in direct response to the FRFA in MM Docket No. 95-31.  Two Petitioners
for Reconsideration, while not addressing the FRFA, ask for clarification of whether small community
colleges with fewer than five campuses can qualify for state-wide network points.  The Memorandum
Opinion and Order clarifies that small colleges that form consortiums with other colleges, so that at least
five campuses are served, can so qualify.  See infra.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules will Apply: The RFA
directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
that will be affected by the rules.   The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same
meaning as the terms "small organization," "small business," and "small governmental jurisdiction."  In
addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
Small Business Act.  See 5 U.S.C.  601(3); 15 U.S.C.  632. 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").   A small organization is
generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in
its field."   Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.   "Small
governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."   The Census Bureau estimates
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.  Thus, of the 85,006 governmental
entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.
The rules adopted in this Order will apply to television and radio stations licensed to operate on channels
reserved as "noncommercial educational."  Specifically, the rules will affect reserved channel FM, FM
translator, and TV stations that apply to make major changes to those existing stations and to applicants
for permits to construct new reserved channel FM, FM translator, and TV stations.  Stations that operate
on non-reserved channels, such as TV translator stations and AM stations are not affected.  Stations in low
power services (LPTV and LPFM) also are not affected.
With respect to television stations, the Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting
station that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.  Television broadcasting
stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the
public, except cable and other pay television services.  Television stations that the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) would consider commercial, as well as those that the FCC would consider
noncommercial educational, are included in this industry.  Also included are other establishments primarily
engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.  Separate
establishments primarily engaged in producing taped television program materials are classified under
another SIC number.
For 1992 the total number of television stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155
of the 1,509 television stations then operating, both commercial and noncommercial, or 77 percent. As of
February 1, 2001, of the 1,667 total television stations, 374 were noncommercial educational.   Thus, we
estimate that the proposed rules will potentially affect 288  (77 percent of 374) noncommercial educational
television stations that are small businesses.  These existing stations would only be affected if they file an
application for major modification of their existing facilities, and if another applicant files a mutually
exclusive application.  These estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures
on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-television affiliated companies.  On
the other hand they may understate the number of small entities, because we believe that a larger
percentage of noncommercial educational stations are small businesses than the percentage applicable to
the television industry as a whole.  We recognize that the proposed rules may also affect minority and
women owned stations, some of which may be small entities.  In 1997, minorities owned and controlled 38
(3.2%) of 1,193 commercial television stations in the United States.  Comparable figures are not available
for noncommercial stations.  According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and
controlled 27 (1.9%) of 1,342 commercial and noncommercial television stations in the United States.  The
proposal would also affect pending and future mutually exclusive applications for noncommercial
television stations.  As of February 2001, there are currently 89 pending applications for 31 channels
reserved for noncommercial educational television usage.
The rules would also affect noncommercial educational radio stations.  The SBA defines a radio
broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in annual receipts as a small business.   A radio
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public.   Radio stations that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would consider commercial,
as well as those that the FCC would consider noncommercial educational, are included in this industry.
Also included are entities which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio
program materials.  However, radio stations which are separate establishments and are primarily engaged
in producing radio program material are classified under another SIC number.  The 1992 Census indicates
that 96 percent of radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.   Official
Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992.  As of February
1, 2001, Commission records indicate that 12,751 radio stations were operating. Of that radio station total,
2,170 stations were noncommercial educational FM radio stations.  Thus, we estimate that 2,083 (96%) of
these noncommercial educational stations are small businesses, possibly more because we believe that a
greater percentage of noncommercial educational stations are small businesses than of the radio industry
overall.  These existing stations would only be affected by the proposal if they choose to file applications
for major modification of facilities and if their applications are mutually exclusive with the application of
another noncommercial entity.  Applicants for new NCE radio stations would also potentially be affected.
As of February 2001 there were 439 pending mutually exclusive groups of 1,356 applications, for new
noncommercial FM radio stations.  We also note that this proposal will affect future full service FM
applications.  It also will affect pending and future noncommercial FM translator applicants.  As of
February 1, 2001 there were 43 pending mutually exclusive groups of 97 applications for reserved channel
FM translator stations.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements:
Most of the provisions of the Report and Order are unchanged by the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
As noted in the Report and Order, the point system is expected to reduce the overall administrative burden
of the Commission's application processes on applicants and the Commission.  Use of a point system will
eliminate the expense of preparing for and appearing at lengthy traditional hearings.   Applicants should
also receive decisions faster, because the Commission will make numerical calculations instead of
preparing detailed hearing decisions.  These savings should more than offset the time that would be
required for applicants to gather and submit documentation supporting the points claimed.  No additional
professional services are required by applicants filing under these revised rules. Further, the cost of
compliance will not vary between large and small entities.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered:
All significant alternatives presented in the petitions and responsive comments were considered. The
alternatives considered generally would affect all reserved channel applicants, regardless of whether they
are small or large entities, and whether they are seeking to construct small or large stations.  For example,
the Commission considered but did not adopt suggestions to use lotteries rather than a point system, to
adjust the previously established qualifications needed to receive various points, and to adopt points for
new factors such as radio reading services.  While generally affirming the choices made previously in its
Report and Order in this proceeding, MM Docket No. 95-31, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000), the Commission
clarified various matters.  Only one clarification specifically affects small entities.  In response to a concern
raised by community colleges, the Commission clarified that existing rules permit applicants with fewer
than 5 colleges/50 secondary schools of their own to qualify as state-wide networks if through a consortium
or similar arrangement they are also able to count schools under the authority of other educators to which
they regularly provide curriculum programming.  This option may benefit small entities. We expect that
there is no significant economic impact on small entities as a result of this clarification. We will continue to
consider small entities favorably in the point system, in that they are more likely than large entities to
qualify for the points awarded for diversity of ownership, established local entity, and in a tie breaker for
number of existing authorizations and applications.
Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, including this Supplemental
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order,
including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Supplemental FRFA, (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  604(b).
APPENDIX D
CLOSED GROUPS OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
This Appendix identifies mutually exclusive groups of applications for reserved channel noncommercial educational broadcast stations that are not subject to
competition from additional applicants.  Applications have been studied only to determine mutual exclusivity with applications of the same type, and the
appearance of an application on this list does not necessarily mean that it is grantable. Full service FM applications were studied based on technical rules in
place at the time of filing.  The staff did not consider changes in the protection ratios adopted in Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules, MM Docket No. 98-
93 (November 1, 2000), untimely amendments, or post April 21, 2000 amendments.  The Appendix is organized by service, with full service television
applicants listed first, FM translator applicants second, and full service FM applicants third.  Television applicants are listed alphabetically by city.  Full
service FM applicants are listed by the filing date of the lead applicant.  Similarly, FM translator applicants are organized chronologically.
1. TELEVISION CLOSED GROUPS
City, State
Ch.
Applicants
File Nos.
Ames, Iowa
34*
Community Television Educators
BPET-960930KE
Family Educational Broadcasting, Inc.
BPET-960712KL
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960701KE
Ames Family Television
BPET-960222KF
Anchorage, Alaska
9*
Alaska Public Telecommunications
BPET-961115KE
Alaska Broadcast TV, Inc.
BPET-960916KE
Bellingham, Washington
34*
State Board for Community Television
BPET-950908KG
KCTS Television
BPET-951122KT
Clarksdale, Mississippi
21*
Community Television Educators
BPET-970331SD
Mississippi Authority for Educational TV
BPET-960919KK
Coolidge, Arizona
43*
American Legacy Foundation
BPET-960710LC
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960709KP
Corning, New York
30*
Changing Perspectives, Inc.
BPET-960401KF
WSKG Public Telecommunications Council
BPET-960126KE
Del Rio, Texas
24*
Community Television Educators
BPET-961118KF
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-960726KM
Des Moines, Iowa
43*
Community Television Educators
BPET-960930KF
Community Television, Inc.
BPET-960724KM
Family Educational Broadcasting, Inc.
BPET-960715KG
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960709KT
Iowa Public Broadcasting Corp.
BPET-960508KE
Des Moines Family Television
BPET-960222KG
Dothan, Alabama
39*
Community Television Educators
BPET-960920KM
Acts II Educational Corp., Inc.
BPET-970331LQ
Durango, Colorado
20*
Rocky Mountain Public Broadcasting
BPET-961001KP
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960709KQ
El Dorado, Arkansas
30*
Kaleidoscope Foundation, Inc.
BPET-970331LG
Lamb Broadcasting of Arkansas, Inc.
BPET-960920KK
Enid, Oklahoma
26*
Community Television Educators
BPET-970331SF
Family Educational Broadcasting, Inc.
BPET-960920IQ
Flagstaff, Arizona
16*
Arizona Educational Broadcasting Foundation,
Inc.
BPET-961001KK
Arizona Board of Regents
BPET-960710KT
Hot Springs, Arkansas
20*
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-961001KG
Community Television Educational, Inc.
BPET-960923KH
Second Baptist Church
BPET-960520KE
Laredo, Texas
39*
Laredo Community College
BPET-960809KI
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-960726KK
Logan, Utah
22*
Arizona Educational Broadcasting Foundation,
Inc.
BPET-961001KL
University of Utah
BPET-960627KM
Memphis, Tennessee
14*
Kaleidoscope Foundation, Inc.
BPET-960405KF
Cossitt Library
BPET-960111KZ
Mid-South Public Communications Foundation
BPET-950811KE
Memphis, Tennessee
56*
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-961118KJ
Compassionate Friends
BPET-961211KE
Cossitt Library
BPET-961211KK
Mid-South Public Communications Foundation
BPET-961212KH
Kaleidoscope Foundation, Inc.
BPET-970331LE
Nogales, Arizona
16*
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-960726KQ
Community Television Educators
BPET-961118KG
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-961119KH
Ogden, Utah
18*
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960722KV
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-960726KR
Community Television Educators
BPET-961118KE
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-961119KK
Palatka, Florida
42*
Community Television Educators
BNPET-960923AAL
WJCT, Inc.
BPET-960724KQ
Compassionate Friends Educational Network
BPET-960920WY
Raleigh, North Carolina
34*
Achievement School, Inc.
BPET-960920WJ
Community Television, Inc.
BPET-960628KM
Salt Lake City, Utah
26*
Community Television Educators
BPET-970331SE
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960917KH
Kaleidoscope Foundation, Inc.
BPET-970331LL
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-970331SB
Santa Fe, New Mexico
9*
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960709KO
Regents of the University of New Mexico
BPET-961001KJ
Seattle, Washington
62*
KCTS Television
BPET-951207KJ
Washington Family Broadcasting Association
BPET-960726KO
Senatobia, Mississippi
34*
Family Educational Broadcasting, Inc.
BPET-960716KF
Oral Roberts University
BPET-960724KL
Broadcasting of the Challenged
BPET-961001KI
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960701KF
Tulsa, Oklahoma
63*
Oral Roberts University
BPET-960621KE
Creative Educational Media Corp., Inc.
BPET-960701KG
Global Educational Development, Inc.
BPET-960917KE
Family Educational Broadcasting, Inc.
BPET-960927KE
Community Television Educators
BPET-960930KG
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-961001KE
Broadcasting for the Challenged
BPET-961001KH
Waverly, New York
57*
WSKG Public Telecommunications
BPET-961213KE
Changing Perspectives, Inc.
BPET-961213KF
Weaverville, California
32*
Northern California Public Television
BPET-960920KV
Redding Institute of Religion
BPET-970324KE
Wichita, Kansas
42*
Way of the Cross of Hutchinson, Inc.
BPET-960528KP
Faith Pleases God Church, Inc.
BPET-960726KJ
Oral Roberts University
BPET-960920KJ
Community Television Educators
BPET-960930KH
Wichita, Kansas
15*
President's College, Inc.
BPET-960423KE
Oral Roberts University
BPET-960724KP
Community Television Educators
BPET-960930KI
2. FM TRANSLATOR CLOSED GROUPS
GROUP  #	FILE NUMBER	CITY			ST	APPLICANT NAME
grp001		BPFT	19960731TB	PUEBLO		CO	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS
grp001		BPFT	19970116TB	PUEBLO		CO	PIKES PEAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE
grp002		BPFT	19970606TE	EDGEMONT		CO	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp002		BPFT	19971014TC	EDGEMONT		CO	WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP, INC.
grp003		BPFT	19970624TA	MOBERLY		MO	AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
grp003		BPFT	19971016TC	MOBERLY		MO	COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC.
grp004		BPFT	19970911TH	ST. JOSEPH		MO	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp004		BPFT	19980219TA	ST. JOSEPH		MO	COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC.
grp004		BPFT	19980220TG	ST. JOSEPH		MO	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp005		BPFT	19981102TQ	CHARLOTTESVILLE	VA	COMMONWEALTH PUB B'CASTING CORP
grp005		BPFT	19980720TC	CROZET		VA	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp006		BPFT	19990505TD	TRACY		CA	UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC
grp006		BPFT	19981102TR	TRACY		CA	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp007		BPFT	19990129TG	SANTA PAULA/CAMARILL	CA	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp007		BPFT	19990621TF	SANTA PAULA	CA	CA STATE UNIVERSITY AT NORTHRIDGE
grp008		BPFT	19990412TE	NEWHALL		CA	LIVINGWAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp008		BPFT	19990426TF	SANTA SUSANA	CA	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp008		BPFT	19990609TC	RAYMER		CA	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp008		BPFT	19990621TE	AGOURA HILLS	CA	CA STATE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHRIDGE
grp008		BPFT	19990129TH	AGOURA HILLS	CA	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp009		BPFT	19990204TE	BRUSH		CO	EDU. COMMUNICAT. OF CO SPRINGS, INC.
grp009		BPFT	19990730TB	BRUSH		CO	COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
grp010		BPFT	19990415TF	POST FALLS		ID	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp010		BPFT	19990913TC	COEUR D'ALENE	ID	SPOKANE PUBLIC RADIO
grp011		BPFT	19990419TA	ARLINGTON		FL	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp011		BPFT	19990902TC	STOCKADE		FL	COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO
grp012		BPFT	19990430TB	BRENTWOOD		TN	CALVARY  CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp012		BPFT	19990913TB	BRENTWOOD		TN	MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
grp013		BPFT	19990506TA	EDMOND		OK	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp013		BNPFT	19991019AAG	EDMOND		OK	COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
grp014		BNPFT	19991018AAH	LINCOLN PARK  	CO	EDUC  COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS, INC.
grp014		BPFT	19990528TB	LINCOLN PARK 	CO	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp015		BPFT	19990614TB	OPAL CITY		OR	PACIFIC  CASCADE COMMS. CORP.
grp015		BPFT	19990225TA	PRINEVILLE		OR	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp016		BPFT	19990701TE	RAYTOWN		MO	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp016		BNPFT	20000120AAY	RAYTOWN		MO	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp016		BNPFT	20000330ABW	RAYTOWN		MO	COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC.
grp017		BPFT	19990727TD	CAVE JUNCTION	OR	PACIFIC CASCADE COMMNS. CORP.
grp017		BNPFT	20000303AAX	CAVE JUNCTION	OR	SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
grp018		BPFT	19990809TB	WEEHAWKEN	NJ	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC
grp018		BNPFT	19991130AAO	UNION CITY		NJ	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp019		BPFT	19990813TD	LIVINGSTON		TX	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp019		BNPFT	20000301ABR	GOODRICH		TX	PACIFICA FOUNDATION
grp020		BPFT	19990820TH	NEWPORT		OR	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp020		BNPFT	20000113AAF	OTTER ROCK		OR	CATHOLIC BROADCASTING NORTHWEST, INC.
grp020		BMPFT20001215ABD	FLORENCE		OR	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp021		BPFT	19990831TC	NEW CASTLE		CO	EDUCATIONAL COMNS OF CO SPRINGS, INC
grp021		BNPFT	20000118ABO	GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO	COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
grp022		BPFT	19990910TD	EDENTON		NC	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp022		BNPFT	20000223AAX	EDENTON		NC	GRACE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
grp023		BNPFT	19990920AAQ	HUNTSVILLE		TX	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp023		BNPFT	20000301ABV	HUNTSVILLE		TX	PACIFICA FOUNDATION
grp024		BNPFT	19990921AAJ	NARBERTH		PA	WORLD REVIVALS, INC.
grp024		BNPFT	20000118AEF	NARBERTH		PA	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp025		BPFT	19990910TE	ELIZABETH CITY	NC	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp025		BNPFT	20000223ABK	ELIZABETH CITY	NC	GRACE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
grp025		BNPFT	20000224ABG	ELIZABETH CITY	NC	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp026		BPFT	19990910TG	MONROE		NC	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp026		BNPFT	20000223ABH	MONROE		NC	GRACE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
grp027		BNPFT	19991005AAO	FARMINGTON	NM	PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
grp027		BNPFT	19991022AAE	FARMINGTON	NM	YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION, INC.
grp028		BNPFT	19991020AAF	TAMPA		FL	THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
grp028		BNPFT	19991020AAG	OLDSMAR		FL	RADIO TRAINING NETWORK, INC.
grp028		BNPFT	20000302ABP	CLEARWATER 	FL	FAITH PLEASES GOD CHURCH CORP.
grp029		BNPFT	19991029AAD	PENDLETON		OR	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp029		BNPFT	20000424ABU	PENDLETON		OR	OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
grp030		BNPFT	19991104AAD	MEDINA		MN	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp030		BNPFT	20000316AAE	MINNEAPOLIS 	MN	MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO
grp031		BNPFT	19991104AAE	BRENHAM		TX	KSBJ EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
grp031		BNPFT	20000330ABV	BRENHAM		TX	IXOYE PRODUCTIONS, INC.
grp032		BNPFT	19991129AAD	HOLLY SPRINGS	GA	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp032		BNPFT	20000103AAV	LEBANON		GA	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp033		BNPFT	20000511AAW	WARNER ROBINS	GA	COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
grp033		BNPFT	19991203AAF	WARNER ROBINS	GA	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp034		BNPFT	20000515AAO	EL PASO		TX	LIFE CHALLENGE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
grp034		BNPFT	19991203AAH	EL PASO		TX	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp035		BNPFT	20000515ABC	KINGSPORT		TN	WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP, INC.
grp035		BNPFT	19991206AAE	KINGSPORT		TN	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp036		BNPFT	20000407ABL		ELKO		NV	FAITH PLEASES GOD CHURCH CORP.
grp036		BMJPFT19991220AAA	ELKO		NV	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp037		BNPFT	20000419AAJ	WESTVILLE		CT	CONNECTICUT PUBLIC BROADCASTING, INC.
grp037		BNPFT	20000516AAH	WOODBRIDGE 	CT	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp037		BNPFT	19991227AAN	WESTVILLE		CT	SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, INC.
grp038		BNPFT	20000407AAR	GAINESVILLE	GA	FAITH PLEASES GOD CHURCH CORP
grp038		BNPFT	20000516AAG	GAINESVILLE	GA	LIVING WAY MINISTRIES, INC.
grp038		BNPFT	19991228ABE	GAINESVILLE	GA	COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
grp039		BNPFT	20000515ABD	DELTA, ETC		FL	WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP, INC.
grp039		BNPFT	19991229AAU	NORTH PALM BEACH FL	PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
grp040		BNPFT	20000410AAE	RAPID CITY		SD	EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
grp040		BNPFT	20000103AAX	RAPID CITY		SD	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp041		BNPFT	20000320AAK	SEDONA		AZ	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp041		BNPFT	20000107ABP	FLAGSTAFF		AZ	YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION, INC.
grp042		BNPFT	20000119ACI	DALHART		TX	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
grp042		BNPFT	20000112AAA	DALHART		TX	GREAT PLAINS CHRISTIAN RADIO
grp043		BNPFT	20000313AAM	DICKSON		TN	CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
grp043		BNPFT	20000114AAS	DICKSON		TN	FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER CHURCH, INC.
