[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20756-20773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8239]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 12-28]


Implementation of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010; Revision 
of Service and Eligibility Rules for Low Power FM Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on how to amend 
its rules to implement certain provisions of the Local Community Radio 
Act of 2010 (``LCRA'') that are not already the subject of Commission 
action. It also proposes changes to its rules intended to promote the 
low power FM service's localism and diversity goals, reduce the 
potential for licensing abuses, and clarify certain rules.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 7, 2012, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before May 21, 2012. Written comments on 
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before June 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MM Docket No. 99-25, 
by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432).

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03535142436560602d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c4c6d5d4f2f7f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> and to Nicholas A. 
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a2403090205060b19352b44352c180b190f182a050708440f051a440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1856717b707774796b475936475e6a796b7d6a5877757a367d7768367f776e">[email protected]</span></a> or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Doyle (202) 418-2789. For 
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ddddfcccdebeeeea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d181839091b7b2b2ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a> or contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
document in MM Docket No. 99-25, FCC No. 12-28, adopted March 19, 2012. 
A synopsis of the order segments of this decision were published in a 
previous issue of the Federal Register. The full text of this document 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.

Comment Period and Procedures

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber 
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before 
entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87e1e4e4b2b7b3c7e1e4e4a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1b7b2b2e4e1e591b7b2b2ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Paperwork Reducation Act of 1995

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due June 5, 2012.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

[[Page 20757]]

information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) 
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called 
``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in 
the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, 
(4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of 
agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the 
``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when 
the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB 
control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. 
A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0920.
    Title: Application for Construction Permit for a Low Power FM 
Broadcast Station; Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 Creation of 
Low Power Radio Service; Sec. Sec.  73.807, 73.809, 73.827, 73.865, 
73.870, 73.871, 73.872, 73.877, 73.878, 73.318, 73.1030, 73.1207, 
73.1212, 73.1230, 73.1300, 73.1350, 73.1610, 73.1620, 73.1750, 73.1943, 
73.3525, 73.3550, 73.3598, 11.61(ii), FCC Form 318.
    Form No.: FCC Form 318.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal 
governments.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 21,337 respondents with 
multiple responses; 27,387 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: .0025-12 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion 
reporting requirement; monthly reporting requirement; Third party 
disclosure requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The 
statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 
sections 154(i), 303, 308 and 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended.
    Total Annual Burden: 35,146 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $39,750.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not 
affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the 
Privacy Act.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality with this information collection.
     Needs and Uses: On March 19, 2012, the FCC released a Fifth Report 
and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Third Order 
on Reconsideration, Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket 
No. 99-25, FCC 12-28. In the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM), FCC 12-28, the FCC proposes to revise Sec.  
73.853(b) of the Commission's rules (``rules'') to permit federally 
recognized Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (``Native 
Nations'') and entities owned or controlled by Native Nations to hold 
LPFM licenses. We have revised FCC Form 318 to reflect this proposal.
    The FCC also proposes to modify its ownership rules. First, the FCC 
proposes to revise its cross-ownership rule to permit cross-ownership 
of an LPFM station and an FM translator or translators. Second, the FCC 
proposes to modify its cross-ownership rule to permit a full-service 
radio station permittee or licensee that is a Tribe or Tribal 
Organization to apply for an LPFM station and to hold an attributable 
interest in such station. Third, the FCC proposes to permit Tribes or 
Tribal Organizations to seek more than one LPFM construction permit to 
ensure adequate coverage of tribal lands. We have revised FCC Form 318 
to reflect this proposal.
    The FCC further proposes to modify the point system used to select 
among mutually exclusive LPFM applicants and set forth in Sec.  73.872 
of the rules. First, the FCC proposes to modify the ``established 
community presence'' criterion to require that an applicant have 
maintained an established local presence for four years instead of the 
two years currently required. Second, it proposes to extend the 
``established community presence'' standard in rural areas. Under the 
current rule, an LPFM applicant was deemed to have an established 
community presence if it was physically headquartered or had a campus 
within ten miles of the proposed LPFM transmitter site, or if 75 
percent of its board members resided within ten miles of the proposed 
LPFM transmitter site. The Fourth Further Notice proposes to modify the 
ten-mile requirement to twenty miles for all LPFM applicants proposing 
facilities located outside the top fifty urban markets, for both the 
distance from transmitter and residence of board member standards. 
Third, the FCC proposes to allow local organizations, tribal 
organizations and/or tribes to file as consortia and receive one point 
under the established community presence criterion for each 
organization or tribe that qualifies for such a point. Fourth, the FCC 
proposes to award two points--as opposed to the one point currently 
awarded--to applicants qualifying under the local program origination 
criterion. Fifth, the FCC proposes to modify the point system to award 
a point to Native Nations and entities owned or controlled by Native 
Nations, when they propose to provide LPFM service to Native Nation 
communities. We have revised the Form 318 to reflect these changes to 
the point system.
    Finally, the FCC proposes to modify the manner in which it 
processes requests for waiver of the second-adjacent channel minimum 
distance separation requirement, and to amend the rule that sets forth 
the obligations of LPFM stations with respect to interference to the 
input signals of FM translator or FM booster stations. We have revised 
the Form 318 to reflect these proposed changes.
    FCC staff uses the data to determine whether an applicant meets 
basic statutory and regulatory requirements to become a Commission 
licensee and to ensure that the public interest would be served by 
grant of the application. In addition, the information contained within 
this information collection ensures that (1) The integrity of the FM 
spectrum is not compromised, (2) unacceptable interference will not be 
caused to existing radio services, (3) statutory requirements are met, 
and (4) the stations operate in the public interest.

Summary of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fourth 
FNPRM), we seek comment on proposals to amend our rules to implement 
the remaining provisions of LCRA and to promote a more sustainable 
community radio service. These changes are intended to advance the 
LCRA's core goals of localism and diversity while preserving the 
technical integrity of all of the FM services. In addition, we seek 
comment on proposals to reduce the potential for licensing abuses.

[[Page 20758]]

II. Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Changes to Technical Rules Required by the LCRA

    2. A number of provisions of the LCRA require Commission action. We 
seek comment below on how to amend our rules to most faithfully 
implement these provisions of the LCRA.
1. Waiver of Second-Adjacent Channel Minimum Distance Separation 
Requirements
    3. In 2007, the Commission established an interim waiver processing 
policy that permits an LPFM station that will receive increased 
interference or be displaced by a new or modified full-service FM 
station to seek waiver of the second-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements in connection with an application to move the LPFM station 
to a new channel. The Commission found that circumstances had changed 
considerably since it last considered the issue of protection rights 
for LPFM stations from subsequently authorized full-service stations. 
Specifically, in late 2006, the Commission had streamlined its 
licensing procedures, and announced the lifting of its freeze on the 
filing of community of license modification applications. These actions 
resulted in ``increased filings'' that the Media Bureau (``Bureau'') 
estimated could force approximately 40 LPFM stations to cease 
operations. For many of the LPFM stations at risk of displacement, the 
Bureau had identified alternate channels that would require waivers of 
the second-adjacent channel spacing requirements. To avoid ``potential 
harm to this small but not insignificant number of LPFM stations,'' the 
Commission adopted the waiver processing policy. In adopting this 
policy, the Commission relied on the general waiver provisions set 
forth in Sec.  1.3 of the rules.
    4. Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA explicitly grants the Commission 
the authority to waive the second-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements. Section 3(b)(2)(A) permits waivers where an LPFM station 
establishes, ``using methods of predicting interference taking into 
account all relevant factors, including terrain-sensitive propagation 
models,'' that its proposed operations ``will not result in 
interference to any authorized radio service.''
    5. We tentatively conclude that the waiver standard set forth in 
section 3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA supersedes the interim waiver processing 
policy adopted by the Commission in 2007. We note that, under the 
interim waiver processing policy, when the Commission considers a 
waiver request, it ``balance[s] the potential for new interference to 
the full-service station at issue against the potential loss of an LPFM 
station.'' Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the LCRA, on the other hand, clearly 
requires an LPFM station to establish that its proposed operations 
``will not result in interference to any authorized radio service.'' It 
leaves no room for balancing of the potential for interference with the 
potential for loss of service. We seek comment on our tentative 
conclusion and our reasoning. We also seek comment on whether we should 
permit LPFM applicants to make the sort of showings we routinely accept 
from FM translator applicants to establish that ``no actual 
interference will occur.'' Section 74.1204(d) of the rules permits a 
translator applicant to demonstrate that ``no actual interference will 
occur'' due to ``lack of population'' and we have permitted translator 
applicants to use an undesired/desired signal strength ratio 
methodology to narrowly define areas of potential interference when 
proposing to operate near another station operating on a second- or 
third-adjacent channel. Are such showings consistent with the statutory 
mandate to accept showings that a proposed LPFM service ``will not 
result in interference to any authorized radio service''? Should we 
permit the use of directional antennas in conjunction with proposals 
attempting to protect second-adjacent stations?
    6. We request comment on the factors that we should take into 
account and the showings we should require when considering requests 
for waiver of the second-adjacent channel spacing requirements. Should 
we require a showing that there are no fully-spaced channels available 
to the LPFM applicant? Should we take into account that the proposal 
would eliminate or reduce the interference received by the LPFM 
applicant? Should we consider whether the proposal would avoid a short-
spacing between the proposed LPFM facilities and a full-service FM 
station, FM translator or FM booster station on a third-adjacent 
channel? Should we also take into account the interference protection 
and remediation obligations such short-spacing would trigger? Should we 
consider whether the proposal would result in superior spacing to full-
service FM, FM translator or FM booster stations operating on co- and 
first-adjacent channels? Are there other factors or showings that we 
should consider?
    7. Section 3(b)(2)(B) of the LCRA also sets out a framework for 
handling complaints when an LPFM station operating pursuant to a 
second-adjacent channel waiver has caused interference to the reception 
of any existing or modified full-service FM station ``without regard to 
the location of the station receiving interference.'' Upon receipt of a 
complaint of interference caused by an LPFM station operating pursuant 
to a second-adjacent channel waiver, the Commission must notify the 
LPFM station ``by telephone or other electronic communication within 1 
business day.'' The LPFM station must ``suspend operation immediately 
upon notification'' by the Commission that it is ``causing interference 
to the reception of any existing or modified full-service FM station.'' 
It may not resume operations ``until such interference has been 
eliminated or it can demonstrate * * * that the interference was not 
due to [its] emissions.'' The LPFM station, however, may ``make short 
test transmissions during the period of suspended operation to check 
the efficacy of remedial measures.'' We propose to incorporate this 
framework for handling complaints into the rules. We seek comment on 
this proposal. We also request comment on whether and how we should 
define what constitutes a bona fide complaint that would trigger the 
Commission's obligation to notify the LPFM station at issue and that 
station's obligation to suspend operations. Finally, we solicit comment 
on whether and how to specify the showing an LPFM station operating 
pursuant to a second-adjacent channel waiver must make to demonstrate 
that it was not the source of the interference at issue.
2. Third-Adjacent Channel Interference Complaints and Remediation
    8. When the Commission created the LPFM service in 2000, it 
declined to impose third-adjacent channel distance separation 
requirements, stating ``our own technical studies and our review of the 
record persuade us that 100-watt LPFM stations operating without 
[third]-adjacent channel separation requirements will not result in 
unacceptable new interference to the service of existing FM stations.'' 
The Commission also noted that ``imposing [third]-adjacent channel 
separation requirements on LPFM stations would unnecessarily impede the 
opportunities for stations in this new service, particularly in highly 
populated areas where there is a great demand for alternative forms of 
radio service.''
    9. Subsequently, on reconsideration, the Commission again declined 
to impose third-adjacent channel separation requirements. However, it 
did establish complaint and license

[[Page 20759]]

modification procedures for third-adjacent channel interference. In 
doing so, the Commission stated:

    Although we expect it to be the rare case where an LPFM station 
operating on a [third-]adjacent channel causes more than a de 
minimis level of interference within the service area of a full 
power station protected by the distance separation requirements for 
other channel relationships, such a result would be unacceptable if 
it were to occur. Accordingly, we conclude on reconsideration that 
it would be prudent to establish procedures that would encourage 
cooperation between the parties and permit the Commission to take 
prompt remedial action where a significant level of interference can 
be traced to the commencement of broadcasts by a new LPFM station.