3. FULL SERVICE FM CLOSED GROUPS
# = See Text of MO&O, Section IV(H)(3) re: Terminated Hearing Cases
	% = Dismissal Reversed and Remanded to Commission in "State of Oregon v. FCC," 102 F. 3d 583 (DC Cir. 1996)
	* =  Appeal currently under review
MX
     LEAD
GROUP
  CUTOFF
FILE
NUMBER
     DATE
NUMBER
CITY
ST
APPLICANT
88031E
08/22/84
A
BPED
19840322CA
BATON ROUGE
LA
REAL LIFE ED FOUND OF BATON ROUGE  #
88031E
BPED
19840822IF
BATON ROUGE
LA
JIMMY SWAGGART MINISTRIES  #
84091E
05/31/89
A
BPED
19840907IB
OJAI
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
84091E
B
BPED
19890526MF
OJAI
CA
EDUCATIONAL B/C OF VENTURA COUNTY
84091E
B
BPED
19890530MB
SANTA BARBARA
CA
KCBX, INC.
84091E
B
BPED
19890531MD
OJAI
CA
SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
880611
01/10/90
A
BPED
19880610ML
REDDING
CA
THE UNIV.FOUND. CA STATE UNIV, CHICO
880611
B
BPED
19900129MH
REDDING
CA
STATE OF OREGON  %
89101E
12/07/93
A
BPED
19891019MA
CROWN POINT
IN
HYLES-ANDERSON COLLEGE
89101E
B
BPED
19910409MF
CROWN POINT
IN
THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE
90032E
BPED
19910617ID
BOSTON
MA
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY
90032E
06/17/91
A
BPED
19900327MG
NEW LONDON
CT
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE BROADCAST ASSN.
92102E
03/24/93
A
BPED
19921026MA
WHITEHALL
OH
LOU SMITH MINISTRIES, INC.
92102E
A
BPED
19921029MB
COLUMBUS
OH
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING SERVICES, INC
92102E
B
BPED
19921104MA
COLUMBUS
OH
THE CEDARVILLE COLLEGE
93041E
12/07/93
A
BPED
19930423MA
BOISE
ID
PEOPLE OF ACTION
93041E
B
BPED
19931206MB
MIDDLETON
ID
SOUTHERN IDAHO CORPORATION
93041E
B
BPED
19931207MD
BOISE
ID
CALVARY CHAPEL OF TWIN FALLS, INC.
93112E
04/20/94
A
BPED
19931112MD
NORTH DARTMOUTH
MA
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
93112E
B
BPED
19940420MB
NORTH DARTMOUTH
MA
GRANITE STATE EDUC. FELLOWSHIP, INC
94065E
04/17/95
A
BPED
19940629MC
WICHITA FALLS
TX
CAMERON UNIVERSITY
94065E
B
BPED
19950417MT
WICHITA FALLS
TX
NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING, INC
9406SX
07/06/95
A
BPED
19940624MA
MARIANNA
FL
MARIANNA EDUC. B/CNG FOUNDATION
9406SX
B
BPED
19941122MK
THOMASVILLE
GA
SOUTHEAST EDUCATIONAL RADIO, INC.
941007
BMPED
19950629ID
TITUSVILLE
FL
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
941007
10/23/96
B
BMPED
19951011MK
KISSIMMEE
FL
HISPANIC BROADCAST SYSTEMS, INC.
94106E
07/14/95
A
BPED
19941026MA
NORMAN
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
94106E
B
BPED
19950714MD
NORMAN
OK
SISTER SHERRY LYNN FOUNDATION INC
941116
03/28/96
A
BPED
19941114MA
ASHLAND
KY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
941116
B
BPED
19950524MF
HURRICANE
WV
HURRICANE BIBLE CHURCH
941116
B
BPED
19960328MC
ASHLAND
KY
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO, INC.
941116
B
BPED
19960328MI
HURRICANE
WV
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO, INC.
94111E
04/17/95
A
BPED
19941121MA
FLINT CITY
AL
NORTH ALABAMA EDU. FOUNDATION
94111E
B
BPED
19950215MA
TRINITY
AL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
94111E
B
BPED
19950413ME
HARVEST
AL
SOUTHWEST FL COMMUNITY RADIO, INC
94112E
05/11/95
A
BPED
19941221MD
EFFINGHAM
IL
BD OF TRUSTEES, SOUTHERN IL UN
94112E
B
BPED
19941110MA
CASEY
IL
WORD POWER, INC.
94112E
B
BPED
19941229MA
CHARLESTON
IL
WISCONSIN VOICE/ CHRIST. YOUTH, INC
94112E
B
BPED
19950126MC
SALEM
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
94114E
11/08/95
A
BPED
19941103MC
BRISTOL
VA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
94114E
B
BPED
19951023IB
EMORY
VA
EMORY & HENRY COLLEGE
94114E
B
BPED
19951108NC
BRISTOL
VA
VIRGINIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC.
94123E
B
BPED
19950213MB
OTTUMWA
IA
IOWA ST UN OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
94123E
05/24/95
A
BPED
19941209MB
OTTUMWA
IA
GRASSROOTS BROADCASTING, CO., INC.
94123E
B
BPED
19950515ML
FAIRFIELD
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
950120
05/24/95
A
BPED
19950117MB
PASCAGOULA
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
950120
B
BPED
19950329MC
PASCAGOULA
MS
JUDAH BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.
950120
B
BPED
19950524MI
PRICHARD
AL
MOODY BIBLE INISTITUE OF CHICAGO
950215
05/03/96
A
BPED
19950210MA
MCCLOUD
CA
SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE
950215
B
BPED
19960503MG
MCCLOUD
CA
FATIMA RESPONSE INC  DBA
95026E
12/06/95
A
BPED
19950206NB
CHAMPLAIN
NY
NEW YORK EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTERS
95026E
B
BPED
19951206MB
SCHUYLER FALLS
NY
CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES INC.
95031E
07/14/95
A
BPED
19950327MA
REDDING
CA
CHRISTIAN ARTS AND EDUCATION, INC.
95031E
B
BPED
19950713MB
REDDING
CA
ST OF OR ACTING & THROUGH THE ST BD
95031E
B
BPED
19950714ME
REDDING
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION INC
95031E
B
BPED
19950714MF
RED BLUFF
CA
TEHAMA COUNTY COMMUNITY BR'CASTERS
950331
BPED
19971126MC
LOMPOC
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
950331
BPED
19971202MB
COALINGA
CA
FAMILY STATIONS INC
950331
12/02/97
A
BPED
19970328MD
SANTA MARIA
CA
PEOPLE OF ACTION
95058E
01/18/96
A
BPED
19950530MB
PORTAGEVILLE
MO
WORD OF VICTORY OUTREACH CENTER INC
95058E
B
BPED
19950626MB
BLYTHEVILLE
AR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95059E
01/18/96
A
BPED
19950512MA
MESQUITE
NV
SOUTHERN NEVADA ED BROADCASTERS
95059E
B
BPED
19960118MK
LAS VEGAS
NV
NEVADA PUBLIC RADIO CORPORATION
95061E
04/18/96
A
BPED
19950608MB
BEAUFORT
NC
APPALACHIAN EDUCATIONAL COMMUN CORP.
95061E
B
BPED
19950928MD
BEAUFORT
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95062E
03/28/96
A
BPED
19950628MA
LYNCHBURG
VA
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO, INC
95062E
B
BPED
19960327MA
LYNCHBURG
VA
VISION COMMUNICATIONS INC
95062E
B
BPED
19960328MD
RUSTBURG
VA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA CORPORATION
95064E
12/15/95
A
BPED
19950615MZ
BENTONVILLE
AR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95064E
B
BPED
19951215MF
NEOSHO
MO
BRIDGE BUILDERS EDUC. ASSOCIATION
95072E
01/18/96
A
BPED
19950718MA
TAHOE CITY
CA
THOMAS ACQUINAS SCHOOL
95072E
B
BPED
19951113MB
RENO
NV
STOCKTON CHISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE
95072E
B
BPED
19951127MA
RENO
NV
BD OF REGENTS / UN OF NV - TRUCKEE
95072E
B
BPED
19960118MH
HAWTHORNE
NV
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING
95075E
01/18/96
A
BPED
19950724ME
GREENVILLE
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95075E
B
BPED
19960118MG
GREENVILLE
TX
SISTER SHERRY LYNN FOUNDATION, INC.
95076E
12/15/95
A
BPED
19950711MB
PERRY
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95076E
B
BPED
19951215ME
PERRY
IA
IOWA STATE UNIV. OF SCIENCE & TECH
95077E
BPED
19960416MB
TEHAMA
CA
N VALLEY ED COMMUNITY RADIO INC
95077E
04/18/96
A
BPED
19950720MA
PARADISE
CA
NORTHERN CA ED BROADCASTERS
95077E
B
BPED
19960417MD
BURNEY
CA
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER ED.
95083E
04/18/96
A
BPED
19950814MA
HONOLULU
HI
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC
95083E
B
BPED
19960416MA
HONOLULU
HI
CALVARY CHAPEL OF HONOLULU, INC
95083E
B
BPED
19960418MB
KANEOHE
HI
MAKA'AINANA BROADCASTING CO, LTD
95093E
04/18/96
A
BPED
19950905MG
AURORA
NC
DOWN EAST PUBLIC RADIO, INC
95093E
B
BPED
19960417MB
AURORA
NC
FRIENDS OF DOWN E PUBLIC RADIO INC
95094E
04/04/96
A
BPED
19950906MM
ST. MARTINVILLE
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
95094E
B
BPED
19960404MA
ABBEVILLE
LA
COMMUNITY RADIO ALLIANCE
95095E
05/03/96
A
BPED
19950905MD
BECKLEY
WV
SHOFAR BROADCASTING CORPORATION
95095E
B
BPED
19960502MH
BECKLEY
WV
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO, INC.
95102E
BPED
19960429IC
CHARLOTTE
NC
UNIVERSITY RADIO FOUNDATION, INC.
95102E
05/03/96
A
BPED
19951027ME
WILKESBORO
NC
WILKES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
95111E
05/17/96
A
BPED
19951128MA
PRINCESS ANNE
MD
MARANATHA INC.
95111E
B
BPED
19960516ME
OCEAN CITY
MD
EXEC. COMM. BD. OF TRUST OF AMER. U
951129
05/17/96
A
BPED
19951129MA
ST. JOSEPH
MO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
951129
B
BPED
19951121MF
ST. JOSEPH
MO
BAPTIST TEMPLE SCHOOL
951129
B
BPED
19960514MA
ST. JOSEPH
MO
GOOD NEWS MINISTRIES, INC.
951129
B
BPED
19960517MG
ST. JOSEPH
MO
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC.
95124E
07/12/96
A
BPED
19951208MB
TUCSON
AZ
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
95124E
A
BPED
19960229MA
MAMMOTH
AZ
MAMMOTH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDA, INC
95124E
B
BPED
19960517MF
TUCSON
AZ
FAMILY LIFE BROADCASTING, INC.
95124E
B
BPED
19960712MA
TUCSON
AZ
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
95124E
B
BPED
19960712MH
GLOBE
AZ
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
960121
BPED
19970626MA
PLACERVILLE
CA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960121
BPED
19970626MC
CAMINO
CA
CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK,  INC.
960121
BPED
19970626MD
POLLOCK PINES
CA
HOWELL MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING CO.
960121
06/26/97
A
BPED
19960118MM
POLLOCK PINES
CA
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING
960122
06/19/96
A
BPED
19960118MJ
ARDMORE
OK
CAMERON UNIVERSITY
960122
B
BPED
19960404MB
ADA
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
96014E
08/22/96
A
BPED
19960116ML
JASPER
IN
GOOD SAMARITAN EDUCATIONAL RADIO, IN
96014E
B
BPED
19960423MB
OWENSBORO
KY
BOWLING GREEN COMMUNITY BROADC/G INC
960206
10/23/96
A
BPED
19960206MD
KLAMATH FALLS
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
960206
B
BPED
19961022MA
KLAMATH FALLS
OR
ST BD OF HIGHER ED & FOR SOUTHERN
9602AA
09/05/96
A
BPED
19960209MB
CHARLESTON
IL
VCY/AMERICA, INC.
9602AA
B
BPED
19960905MA
CHARLESTON
IL
ILLINOIS BIBLE INSTITUTE INC
9602AA
B
BPED
19960905ME
MARTINSVILLE
IL
WORD POWER, INC
960303
06/19/96
A
BPED
19960325MD
CHEHALIS
WA
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
960303
B
BPED
19960619ME
LITTELL
WA
SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
960304
06/19/96
A
BPED
19960328MH
MADISONVILLE
KY
BOARD OF REGENTS, MURRAY STATE UNIV.
960304
A
BPED
19960619MD
MADISONVILLE
KY
LIFE ANEW MINISTRIES, INC.
960308
04/17/97
A
BPED
19960326MB
BAKER
FL
OKALOOSA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
960308
B
BPED
19970417MC
THOMASVILLE
AL
NATIONWIDE INSPRIATIONAL B/G
960310
02/20/97
A
BPED
19960328MA
PENSACOLA
FL
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
960310
B
BPED
19970220MD
PANAMA CITY
FL
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
960310
B
BPED
19960923MC
PANAMA CITY
FL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960315
08/22/96
A
BPED
19960312MA
OTTUMWA
IA
GLASSROOTS BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC
960315
B
BPED
19960820MC
OTTUMWA
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
96032E
08/22/96
A
BPED
19960307MD
PONCA CITY
OK
THE LOVE STATION, INC,
96032E
B
BPED
19960524MB
STILLWATER
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
96036E
08/22/96
A
BPED
19960307ME
SEBRING
FL
RADIO TRAINING NETWORK, INC.
96036E
B
BPED
19960820MB
SEBRING
FL
THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
96036E
B
BPED
19960822MA
CLEWISTON
FL
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
96039E
07/12/96
A
BPED
19960328ME
WAUBUN
MN
NIIJII BROADCAST CORPORATION
96039E
B
BPED
19960712MG
SEBEKA
MN
LIFETALK BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
960406
10/23/96
A
BPED
19960412MB
COWETA
OK
CREATIVE EDUCATIONAL MEDIA CORP., INC.
960406
B
BPED
19960412MA
TULSA
OK
THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
96054E
09/26/96
A
BPED
19960521MA
WESTMINSTER
CO
S W  FLORIDA COMMUNITY RADIO INC
96054E
B
BPED
19960926MD
LAKEWOOD
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY INC
96054E
B
BPED
19960926ME
WESTMINSTER
CO
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
96059E
12/17/96
A
BPED
19960523MZ
RALEIGH
NC
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
96059E
B
BPED
19961217MD
ELON COLLEGE
NC
ELON COLLEGE
96064E
10/23/96
A
BPED
19960607MC
CLARKSVILLE
TN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
96064E
B
BPED
19960729MB
CLARKSVILLE
TN
CEN-TENN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
96064E
B
BPED
19961021MB
CLARKSVILLE
TN
WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP INC.
960606
03/12/97
B
BPED
19961023MA
KAPLAN
LA
NORTH ALABAMA EDUC. FOUNDATION
960606
03/12/97
B
BPED
19961023MG
BROUSSARD
LA
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
960709
12/03/96
A
BPED
19960710MA
LAKE CITY
TN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960709
B
BPED
19961203ME
NEWPORT
TN
BIBLE BELIEVERS NETWRK INC
960710
12/17/96
A
BPED
19960724MG
LONGVIEW
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960710
B
BPED
19960920ME
JEFFERSON
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS INC
960710
B
BPED
19961217ME
WHITE OAK
TX
EDUC. RADIO FNDTN OF E. TEXAS, INC.
9607B1
11/12/96
A
BPED
19960705MB
WESTDALE
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9607B1
B
BPED
19960814MD
COTTON VALLEY
LA
ED RADIO FOUNDATION OF E TX INC
9607B1
B
BPED
19961031MA
JONESBORO
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9607B1
B
BPED
19961112MC
BLANCHARD
LA
MISSIONARY ACTION PROJECTS
9607B3
BPED
19961112MD
LOVELAND
CO
COLORADO CHRISTINA UNIVERSITY
9607B3
BPED
19961112ME
FORT COLLINS
CO
S.W. FLORIDA COMMUNITY RADIO, INC.
9607B3
BPED
19961112MF
EATON
CO
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
9607B3
11/12/96
A
BPED
19960731MA
FORT COLLINS
CO
PUBLIC RADIO FOR THE FRONT RNGE
960811
03/13/97
A
BPED
19960918ME
PARRISH
AL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960811
B
BPED
19960819MC
TUSCALOOSA
AL
THE MOODY BIBLE OF CHICAGO
960812
03/13/97
A
BPED
19960830ME
MADISONVILLE
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
960812
BPED
19970108MH
CROCKETT
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960813
B
BPED
19970312MC
BETTENDORF
IA
AUGUSTANA COLLEGE
960813
03/13/97
A
BPED
19960805MA
KEWANEE
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960813
B
BPED
19960927MA
BETTENDORF
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
960815
BPED
19970312MD
HUDSON
TX
LUFKIN EDUCATIONAL B/CING FOUNDATION
960815
BPED
19970417MA
ATHENS
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960815
BPED
19970417MB
BEAUMONT
TX
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
960815
BPED
19970417MG
WACO
TX
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
960815
04/17/97
A
BPED
19960830MF
LUFKIN
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
960820
02/20/97
A
BPED
19960826ME
MANHATTAN
KS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960820
B
BPED
19970220MC
MANHATTAN
KS
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
96086E
01/09/97
A
BPED
19960806MA
FAYETTEVILLE
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
96086E
B
BPED
19970109MG
FAYETTEVILLE
NC
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
96086E
B
BPED
19970109MN
WADE
NC
COVENANT ED FELLOWSHIP INC
96088E
01/09/97
A
BPED
19960802MF
ADA
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
96088E
B
BPED
19970109ME
SHAWNEE
OK
THE LOVE STATION INC
96088E
B
BPED
19970109MM
ADA
OK
SISTER SHERRY LYNN FOUNDATION INC
960903
03/13/97
A
BPED
19960910MB
ST. JOSEPH
MO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960903
B
BPED
19970313MA
SAVANNAH
MO
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING INC
960903
B
BPED
19970313MM
ST. JOSEPH
MO
CALVARY CHAPEL /ST. JOSEPH, MO. INC
960904
03/13/97
A
BPED
19960906MA
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
CO
PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF CO INC
960904
B
BPED
19970312MA
CARBONDALE
CO
PITKIN COUNTY
960908
05/16/97
A
BPED
19960920MA
LANCASTER
NY
HOLY FAMILY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
960908
BPED
19970516MA
WILLIAMSVILLE
NY
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION  *
960911
03/27/97
A
BPED
19960911MH
CAIRO
GA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
960911
B
BPED
19970326MB
QUINCY
FL
OKALOOSA PUBLIC RADIO,  INC.
96097X
03/27/97
A
BPED
19960930MA
WENATCHEE
WA
THE MOODY BIBLE INITITUTE OF CHICAGO
96097X
B
BPED
19970327MC
EAST WENATCHEE
WA
DOUGLAS COUNTY ED RADIO ASSOCIATION
9609R1
04/17/97
A
BPED
19960924MF
MART
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9609R1
B
BPED
19970131MA
WACO
TX
UNIV. OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN KUT RADIO
9609R1
B
BPED
19970417ME
TEMPLE
TX
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
961010
03/13/97
A
BPED
19961028MB
PIEDMONT
OK
THE LOVE STATION, INC.
961010
B
BPED
19970110MD
YUKON
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
961010
B
BPED
19970226MB
EL RENO
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961010
B
BPED
19970313MD
PIEDMONT
OK
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING INC
961010
B
BPED
19970313ML
CRESCENT
OK
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC
961011
03/27/97
A
BPED
19961010MC
FAIRFIELD
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961011
B
BPED
19970321MB
FAIRFIELD
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
961012
03/13/97
A
BPED
19961024MD
PERALTA
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
961012
B
BPED
19970312MB
GRANTS
NM
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961012
B
BPED
19970313IE
ALBUQUERQUE
NM
BOARD OF REGENTS UNIV. OF NEW MEXICO
961012
B
BPED
19970313MB
GRANTS
NM
FAMILY STATIONS INC
961120
B
BPED
19971121MG
MILFORD
NH
KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE
961120
04/17/97
A
BPED
19961122MB
NORWICH
VT
NH PUBLIC RADIO/VERMONT
961120
B
BPED
19961224MA
NASHUA
NH
NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
961120
B
BPED
19970417MJ
PETERBOROUGH
NH
NORTHEASTERN ED RADIO FELLOWSHIP INC
961121
04/17/97
A
BPED
19961104MD
PEACHTREE CITY
GA
COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
961121
B
BPED
19970407MD
PEACHTREE CITY
GA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961121
B
BPED
19970416MB
GRIFFIN
GA
SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH INC
961121
B
BPED
19970416ME
PEACHTREE CITY
GA
AUGUSTA RADIO FELLOWSHIP INSTITUTE
961121
B
BPED
19970416MF
PEACHTREE CITY
GA
LIFE RADIO MINISTRIES INC
961122
05/09/97
A
BPED
19961129MN
BENTON
MO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961122
B
BPED
19970508MD
JACKSON
MO
I G W T COMMUNITY RADIO INC
961126
07/25/97
A
BPED
19961105MA
WAVERLY
IA
AMERCIAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961126
B
BPED
19970210MD
WAVERLY
IA
WARTBURG COLLEGE
961127
05/09/97
A
BPED
19961114MB
GOODLAND TOWNSHIP
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
961127
B
BPED
19970508MG
IMLAY CITY
MI
GOSPEL RADIO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
961208
06/13/97
A
BPED
19961231MA
FOLKSTONE
NC
FAMILY RADIO NETWORK INC
961208
B
BPED
19970612ME
JACKSONVILLE
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961208
B
BPED
19970613MC
SNEADS FERRY
NC
PRAISE BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.
961209
BPED
19970625MD
GALAX
VA
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO, INC.
961209
06/26/97
A
BPED
19961218MB
MOUNT AIRY
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
961210
06/26/97
A
BPED
19961223ME
SANTA MARIA
CA
CALVARY CHAPEL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INC
961210
B
BPED
19970626MB
SANTA MARIA
CA
PEOPLE OF ACTION
961210
B
BPED
19970626ME
SANTA MARIA
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
970108
05/09/97
A
BPED
19970123MA
HIAWATHA
IA
FRIENDSHIP COMMUNICATIONS INC
970108
B
BPED
19970508MC
ANAMOSA
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
970108
B
BPED
19970509MB
CEDAR RAPIDS
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970109
B
BPED
19970807MU
INDIANOLA
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970109
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970129MA
INDIANOLA
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970110
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970109MF
LAYTONVILLE
CA
REDWOOD COMMUNITY RADIO INC
970110
B
BPED
19970807MV
LAYTONVILLE
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970111
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970108MI
OTTUMWA
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970111
B
BPED
19970321MA
OTTUMWA
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
970112
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970127ME
UTICA
NY
SOULS HARBOR UNITED PENTECOSTAL
970112
B
BPED
19970807MM
REMSEN
NY
WAMC
970113
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970113MB
KIRKSVILLE
MO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970113
B
BPED
19970806MA
KIRKSVILLE
MO
GREAT COMMISSION BROADCASTING CORP
970120
12/02/97
A
BPED
19970110MB
NASHVILLE
AR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970120
B
BPED
19971202MA
FORT SMITH
AR
FAMILY STATIONS INC
970209
05/09/97
A
BPED
19970212MB
ITHACA
NY
WSKG PUBLIC TELECOM COUNCIL
970209
B
BPED
19970411MC
ITHACA
NY
THE COLLEGES OF THE SENECA
970210
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970203ME
MCCONNELLSBURG
PA
MORRIS B/CASTING & COMMUN. INC.
970210
B
BPED
19970422MB
SHIPPENSBURG
PA
SHIPPENSBURG UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA
970210
B
BPED
19970806MC
MIDDLETON
PA
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY B'CASTING  *
970211
BPED
19970709MF
SHERMAN
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970211
BPED
19970807MD
DENISON
TX
DENISON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
970211
BPED
19970807MK
DENISON
TX
RESEARCH ED FOUNDATION INC
970211
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970219MA
DENISON
TX
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
970214
07/25/97
A
BPED
19970228MA
FRANKFORT
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970214
B
BPED
19970723MZ
LAFAYETTE
IN
HYMN TIME, INC
970215
08/28/97
A
BPED
19970203MB
FANNETT
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970215
B
BPED
19970828MJ
FANNETT
TX
DENISON EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
970216
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970211MB
CUBA CITY
WI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970216
B
BPED
19970226MA
DUBUQUE
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
970216
B
BPED
19970807ML
CUBA CITY
WI
POSITIVE PROGRAMMING FOUNDATION
970217
BPED
19980224MB
FLORENCE
SC
FRANCIS MARION UNIVERSITY
970217
BPED
19980225MF
MARION
SC
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970217
BPED
19980225MI
BROWNSVILLE
SC
FAMILY RADIO NETWORK INC.
970217
BPED
19980225MP
DILLON
SC
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970217
02/25/98
A
BPED
19970220MB
DILLON
SC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970218
BPED
19971211MF
HAYFORK
CA
AMERICAN ED BROADCASTING INC
970218
BPED
19971211MH
MCKINLEYVILLE
CA
HOWELL MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING CO.
970218
BPED
19971211MI
GARBERVILLE
CA
FAMILY STATIONS INC
970218
12/11/97
A
BPED
19970228MB
EUREKA
CA
PACIFIC CASCADE COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
970219
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970203MA
CHICKASHA
OK
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970219
B
BPED
19970807MY
CHICKASHA
OK
SISTER SHERRY LYNN FOUNDATION INC
970304
07/25/97
A
BPED
19970324MA
COACHELLA
CA
CREATIVE EDUCATIONAL MEDIA CORP.
970304
BPED
19970725MH
COACHELLA
CA
SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
970305
BPED
19970725ML
LONGVIEW
WA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
970305
07/25/97
A
BPED
19970318MA
PINE GROVE
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970305
B
BPED
19970625ME
GRESHAM
OR
MT. HOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
970306
BPED
19970527IE
HOUSTON
TX
PACIFICA FOUNDATION
970306
08/28/97
A
BPED
19970304MB
BRENHAM
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970306
B
BPED
19970828MA
COLLEGE STATION
TX
HYMN TIME, INC.
970310
BMPED
19970303IB
BEREA
OH
BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE
970310
10/10/97
A
BPED
19970311MA
PAINESVILLE
OH
LA CADENA MUNDIAL HISPANA, INC.
970312
12/11/97
A
BPED
19970331MA
ESKO
MN
LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL ESKO, MINNESOTA
970312
B
BPED
19971211MC
SUPERIOR
WI
ST OF WI EDUCATIONAL COMM. BOARD
970312
B
BPED
19971211MN
WENTWORTH
WI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970313
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970311MB
JORDAN VALLEY
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970313
BPED
19970919ME
PARMA
ID
SO. ID CORP. OF 7TH DAY ADVENTISTS  *
970411
BPED
19971001MC
HUEYTOWN
AL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970411
BPED
19971009MD
NORTHPORT
AL
MARY V HARRIS FOUNDATION
970411
BPED
19971010MA
CONCORDE
AL
ALABAMA HERITAGE ASSOCIATION
970411
BPED
19971010MF
BESSEMER
AL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970411
10/10/97
A
BPED
19970424MA
BESSEMER
AL
THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
970414
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970416MC
RAPID CITY
SD
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970414
B
BPED
19970918MI
RAPID CITY
SD
BETHESDA CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING INC
970415
08/07/97
A
BPED
19970418MO
ASHLAND
VA
APPOMATTOX ED FOUNDATION
970415
B
BPED
19970806MB
RICHMOND
VA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970415
B
BPED
19970807MN
ASHLAND
VA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970416
05/29/98
B
BPED
19971104MG
NEW BERLIN
IL
REFORMED BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC
970416
05/29/98
B
BPED
19971112MC
TAYLORVILLE
IL
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
9704AX
05/29/98
A
BPED
19970418MN
ELIZABETH CITY
NC
CSN INTERNATIONAL
9704AX
B
BPED
19980319ML
ELIZABETH CITY
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9704AX
B
BPED
19980528MF
ELIZABETH CITY
NC
ELIZABETH EDUCATIONAL INCORPORATED
9704AX
B
BPED
19980529MJ
ELIZABETH CITY
NC
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
9704P3
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970501MB
COLUMBUS
IN
GOOD SAMARITAN ED RADIO INC
9704P3
B
BPED
19970403MJ
NASHVILLE
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970510
08/28/97
A
BPED
19970519MA
PLAQUEMINE
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970510
BPED
19970828ME
PLAQUEMINE
LA
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970511
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970512MA
GREAT FALLS
MT
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970511
B
BPED
19970918ME
GREAT FALLS
MT
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
970512
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970501MZ
LEVELLAND
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970512
BPED
19961206ME
MORTON
TX
MORTON COCHRAN CONUNT ED. FOUND.
970514
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970501MF
NEW HAVEN
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970514
B
BPED
19970919MB
LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP
IN
SOUTHWEST ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOLS
970516
09/19/97
A
BPED
19970513MD
FREER
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
970516
B
BPED
19970918MD
FREER
TX
GOODNEWS BROADCASTING OF TEXAS
970517
B
BPED
19971001MA
GOSHEN
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970517
B
BPED
19971009MC
WAKARUSA
IN
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
970517
10/10/97
A
BPED
19970521MD
GOSHEN
IN
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
970518
11/14/97
BPED
19970602MC
LEMOORE
CA
LEMOORE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
970518
BPED
19971112MB
SELMA
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970518
BPED
19971114MM
HANFORD
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC
970519
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970522MC
CAPE MAY COURT
HOUSE
NJ
MARANATHA MINISTRIES
970519
B
BPED
19971010MD
CAPE MAY COURTHOUSE
NJ
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
970520
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970505MC
MARION
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970520
B
BPED
19971030MN
CENTER POINT
IA
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO, INC
970520
B
BPED
19971110MC
MARION
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
970520
B
BPED
19971114ME
MARION
IA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970521
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970523MJ
RIDGECREST
CA
LIVING PROOF INC
970521
B
BPED
19971114MG
CHINA LAKE
CA
FAMILY STATIONS INC
970522
12/11/97
A
BPED
19970507MA
CHEYENNE
WY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970522
B
BPED
19971210MA
CHEYENNE
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970523
B
BPED
19980109MG
NORCO
LA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970523
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970528MD
NORCO
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970524
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970516MC
DE QUINCY
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970524
B
BPED
19980108MJ
SULPHUR
LA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970604
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970606MB
PUEBLO
CO
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
970604
A
BPED
19970702MC
RYE
CO
HARVEST RADIO CORPORATION
970604
B
BPED
19970702MG
RYE
CO
HARVEST RADIO CORPORATION
970604
B
BPED
19971112MD
WESTCLIFFE
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS INC
970604
B
BPED
19971114MC
COLORADO CITY
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970604
B
BPED
19971110MB
COLORADO SPRINGS
CO
EDUCATIONAL COMM. OF CO SPRINGS, INC
970604
B
BPED
19971112ME
WALSENBURG
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS INC
970605
BPED
19971007IG
STOCKTON
CA
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
970605
BPED
19971113MD
LODI
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970605
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970612ML
RIO VISTA
CA
RIVER DELTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
970608
11/14/97
A
BPED
19970609MF
VICTORIA
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
970608
B
BPED
19970918MC
VICTORIA
TX
GOODNEWS BROADCASTING OF TEXAS
970608
B
BPED
19971114MA
BLOOMINGTON
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS INC
970608
B
BPED
19971114MB
VICTORIA
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970609
BPED
19980727MC
PANA
IL
PANA PUBLIC RADIO INC
970609
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980121MF
PANA
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970622
12/11/97
A
BPED
19970630MA
SELMA
AL
MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
970622
B
BPED
19971211MA
SELMA
AL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970623
12/11/97
A
BPED
19970620MD
ORCHARD VALLEY
WY
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970623
B
BPED
19970703ME
CHEYENNE
WY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970623
B
BPED
19971117MK
FORT COLLINS
CO
PUBLIC RADIO FOR THE FRONT RANGE
970623
B
BPED
19971209M1
LOVELAND
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
970623
B
BPED
19971210MB
ORCHARD VALLEY
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970624
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970617MA
KALISPELL
MT
STOCKTON CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE INC
970624
B
BPED
19980108MF
KALISPELL
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970625
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970620MF
LAMONT
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970625
B
BPED
19970915ME
WASCO
CA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970625
B
BPED
19980109MI
BAKERSFIELD
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
970625
B
BPED
19980109MK
ARVIN
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970625
B
BPED
19980109MN
WASCO
CA
MARY V HARRIS FOUNDATION
970626
BPED
19980109MJ
MIDLAND
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970626
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970623MA
MIDLAND
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
970628
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970603MB
BROWNSVILLE
TN
HAYWOOD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
970628
B
BPED
19980108MI
BROWNSVILLE
TN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970630
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970630MC
PEORIA
IL
PINEBROOK FOUNDATION, INC.
970630
B
BPED
19970703MF
PEORIA
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970630
B
BPED
19980319MG
PEORIA
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
970630
B
BPED
19980319MJ
PEORIA
IL
SIRIUS SYNCOPE INC.
970631
BPED
19980318MD
PONCA
NE
ST. GABRIEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
970631
05/12/98
A
BPED
19970612MH
HUBBARD
NE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970726
04/20/98
A
BPH
19970728MA
STRASBURG
CO
J P I RADIO INCORPORATED
970726
B
BPED
19970814MA
STRASBURG
CO
BROADCASTING OF THE CHALLENGED INC
970726
B
BPED
19980417MI
STRASBURG
CO
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970726
B
BPED
19980420MJ
STRASBURG
CO
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970730
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970716MA
MISSOULA
MT
MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
970730
B
BPED
19970915MD
MISSOULA
MT
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970730
B
BPED
19980108MH
MISSOULA
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970730
B
BPED
19980109MQ
BUTTE
MT
FAMILY STATIONS INC
970733
02/25/98
A
BPED
19970701MA
NEW BEDFORD
MA
NEW BEDFORD CHRISTIAN RADIO, INC.
970733
BPED
19980225MC
NEW BEDFORD
MA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970737
B
BPED
19980107MC
LEBANON
TN
CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY
970737
B
BPED
19980109MR
BOWLING GREEN
KY
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
970737
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970728MB
PORTLAND
TN
NASHVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
970738
01/23/98
A
BPED
19970714MB
VAIL
CO
PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF COLORADO, INC
970738
B
BPED
19980122MA
VAIL
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970738
B
BPED
19980123MO
VAIL
CO
DENVER ED BROADCASTING INC
970739
05/10/99
A
BPED
19970707MA
MADISON
FL
PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
970739
BPED
19990510MF
MONTICELLO
FL
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970739
BPED
19990510ML
MONTICELLO
FL
FM 91.9, INC.
970814
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970804MD
NANTUCKET
MA
NANTUCKET PUBLIC RADIO INC
970814
B
BPED
19980319MH
NANTUCKET
MA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
970815
01/09/98
BPED
19980108MG
MONROEVILLE
AL
OKALOOSA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
970815
BPED
19980226MD
MONROEVILLE
AL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970817
01/09/98
A
BPED
19970801MH
SIOUX FALLS
SD
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970817
B
BPED
19980106MB
SIOUX FALLS
SD
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970817
B
BPED
19980108MK
SIOUX FALLS
SD
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970823
02/25/98
A
BPED
19970820MA
RATHDRUM
ID
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970823
B
BPED
19980219MA
POST FALLS
ID
KOOTENAI COUNTY BAPTIST CHURCH
970823
B
BPED
19980224MA
SPOKANE
WA
SPOKANE PUBLIC RADIO INC.