The procedures are set forth in Sec.  73.810 of the rules.
    10. As noted, in 2001, we adopted third-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements at the direction of Congress. While we did not delete the 
third-adjacent channel complaint and license modification procedures 
from our rules, with the adoption of the spacing requirements, the 
procedures became irrelevant. Now, however, with the elimination of the 
third-adjacent spacing requirements under section 3 of the LCRA, a 
process for handling complaints of third-adjacent channel interference 
again has relevance. Congress has recognized this.
    11. Rather than simply utilize the procedures set forth in Sec.  
73.810 of the rules, though, Congress has opted to impose broader 
remediation obligations, which are set forth in section 7 of the LCRA. 
Specifically, section 7 sets forth the following requirements:
    <bullet> Section 7(1) of the LCRA requires the Commission to adopt 
``the same interference protections that FM translator stations and FM 
booster stations are required to provide as set forth in [Sec.  ] 
74.1203 of [the] rules.'' These obligations apply to LPFM stations that 
would be considered short-spaced under the existing third-adjacent 
channel spacing requirements (``Section 7(1) Stations'').
    <bullet> Section 7(2) requires that a new LPFM station 
``constructed on a third-adjacent channel'' must ``broadcast periodic 
announcements'' that alert listeners that any interference they are 
experiencing could be the result of the station's operations and that 
instruct affected listeners to contact the station to report any 
interference.
    <bullet> Section 7(3) directs the Commission to modify Sec.  73.810 
of the rules to require ``[LPFM] stations on third-adjacent channels * 
* * to address interference complaints within the protected contour of 
an affected station'' and encourage them to address ``all other 
interference complaints.''
    <bullet> Section 7(4) requires the Commission, to the extent 
possible, to ``grant low-power FM stations on third-adjacent channels 
the technical flexibility to remediate interference through the 
collocation of the transmission facilities of the low-power FM station 
and any stations on third-adjacent channels.''
    <bullet> Section 7(5) requires the Commission to ``permit the 
submission of informal evidence of interference, including any 
engineering analysis that an affected station may commission,'' 
``accept complaints based on interference to a full-service FM station, 
FM translator station, or FM booster station by the transmitter site of 
a low-power FM station on a third-adjacent channel at any distance from 
the full-service FM station, FM translator station, or FM booster 
station,'' and ``accept complaints of interference to mobile 
reception.''
    <bullet> Section 7(6) requires the Commission to impose additional 
interference protection and remediation obligations on one class of 
LPFM stations.
    12. Below, we discuss certain preliminary issues and tentatively 
conclude that section 7 of the LCRA creates two different LPFM 
interference protection and remediation regimes, one for LPFM stations 
that would be considered short-spaced under third-adjacent channel 
spacing requirements, and one for LPFM stations that would not be 
considered short-spaced under those requirements. Then, we proceed to 
discuss each of those regimes. Given the comprehensive nature of the 
regimes created by section 7, we propose to eliminate the existing 
interference complaint and remediation procedures set forth in Sec.  
73.810 of the rules and replace them with those set forth below.
a. LPFM Interference Protection and Remediation Requirements
    13. Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the LCRA both address the interference 
protection and remediation obligations of LPFM stations on third-
adjacent channels. Only section 7(1) specifies requirements for ``low-
power FM stations licensed at locations that do not satisfy third-
adjacent channel spacing requirements * * *'' With regard to such 
stations, Section 7(1) instructs the Commission to adopt ``the same 
interference protections that FM translator stations and FM booster 
stations are required to provide as set forth in Sec.  74.1203 of [the] 
rules.'' Section 7(3), in contrast, directs the Commission to modify 
Sec.  73.810 of the rules to require ``[LPFM] stations on third-
adjacent channels * * * to address interference complaints within the 
protected contour of an affected station'' and encourage them to 
address ``all other interference complaints.'' We tentatively conclude 
that, through these two provisions, Congress has created two different 
interference protection and remediation regimes--one that applies to 
Section 7(1) Stations and one that applies to all other LPFM stations 
(``Section 7(3) Stations''). We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
    14. We note that, were we to conclude otherwise, Section 7(1) 
Stations would be subject to different and conflicting interference 
protection and remediation obligations. Specifically, under section 
7(1), LPFM stations that would be considered short-spaced under third-
adjacent channel spacing requirements must ``eliminate'' any actual 
interference they cause to the signal of any authorized station in 
areas where that station's signal is ``regularly used.'' This 
requirement encompasses locations beyond the authorized station's 
protected contour. In contrast, section 7(3) merely requires LPFM 
stations to ``address'' complaints of interference occurring within a 
full-service FM station's protected contour. To conclude that sections 
7(1) and (3) both apply to Section 7(1) Stations would run afoul of one 
of the cardinal rules of statutory construction--a statute should be 
read as a harmonious whole. We believe our conclusion that Congress has 
created two different interference protection and remediation regimes 
is the most reasonable reading of section 7 of the LCRA as a whole. It 
makes sense that Congress would impose more stringent interference 
protection and remediation obligations on stations that are located 
nearest to full-service FM stations and have the greatest potential to 
cause interference. Moreover, our reading is consistent with the 
general rule that, where a protection approach offers greater 
flexibility, that flexibility is counter-balanced by more stringent 
interference remediation and protection requirements. The LCRA provides 
greater flexibility by eliminating third-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements for LPFM stations, but counter-balances that flexibility 
with a prohibition on LPFM stations that would be short-spaced under 
such requirements causing any actual interference to other stations.
    15. Based on the text of section 7(1) of the LCRA, we tentatively 
conclude that, although section 3(a) of the LCRA mandates the 
elimination of the third-adjacent channel spacing requirements, we 
should retain them solely for purposes of reference in order to