970823
B
BPED
19980225MB
RATHDRUM
ID
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
970823
B
BPED
19980225MH
RATHDRUM
ID
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970823
B
BPED
19980225MO
RATHDRUM
ID
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970824
02/25/98
A
BPED
19970818MB
LUMPKIN
GA
SPANISH CULTURAL EDUCATION, INC.
970824
B
BPED
19980225MD
AMERICUS
GA
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
970826
BPED
19980611ME
KINGMAN
AZ
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970826
BPED
19980619MH
KINGMAN
AZ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
970826
BPED
19980619MK
KINGMAN
AZ
MOHAVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
970826
06/19/98
A
BPED
19970822MA
KINGMAN
AZ
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970830
BPED
19980317MA
KEY WEST
FL
S. F. BROADCASTING CORP.
970830
BPED
19980318MF
KEY WEST
FL
BROADCASTING OF THE CHALLENGED INC.
970830
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970815MA
KEY WEST
FL
GOOD IDEA INCORPORATED
97091E
01/23/98
A
BPED
19970910MC
CLARKSTON
WA
UPPER COLUMBIA MEDIA ASSOCIATION
97091E
B
BPED
19980123MB
ASOTIN
WA
LIVING FAITH FELLOWSHIP ED MINISTRIE
970928
BPED
19980226MB
BURAS
LA
EMPIRE BROADCASTING INC
970928
02/25/98
A
BPED
19970903MA
BURAS
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970929
BPED
19980320MK
MASSEY
MD
UNIVERSITY OF MD EASTERN SHORE
970929
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970915MB
HARRINGTON
DE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970929
B
BPED
19980320MD
HARRINGTON
DE
EAGLE'S NEST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
970929
B
BPED
19980320MM
HARRINGTON
DE
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970929
B
BPED
19980320MP
DENTON
MD
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO INC
970930
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970915MA
BISMARCK
ND
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970930
B
BPED
19980320ME
BISMARCK
ND
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
970931
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970909MD
COOS BAY
OR
THE STATE OF OREGON
970931
BPED
19980318MI
ROSEBURG
OR
WILLIAM PATRICK DONNELLY MINISTRIES, INC.
970931
BPED
19980318MJ
EMIGRANT VALLEY
OR
EMIGRANT VALLEY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
970931
BPED
19980319MM
HORNBROOK
CA
OREGON EDUCATIONAL RADIO SERVICES, INC.
970931
BPED
19980319MN
HORNBROOK
CA
HORNBROOK DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.
970931
BPED
19980319MO
EMIGRANT VALLEY
OR
EMIGRANT VALLEY CHRISTIAN CHURCH
970931
BPED
19980320ML
COOS BAY
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970932
BPED
19971202IB
RICHMOND
VA
CENTRAL VIRGINIA EDUC. TV CORP.
970932
BPED
19980311MD
CAPE CHARLES
VA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
970932
BPED
19980318MH
HEATHSVILLE
VA
CENTRAL VA ED TELECOMM. CORPORATION
970932
BPED
19980319MD
BELLE HAVEN
VA
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
970932
BPED
19980319MF
CAPE CHARLES
VA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
970932
BPED
19980320MI
CAPE CHARLES
VA
STOCKTON CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE INC
970932
B
BPED
19980320MJ
CHERITON
VA
DELMARVA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
970932
BPED
19980320MN
EASTVILLE
VA
BY THE CAPE BROADCASTING INC.
970932
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970903MB
CAPE CHARLES
VA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA CORPORATION
970932
A
BPED
19971015MB
MATHEWS
VA
HAMPTON ROADS ED TELECOM ASSOC. INC
970933
05/12/98
A
BPED
19970919MD
POCOLA
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970933
B
BPED
19980512MS
POCOLA
OK
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
970935
BPED
19980617ME
LAKEPORT
CA
LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY RADIO INC
970935
BPED
19980618MB
REDWOOD VALLEY
CA
REDWOOD VALLEY BROADCASTERS INC.
970935
BPED
19980619MI
LAYTONVILLE
CA
FAMILY STATIONS INC
970935
BPED
19980619ML
REDWOOD VALLEY
CA
STOCKTON CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE
970935
06/19/98
A
BPED
19970917ME
REDWOOD VALLEY
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970936
03/20/98
A
BPED
19970929MB
TRIMBLE
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC.
970936
B
BPED
19980319ME
DURANGO
CO
PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF COLORADO INC.
970937
05/29/98
A
BPED
19980306MC
FARMINGTON
MO
BD OF REGENTS, SE MISSOURI STATE UNIV.
970937
A
BPED
19970925ME
PERRYVILLE
MO
EVANGELISTIC CENTER
970937
B
BPED
19980529MH
FARMINGTON
MO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLEGED INC
970938
07/07/98
A
BPED
19970917MA
SCOTTS HILL
NC
FAMILY RADIO NETWORK INC
970938
B
BPED
19980210MB
LOCK FOLLY TOWNSHIP
NC
GRACE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
970938
B
BPED
19980701MA
SCOTTS HILL
NC
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970938
B
BPED
19980707MB
OGDEN
NC
NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BROADCAST INC
970939
BPED
19981125MB
DESCHUTES RIVER
OR
WILLIAM PATRICK DONNELLY MINISTRIES, INC.
970939
BPED
19981127MD
BEND
OR
JESUIT MISSION, INC.
970939
BPED
19981203MO
REDMOND
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
970939
B
BPED
19980605MD
REDMOND
OR
ST OF OREGON, ST BD OF HIGHER ED
970939
B
BPED
19981203MF
SISTERS
OR
LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
970939
12/03/98
A
BPED
19970925MF
SISTERS
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
970940
BPED
19980812MI
ASPEN
CO
ASPEN PUBLIC RADIO INC.
970940
BPED
19980813MD
NEW CASTLE
CO
EDUC. COMMUN. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, I
970940
BPED
19980814MH
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
CO
PITKIN COUNTY
970940
08/14/98
A
BPED
19970924MH
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
CO
PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF COLORADO INC
970944
BPED
19990506ME
RAEFORD
NC
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
970944
05/10/99
A
BPED
19970925MB
RAEFORD
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971013
BPED
19980415MB
SIDNEY
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
971013
BPED
19980417MC
GYPSUM
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
971013
04/20/98
A
BPED
19971014MB
SIDNEY
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS INC
971014
B
BPED
19971017MA
RAPID CITY
SD
BETHESDA CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING INC
971014
BPED
19980417MB
RAPID CITY
SD
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971014
BPED
19980420MG
RAPID CITY
SD
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
971014
04/20/98
A
BPED
19971020MB
RAPID CITY
SD
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971015
04/20/98
A
BPED
19971009MA
MARSHALLTOWN
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971015
B
BPED
19980417MH
MARSHALLTOWN
IA
MARSHALLTOWN ED PLUS INC.
971016
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971016MC
RANDOM LAKE
WI
ST OF WI ED COMMUNICATIONS BOARD
971016
B
BPED
19980506MD
PLYMOUTH
WI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971016
B
BPED
19980512ME
KIEL
WI
JUBILATION MINISTRIES INC
971016
B
BPED
19980512MG
FOND DU LAC
WI
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY RADIO, INC.
971017
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971008MA
HASTINGS
NE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971017
B
BPED
19980512MH
GRAND ISLAND
NE
STOCKTON CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE, INC
971017
B
BPED
19980512MQ
HASTINGS
NE
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971018
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971016MD
BEND
OR
COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR BD OF THE DIO
971018
B
BPED
19980327MA
BEND
OR
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
971018
B
BPED
19980417MF
BEND
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971018
B
BPED
19980430MB
BEND
OR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971018
B
BPED
19980512MA
LA PINE
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
971019
BPED
19980204MA
COATESVILLE
PA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971019
BPED
19980512MB
COATESVILLE
PA
FAMILY STATIONS INC
971019
BPED
19980512MF
COATESVILLE
PA
TEMPLE UN OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYS OF
971019
BPED
19980512MI
MORGANTOWN
PA
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY B/CASTING CORP
971019
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971009ME
COATESVILLE
PA
MERCER COUNTY COMMUNICTY COLLEGE
971022
BPED
19981005ME
KUNA
ID
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
971022
BPED
19981006MC
TWIN FALLS
ID
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
971022
BPED
19981006MI
BUHL
ID
SO ID CORP OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
971022
BPED
19981006MJ
KUNA
ID
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971022
10/06/98
A
BPED
19971027MC
KUNA
ID
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
971029
BPED
19990506MC
SELMER
TN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
971029
05/10/99
BPED
19971027MA
SELMER
TN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9710X3
03/20/98
A
BPED
19971020MA
GREAT FALLS
MT
AMERICN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9710X3
B
BPED
19980318ME
GREAT FALLS
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
9710X3
B
BPED
19980320MG
GREAT FALLS
MT
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
9710X3
B
BPED
19980320MO
GREAT FALLS
MT
FAMILY STATIONS INC
971109
04/20/98
A
BPED
19971121MA
LOWELL
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971109
B
BPED
19980127MB
LYNWOOD
IL
CHRISTIAN ED ASSOCIATION
971109
B
BPED
19980415MA
LOWELL
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
971109
B
BPED
19980417ME
LOWELL
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971110
BPED
19980420IA
WOOSTER
OH
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
971110
04/20/98
A
BPED
19971117MS
NEWARK
OH
RIVERSIDE MINISTRIES
971111
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971107ML
EDGEWATER
FL
MIMS COMMUNITY RADIO, INC.
971111
B
BPED
19980512MK
DELTONA
FL
HISPANIC BROADCAST SYSTEM, INC.
971112
B
BPED
19971125ID
FORT WORTH
TX
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
971112
B
BPED
19980512MD
MINERAL WELLS
TX
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERISTY
971112
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971117MJ
WEATHERFORD
TX
CSSI NON-PROFIT ED BROADCASTING CORP
971113
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971103MD
FREELAND
MI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971113
B
BPED
19980512MT
FREELAND
MI
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971114
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971112MA
VALPARAISO
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971114
B
BPED
19980512MU
CHESTERTON
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971114
B
BPED
19980512MV
SOUTH HAVEN
IN
THE WBEZ ALLIANCE INC
971114
B
BPED
19980512MP
VALPARAISO
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971115
BPED
19980512MR
BUNKIE
LA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971115
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971112MK
BUNKIE
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971116
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971121MB
NORWALK
OH
CLEVELAND PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
971116
B
BPED
19980512MW
NORWALK
OH
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
971117
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971117MD
ELWOOD
KS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971117
B
BPED
19971201MA
COUNTRY CLUB
MO
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING INC
971118
07/07/98
A
BPED
19971105MA
ARANSAS PASS
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVAGELISM
971118
B
BPED
19980701MB
ARANSAS PASS
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
971118
B
BPED
19980707ME
ALICE
TX
FAMILY STATIONS INC
971119
BPED
19981006MF
MOSS BEACH
CA
CALIFORNIA HARDIVES INC.
971119
10/06/98
A
BPED
19971113MB
PESCADERO
CA
PESCADERO PUBLIC RADIO SERVICES INC
971147
BPED
19980727ME
WINCHESTER
IL
WINCHESTER PUBLIC RADIO INC
971147
07/29/98
A
BPED
19971211MB
WHITE HALL
IL
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY RADIO INC
971209
BPED
19980512MC
RIVERSIDE
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
971209
BPED
19980512MJ
MICHIGAN CITY
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
971209
05/12/98
A
BPED
19971216MA
MICHIGAN CITY
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971211
06/19/98
A
BPED
19971203MA
WEST POINT
CA
WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP INC
971211
B
BPED
19980619MB
LIVINGSTON
CA
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
971211
B
BPED
19980619MD
EAST SONORA
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
971211
B
BPED
19980619MJ
SAN ANDREAS
CA
CALIFORNIA ST UN, SACRAMENTO
971211
B
BPED
19980619MM
DORRINGTON
CA
STOCKTON CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE
971212
05/29/98
A
BPED
19971208MA
SHERIDAN
WY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
971212
B
BPED
19980206MB
SHERIDAN
WY
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-BILLINGS
971212
B
BPED
19980529MB
SHERIDAN
WY
CSN INTERNATIONAL
971213
05/29/98
A
BPED
19971205MA
LOGAN
UT
LISTNERS COMMUNITY RADIO OF UTAH INC
971213
B
BPED
19980529ME
LOGAN
UT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971215
BPED
19980824MA
LARAMIE
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971215
BPED
19980825MB
CHUGWATER
WY
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
971215
BPED
19980825MC
CENTENNIAL
WY
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF COLORADO SPRING
971215
BPED
19980825MG
LARAMIE
WY
LARAMINE UNION BROADCASTING INC
971215
08/26/98
A
BPED
19971208MD
LARAMIE
WY
WESTERN INSPRIATIONAL BROADCASTERS I
971216
BPED
19980313IB
MONROE
CT
MONROE BOARD OF EDUCATION
971216
BPED
19980825MA
MONTGOMERY
NY
MONTGOMERY NYC BROADCASTING INC
971216
BPED
19980826MJ
MIDDLETOWN
NY
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
971216
08/26/98
A
BPED
19971230MB
MONTGOMERY
NY
RIVER BROADCASTING INC
971218
B
BPED
19980813MF
STERLING
CO
EDUC. COMMUN. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, I
971218
B
BPED
19980814MI
STERLING
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
971218
08/14/98
A
BPED
19971222MB
STERLING
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980102
06/19/98
A
BPED
19980123ME
CUERO
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
980102
01/29/01
BPED
19980513MC
CUERO
TX
GOOD NEWS BROADCASTING OF TEXAS
980103
BPED
19980619MF
SOUTH CHARLESTON
WV
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980103
06/19/98
A
BPED
19980113MB
SOUTH CHARLESTON
WV
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980104
BPED
19980618MF
CASPER
WY
CASPER LEARNING FM INC
980104
BPED
19980619MG
CASPER
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980104
06/19/98
A
BPED
19980112MB
CASPER
WY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980105
BPED
19980706MB
OLATHE
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980105
BPED
19980707MD
COLONA
CO
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980105
07/07/98
A
BPED
19980107MB
COLONA
CO
ED COMMUNIC. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC.
980106
07/07/98
A
BPED
19980113MA
STEPHENVILLE
TX
FRONTLINE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
980106
B
BPED
19980122MD
STEPHENVILLE
TX
CSSI NONPROFIT EDUC. BROADCASTING CORP.
980107
BPED
19980602MA
SPRINGFIELD
OH
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WITTENBERG
980107
BPED
19980707MC
DELAWARE
OH
LIFE RADIO MINISTRIES
980107
07/07/98
A
BPED
19980105MA
URBANA
OH
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980108
BPED
19980710ME
YOAKUM
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS INC
980108
BPED
19980724MD
GONZALES
TX
MARANATHA CHURCH OF LAREDO INC.
980108
BPED
19980729MA
GONZALES
TX
SPIRIT OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION
980108
BPED
19980729MJ
BAY CITY
TX
FAMILY STATION, INC.
980108
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980123MD
GONZALES
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
980109
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980108MN
PRINCETON
WV
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980109
B
BPED
19980729MC
CRAB ORCHARD
WV
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE RADIO INC
980110
BPED
19980424MA
BRECKENRIDGE
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980110
BPED
19980729ME
BRECKENRIDGE
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980110
BPED
19980729MF
EASTLAND
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980110
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980122MB
EASTLAND
TX
CSSI NON-PROFIT ED BROADCASTING CORP
980111
BPED
19980602MC
NEW ULM
MN
MINN-IOWA CHRISTIAN B/G FOUNDATION
980111
BPED
19980729MG
NEW ULM
MN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980111
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980105MD
NEW ULM
MN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980114
01/29/01
BPED
19980724ME
CEDAR CREEK
FL
CEDAR CREEK PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980114
BPED
19980727MF
BUSHNELL
FL
WEST COAST EDUCATIONAL, INC.
980114
BPED
19980728MB
BUSHNELL
FL
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980114
BPED
19980610MD
WEBSTER
FL
WEBSTER CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSN
980115
BPED
19980729MD
PAHALA
HI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980115
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980121ME
PAHALA
HI
KAU HIGH SCHOOL
980116
BPED
19980824ME
ROSWELL
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980116
BPED
19980826MG
SOCORRO
NM
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980116
08/26/98
A
BMPED
19980123MG
ALAMOGORDO
NM
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO RADIO FOUNDATION
980117
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980126MD
BILLINGS
MT
WESTERN INSPIRATIONAL BRD/CATERS INC
980117
B
BPED
19971113ME
BILLINGS
MT
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980117
B
BPED
19980824MC
BILLINGS
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980117
B
BPED
19980824MD
BILLINGS
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980117
B
BPED
19980824MG
BILLINGS
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980117
B
BPED
19980825MF
PARK CITY
MT
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980118
BPED
19980529MF
TELLURIDE
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLEGED INC
980118
05/29/98
A
BPED
19980107MF
PLACERVILLE
CO
EDUCATIONAL COMM. OF COLORADO SPRING
980119
B
BPED
19980212MA
STEPHENVILLE
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980119
BPED
19980730ME
STEPHENVILLE
TX
THE NORTH TEXAS MUSIC FOUNDATION, IN
980119
BPED
19980901MH
STEPHENVILLE
TX
FT. WORTH STEPHENVILLE FM INC
980119
BPED
19980909MD
SELDEN
TX
FRONTLINE INTERNATIONAL INC.
980119
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980122MC
BLUFF DALE
TX
CSSI NON PROFIT ED BROADCASTING CORP
980120
BPED
19980313IB
EDEN
OH
SHOFAR BROADCASTING CORP
980120
BPED
19980716MR
EDEN
OH
MARANATHA BROADCASTING INC.
980120
BPED
19980901MD
GROVE CITY
OH
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980120
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980113MD
WAVERLY
OH
LIFE RADIO MINISTRIES INC
980121
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980115MB
BAY CITY
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980121
B
BPED
19980901MF
BAY CITY
TX
HOUSTON BAY CITY INC
980122
BPED
19980814MJ
BRUSH
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980122
08/14/98
A
BPED
19980115MA
BRUSH
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPGS INC
980125
BPED
19980702MA
MIDLAND
TX
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
980125
BPED
19981001MB
MIDLAND
TX
MIDLAND STEREO REY INC.
980125
BPED
19981006MM
MIDLAND
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980125
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980120MH
MIDLAND
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980127
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980105MC
ROCHESTER
IN
AMERCIAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980127
B
BPED
19980727MA
ROCHESTER
IN
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY RADIO INC
9801XX
BPED
19980922MA
PORT SULPHUR
LA
NEW ORLEANS Y2K INC
9801XX
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980120MG
PORT SULPHUR
LA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980201
BPED
19980729MK
ROSEBURG
OR
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980201
07/29/98
A
BPED
19980205MA
ROSEBURG
OR
LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
980202
05/29/98
A
BPED
19980204ME
POPLAR BLUFF
MO
BD OF REGENTS,  SE MO ST UNIVERSITY
980202
B
BPED
19980528MA
POPLAR BLUFF
MO
POPLAR BLUFF EDUCATIONAL INC
980202
B
BPED
19980528MC
POPLAR BLUFF
MO
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
980202
B
BPED
19980528MI
KENNETT
MO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980202
B
BPED
19980529MI
POPLAR BLUFF
MO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980204
05/29/98
A
BPED
19980204MC
CAVE JUNCTION
OR
THE ST BD  HGHR ED/SO OR UNIVERSITY
980204
B
BPED
19980123MM
SELMA
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980204
B
BPED
19980528MB
CAVE JUNCTION
OR
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC.
980204
B
BPED
19980528MG
CAVE JUNCTION
OR
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
980205
BPED
19980901MG
COMFORT
TX
SAN ANTONIO COMFORT, INC
980205
BPED
19980908MC
DRIPPING SPRINGS
TX
AMERICAN B/CASTING EDUC. FOUNDATION
980205
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980213MA
FREDERICKSBURG
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS INC
980206
BPED
19980218MD
BEND
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980206
BPED
19980626MA
BEND
OR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980206
BPED
19980826MI
LEBANON
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980206
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980126MB
BEND
OR
LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
980207
BPED
19981005MD
SAN ANGELO
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980207
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980226MA
SAN ANGELO
TX
ANGELO CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES INC
980208
BPED
19980810MB
AUGUSTA
MI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980208
BPED
19980814MA
SPRINGFIELD
MI
CORNERSTONE BAPTIST EDUCATIONAL
980208
BPED
19980814MD
BELDING
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
980208
BPED
19980814MG
AUGUSTA
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980208
08/14/98
A
BPED
19980218MB
AUGUSTA
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
980209
B
BPED
19980622MB
EUREKA SPRINGS
AR
NEW LIFE EVANGELISTIC CENTER, INC.
980209
B
BPED
19990311MD
ANDERSON
MO
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980209
B
BPED
19990311MJ
BARTLESVILLE
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980209
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980225ME
GROVE
OK
GROVE BROADCASTING INC.
980210
BPED
19980909MO
TEXARKANA
AR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980210
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980204MD
TEXARKANA
AR
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
980211
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980220MF
LAKE CITY
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY B/CASTING, INC
980211
B
BPED
19981110MP
LAKE CITY
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
980211
B
BPED
19981110MQ
LAKE CITY
MI
NASSAWADOX FM INC.
98022S
BPED
19980923MI
DANNEMORA
NY
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL BROADCAST/G, IN
98022S
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980202MA
MALONE
NY
MARS HILL BROADCASTING CO INC
9802XC
BPED
19980922MC
COLUSA
CA
SACRAMENTO BRAIN TRUST INC
9802XC
BPED
19980922MD
SUTTER
CA
CALIFORNIA STATE UN SACRAMENTO
9802XC
BPED
19980923ME
LIVE OAK
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
9802XC
BPED
19980923MJ
WILLIAMS
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
9802XC
BPED
19980923MK
SUTTER
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9802XC
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980218MC
SUTTER
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980301
BPED
19980826MH
ADAMS
WI
STATE OF WISC. EDUCATION COMM. BOARD
980301
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980309MC
RICHLAND CENTER
WI
RICHLAND CENTER FELLOWSHIP
980302
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980331MB
MAPPSVILLE
VA
MIRACLE TEMPLE OF FAITH MINISTIRES
980302
B
BPED
19980824MF
MAPPSVILLE
VA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHHALLENGED INC
980302
B
BPED
19980825MH
NASSAWADOX
VA
NASSAWADOX FM INC
980303
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980318MG
CHASE CITY
VA
CENTRAL VA ED TELECOMMUNICATIONS COR
980303
B
BPED
19980826MB
CHASE CITY
VA
VISION COMMUNICATIONS INC
980304
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980324MA
SALEM
OR
WESTERN BAPTIST COLLEGE
980304
B
BPED
19980824MB
SALEM
OR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980304
B
BPED
19980826ML
SALEM
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980305
BPED
19980909MA
KEY WEST
FL
PUBLIC RADIO INC
980305
BPED
19980909MN
STOCK ISLAND
FL
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
980305
BPED
19980909MT
KEY WEST
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980305
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980316MD
KEY WEST
FL
SOUTHERNMOST EDUCATIONAL INC
980306
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980305MC
HARPSWELL
ME
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
980306
BPED
19980909MX
CONWAY
NH
NH EDUCATIONAL RADIO FOUNDATION
980307
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980319MP
CASCADE
IA
COMMUNITY RADIO, INC
980307
BPED
19980908MA
DUBUQUE
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980307
BPED
19980909ML
PLATTEVILLE
WI
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS BOARD
980307
BPED
19980909MU
DUBUQUE
IA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980309
BPED
19980619ME
LINCOLNTON
GA
AUGUSTA RADIO FELLOWSHIP INST. INC.
980309
BPED
19981023MF
THOMSON
GA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980309
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980319MI
THOMSON
GA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980315
BPED
19981230MB
NEWTON
IA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980315
BPED
19990104MI
ADEL
IA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980315
BPED
19990104ML
FORT DODGE
IA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980315
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980319MQ
MITCHELLVILLE
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
98033P
BPED
19980812MJ
HICKORY
NC
HICKORY EDUCATIONAL INC
98033P
BPED
19980814MQ
HICKORY
NC
RADIO TRAINING NETWORK, INC.
98033P
08/14/98
A
BPED
19980316MB
HICKORY
NC
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9803HL
BPED
19980923MG
COOS BAY
OR
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
9803HL
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980810MC
COOS BAY
OR
COOS BAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 9
9803X3
BPED
19980923MA
KUTZTOWN
PA
BERKS RADIO ASSOCIATION
9803X3
BPED
19980923MF
WYOMISSING
PA
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY B/G CORP
9803X3
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980213ME
SHENANDOAH
PA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980401
BPED
19980421MC
LARAMIE
WY
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980401
BPED
19980824MH
LARAMIE
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980401
BPED
19980825MD
LARAMIE
WY
ED COMMUN. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC.
980401
BPED
19980825ME
LARAMIE
WY
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980401
BPED
19980826MK
LARAMIE
WY
UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
980401
08/26/98
A
BPED
19980407MD
LARAMIE
WY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980402
BPED
19980901MI
EARLHAM
IA
DES MOINES EARLHAM INC
980402
BPED
19980909MC
CRESTON
IA
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO INC
980402
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980408MB
CRESTON
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980404
BPED
19980909MM
BENTON HARBOR
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC
980404
BPED
19980909MQ
BENTON HARBOR
MI
CORNERSTONE BAPTIST ED MINISTRIES INC
980404
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980401MA
BENTON HARBOR
MI
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980405
BPED
19980908MB
SANTA MARIA
CA
BELCHER SANTA MARIA B/CASTING CORP.
980405
BPED
19980909MV
LOMPOC
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980405
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980414MD
LOMPOC
CA
CALVARY CHAPEL OF LOMPOC
980406
09/09/98
A
BPED
19980406MB
EMPORIA
KS
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
980406
B
BPED
19980601MB
EMPORIA
KS
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK INC
980407
BPED
19981005MF
STANTON
TX
POPLAR BLUFF EDUCATIONAL INC.
980407
BPED
19981006ME
BIG SPRING
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980407
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980417MG
BIG SPRING
TX
PAULINO BERNAL EVANGELISM
980409
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980420MH
PRINCETON
IL
ILLINOIS BIBLE INSTITUTE INC
980409
B
BPED
19981006MN
SPRING VALLEY
IL
SPIRIT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC.
980409
B
BPED
19980428IE
PEKIN
IL
CENTRAL ILLINOIS RADIO FELLOWSHIP, INC.
980410
BPED
19981006MA
GLOBE
AZ
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980410
BPED
19981006ML
GLOBE
AZ
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980410
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980408MC
GLOBE
AZ
LIFE TEEN INC.
980411
BPED
19980603MA
BELLEFONTE
PA
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL RADIO INC
980411
BPED
19981022MC
STATE COLLEGE
PA
INVISIBLE ALLIES MINISTRIES
980411
BPED
19981023MB
HALIFAX
PA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980411
BPED
19981023MG
STATE COLLEGE
PA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980411
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980415MD
MIFFLIN
PA
JUNIATA COMMUNITY AWARENESS ASSN
980412
BPED
19981016MB
PLYMOUTH
IN
ROCHERSTER COMMUNITY RADIO INC.
980412
BPED
19981023MM
LOGANSPORT
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980412
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980414MB
PLYMOUTH
IN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980413
BPED
19981022MA
RIGBY
ID
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980413
BPED
19981023MA
POCATELLO
ID
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980413
BPED
19981023ME
POCATELLO
ID
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980413
BPED
19981023MJ
POCATELLO
ID
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
980413
BPED
19981023ML
POCATELLO
ID
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY
980413
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980410MB
POCATELLO
ID
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980414
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980421MA
BEEKMAN
NY
MONROE BOARD OF EDUCATION
980414
B
BPED
19981110MA
BEEKMAN
NY
MONTGOMERY NYC BROADCASTING INC.
980415
12/03/98
A
BPED
19980427MQ
FARGO
ND
PIONEER PUBLIC BROADCASTING COMPANY
980415
B
BPED
19981201MA
HORACE
ND
SELAH CORPORATION
980415
B
BPED
19981202MG
GLYNDON
MN
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
980415
B
BPED
19981203MC
FARGO
ND
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
98043S
BPED
19980922MF
LEXINGTON
KY
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
98043S
BPED
19980923MH
FRANKFORT
KY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
98043S
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980409MA
FRANKFORT
KY
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
9804X2
BPED
19980515MO
COLLEGE STATION
TX
BRAZOS EDUCATIONAL RADIO
9804X2
BPED
19980909MP
BRYAN
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS INC
9804X2
BPED
19980922MB
CALDWELL
TX
PHILOS BRAODCAST INC
9804X2
09/23/98
A
BPED
19980410MA
BRYAN
TX
BRAZOS VALLEY COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL
980501
BPED
19981006MO
BUSHLAND
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980501
BPED
19980629MA
BUSHLAND
TX
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980501
10/06/98
A
BPED
19980501MA
BUSHLAND
TX
KANZA SOCIETY INC.
980502
BPED
19980527MA
BROKENBURG
VA
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES INC.
980502
BPED
19981023MC
SPOTSYLVANIA
VA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980502
BPED
19981023MP
FREDERICKSBURG
VA
CENTRAL VA. EDUC. TELECOM. CORP.
980502
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980513MA
SPOTSYLVANIA
VA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA CORPORATION
980503
BPED
19981023MK
ALTOONA
PA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980503
BPED
19981023MD
BEDFORD
PA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980503
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980511MA
PATTON
PA
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL RADIO, INC
980504
BPED
19981023MN
MORGANTOWN
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980504
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980511ME
COLUMBUS
IN
GOOD SHEPHERD RADIO, INC.
980506
BPED
19980505MC
ROGERS HEIGHTS
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADC/G INC.
980506
BMPED
19980909ME
WHITE STAR
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
980506
BPED
19981231MF
CASS CITY
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980506
BPED
19990104MO
ELKTON
MI
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980506
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980505MD
GAGETOWN
MI
PLONTA BROADCASTING INC.
980507
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980514MA
NANTY GLO
PA
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, INC.
980507
BPED
19981109MA
WESTMONT
PA
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY OF THE HOLY GHOST
980508
BPED
19981110MD
PIERRE
SD
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980508
BPED
19981110MF
PIERRE
SD
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980508
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980529MD
PIERRE
SD
VCY AMERICA INC
980509
BPED
19981110MH
KEY WEST
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980509
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980526MC
KEY WEST
FL
STAR RADIO INCORPORATED
980510
BPED
19981110MB
CAPE CANAVERAL
FL
WEST COAST EDUCATIONAL, INC
980510
BPED
19981110MI
CAPE CANAVERAL
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980510
BPED
19981110MJ
CAPE CANAVERAL
FL
PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980510
BPED
19981110MK
CAPE CANAVERAL
FL
FLORIDA PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980510
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980519MD
CAPE CANAVERAL
FL
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980511
BPED
19981110IA
FRESNO
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980511
11/10/98
A
BPED
19980519MC
FIREBAUGH
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980511
B
BMPED
19980818MD
HOLLISTER
CA
CENTRAL COAST EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTERS
980511
B
BPED
19981110MC
MENDOTA
CA
CALIFORNIA HARDRIVES, INC
980511
B
BPED
19981110ML
TRACY
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980511
B
BPED
19981110MM
FIREBAUGH
CA
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
980512
BPED
19981203MA
MICHIGAMME
MI
NORTHLAND COMMUNITY BRAODCASTERS
980512
BPED
19981203MI
IRONWOOD
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980512
12/03/98
A
BPED
19980521MG
IRONWOOD
MI
VCY AMERICA, INC.
980513
BPED
19990209MA
COLUMBUS
MS
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
980513
BPED
19990318MJ
COLUMBUS
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980513
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980526MB
COLUMBUS
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980514
BPED
19990318MF
BUTTE
MT
HI-LINE RADIO FELLOWSHIP, INC.
980514
BPED
19990506MA
BUTTE
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980514
05/10/99
A
BPED
19980506MC
BUTTE
MT
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980515
BPED
19990719MG
COVENTRY
RI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980515
BPED
19990719MH
EAST GREENWICH
RI
THE EDUC. RADIO/PUBLIC OF NEW MILLEN
980515
07/19/99
A
BPED
19980519MZ
COVENTRY
RI
SOUTHERN RHODE ISLAND PUB. RAD. B/C
980601
BPED
19981016MA
CARBONDALE
PA
MONTGOMERY NYC BROADCASTING, INC.
980601
BPED
19981023MH
CARBONDALE
PA
FAMILY LIFE MINISTRIES, INC.
980601
BPED
19981023MI
CARBONDALE
PA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980601
BPED
19981023MQ
HONESDALE
PA
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY B/C CORP
980601
10/23/98
A
BPED
19980623MD
CARBONDALE
PA
SOUND OF LIFE INC
980603
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980629MC
INDEPENDENCE
KS
CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE INC
980603
B
BMPED
19981015MD
INDEPENDENCE
KS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980604
BPED
19981202MF
ANDALUSIA
AL
MONTGOMERY CHRISTIAN EDUC. RADIO,INC
980604
BPED
19981203MG
UNION SPRINGS
AL
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
980604
12/03/98
A
BMPED
19980619MA
TROY
AL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980605
BPED
19981215MA
OSKALOOSA
IA
IA STATE UN OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
980605
BPED
19981215MC
OSKALOOSA
IA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980605
12/15/98
A
BPED
19980630MC
OSKALOOSA
IA
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS INC
980606
BPED
19981211MB
ROCHESTER
MN
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COL
980606
BPED
19981215MD
HAYFIELD
MN
LIFETALK BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
980606
BPED
19981215ME
ALBERT LEA
MN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980606
BPED
19981215MG
ALBERT LEA
MN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980606
12/15/98
A
BPED
19980603MB
AUSTIN
MN
MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO
980608
BPED
19981202MC
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
CO
ASPEN PUBLIC RADIO INC.
980608
BPED
19981215MF
HAYDEN
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980608
BPED
19981215MH
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980608
BPED
19981215MJ
CRAIG
CO
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
980608
12/15/98
A
BPED
19980610MA
HAYDEN
CO
ED'L COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS INC
980609
BPED
19981202MB
LA GRANGE
GA
N C PUBLIC BROADCAST INCORPORATED
980609
BPED
19981203MH
LA GRANGE
GA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980609
BPED
19981203MJ
LA GRANGE
GA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980609
12/03/98
A
BPED
19980604MA
LA GRANGE
GA
COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980610
BPED
19981202MD
JUNIATA
NE
ASPEN PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980610
BPED
19981203MD
GRAND ISLAND
NE
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENDGED INC
980610
BPED
19981203MK
GRAND ISLAND
NE
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980610
12/03/98
A
BPED
19980609MA
HASTINGS
NE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980610
A
BPED
19980721MB
GRAND ISLAND
NE
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES INC.
980611
BPED
19981203ME
DANVILLE
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980611
12/03/98
A
BPED
19980602MB
VEEDERSBURG
IN
GOOD SHEPHERD RADIO INC.
980613
BPED
19981231ME
WAVERLY
IA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980613
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980612MB
WAVERLY
IA
WARTBURG COLLEGE
980614
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980629MB
MARSHALLTOWN
IA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980614
B
BPED
19981230MF
MARSHALLTOWN
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980614
B
BPED
19981231MC
STATE CENTER
IA
MARSHALLTOWN EDUCATION PLUS, INC.
980614
B
BPED
19990104MC
DES MOINES
IA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980615
BPED
19981231MI
JACKSON
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980615
BPED
19981231MK
JACKSON
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980615
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980618MA
JACKSON
WY
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL RADIO INC.
980616
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980610MB
FAVORITA
FL
CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
980616
B
BPED
19981230MA
FLAGLER BEACH
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980616
B
BPED
19981231MB
FAVORETTA
FL
DAYSTAR PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980616
B
BPED
19990104MA
BEVERLY BEACH
FL
GOOD IDEA INC.