[[Page 20760]]

implement that section. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion 
and also on whether ultimately to retain the third-adjacent channel 
spacing requirements in Sec.  73.807 for purposes of reference or 
transfer them to another section of the rules.
    16. Sections 7(4) and (5) of the LCRA establish a number of 
requirements related to interference protection and remediation. These 
range from a requirement that the Commission allow LPFM stations on 
third-adjacent channels to remediate interference through collocation 
to requirements related to what constitutes a bona fide complaint of 
interference. We tentatively conclude these sections apply only to 
Section 7(3) Stations. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We 
believe this is the most reasonable reading of these provisions. We 
note that these provisions use the same ``low-power FM stations on 
third-adjacent channels'' language as section 7(3), not the more 
specific ``low-power FM stations licensed at locations that do not 
satisfy third-adjacent channel spacing requirements'' language set 
forth in section 7(1). In addition, as discussed above, section 7(1) 
subjects LPFM stations licensed at locations that would be considered 
short-spaced under third-adjacent channel spacing requirements to the 
interference protection and remediation regime set forth in Sec.  
74.1203 of the rules. Thus, Section 7(1) Stations must remediate any 
actual interference caused by their operations or go off the air; must 
respond to all complaints meeting the specifications set forth in Sec.  
74.1203; and, must do so in the manner described in that section. That 
Congress required our wholesale adoption of the well-established and 
comprehensive regime in Sec.  74.1203 of the rules bolsters our 
tentative conclusion that sections 7(4) and 7(5), which establish 
discrete requirements inconsistent with the Sec.  74.1203 regime, do 
not apply to Section 7(1) Stations.
    17. Finally, we tentatively conclude that sections 7(1), (2), (3), 
(4) and (5) of the LCRA apply only to third-adjacent channel 
interference. While Congress did not specify the type of interference 
to which these provisions apply, we believe this is the most reasonable 
reading of them. We note that, in each of these provisions, Congress 
refers specifically to LPFM stations on third-adjacent channels or LPFM 
stations that do not satisfy the third-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements. These references reflect a focus on those stations 
located on third-adjacent channels to LPFM stations and any 
interference caused to them, which necessarily would be third-adjacent 
channel interference. We believe that our conclusion is further 
supported by the fact that Congress separately addressed the 
possibility of second-adjacent channel interference in section 3 of the 
LCRA. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.
b. Regime Applicable to Section 7(1) Stations
    18. Section 7(1) Stations are subject to the same interference 
protection regime applicable to FM translator and booster stations, 
which is set forth in Sec.  74.1203 of the rules. As indicated above, 
this regime is more stringent than that currently set forth in Sec.  
73.810. Section 74.1203(a) prohibits ``actual interference to * * * 
[t]he direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals of any 
authorized broadcast station. * * *'' It specifies that 
``[i]nterference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a 
regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by'' the 
interfering FM translator station. An interfering FM translator station 
must remedy the interference or cease operation. The rule has been 
interpreted broadly. It places no geographic or temporal limitation on 
complaints. It covers all types of interference. The reception affected 
can be that of a fixed or mobile receiver. The Commission also has 
interpreted ``direct reception by the public'' to limit actionable 
complaints to those that are made by bona fide listeners. Thus, it has 
declined to credit claims of interference or lack of interference from 
station personnel involved in an interference dispute. More generally, 
the Commission requires that a complainant ``be `disinterested,' e.g., 
a person or entity without a legal stake in the outcome of the 
translator station licensing proceeding.'' The staff has routinely 
required a complainant to provide his/her name, address, location(s) at 
which interference occurs, and a statement that the listener is, in 
fact, a listener of the affected station. Moreover, as is the case with 
other types of interference complaints, the staff has considered only 
those complaints where the complainant cooperates in efforts to 
identify the source of interference and accepts reasonable corrective 
measures. Accordingly, when the Commission concludes that a bona fide 
listener has made an actionable complaint of uncorrected interference, 
it will notify the station that ``interference is being caused'' and 
direct the station to discontinue operations. We seek comment on 
whether it would be appropriate to modify the regime set forth in Sec.  
74.1203 in any way in order to apply it to Section 7(1) Stations and, 
if so, whether we have authority to make any such changes in light of 
the statutory mandate to adopt ``the same interference protections that 
FM translator stations and FM booster stations are required to provide 
as set forth in [Sec.  ] 74.1203 of [the] rules.''
    19. We also request comment on requiring newly constructed LPFM 
stations that would be considered short-spaced under third-adjacent 
channel spacing requirements to make the same periodic announcements 
required of third-adjacent channel LPFM stations that would not be 
considered short-spaced under section 7(2) of the LCRA. We see no 
reason to distinguish between listeners of stations that may experience 
interference as a result of the operations of Section 7(1) Stations and 
those that may experience interference as a result of the operations of 
Section 7(3) Stations for such purposes. Indeed, there will be less 
distance separating Section 7(1) Stations and full-service FM stations 
on third-adjacent channels and thus a greater potential for these 
stations to cause such interference, so that we believe requiring 
announcements would serve the public interest. We note, however, that 
section 7(1) explicitly requires the Commission to ``provide the same 
[LPFM] interference protections that FM translator stations * * * are 
required to provide as set forth in Sec.  74.1203 of its rules.'' 
Section 74.1203 does not require an FM translator station to notify 
either the Commission or an affected station of an interference 
complaint within 48 hours of the receipt of such a complaint. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we may impose this requirement 
on Section 7(1) Stations and, if so, whether we should.
c. Regime Applicable to Section 7(3) Stations
    20. Section 7(3) of the LCRA requires the Commission to modify 
Sec.  73.810 of the rules to require Section 7(3) Stations ``to address 
interference complaints within the protected contour of an affected 
station'' and encourage them to address all other interference 
complaints, including complaints ``based on interference to a full-
service FM station, an FM translator station or an FM booster station 
by the transmitter site of a low-power FM station on a third-adjacent 
channel at any distance from the full-service FM station, FM translator 
station or FM booster station.'' As noted above, we tentatively 
conclude that sections 7(2), (4) and (5) apply only to Section 7(3) 
Stations. We discuss the general interference remediation requirements 
set forth in section 7(3) and the additional provisions below.