980616
B
BPED
19990104MB
FAVORETTA
FL
PATHWAY PUBLIC RADIO
980616
B
BPED
19990104MN
BEVERLY BEACH
FL
COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
980616
B
BPED
19990104MP
PALM COAST
FL
CENTRAL FL ED FOUNDATION INC
980617
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980617MD
MERTZON
TX
SOLID ROCK BROADCASTING INC
980617
BPED
19981230MC
SAN ANGELO
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980618
BPED
19980727MD
CHERRY VALLEY
AR
IMPACT MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INC
980618
BPED
19990114MG
MARKED TREE
AR
NEW ORLEANS Y2K INCORPORATED
980618
BPED
19990120ME
MARKED TREE
AR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980618
01/20/99
A
BPED
19980611MC
MARKED TREE
AR
ESTHER EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION
980619
BPED
19990527MB
LARAMIE
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980619
BPED
19990601MG
LARAMIE
WY
EDUC. COMM. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
980619
BPED
19990602ML
WEST LARAMIE
WY
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980619
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980625MB
LARAMIE
WY
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS INC.
980622
05/03/00
A
BPED
19980618MC
DORSEY
IL
LIBERTY COMMUNICATIONS INC.
980622
BNPED
20000428AAI
DORSEY
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
9806PP
BPED
19990319MC
SEALY
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
9806PP
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980610MC
SEALY
TX
CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
980701
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980713MD
SPRING ARBOR
MI
SPRING ARBOR COLLEGE COMMUNICATIONS
980701
B
BPED
19981224MB
JACKSON
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
980702
BPED
19990104MJ
KELSO
WA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980702
BPED
19990104MQ
RAINIER
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980702
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980706MA
TILLAMOOK
OR
TILLICUM FOUNDATION
980703
BPED
19990104MD
NEWPORT
OR
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
980703
BPED
19990104MG
JUNCTION CITY
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980703
BPED
19990104MU
DEPOE BAY
OR
LARAMIE UNION BROADCASTING, INC
980703
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980707MG
GLENEDEN BEACH
OR
OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
980703
A
BPED
19980715ME
GLENEDEN BEACH
OR
KBPS PUBLIC RADIO FOUNDATION
980703
A
BPED
19980826MF
MONROE
OR
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980704
BPED
19990104MM
LAKE LOOTAWANA
MO
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC
980704
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980717MA
LIBERTY
MO
WILLIAM  JEWELL COLLEGE
980705
BPED
19990104MF
LAKE
MS
GREATER MISSISSIPPI BROADCASTING, INC
980705
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980714MD
FOREST
MS
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
980706
BPED
19981230MD
SAULT STE. MARIE
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980706
01/04/99
A
BPED
19980707MH
SAULT STE. MARIE
MI
NORTHERN CHRISTIAN RADIO INC
980708
BPED
19990310MD
MONTAUK
NY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENDGED INC
980708
BPED
19990310MJ
MONTAUK
NY
MONTGOMERY NYC BROADCSTING, INC
980708
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980713MF
MONTAUK
NY
WPKN, INC.
980709
BPED
19981013MA
COLUMBIA
MS
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
980709
BPED
19990311MH
HICKORY
MS
CSN INTERNATIONAL
980709
BPED
19990311MM
MERIDIAN
MS
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980709
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980713ME
LAUREL
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980710
BPED
19990310MR
TRAFALGAR
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980710
BPED
19990311MF
DANVILLE
IN
CALVARY CHAPEL OF CRAWFORDSVILLE IN.
980710
BPED
19990311MS
NEW WHITELAND
IN
HORIZON CHRISTIAN F/SHIP OF INDIANAP
980710
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980716MS
TRAFALGAR
IN
HOOSIER BROADCASTING CORPORATION
980712
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980730MB
MORRIS
IL
SOUTHWEST CHICAGO EDUCATIONAL INC.
980712
B
BPED
19981228MA
MORRIS
IL
THE WBEZ ALLIANCE, INC.
980712
B
BPED
19990318MD
MORRIS
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980713
BPED
19980827ME
ELGIN
IL
ILLINOIS BIBLE INSTITUTE, INC.
980713
BPED
19990319MH
CARPENTERSVILLE
IL
LIFETALK BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
980713
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980720MB
PINGREE GROVE
IL
COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO INC.
980713
B
BPED
19980417MD
PINGREE GROVE
IL
CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
980714
BPED
19990224MA
CUTHBERT
GA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980714
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980727MH
EUFAULA
AL
FAITH BROADCASTING, INC.
980715
BPED
19990601MA
GRIDLEY
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980715
BPED
19990602MB
GRIDLEY
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
980715
BPED
19990602MS
BLOOMINGTON
IL
BLOOMINGTON-NORMAL B/CASTING ASSOCIATION
980715
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980702MB
GRIDLEY
IL
PINEBROOK FOUNDATION, INC.
980716
BPED
19990120MI
LACEY
WA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
980716
BPED
19990120MJ
OLYMPIA
WA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980716
01/20/99
A
BPED
19980722MA
OLYMPIA
WA
WASHINGTON PUBLIC AFFAIRS NETWORK
980801
BPED
19990114MC
MARINETTE
WI
MARINETTE BROADCASTING FOUNDATION
980801
BPED
19990114MM
FORESTVILLE
WI
NASSAWADOX FM INCORPORATED
980801
BPED
19990120MB
STURGEON BAY
WI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
980801
BPED
19990120MD
PESHTIGO
WI
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA, INC.
980801
01/20/99
A
BPED
19980811MH
STURGEON BAY
WI
VCY AMERICA INC.
980802
BPED
19990226MF
STERLING CITY
TX
CONCHO PUBLIC BROADCASTING
980802
BPED
19990310MM
BIG SPRING
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE  CHALLENGED, IN
980802
BPED
19990311ML
STANTON
TX
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980802
BPED
19990430MB
BYRNE
TX
EL HISPANO, INC.
980802
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980826MM
BIG SPRING
TX
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES INC
980802
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981120MD
BYRNE
TX
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL RADIO
980803
BPED
19990310MN
BROWNFIELD
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980803
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980820MA
BROWNFIELD
TX
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS INC
980804
BPED
19990310ML
CASPER
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980804
BPED
19990311MN
CASPER
WY
WCN, INC.
980804
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980821MF
CASPER
WY
SOLID ROCK BROADCASTING INC
980805
BPED
19990310MA
LARAMIE
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980805
BPED
19990310MF
LARAMIE
WY
LARAMIE UNION BROADCASTING INCORPORA
980805
BPED
19990310MI
LARAMIE
WY
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS, INC
980805
BPED
19990311MO
LARAMIE
WY
WCN, INC.
980805
BPED
19990311MP
ALBANY
WY
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980805
BPED
19990311MR
LARAMIE
WY
MOUNTAIN WEST INSPIRATIONAL NETWORK
980805
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980826MA
LARAMIE
WY
UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
980806
BPED
19990304MC
EFFINGHAM
IL
THE CROSS FOUNDATION
980806
BPED
19990310MO
EFFINGHAM
IL
PANA PUBLIC RADIO, INC
980806
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980810MA
EFFINGHAM
IL
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980807
BPED
19990311MC
ANNA
OH
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA, INC.
980807
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980821MB
BOTKINS
OH
ONLY BELIEVE MINISTRIES INC
980810
BPED
19990311MQ
ANCHORAGE
AK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980810
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980819MB
PALMER
AK
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING INC
980811
BPED
19990318ME
BELLINGHAM
WA
WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
980811
BPED
19990319MG
SEQUIM
WA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980811
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980813ME
PORT ANGELES
WA
PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, INC.
980813
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980821MD
CUBA
MO
NEW LIFE EVANGELISTIC CENTER, INC.
980813
B
BPED
19981125MA
SALEM
MO
MIRACLE RADIO, INC.
980814
BPED
19990602MF
WITTENBERG
WI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC
980814
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980811MJ
WITTENBERG
WI
VCY AMERICA INC.
980815
BPED
19980918MG
ZIONSVILLE
IN
KIDS FIRST INCORPORATED
980815
BPED
19990420MB
LEBANON
IN
HOOISER BROADCASTING CORPORATION
980815
BPED
19990506MH
LEBANON
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980815
BPED
19990510MG
JAMESTOWN
IN
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
980815
05/10/99
A
BPED
19980817MZ
LEBANON
IN
HORIZON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP OF INDI
980818
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980804MB
FARMINGTON
NM
KUTE, INC.
980818
B
BPED
19990527ME
FARMINGTON
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980902
BPED
19990310MC
BEAUMONT
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980902
BPED
19990310MK
VIDOR
TX
HOUSTON BAY CITY INCORPORATED
980902
BPED
19990311ME
VIDOR
TX
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA, INC.
980902
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980911MB
BEAUMONT
TX
CCS RADIO INC
980903
BPED
19990226MJ
OXFORD
AL
BAMA BROADCASTING, INC.
980903
BPED
19990302MI
HEFLIN
AL
COVENANT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
980903
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980910MB
HEFLIN
AL
JIMMY JARRELL COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDAT
980904
BPED
19990318MC
ALTOONA
PA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980904
BPED
19990319MB
CHAMBERSBURG
PA
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY B/CASTING CORP
980904
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980921MB
HOLLIDAYSBURG
PA
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA INC
980905
BPED
19990115MB
FRANKLIN
KY
LIFETALK BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
980905
BPED
19990317MC
AUBURN
KY
WAY-FM MEDIA GROUP, INC
980905
BPED
19990319MI
BOWLING GREEN
KY
WESTERN KENTYCKY UNIVERSITY AC 240
980905
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980904MB
GLASGOW
KY
LOMERSET EDUC. B/CASTING FOUNDATION
980906
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980901MM
HEREFORD
TX
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL RADIO
980906
B
BPED
19990521MA
HEREFORD
TX
EL HISPANO, INC.
980907
06/02/99
A
BPED
19980901ME
CHESTERFIELD
SC
CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
980907
B
BPED
19990528MB
CHESTERFIELD
SC
NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC B/C INCORPORAT
980910
BPED
19981215MB
WINDOM
MN
MINN-IOWA CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING INC
980910
BPED
19990310MG
WINDOM
MN
DES MOINES EARLHAM INCORPORATED
980910
03/11/99
A
BPED
19980925MA
WINDOM
MN
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
980910
A
BPED
19990311MK
WILLMAR
MN
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
980911
BPED
19990716MB
BERNARDSVILLE
NJ
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC B/CASTING AUTHORIT
980911
07/19/99
A
BPED
19980923MB
CHATHAM
NJ
WORLD REVIVALS INC
980912
BPED
19990719MC
FOND DU LAC
WI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
980912
07/19/99
A
BPED
19980923MD
FOND DU LAC
WI
VCY AMERICA INC.
9809W2
BPED
19990318MI
UNION CITY
TN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9809W2
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980918MC
UNION CITY
TN
HEARTLAND MINISTRIES INC
9809W3
BPED
19990318ML
YAZOO CITY
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9809W3
03/19/99
A
BPED
19980922ME
YAZOO CITY
MS
BRIGHT LIGHT BROADCASTING INC
981001
BPED
19990310ME
COLUMBUS
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981001
03/11/99
A
BPED
19981029MA
COLUMBUS
MS
MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN
981002
BPED
19990310MB
YUCCA VALLEY
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED INC.
981002
BPED
19990310MQ
YUCCA VALLEY
CA
SACRAMENTO BRAIN TRUST INCORPORATED
981002
03/11/99
A
BPED
19981013MB
YUCCA VALLEY
CA
PENFOLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
981003
BPED
19990318MB
ARKADELPHIA
AR
HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY
981003
BPED
19990318MH
ARKADELPHIA
AR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981003
03/19/99
A
BPED
19981030MC
ARKADELPHIA
AR
BRIGHT LIGHT BROADCASTING INC.
981004
BPED
19981023MO
BULLHEAD CITY
AZ
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981004
BPED
19990506MB
KINGMAN
AZ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981004
BPED
19990510MD
LAKE HAVASU CITY
AZ
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981004
BPED
19990510ME
ST. GEORGE
UT
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981004
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981013MO
KINGMAN
AZ
CEDAR BROADCASTING, INC.
981005
BPED
19990506MD
BILOXI
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981005
BPED
19990507MC
BILOXI
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981005
BPED
19990510MC
BILOXI
MS
BIBLE BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.
981005
BPED
19990510MJ
D'IBERVILLE
MS
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA, INC.
981005
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981026MB
BILOXI
MS
GREATER MISSISSIPPI BROADCASTING INC
981006
BPED
19990429MA
FOREST
MS
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981006
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981026MA
FOREST
MS
GREATER MISSISSIPPI BROADCASTING INC
981008
BPED
19990507MB
GRAND ISLAND
NE
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY RADIO INCORPORAT
981008
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981014MA
GRAND ISLAND
NE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981009
BPED
19990402MC
PARIS
TN
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
981009
BPED
19990506MF
PARIS
TN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981009
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981026MD
WAVERLY
TN
TENNESSEE ED INFORMATIONAL INCORPORA
981010
BPED
19990526MC
LOCKWOOD
MT
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981010
BPED
19990527MC
BILLINGS
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981010
BPED
19990602MJ
BILLINGS
MT
BILLINGS COMMUNITY CABLE CORPORATION
981010
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981030MB
BILLINGS
MT
SOLID ROCK BROADCASTING, INC.
981011
BPED
19990527MD
BISMARCK
ND
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981011
BPED
19990602MC
LINCOLN
ND
BRODCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981011
BPED
19990602MD
BISMARCK
ND
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981011
BPED
19990602MT
LINCOLN
ND
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981011
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981019MA
LINCOLN
ND
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981012
BPED
19990628MB
RENNERT
NC
BD OF TRUSTEES OF THE U OF NC-CHAPEL HILL
981012
06/28/99
A
BPED
19981022MB
LUMBERTON
NC
BILLY RAY LOCKLEAR EVAN. ASSOC., INC
981014
BPED
19980126MC
TROY
MO
MISSOURI RIVER CHRISTIAN BRAODCAST/G
981014
09/07/99
A
BPED
19981020MC
BOWLING GREEN
MO
NEW LIFE EVANGELISTIC CTR, INC.
981101
BPED
19990301MC
HOBBS
NM
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
981101
BPED
19990317MB
LOVINGTON
NM
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
981101
BPED
19990318MK
HOBBS
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
981101
03/19/99
A
BPED
19981112MA
HOBBS
NM
EL HISPANO, INC.
981104
BPED
19990528MH
GREENCASTLE
IN
HOOSIER BROADCASTING CORPORATED
981104
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981120MA
GREENCASTLE
IN
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INC.
981105
BPED
19990528MD
BRAINERD
MN
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY RADIO INCORPORAT
981105
BPED
19990602MG
BAXTER
MN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981105
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981113MC
BRAINERD
MN
MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO
981106
BPED
19990601MB
CAMP WOOD
TX
CHRISTAN ED ASSOCIATION
981106
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981119MB
CAMP WOOD
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
981107
BNPED
19991028AAM
SPRINGFIELD
OH
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981107
11/04/99
A
BPED
19981105MF
SOUTH VIENNA
OH
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
981108
BNPED
19991026AAG
SAN ANGELO
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981108
11/04/99
A
BPED
19981105ME
CARLSBAD
TX
OPTIMUM IMPACT, INC.
981201
05/10/99
A
BPED
19981231MA
MARLETTE
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADC/G, INC.
981201
BPED
19990510MA
SPEAKER TWP.
MI
SPEAKER RADIO
981202
BPED
19990208MA
TRINIDAD
CO
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981202
BPED
19990601MF
TRINIDAD
CO
EDUC. COMM. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
981202
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981208ME
STARKVILLE
CO
COLORADO COLLEGE
981203
BPED
19981009MA
LINTON
IN
BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH
981203
BPED
19990525MA
CLOVERDALE
IN
HOOSIER BROADCASTING CORPORATION
981203
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981203ML
LADOGA
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981203
A
BPED
19981203MB
OOLITIC
IN
GOOD SAMARITAN ED RADIO INC
981204
B
BPED
19990602MA
GARDNER
MA
FRIENDS OF RADIO MARIA, INC.
981204
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981207MA
WINCHENDON
MA
TOCCOA FALLS COLLEGE
981206
BPED
19990602MH
BAKER
OR
CSN INTRNATIONAL
981206
06/02/99
A
BPED
19981221MB
BAKER
OR
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981207
B
BPED
19990628MG
SUGAR GROVE
IL
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981207
06/28/99
A
BPED
19981211MF
BRISTOL
IL
BEST MEDIA INC.
981208
07/19/99
A
BMPED
19981230ME
MASON CITY
IA
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
981208
B
BPED
19980520MB
LANESBORO
MN
BLUFF COUNTRY COMMUNITY RADIO, INC.
981208
B
BPED
19990202MB
LAKE MILLS
IA
MINN-IOWA CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING, IN
981209
BPED
19990719MI
JANESVILLE
WI
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
981209
07/19/99
A
BPED
19981224MA
JANESVILLE
WI
VCY AMERICA, INC.
981210
BNPED
19991004AAB
LAYTONVILLE
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
981210
BNPED
19991004AAI
LAYTONVILLE
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
981210
10/04/99
A
BPED
19981215MI
LAYTONVILLE
CA
REDWOOD COMMUNITY RADIO, INC
981211
BNPED
19990924AAL
OAKLAND
ME
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981211
10/04/99
A
BPED
19981211MC
OAKLAND
ME
LIGHT OF LIFE MINISTRIES INC
981212
BNPED
19991117ABJ
MADISONVILLE
KY
INDIANA COMMUNITY RADIO CORPORATION
981212
11/17/99
A
BPED
19981211MA
MADISONVILLE
KY
PENNYRILE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, INC.
981213
BPED
19981203IA
HOWE
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
981213
BPED
19990720MD
ORLEANS
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
981213
BNPED
19991116AIT
LEVEL PARK
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
981213
BNPED
19991117ABI
RICHLAND
MI
LIVING PROOF, INC.
981213
11/17/99
A
BPED
19981208MF
LEVEL PARK
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE,  INC.
9812SS
BPED
19990630MC
CROTHERSVILLE
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
9812SS
BPED
19990719MB
HOPE
IN
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9812SS
07/19/99
A
BPED
19981224MC
HOPE
IN
GOOD SHEPHERD RADIO, INC.
990101
BPED
19990428MD
OSKALOOSA
IA
SOLID ROCK BROADCASTING, INC..
990101
05/10/99
A
BPED
19990113MA
OSKALOOSA
IA
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
990102
BPED
19990420ME
FROSTPROOF
FL
RADIO TRAINING NETWORK, INC.
990102
BPED
19990714MF
FROSTPROOF
FL
WEST COAST EDUCATIONAL INCORPORATED
990102
07/19/99
A
BPED
19990119MA
LAKEMONT
FL
REVIVAL CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES INC.