[[Page 20761]]

    21. General Requirements. Unlike section 7(1), section 7(3) does 
not specifically refer to Sec.  74.1203 of the rules. We request 
comment on whether the more lenient interference protection obligations 
currently set forth in Sec.  73.810 should continue to apply to fully-
spaced LPFM stations. We note that, while section 7(1) instructs the 
Commission to require Section 7(1) Stations ``to provide'' interference 
protections, section 7(3) merely instructs the Commission to require 
Section 7(3) Stations ``to address'' complaints of interference. What 
must a Section 7(3) Station do to ``address'' a complaint of third-
adjacent channel interference? Finally, we observe that section 7(3) 
requires the Commission to provide notice to the licensee of a Section 
7(3) Station of the existence of interference within 7 calendar days of 
the receipt of a complaint from a listener or another station. We seek 
comment on whether to establish certain basic requirements for such 
complaints. For instance, should we require copies of such complaints 
to be filed with the Bureau's Audio Division? Should we require such 
complaints to specify the call sign of the LPFM and/or affected full-
service FM, FM translator or FM booster station? Should we require the 
complainant to provide contact information?
    22. Periodic Broadcast Announcements. Section 7(2) of the LCRA 
directs the Commission to amend Sec.  73.810 of the rules to include 
certain requirements related to periodic broadcast announcements. 
Section 7(2) instructs the Commission to require a newly constructed 
Section 7(3) Station to broadcast periodic announcements that alert 
listeners to the potential for interference and instruct them to 
contact the LPFM station to report any interference. These 
announcements must be broadcast for a period of one year after 
construction. We seek comment on whether we should specify the language 
to be used in these announcements and, if so, what to specify. We also 
seek comment on whether we should mandate when and how often the 
announcements must be aired. We note that we have done so with respect 
to other required announcements and that ensuring uniformity may reduce 
listener confusion and provide regulatory certainty by allowing LPFM 
stations to be confident that they have satisfied the requirements of 
section 7(2).
    23. Section 7(2) also directs the Commission to require newly 
constructed Section 7(3) Stations to notify the Commission and all 
affected stations on third-adjacent channels of an interference 
complaint by electronic communication within 48 hours of receipt of 
such complaint. Finally, section 7(2) mandates that we require newly 
constructed Section 7(3) Stations on third-adjacent channels to 
cooperate in addressing any such interference complaints. We seek 
comment on whether to specify the scope of efforts which a Section 7(3) 
Station must undertake, and whether to relieve newly constructed 
Section 7(3) Stations on third-adjacent channels of their obligations 
to cooperate in instances where the complainant does not reasonably 
cooperate with the LPFM stations' remedial efforts.
    24. Bona Fide Complaints. Section 7(5) of the LCRA expands the 
universe of interference complaints which Section 7(3) Stations must 
remediate. Section 7(5) states:

    The Federal Communications Commission shall--(A) permit the 
submission of informal evidence of interference, including any 
engineering analysis that an affected station may commission; (B) 
accept complaints based on interference to a full-service FM 
station, FM translator station, or FM booster station by the 
transmitter site of a low-power FM station on a third-adjacent 
channel at any distance from the full-service FM station, FM 
translator station, or FM booster station; and (C) accept complaints 
of interference to mobile reception.

    25. We request comment on whether any of the four criteria set 
forth in Sec.  73.810(b)(1) of the rules remain relevant. We 
tentatively conclude that section 7(5) requires us to delete Sec.  
73.810(b)(1) (bona fide complaint must allege interference caused by 
LPFM station that has its transmitter site located within the predicted 
60 dBu contour of the affected station), (2) (bona fide complaint must 
be in form of affidavit and state the nature and location of the 
alleged interference) and (3) (bona fide complaint must involve a fixed 
receiver located within the 60 dBu contour of the affected station and 
not more than 1 kilometer from the LPFM transmitter site). We solicit 
comment on whether we should retain the remaining criterion, which 
requires a bona fide complaint to be received within one year of the 
date an LPFM station commenced broadcasts.
    26. Technical Flexibility. Section 7(4) of the LCRA requires the 
Commission, to the extent possible, to ``grant low-power FM stations on 
third-adjacent channels the technical flexibility to remediate 
interference through the collocation of the transmission facilities of 
the low-power FM station and any stations on third-adjacent channels.'' 
We note that, per section 3 of the LCRA, we are eliminating the third-
adjacent channel spacing requirements set forth in Sec.  73.807. We 
have identified no other provision of our rules that would hinder our 
ability to offer the flexibility specified in section 7(4) of the LCRA. 
Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that we need not modify or 
eliminate any other provisions of our rules to implement section 7(4). 
We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
d. Additional Interference Protection and Remediation Obligations
    27. One additional provision of section 7--section 7(6)--requires 
the Commission to impose additional interference protection and 
remediation obligations on one class of LPFM stations. Specifically, 
section 7(6) of the LCRA directs the Commission to create special 
interference protections for ``full-service FM stations that are 
licensed in significantly populated States with more than 3,000,000 
population and a population density greater than 1,000 people per 
square mile land area.'' The obligations apply only to LPFM stations 
licensed after the enactment of the LCRA. Such stations must remediate 
actual interference to full-service FM stations licensed to the 
significantly populated states specified in section 7(6) and ``located 
on third-adjacent, second-adjacent, first-adjacent or co-channels'' to 
the LPFM station and must do so under the interference and complaint 
procedures set forth in Sec.  74.1203 of the rules. However, Congress 
has created an outer limit to the interference protection obligations 
in section 7(6). That outer limit is the co-channel spacing distance 
set forth in Sec.  73.807 of the rules for the affected full-service 
station's class.
    28. This statutory requirement is different than current policy. 
Today, if an LPFM station meets the spacing requirements, it is ``not 
required to eliminate interference caused to existing FM stations.'' 
With the enactment of LCRA, at least with respect to full-service FM 
stations licensed to the significantly populated states that meet the 
criteria set forth in section 7(6), LPFM stations licensed after its 
effective date must remediate any actual interference that occurs. We 
note that the section 7(6) interference requirements are, with one 
exception, unambiguous. We seek comment on how to interpret the term--
``States.'' Only New Jersey and Puerto Rico satisfy the population and 
population density thresholds set forth in section 7(6). This raises 
the question of whether Congress intended the term ``States'' to 
include the territories and possessions of the United States.

[[Page 20762]]

3. Translator Input Signals Complaint Procedure
    29. Section 6 of the LCRA requires the Commission to ``modify its 
rules to address the potential for predicted interference to FM 
translator input signals on third-adjacent channels set forth in 
Section 2.7 of the technical report entitled `Experimental Measurements 
of the Third-Adjacent Channel Impacts of Low Power FM Stations, Volume 
One--Final Report (May 2003)''' (``Final Report''). Section 2.7 of the 
Final Report finds that significant interference to translator input 
signals does not occur for undesired/desired ratio values below 34 dB 
at the translator input. Section 2.7 sets out a formula (the ``Mitre 
Formula'') that allows calculation of the minimum LPFM-to-translator 
separation that will ensure a undesired/desired ratio of 34 dB.
    30. The Commission currently requires LPFM stations to remediate 
actual interference to the input signal of an FM translator station but 
has not established any minimum distance separation requirements or 
other preventative measures. Based on the language of section 6, which 
requires the Commission to ``address the potential for predicted 
interference,'' we tentatively conclude that our existing requirements 
regarding remediation of actual interference must be recast as 
licensing rules designed to prevent any predicted interference.
    31. We propose to adopt a basic threshold test. This test is 
designed to closely track the interference standard developed by Mitre, 
without necessarily requiring LPFM applicants to obtain the receive 
antenna technical characteristics that are incorporated into the Mitre 
Formula. We propose that any application for a new or modified LPFM 
station construction permit may not use a transmitter site within the 
``potential interference area'' of any FM translator station that 
receives directly off-air, the signal of a third-adjacent channel FM 
station. For these purposes, we define the ``potential interference 
area'' to be any area within 2 km of the translator site or any area 
within 10 km of the translator site within the azimuths from -30 
degrees to +30 degrees of the azimuth from the translator site to the 
site of the station being rebroadcast by the translator. For example, 
if the primary station is located at 280 degrees true (from the 
translator site), the LPFM station must not be within 10 km of the 
translator between the azimuths 250 to 310 degrees true (from the 
translator site), and must be at least 2 km from the translator tower 
site in all other directions. If an LPFM application proposes a 
transmitter site within the potential interference area and fails to 
include an exhibit demonstrating lack of interference to the off-air 
reception, we would dismiss the application as defective.
    32. We propose two ways for an LPFM applicant within the potential 
interference area to show lack of interference to the input signal of a 
potentially affected translator. First, we propose, as indicated in 
section 2.7 of the Final Report, that LPFM applicants may show that the 
ratio of the signal strength of the LPFM (undesired) proposal to the 
signal strength of the FM (desired) station is below 34 dB at all 
locations. Second, we propose to allow use of the equation provided in 
Section 2.7 of the Final Report to demonstrate lack of interference to 
the reception of the FM station at the translator transmitter site. 
Because we do not authorize translator receive antenna locations, we 
propose to assume that the translator receive antenna is co-located 
with its associated translator transmit antenna. In addition, this 
equation would require the horizontal plane pattern of the translator's 
receive antenna. This information is not typically available publicly 
or in the Consolidated Database System (``CDBS''). Therefore, we 
propose to allow the use of a ``typical'' pattern in situations where 
an LPFM applicant is not able to obtain information from the translator 
licensee, despite reasonable efforts to do so. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    33. As with similar situations involving dismissals for violation 
of interference protection requirements, we propose to permit LPFM 
applicants to seek reconsideration of a dismissal and reinstatement 
nunc pro tunc by demonstrating that their proposals will not cause any 
actual interference to the input signal of any FM translator station 
using either the ratio or the Mitre Formula. Furthermore, we seek 
comment on whether this process should be applicable to only 
translators receiving FM station signals, or also include those that 
receive third-adjacent channel translator signals directly off-air.

B. Other Rule Changes

    34. In this Fourth FNPRM, we also propose changes to our rules 
intended to promote the LPFM service's localism and diversity goals, 
reduce the potential for licensing abuses, and clarify certain rules. 
We discuss these proposed changes below. We seek comment on whether 
these proposed changes are consistent with the LCRA and whether they 
will promote the public interest.
1. Classes of Service
    35. There are two classes of LPFM facilities: LP100 and LP10. The 
Commission permits LP100 stations to operate with a maximum power of 
100 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. LP10 stations may operate with a 
maximum power of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. To date, the 
Commission has issued construction permits and licenses only for LP100 
class facilities. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether to eliminate 
the LP10 class of service.
    36. In addition, we seek comment on whether to permit LPFM stations 
in smaller communities, rural areas or ``non-core'' locations (i.e., 
areas outside population centers) in larger markets to increase power 
levels to a maximum ERP of 250 watts at 30 meters HAAT, as urged by 
both the Amherst Alliance (``Amherst'') and the Catholic Radio 
Association (``CRA''). Both Amherst and CRA support permitting LPFM 
stations to operate with up to 250 watts ERP. They focus on the 
particular challenges of maintaining economically viable LPFM stations 
in rural areas where population densities are low and larger coverage 
areas are possible.
    37. We seek comment on whether increased power levels could offset 
limited potential audiences, promote LPFM station viability and expand 
radio service to areas where full service operations may not be 
economically feasible. Such an approach would be consistent with the 
Commission's decision to adopt a more flexible definition of ``local'' 
applicant in non-urban areas. We note that this potential revised 
maximum operating limit would put LPFM stations on similar footing to 
FM translator stations which may operate with a maximum power of 250 
watts ERP.
    38. We seek comment on whether establishing a higher power level 
for certain LPFM stations would allow these stations to better meet the 
needs of their local communities. Notwithstanding the potential service 
benefits, we also seek comment on whether an increase in the maximum 
LPFM power level can be implemented in a manner that would not 
undermine the detailed LCRA protection standards and interference 
remediation procedures, which are presumably grounded on the current 
LPFM maximum power level. Such an increase in power for certain LPFM 
stations may be possible as we will be maintaining or increasing the 
spacing requirements, not decreasing them. We also seek comment