990104
BPED
19990719MA
WESTWOOD
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990104
07/19/99
A
BPED
19990107MA
GREENVILLE
CA
IMMACULATE HEART RADIO
990105
BPED
19990126MD
OLSBURG
KS
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
990105
BPED
19990714MG
JUNCTION CITY
KS
REDWOOD VALLEY B/CASTERS INC.
990105
BPED
19990719MF
JUNCTION CITY
KS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990105
07/19/99
A
BPED
19990112MC
JUNCTION CITY
KS
VCY AMERICA, INC.
990106
BPED
19990610MD
WARRENTON
OR
PACIFIC LUTHERN UNIVERSITY INC.
990106
BPED
19990714MD
ASTORIA
OR
CATHOLIC BROADCASTING NORTHWEST, INC
990106
BPED
19990719MK
ROCKAWAY BEACH
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990106
07/19/99
A
BPED
19990104ME
ASTORIA
OR
WORLD RADIO NETWORK INC
990107
BNPED
19990924AAX
CRAIG
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990107
BNPED
19991004AAG
MEEKER
CO
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
990107
BNPED
19991004AAL
STEAMBOAT SPRING
CO
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
990107
10/04/99
A
BPED
19990129ME
CRAIG
CO
PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF COLORADO, INC
990109
BPED
19990823MA
WEST CLARKSTON
WA
LIVING FAITH FELLOWSHIP EDUCATIONAL MINISTRIES
990109
BNPED
19991004AAC
GENESEE
ID
THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
990109
BNPED
19991004AAJ
CLARKSTON
WA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990109
10/04/99
A
BPED
19990129MD
WEST CLARKSTON
WA
UPPER COLUMBIA MEDIA CORP
990110
BPED
19990625MD
SCIENCE HILL
KY
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY AC240
990110
BPED
19990628MC
SOMERSET
KY
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990110
06/28/99
A
BPED
19990114ME
CORBIN
KY
EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
990111
07/19/99
A
BPED
19990120MC
TIPTON
IN
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, INC.
990111
B
BPED
19990714ME
MUNCIE
IN
HYMN TIME, INC.
9901XP
BPED
19990729MB
COCOA BEACH
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9901XP
BPED
19990730MA
COCOA BEACH
FL
BLACK MEDIA WORKS, INC.
9901XP
BPED
19990730MB
MERRITT ISLAND
FL
CENTRAL FL. EDUC. FOUNDATION, INC.
9901XP
BPED
19990730MD
MERRITT ISLAND
FL
MERRITT ISLAND PLUBLIC RADIO, INC.
9901XP
08/01/99
A
BPED
19990121MA
COCOA BEACH
FL
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990201
BPED
19990223MB
BOONEVILLE
AR
VISION MINISTRIES, INC.
990201
BPED
19990618MB
FORT SMITH
AR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990201
BPED
19990628MD
VAN BUREN
AR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990201
06/28/99
A
BPED
19990211MA
RUSSELLVILLE
AR
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, INC.
990203
BPED
19990826MA
FINDLAY
OH
ASSOCIATED CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC
990203
BPED
19990917ME
FINDLAY
OH
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990203
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990216MB
FINDLAY
OH
CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD MINISTRIES
990204
BNPED
20000118AAB
PORT O'CONNOR
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990204
BNPED
20000118ADE
PORT O'CONNOR
TX
SAN ANTONIO COMFORT INCORPORATED
990204
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990218MA
PORT O'CONNOR
TX
HOUSTON CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
990302
BPED
19990903MA
FRISCO
CO
EDUC. COMM. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
990302
BPED
19990903MB
LEADVILLE
CO
EDUC. COMM. OF COLORADO SPRINGS, INC
990302
BPED
19990903MG
SALIDA
CO
ED COMMUNICATIONS OF CO SPRINGS INC
990302
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990329MC
LEADVILLE
CO
TRUSTEES OF THE UN OF NORTHERN CO
990303
BPED
19990907MB
JAMESTOWN
ND
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990303
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990331MA
JAMESTOWN
ND
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
990304
BPED
19990901MC
GALLUP
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990304
BPED
19990907MC
GALLUP
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990304
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990319ME
GRANTS
NM
THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NM
990304
A
BPED
19990325MD
MENTMORE
NM
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990305
A
BPED
19980316MD
KEY WEST
FL
SOUTHERNMOST EDUCATIONAL INCORPORTED
990305
BPED
19990901MD
LEXINGTON
OH
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990305
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990302MG
LEXINGTON
OH
HELLINGER FOUNDATION, INC.
990306
BPED
19990329IA
MONTROSE
CO
NORTH FORK VALLEY PUBLIC RADIO, INC
990306
B
BPED
19990505MA
DURANGO
CO
KUTE, INC.
990306
B
BPED
19990916MB
DURANGO
CO
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990306
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990318MG
DURANGO
CO
SAN JUAN COLLEGE
990307
BPED
19990916MC
WOODSTOCK
IL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990307
BPED
19990917MI
WOODSTOCK
IL
FAMILY STATIONS INC.
990307
BPED
19990917MM
WOODSTOCK
IL
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY RADIO INC.
990307
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990316MG
WOODSTOCK
IL
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC
990308
BPED
19990914MA
DEL RIO
TX
HOUSTON BAY CITY INCORPORATED
990308
BPED
19990916MF
DEL RIO
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990308
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990316MF
DEL RIO
TX
WORLD RADIO NETWORK, INC
990309
BNPED
19991115AAR
ELIZABETHTOWN
OH
REDWOOD VALLEY BROADCASTERS INCORPORATED
990309
BNPED
19991116AIW
HARRISON
OH
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990309
BNPED
19991117ABN
MIAMITOWN
OH
COMMUNITY PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
990309
11/17/99
A
BPED
19990325MC
MIAMITOWN
OH
SPRYEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
990310
BPED
19990719MD
DOVER
NJ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990310
BPED
19990730ME
NETCONG
NJ
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC B/CASTING AUTHORITY
990310
08/01/99
A
BPED
19990305MA
DOVER
NJ
CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
9903TP
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990301MA
JACKSON
WY
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
9903TP
BNPED
19991210AAG
JACKSON
WY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
9903TP
BNPED
19991214ACD
JACKSON
WY
MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE
990401
BPED
19990510MB
SEARCY
AR
HARDING UNIVERSITY
990401
BNPED
19990924AAY
SEARCY
AR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990401
10/04/99
A
BPED
19990402MB
MELBOURNE
AR
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
990402
10/04/99
BNPED
19990927AAP
BEATRICE
NE
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
990402
BNPED
19991004ABZ
HICKMAN
NE
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990403
BPED
19990610MF
MARION
OH
THE CEDARVILLE COLLEGE
990403
BPED
19990901ME
MARION
OH
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990403
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990426MB
MARION
OH
KAYSER BROADCAST MINISTRIES, INC.
990404
BPED
19990623ME
READING
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY B/CASTING, INC
990404
BNPED
19990928AAV
LAKE ODESSA
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC.
990404
BNPED
19991018AAJ
ALLEGAN
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990404
BNPED
19991026AAD
BATTLE CREEK
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990404
BNPED
19991028AAE
COLDWATER
MI
MICHIANA CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS, INC.
990404
BNPED
19991029AAF
CLYDE TOWNSHIP
MI
LARLEN COMMUNICATIONS INC.
990404
BNPED
19991104AAM
CLARKLAKE
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING,  INC.
990404
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990406MB
BATTLE CREEK
MI
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990405
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990415MA
EMERALDA
FL
SUNBELT EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING INC
990405
BPED
19990916MA
WEIRSDALE
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990405
BPED
19990917MO
TAVARES
FL
CENTRAL FLORIDA ED FOUNDATION, INC
990406
BPED
19990916MG
BUTTE
MT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990406
BPED
19990917MB
WHITEHALL
MT
COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
990406
BPED
19990917MG
BUTTE
MT
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
990406
BPED
19990917MJ
BOZEMAN
MT
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990406
BPED
19990917ML
BUTTE
MT
YOUR NETWORK OF PRAISE INC.
990406
09/17/99
A
BPED
19990430MA
BUTTE
MT
ABUNDANT LIFE BROADCASTING
990407
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990407MC
INYOKERN
CA
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990407
BNPED
20000118AAE
INYOKERN
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC
990407
BNPED
20000118AAQ
RIDGECREST
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990407
BNPED
20000118AAO
TEHACHAPI
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990407
BNPED
20000118AAN
BARSTOW
CA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990408
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990407ME
WOOSTER
OH
THE CEDARVILLE COLLEGE
990408
BNPED
20000118AAK
BRUNSWICK
OH
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990408
BNPED
20000118AAR
WADSWORTH
OH
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990408
BNPED
20000118AEN
WADSWORTH
OH
MARY V. HARRIS FOUNDATION
990409
BNPED
20000223AAM
SOCORRO
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990409
BNPED
20000301AAX
SOCORRO
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990409
03/03/00
A
BPED
19990428MC
SOCORRO
NM
REGENTS OF THE UN OF NEW MEXICO
990410
BNPED
19991004AAH
STIGLER
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990410
10/04/99
A
BPED
19990420MF
STUART
OK
LIGHTHOUSE OF PRAYER, INC.
990411
BPED
19990907MA
KETTLEMAN CITY
CA
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990411
BNPED
20000518ACG
ROSEDALE
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990411
BNPED
20000518ACI
SHAFTER
CA
BRIDGE BROADCASTING, INC.
990411
BNPED
20000518ACN
LOST HILLS
CA
SJD CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING, INC.
990411
05/18/00
A
BPED
19990407MD
ROSEDALE
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990501
BNPH
19991004AAD
CALHOUN
GA
LIFETALK BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
990501
BNPED
19991004AAF
CALHOUN
GA
WEST COAST EDUCATIONAL INCORPORATED
990501
10/04/99
A
BPED
19990519MI
REDBUD
GA
HELLINGER FOUNDATION OF GA., INC.
990502
BPED
19990907MD
IDAHO FALLS
ID
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990502
09/07/99
A
BPED
19990527MF
RIRIE
ID
FAITH COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
990503
BNPED
19991026AAE
VALDOSTA
GA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990503
BNPED
19991104AAJ
CROSS CITY
FL
SPIRIT RADIO OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC.
990503
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990524MC
LIVE OAK
FL
MELODY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
990504
BNPED
19991028AAF
MILLEDGEVILLE
GA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990504
BNPED
19991103ABB
TOOMSBORO
GA
AUGUSTA RADIO FELLOWSHIP INSTITUTE, INC.
990504
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990514MC
MILLEDGEVILLE
GA
LIFE RADIO MINISTIES
990505
BNPED
19991101ABN
WHITESBURG
GA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990505
BNPED
19991102AAM
WHITESBURG
GA
BELCHER SANTA MARIA BROADCASTING INC.
990505
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990520ME
YATES
GA
BEST MEDIA, INC.
990506
BPED
19990902MA
MACKINAW CITY
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING *
990506
BNPED
19991028ACT
CHARLEVOIX
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990506
BNPED
19991104AAP
GOOD HART
MI
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY RADIO
990506
BNPED
19991104ABG
RACO
MI
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY RADIO
990506
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990528MG
CHARLEVOIX
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
990508
BNPED
19991029AAH
LAKE HOPATCONG
NJ
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990508
BNPED
19991101ABJ
HOPATCONG
NJ
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990508
BPED
19991101ABM
SUSSEX
NJ
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTH.
990508
BNPED
19991104AAH
HOPATCONG
NJ
YOUNGSHINE MEDIA, INC.
990508
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990519MB
HOPATCONG
NJ
BEST MEDIA, INC.
990509
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990514MB
BROOKINGS
OR
PACIFIC CASCADE COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
990509
BNPED
19991028AAL
BROOKINGS
OR
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990510
BNPED
19991029AAG
WHEELER
OR
TILLICUM FOUNDATION
990510
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990503MA
TILLAMOOK
OR
OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
990511
11/17/99
A
BPED
19990526MB
GREENVILLE
TX
BILL R. WRIGHT
990511
BNPED
19991115AAS
COMMERCE
TX
FT. WORTH STEPHENSVILLE FM, INC.
990511
BNPED
19991116AIV
GREENVILLE
TX
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990512
BNPED
20000118ABT
MARSHFIELD
MA
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
990512
BNPED
20000118ADQ
MARSHFIELD
MA
THE TALKING INFORMATION CENTER
990512
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990519MC
MARSHFIELD
MA
BEST MEDIA, INC.
990514
BNPED
19991213AAJ
ARCADE
NY
FAMILY LIFE MINISTRIES, INC.
990514
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990630MA
ARCADE
NY
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990516
BNPED
20000229AAN
MORGANFIELD
KY
BISHOP COMMUNITY RADIO
990516
05/03/00
A
BPED
19990505MB
STURGIS
KY
HEARTLAND MINISTRIES, INC.
990601
BNPED
19991013AAE
CHESANING
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
990601
BNPED
19991026AAF
JACKSON
MI
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990601
BNPED
19991103ABT
EAGLE
MI
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY RADIO
990601
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990607ME
JACKSON
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
990602
BNPED
19991102AAN
BATH
NC
NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC BROADCAST INC
990602
11/04/99
A
BPED
19990621MD
BATH
NC
EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION CORPORATION
990604
BPED
19990806MA
ASTORIA
OR
TILLICUM FOUNDATION
990604
BNPED
19991117ABK
TILLAMOOK
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990604
BNPED
19991117ABL
OCEAN PARK
WA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990604
11/17/99
BPED
19990610ME
HAMMOND
OR
PACIFIC LUTHERN UNIVERSITY INC.
990605
BNPED
20000118ADC
PENDERGRASS
GA
BELCHER SANTA MARIA BROADCASTING
990605
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990630MB
PENDERGRASS
GA
WAVES OF MERCY PRODUCTIONS, INC.
990606
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990618MC
THOMASVILLE
GA
ST BD OF REGENTS OF FLORIDA
990606
BNPED
19991214AAJ
GREENVILLE
FL
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990606
BNPED
20000111AGV
PAVO
GA
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990606
BNPED
20000118AAL
ST. MARKS
FL
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990606
BNPED
20000118AEM
MONTICOLLO
FL
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990607
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990618MA
ORLEANS
MA
LOWER CAPE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
990607
BNPED
20000118AAH
SCITUATE
MA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990607
BNPED
20000118ABS
ORLEANS
MA
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON
990607
BNPED
20000118ADA
WELLFLEET
MA
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990609
BNPED
20000428AAJ
BARNEGAT
NJ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990609
BNPED
20000502AAI
BARNEGAT
NJ
WWN EDUCATIONAL RADIO CORPORATION
990609
BNPED
20000503ABB
BARNEGAT
NJ
JC RADIO, INC.
990609
05/03/00
A
BPED
19990629MA
BARNEGAT
NJ
HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF MARLTON INC
990610
BNPED
19991214AAE
CICERO
IN
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990610
BNPED
19991214AAG
MILFORD
IL
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990610
BNPED
19991214AAL
NORTH JUDSON
IN
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990610
BNPED
19991214ACF
OAKFORD
IN
HOOSIER BROADCASTING CORPORATION
990610
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990602MI
OAKFORD
IN
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990611
BNPED
19991213AAD
IOWA CITY
IA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990611
BNPED
19991215AAE
WAPELLO
IA
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990611
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990602MX
WILLIAMSBURG
IA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
990615
BNPED
19991210AAF
ROSWELL
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990615
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990628MF
ROSWELL
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
9906CC
BNPED
19991210AAE
PADUCAH
KY
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
9906CC
12/15/99
A
BPED
19990621MB
LEDBETTER
KY
HEARTLAND MINISTRIES, INC.
990701
BNPED
19991116AIU
SCOTTSBLUFF
NE
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990701
BNPED
19991117ABD
MITCHELL
NE
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990701
BNPED
19991117ABM
SCOTTSBLUFF
NE
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990701
11/17/99
BPED
19990714MB
SCOTTSBLUFF
NE
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990703
BNPED
19991117ABE
BAKER
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990703
11/17/99
A
BPED
19990714MC
BAKER
OR
SOLID ROCK BROADCASTING INC.
990704
11/17/99
A
BPED
19990729MA
CARTHAGE
TX
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
990704
BNPED
19991112AAJ
MANSFIELD
LA
HYMN TIME, INC.
990705
BNPED
20000118AAG
LEXINGTON
MA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990705
BNPED
20000118AAI
GARDNER
MA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990705
BNPED
20000118ABW
STOW
MA
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
990705
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990726MA
MAYNARD
MA
MAYNARD  SCHOOL COMMITTEE
990707
BPED
19991025ACA
BEAR CREEK TOWNSHIP
MI
SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS
990707
BNPED
19991122ABA
CENTERVILLE TOWNSHIP
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING,  INC.
990707
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990721MA
ROSCOMMON
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY B/CASTING, INC
990708
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990714MA
ESPANOLA
NM
NORTHERN NEW MEXICO PUBLIC RADIO, IN
990708
BPED
19990812MA
ARROYO SECO
NM
REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF NEW MEXICO
990708
BNPED
20000118ABX
LAS VEGAS
NM
REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF NEW MEXICO
990708
BNPED
20000118AEL
ALCALDE
NM
FAMILY STATIONS, INC
990709
BNPED
19991215ABN
ROSWELL
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990709
BNPED
20000118AAD
CLOVIS
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990709
BNPED
20000118AAJ
CANNON AFB
NM
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990709
BNPED
20000118ABH
CLOVIS
NM
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990709
BNPED
20000118ACA
ALAMOGORDO
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990709
BNPED
20000118ACM
ROSWELL
NM
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990709
BNPED
20000118ADB
ALAMOGORDO
NM
POPLAR BLUFF EDUCATIONAL INC
990709
BNPED
20000118ADH
CLOVIS
NM
SAN ANTONIO COMFORT INCORPORATED
990709
A
BPED
19990521MD
ALAMOGORDO
NM
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
990709
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990723MA
PORTALES
NM
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION INC.
990710
BNPED
20000118ABG
GRANDFIELD
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990710
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990723MB
ALTUS
OK
CAMERON UNIVERSITY
990711
BNPED
20000113AAN
BAKER CITY
OR
OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
990711
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990714MH
BAKER
OR
BRIGHT LIGHT BROADCASTING, INC.
990801
BNPED
19991117ABO
RUST TOWNSHIP
MI
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY RADIO
990801
11/17/99
BPED
19990806MB
HUBBARD LAKE
MI
GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
990802
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990830MJ
PAMPA
TX
SALT & LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
990802
BNPED
20000118ACQ
PAMPA
TX
GREAT PLAINS CHRISTIAN RADIO INC.