[[Page 20763]]

on appropriate geographical restrictions for the higher powered LPFM 
operations. For example, should we permit increased power levels 
anywhere outside the top 100 markets and limit higher powered 
operations in the top 20 markets to transmitter locations more than 
thirty kilometers from the center city coordinates, in markets 21-50, 
to locations more than twenty kilometers from center city coordinates 
and in markets 51-100, to locations more than ten kilometers from 
center city coordinates. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether 
power limit increases should not be permitted anywhere in the top 50 
markets where we believe that licensing opportunities to be limited 
because of spectrum constraints and where there may be population 
centers outside core market locations. We ask that commenters address 
whether we should limit eligibility to operate in excess of the current 
100 watts/30 meters maximum to previously licensed LPFM facilities in 
order to provide those LPFM licensees that have demonstrated their 
ability to construct and operate a limited opportunity to expand their 
listenership. Finally, we ask that commenters address whether 
increasing the maximum LPFM power level could result in an increased 
potential for interference. Specifically, should eligibility to 
increase power to 250 watts be limited to only those stations that can 
fully satisfy co-, first-, and second-adjacent channel spacing 
requirements?
2. Removal of I.F. Channel Minimum Distance Separation Requirements
    39. LPFM stations are currently required to protect full-service 
stations on their intermediate frequencies (``I.F.''), while translator 
stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP are not. We recognize 
this disparity and propose to remove I.F. protection requirements for 
LPFM stations operating with less than 100 watts. We believe the same 
reasoning that the Commission applied in exempting FM translator 
stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP from the I.F. 
protection requirements applies for LPFM stations operating at less 
than 100 watts ERP. These stations too are the equivalent of Class D FM 
stations, which are not subject to I.F. protection requirements. We 
note that FM allotments would continue to be protected on the I.F. 
channels based on existing international agreements. We seek comment on 
this proposal.
3. Eligibility and Ownership
a. Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based
    40. The LPFM service is reserved solely to non-profit, community-
based entities. However, we believe that the wording of Sec.  73.853 of 
the rules is unclear and could be read to require that an applicant be 
``local'' only at the time of application. Such a reading would 
contravene our intent in adopting--and reinstating--the local ownership 
requirement, which rested on our predictive judgment that ``local 
entities with their roots in the community will be more attuned and 
responsive to the needs of that community, which have heretofore been 
underserved by commercial broadcasters.'' We therefore propose to 
clarify this requirement by revising Sec.  73.853(b) to read: ``Only 
local applicants will be permitted to submit applications. For the 
purposes of this paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local if it can 
certify, at the time of application, that it meets the criteria listed 
below and if such applicant continues to satisfy the criteria at all 
times thereafter. * * *'' We seek comment on this proposed requirement.
b. Eligibility of Native Nations
    41. The current version of Sec.  73.853 of the rules does not 
include federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Villages (``Native Nations''), consortia of Native Nations, or entities 
majority owned by Native Nations or consortia, among the categories of 
eligible applicants for stations in the LPFM service. We have recently 
expressed our commitment to assisting Native Nations in establishing 
radio service to their members living on tribal lands, including a 
Tribal Priority that we incorporated into the threshold fair 
distribution analysis performed pursuant to section 307(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), when comparing 
mutually exclusive applications for permits to construct new or 
modified full-service NCE FM stations that propose service to different 
communities. In keeping with this commitment, we seek comment in this 
Fourth FNPRM, inter alia, on whether to modify the LPFM point system to 
award a point to a Native Nation proposing LPFM service to its 
community. However, before we seek comment on Native Nation 
participation in LPFM application proceedings, we must first ensure 
that, under our rules, Native Nations are eligible to apply for 
stations in the LPFM service.
    42. Accordingly, we propose to revise Sec.  73.853(a) of the rules 
by adding the following: ``(3) Tribal Applicants, as defined in [Sec.  
] 73.7000 of this [p]art, that will provide non-commercial radio 
services.'' We further propose to revise Sec.  73.853(b) of the rules 
by adding the following: ``(4) In the case of a Tribal Applicant, as 
defined in [Sec.  ]73.7000 of this [p]art, the proposed site for the 
transmitting antenna is located on that Tribal Applicant's `Tribal 
Lands,' as defined in [Sec.  ] 73.7000 of this [p]art.'' We believe 
that allowing Native Nations to hold LPFM licenses will be consistent 
with the localism and diversity goals of the LPFM service and will 
further our goal of assisting Native Nations in establishing radio 
service to their members on tribal lands.
c. Cross-Ownership
    43. From the outset, the Commission has prohibited common ownership 
of an LPFM station and any other broadcast station, as well as other 
media subject to the Commission's ownership rules. This prohibition 
furthers one of the most important purposes of establishing the LPFM 
service--``to afford small, community-based organizations an 
opportunity to communicate over the airwaves and thus expand diversity 
of ownership.'' We seek comment on whether to revise our rules to 
permit cross-ownership of an LPFM station and an FM translator or 
translators. We note that this revision could enable LPFM stations to 
expand their listenership and provide another way in which translators 
could serve the needs of a community. We do not believe allowing 
limited cross-ownership of LPFM stations and FM translators will have a 
negative effect on the diversity of ownership. However, we solicit 
comment on this issue. In addition, we request comment on how cross-
ownership of an LPFM station and an FM translator station would impact 
the extremely localized service that LPFM stations provide. Finally, we 
solicit input on whether to authorize such cross-ownership only if the 
FM translator rebroadcasts the programming of its co-owned LPFM 
station; whether we should require some overlap of the 60 dBu contours 
of the cross-owned stations; whether to set some distance or geographic 
limits on the cross-ownership; and whether to permit an LPFM station to 
use an alternative signal delivery mechanism to deliver its signal to a 
commonly owned FM translator.
    44. We also seek comment on whether to modify our cross-ownership 
rule to permit a full-service radio station permittee or licensee that 
is a Native

[[Page 20764]]