990802
BNPED
20000118AER
WOODWARD
OK
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
990803
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990824MA
DUMAS
AR
SOUTHPOINT EDUCATIONAL  RADIO, INC.
990803
BNPED
20000118AET
GREENVILLE
MS
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990804
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990804MD
FARMERSVILLE
IN
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990804
BNPED
20000118AEP
WADESVILLE
IN
INDIANA COMMUNITY RADIO CORPORATION
990806
BNPED
20000118AAC
ST. GEORGE
UT
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990806
BNPED
20000118ADN
ST. GEORGE
UT
CASPER LEARNING FM INCORPORATED
990806
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990809MA
ST. GEORGE
UT
OPEN DOOR CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
990807
BNPED
20000223AAK
DIAMOND SPRINGS
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990807
BNPED
20000303AAI
CAMINO
CA
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION NETWORK, INC.
990807
BNPED
20000303ACU
PLACERVILLE
CA
FAMILY STATIONS, INC.
990807
03/03/00
A
BPED
19990813MB
DIAMOND SPRINGS
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990808
03/03/00
A
BPED
19990813MA
BEACH HAVEN
NJ
COMMUNITY MEDIA SNJ
990808
BNPED
20000223AAL
BEACH HAVEN
NJ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990808
BPED
20000224ABO
MANAHAWKIN
NJ
PENN JERSEY EDUCATIONAL RADIO CORP.
990808
BNPED
20000229AAL
MEDFORD LAKES
NJ
HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF MARLTON, INC.
990808
BNPED
20000301AAG
BEACHWOOD
NJ
PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, INC.
990808
BNPED
20000303AAZ
BRIDGATINE
NJ
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990808
BNPED
20000303ABK
TOMS RIVER
NJ
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTH
990808
BNPED
20000303ACW
SOUTH TOMS RIVER
NJ
JC RADIO, INC.
990809
05/03/00
A
BPED
19990830MA
COOLIDGE
AZ
LIVING PROOF, INC.
990809
BNPED
20000428AAM
COOLIDGE
AZ
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
990901
01/18/00
A
BPED
19990901MA
MCCONNELLSBURG
PA
MORRIS BROADCASTING & COMMUNICATION
990901
BNPED
20000118AEQ
HAGERSTOWN
MD
FOUR RIVERS COMMUNITY BROADCASTING
990902
BNPED
19991214AAC
ONTARIO
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990902
BNPED
20000209AAE
BAKER
OR
BRIGHT LIGHT BROADCASTING, INC.
990902
BNPED
20000301AAY
LA GRANDE
OR
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
990902
BNPED
20000303ABA
NORTH POWDER
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990902
03/03/00
A
BPED
19990903MD
BAKER CITY
OR
OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
990903
BNPED
20000223ABX
LA GRANDE
OR
CASPER LEARNING FM INCORPORATED
990903
BNPED
20000303ABB
UNION
OR
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990903
03/03/00
A
BPED
19990903ME
LA GRANDE
OR
OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING
990904
BNPED
19990930AAB
PITTSBURG
TX
MILLENNIUM BROADCASTING CORPORATION
990904
BNPED
20000503AAH
MOUNT PLEASANT
TX
CSN INTERNATIONAL
990904
05/03/00
A
BPED
19990907MG
DANGERFIELD
TX
BILL R. WRIGHT DBA KEGG CHRISTIAN CO
200101
BNPED
20000517AFH
QUINCY
CA
CSN INTERNATIONAL
200101
BNPED
20000518ACL
SPARKS
NV
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
200101
BNPED
20000518ACM
SUSANVILLE
CA
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
200101
05/18/00
A
BNPED
20000119ABU
QUINCY
CA
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV, SACRAMENTO
200201
05/03/00
A
BNPED
20000217ABA
MARATHON
FL
SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL
200201
BNPED
20000428AAN
MARATHON
FL
BROADCASTING FOR THE CHALLENGED, INC.
200201
BNPED
20000503AAG
BIG PINE
FL
TOWER OF PRAISE, INC.
200205
BNPED
20000214AAM
CARNEGIE
OK
CSN INTERNATIONAL
200205
BNPED
20000518ACH
CACHE
OK
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION
200205
05/18/00
A
BNPED
20000202AAW
CLINTON
OK
CAMERON UNIVERSITY
200401
BPED
19991013AAF
FARMINGTON
NM
YOUR CHRISTIAN COMPANION, INC.
200401
BNPED
20000512AAK
FLORA VISTA
NM
NATIVE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN VOICE
200401
05/18/00
A
BNPED
20000413ABA
PAGOSA SPRINGS
CO
KUTE, INC.
  Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 11 Stat. 251 (1997) (Balanced Budget Act).
  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Reexamination of the Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast
Hearings, GC Docket No. 92-52, 7 FCC Rcd 2664 (1992);  Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd
5475 (1993); Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GC Docket No. 92-52,  9 FCC Rcd 2821 (1994);
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and ITFS Service Licenses,
MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-52, Gen. Docket No. 90-264, 12 FCC Rcd 22,363 (1997); First
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket No. 92-52, Gen. Docket No. 90-264, 13 FCC Rcd 15920
(1998), recon. denied Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8724, modified Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12,541 (1999), aff'd sub nom. Orion Communications, Ltd. v. FCC, 213 F.3d 761 (D.C.
Cir.2000) ("Competitive Bidding").
  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants,
MM Docket 95-31, 10 FCC Rcd 2877 (1995); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 95-31,
13 FCC Rcd 21167 (1998) ("NCE Notice"); Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-31, 15 FCC Rcd 7386
(2000).
  Report and Order, Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, MM Docket
No. 95-31, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000) ("NCE Order").
  Currently, there are approximately 32 pending groups of non-reserved channel radio applicants,
consisting of 192 applications, in which at least one applicant is an NCE entity.  There are 5 such groups of non-
reserved channel television applicants, consisting of 22 applications.  Parties disagreeing with our decision to
auction non-reserved channels, including National Public Radio and the State of Oregon, brought their challenge
directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rather than seeking agency reconsideration.  See National
Public Radio, No. 00-1246 (filed June 12, 2000); State of Oregon, No. 00-1255 (filed June 16, 2000).  Although
two petitioners, Spring Arbor College and Lay Catholic Broadcasting, originally sought agency reconsideration
with respect to this issue, they subsequently withdrew those requests.
   Specifically, an applicant would receive a decisive preference if it would provide first or second NCE
aural service to at least 10% of the people within the proposed 60dBu (1mV/m) service contours, but not fewer
than 2,000 people.  If more than one applicant meets this standard, the differences between their proposals would
be considered significant only if one provided first or second service to at least 5,000 more people than the other.
  See AT&T v. FCC, 974 F.2d 1351, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
   NCE Notice at 7-8, n. 12 citing Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) and Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344, petition for rehearing denied, 154 F.3d 487, petition for rehearing en banc denied,
154 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1998). See also Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 836 F.2d 1349,
1358 (D.C. Cir. 1988)(agency using lotteries must use race-based weightings provided by statute).
  Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 633 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("an agency may properly consider the
avoidance of litigation-related delay when revising its rules").
   We note that another broadcaster raised similar arguments in an appeal filed directly with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  See American Family Association, No. 00-1310 (filed July 14, 2000).
   Petition of EMF at 16-17 citing FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984); Police
Department of Chicago v. Mosely, 408 U.S. 92 (1972); and Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147
(1969).
   See  Petition of EMF at 19-20.
    Media Education, citing an independent report, states that there are 1,731 radio and 285 television
stations licensed to religious broadcasters, of which over 700 radio and 23 television stations are on reserved
NCE channels.  Opposition of Center for Media Education at 6, n. 3 citing Jerold M. Starr, Signal Degradation,
AMERICAN PROSPECT, Aug. 14, 2000, at 22.
  See Turner, 512 U.S. at 663 (the importance of local broadcasting can scarcely be exaggerated); Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460,  2(a)(8)(A)
("[P]ublic television provides educational and informational programming to the Nation's citizens, thereby
advancing the Government's compelling interest in educating its citizens").
  Consideration of state-wide plans prior to adoption of the point system was codified in Section 73.502
of our rules, stating that "the Commission will take into consideration the extent to which each application meets
the requirements of any state-wide education plan for noncommercial educational FM stations. . ." That rule has
been superseded by the more specific state-wide network credit.  See NCE Order at para. 61.
  See 47 C.F.R.  73.7003 (localism points and tie breaker factors considered as of date of filing); NCE
Order, Appendix A (technical parameters considered as of close of filing window); NCE Order at  40 (technical
factors must be maintained).
  Currently pending are 1,369 reserved channel radio applications and 67 reserved channel television
applications.
  Under 47 C.F.R.  1.65 an applicant has an obligation to report any material changes in its pending
application. For example, with respect to authorization count, which can change frequently, applicants must
update their applications upon occurrence of a change that could reduce their position. We stress that the
applicant has an affirmative Section 1.65 obligation to report any change potentially affecting their eligibility for
points or position in a tie breaker, even with respect to matters on which the Commission itself has acted.
  See  6 supra.
  Population will be calculated using a block level centroid retrieval method, in which the applicant
uses "centroid" points representing population at designated coordinates as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau,
to determine the population within the applicant's proposed service area.  See NCE Order at  26 and 40.
  However, the failure to file a point supplement because the applicant has instead filed a settlement
consistent with paragraphs 96 to 99 infra will not result in dismissal.  Only in the event that the settlement is
denied, and the applicant thereafter fails to file a supplement by a new date would such failure to file a settlement
result in dismissal.
  See Public Notice, FCC Freezes Comparative Hearings, 9 FCC Rcd 1055, modified, 9 FCC Rcd 6689
(1994), further modified, 10 FCC Rcd 2877, 2879; 10 FCC Rcd 12182 (1995).
  Under the former A/B cutoff procedures, the staff issued an "A" list announcing the filing of an initial
"A" application.   That list established an "A" cut-off date, 30 days later, by which any applications competing
against the "A" application were due.  If the staff, after study, determined that competing applications were
received, it would issue a "B" list, identifying all mutually exclusive applications and inviting petitions to deny.
However, given that the current proceeding proposed to change the criteria used to evaluate competing
applications, issuance of "B" lists inviting petitions under the old criteria would have been an inefficient use of
resources both for the staff and potential petitioners.  Therefore, among the applications on file, are closed groups
of applications for which no "B" list was issued.
   Applicants may not enhance their position based on matters that require additional Commission or
applicant action.  For example, they must consider as pending any applications for which their requests for
withdrawal are conditioned on our approval of a settlement agreement.  Similarly, they must include as existing
authorizations any station for which an assignment of license has not yet been consummated, even if an
application to assign has been filed or approved.
   To ensure efficient processing of NCE FM applications, we waive the city grade coverage
requirement recently adopted in MM Docket No. 98-93 for all mutually exclusive radio applications subject to the
comparative procedures adopted herein.  Absent a waiver, these radio applicants would have been required to
amend their applications by February 19, 2001 to provide a predicted 60 dBu strength signal to at least 50% of
their communities of license or to 50% of the population of the community.  See Streamlining of Radio Technical
Rules, MM Docket No. 98-93, FCC 00-368, ___ FCC Rcd ___ (released November 1, 2000), 65 Fed. Reg. 79773
(December 20, 2000).  Moreover, we will not accept amendments to those applications filed under the "good
cause" standard where such amendments are intended to establish compliance with the new community coverage
requirement.  We note that petitions for reconsideration of this issue were filed in MM Docket No. 98-93, and we
will act on those petitions in a subsequent order in that proceeding.
  To the extent that the 307(b) standards we will use for NCE stations are more stringent than those
applied to commercial stations, we noted that areas underserved in terms of NCE service are not likely to be true
"white" or "gray" areas, because areas with few NCE signals will likely receive additional service from
commercial stations  NCE Order at n. 16.  We also noted that the outcome of a successful 307(b) analysis in
commercial TV and FM proceedings is the allocation of a channel to a community but not to any particular
licensee, whereas in an NCE analysis the outcome is award of a license.
  For example, in a group of three applicants serving different communities, if two of the applicants
would provide first NCE service to similarly sized populations, while the other applicant proposes only a second
or third NCE service, we would conduct a point "hearing" only among the applicants proposing first service.  We
would dismiss the third applicant because either one of the remaining applicants would have prevailed over that
applicant in a 307(b) determination.
  NCE FM stations must provide a predicted 60 dBu signal to at least 50 percent of the area or
population of the community of license, whereas commercial stations must provide a 70 dBu signal to the entire
community of license.  See Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules, MM Docket No. 98-93, FCC 00-368, ___
FCC Rcd ___ (released November 1, 2000).  See also note 25 supra.
   In describing to Congress the vision for educational television, the Carnegie Report identified "local
stations," as having the "heart of the system . . . in the community," and maintaining "a firm grasp on the nature
and needs of the people it serves."  NCE Order at  44.
  See NCE Order at  47 citing Joint Comments of National Public Radio, Association of America's
Public Television Stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  In this sense, we clarify that NCE licensees and the stations they operate, may be viewed as similar in
many ways to school boards and the schools they operate.  Our nation's schools are primarily locally controlled,
with each public school board or private board of trustees having sufficient knowledge about its respective
communities to run schools in a way that responds to that community's educational needs.  Indeed, such boards
have vested interests in being responsive because they will be held accountable to their communities for schools
that do not live up to their community's standards.
    See 47 C.F.R.  73.1125(a)(3) (establishing 25 miles from the reference coordinates of the center of
the community of license as one of three acceptable locations for a broadcast station's main studio).
  See Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants, 41 Fed. Reg. 1372, 1384
(January 7, 1976).  Although we no longer require formal ascertainment, the elements articulated in a
"community leader checklist" continue to be used to determine whether NCE television applicants are broadly
representative.  See NCE Notice at n.27.
  Creation of Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205,
mod'd on other grounds, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19,208 (2000).
  With respect to radio, the principal community (city grade) contours are the 5 mV/m for AM stations
under Section 73.24(I), and the 3.16 mV/m for FM stations calculated in accordance with Section 73.313(c).
With respect to television, a station's principal community (city grade) contour is either the 74, 77, or 80 dBu
contour, depending on the particular channel on which it operates, as described further in Sections 73.684 and
73.685.
   AACC identifies four categories of community colleges: (1) those that are part of the state university
system; (2) those under the direct control of state community college board; (3) those in which control is divided
between state boards and locally elected or appointed officials; and (4) those in which a local board has all
governing authority, with a state board serving a general coordination and policy function.  Comments of AACC
at 5.
   This rule section establishes the eligibility of "an organization, public or private, with or without
direct authority over schools, that will regularly provide programming for and in coordination with [entities with
the required number of schools/campuses] for use in the school curriculum."  47 C.F.R.  73.7003(b)(3)(c).
   See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555, n.2(h).
  Footnote 59 and rule section 74.1233(e)(3), could be understood as considering translators other than
fill-in stations for purposes of tie breakers only in connection with an application for another non-fill-in
translator station.  The tie breaker summary in Appendix A might be read to exclude translator and AM stations.
  It generally should not count fill-in FM translator stations, which simply fill dead spots in the contours
of the applicant's full service station.  Only if the radio applicant is specifically seeking a fill-in translator station
should the applicant report its number of other fill-in stations, to be used in the event that we receive mutually
exclusive fill-in proposals.
  Specifically, there are 439 groups of reserved channel full service FM applicants, consisting of 1,356
applications, and 31 groups of reserved channel television applicants, consisting of 89 applications.  There are 43
groups of FM translator applicants, consisting of 97 applications.  Our preliminary studies only identify mutual
exclusivity between applications of the same type, and not, for example, whether proposals in FM translator
applications are consistent with facilities proposed in full service FM applications.  Additionally, full service FM
applications were studied based on technical rules in place at time of filing.  Specifically, the staff did not
consider technical changes in the protection ratios adopted in Streamlining or Radio Technical Rules, MM
Docket No. 98-93, FCC 00-368 (November 1, 2000), untimely amendments, or post April 21, 2000 amendments.
  As discussed in the NCE Order, use of the point system is considered a simplified hearing and the
Communications Act does not yet allow the Commission to delegate authority over NCE point hearings to the
staff. See 47 U.S.C. 155(c). Thus, initially, these matters will be referred to the Commission. The Commission,
as suggested by Station Resource Group, will request Congressional authority to delegate these matters to the
staff similar to that received when point systems were used in the Instructional Fixed Television Service.
   We generally will not apply the point system to any comparative FM translator proceedings for which
we made initial selections before the August 7, 2000 effective date of the point system.   Any requests for
reconsideration of those decisions will be examined under the rules in effect at the time of the initial selection.
   See NCE Order at  5, citing Real Life Educational Foundation of Baton Rouge, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd
2577, 2580, n.8 (Rev. Bd. 1991).
  See Community Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 216 F.3d 1133, 1143 (D.C.
Cir. 2000);  Chadmoore Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 113 F.3d 235, 240-241
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (application of rule changes to pending applications is not considered retroactive rulemaking).
  The settlement discussion herein does not affect the rights of any NCE television applicants that by July 17,
2000, filed settlements pursuant to the procedures set forth in DA 99-2605 (as extended by DA 00-536), which
permitted applicants on television channels 60-69 and applicants in television freeze areas to settle their mutually
exclusive applicant groups, to file petitions for rulemaking specifying a new "core" television channel (between 2
and 51) and/or to amend their applications to provide the requisite interference protection to the digital television
Table of Allotments.   For those applicants, we will consider the settlement agreements and technical proposals
already on file.  See  "Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing Opportunity For Certain Pending
Applications and Allotments  Petitions for New Analog TV Stations," Public Notice, DA 99-2605, released
November 22, 1999; and "Window Filing Opportunity for Certain Pending Applications and Allotment Petitions
for New Analog TV Stations Extended to July 15, 2000," Public Notice, DA 00-536, released March 9, 2000.
   See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract with
America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"). Title II of the
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").
  In the Matter of Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational
Applicants, MM Docket No. 95-31, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 21167 (1998)
(Further Notice); Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000).
   This FRFA conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
1966, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"). Subtitle II of the CWAAA is The Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").
   See 5 U.S.C.  604.
  5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3).
  Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).
  5 U.S.C.  601(4).
  1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to
Office of Advocacy of U.S. Small Business Administration).
  5 U.S.C.  601(4).
  13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4832.
   1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1, at Appendix A-9.
   The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same facility as one establishment.  Therefore,
each colocated AM/FM combination counts as one establishment.
    FCC News Release, No. 31327 (January 13, 1993).
(Continued from previous page)
(continued..)
	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-64
2
	Federal Communications Commission	-[Click to enter order number]