Nation or an entity owned or controlled by a Native Nation to apply for 
an LPFM station and to hold an attributable interest in such station. 
We believe this modification would enhance the ability of Native 
Nations to provide communications services to their members on tribal 
lands without significantly undermining diversity of ownership. We seek 
comment on whether this exception to the general cross-ownership 
prohibition should be limited to situations where the Native Nation or 
Native Nation-controlled applicant demonstrates that it will serve 
currently unserved tribal lands or populations.
d. Multiple Ownership
    45. To further its diversity goals and foster local, community-
based service, the Commission prohibits entities from owning more than 
one LPFM station in the same community. We seek comment on whether we 
should permit Native Nations and entities owned or controlled by Native 
Nations to seek more than one LPFM construction permit to ensure 
adequate coverage of tribal lands. For instance, we could permit this 
when Native Nations and entities owned or controlled by Native Nations 
seek to serve large, irregularly shaped or rural areas. Where this is 
the case, an applicant may be unable to ensure adequate coverage of 
tribal members and tribal lands with one LPFM station. We also could 
permit multiple ownership only when there are available channels for 
other applicants. In such instances, there would be no risk that a new 
entrant would be precluded from offering service. We believe permitting 
Native Nations to hold more than one LPFM license would advance the 
Commission's efforts to enhance the ability of Native Nations not only 
to receive radio service tailored to their specific needs and cultures, 
but to increase ownership of such radio stations by Native Nations and 
entities owned or controlled by Native Nations. We seek comment on 
whether to accomplish this through amendment of Sec.  73.855(a) of the 
rules or through waiver.
4. Selection Among Mutually Exclusive Applicants
    46. Below, we propose certain changes to the manner in which we 
process mutually exclusive LPFM applications. These changes are 
intended to better ensure that we award LPFM licenses to those 
organizations most capable of serving the very localized communities 
and underrepresented groups the LPFM service was designed to serve, and 
to improve the efficiency of the selection process.
a. Point System
(i) Established Community Presence
    47. Currently, under the LPFM selection procedures for mutually 
exclusive LPFM applications set forth in Sec.  73.872 of the rules, the 
Commission awards one point to an applicant that has an established 
community presence. The Commission deems an applicant to have such a 
presence if, for at least two years prior to application filing, the 
applicant has been headquartered, has maintained a campus or has had 
three-quarters of its board members residing within ten miles of the 
proposed station's transmitter site. In adopting this criterion, the 
Commission intended to ``favor organizations that have been operating 
in the communities where they propose to construct an LPFM station and 
thus have `track records' of community-service and established 
constituencies in their communities.'' The Commission believed that, 
because of their longstanding organizational ties to their communities, 
applicants with established community presences were likely to be 
``more attuned to, and have organizational experience addressing, the 
needs and interests of their communities.''
    48. We propose to revise the language of Sec.  73.872(b)(1) to 
clarify that an applicant must have had an established local presence 
for a specified period of time prior to filing its application and must 
maintain that local presence at all times thereafter. We note that, 
while Section 73.872(b)(1) currently does not include the requirement 
that an applicant maintain its local presence, we believe that is the 
only reasonable interpretation of the rule. We seek comment on this 
proposed change to Sec.  73.872(b)(1).
    49. In addition, we seek comment on three additional changes to the 
rule. First, we request comment on whether to revise our definition of 
``established community presence'' to require that an applicant have 
maintained such a presence for a longer period of time, such as four 
years. While this change in the rules would result in a smaller pool of 
organizations that could earn this comparative point, we believe it 
would better ensure that LPFM licensees are attuned to the local 
interests of the communities they seek to serve. Alternatively, should 
we maintain the two-year threshold but also award an additional point 
to applicants that have a substantially longer established community 
presence (e.g., four years)? Second, we solicit comment on whether we 
should modify Sec.  73.872(b)(1) to extend the ``established community 
presence'' standard to 20 miles in rural areas. We note that such a 
change would bring Sec.  73.872(b)(1) in line with Sec.  73.853(b). 
Finally, we seek comment on whether to allow local organizations filing 
as consortia to receive one point under the established community 
presence criterion for each organization that qualifies for such a 
point. If we were to revise Sec.  73.872(b)(1) in this fashion, should 
we cap the number of points awarded to consortia at three? We note 
that, currently, applicants tied with the highest number of points may 
enter into time-share agreements. In such a situation, their points are 
aggregated. This proposal would operate in a similar fashion, except 
that it would precede and potentially preclude post-filing point 
aggregation settlements. We believe this proposed change could 
significantly promote diversity, speed the licensing process and 
provide further incentive for applicants to enter into voluntary time-
sharing arrangements in spectrum-limited areas. However, we seek 
comment on whether there is any potential for abuse of such a change in 
the rules and, if so, how we can prevent it. For instance, could this 
proposed rule change lead local organizations interested in 
constructing and operating an LPFM station to recruit other local 
organizations that have no interest in doing so to participate in a 
consortium in order to inflate the consortium's point total?
(ii) Local Program Origination
    50. The Commission currently encourages LPFM stations to locally 
originate programming. It does so by incorporating local program 
origination as one of the three one-point criteria used to select among 
mutually exclusive applicants. In adopting the local program 
origination criterion, the Commission reasoned that ``local program 
origination can advance the Commission's policy goal of addressing 
unmet needs for community-oriented radio broadcasting'' and concluded 
that ``an applicant's intent to provide locally-originated programming 
is a reasonable gauge of whether the LPFM station will function as an 
outlet for community self-expression.'' We seek comment on whether to 
place greater emphasis on this selection factor by awarding two 
points--instead of the one point currently awarded--to an applicant 
that pledges to originate at least eight hours of programming each day. 
Do the limited licensing opportunities for LPFM stations in major 
markets support giving greater weight to this criterion? Does the

[[Page 20765]]

potential for awarding up to three points to a consortium under the 
established community presence criterion justify an increase in the 
points awarded under this criterion? Should we modify the definition of 
local program origination for LPFM stations that serve rural areas? We 
request that commenters specifically address whether increasing the 
weight of this criterion is warranted in light of our previous finding 
that local programming is not the only programming of interest or value 
to listeners in a particular locale. Alternately, should we impose a 
specific requirement that all new LPFM licensees provide locally-
originated programming? Parties supporting this proposal are requested 
to show that the Commission's prior finding is no longer valid and 
identify problems or short-comings in the current LPFM licensing and 
service rules that this change would remedy. Parties supporting this 
proposal also are requested to address any constitutional issues that 
it raises.
(iii) Additional Selection Criteria
    51. We seek comment on whether to develop additional selection 
criteria for the LPFM point system in order to limit the number of 
involuntary time-share licensing outcomes. Specifically, we seek 
comment on whether we should modify our point system to award a point 
to Native Nations and entities owned or controlled by Native Nations, 
when they propose to provide LPFM service to Native Nation communities. 
We note that this criterion would be similar to the ``Tribal Priority'' 
that we incorporated into the threshold fair distribution analysis that 
we perform pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act, when we are faced 
with mutually exclusive applications for permits to construct new or 
modified full-service FM, AM, or NCE FM stations that propose service 
to different communities. We also note that we believe adoption of a 
Native Nation selection criterion would further our efforts to increase 
ownership of radio stations by Native Nations and entities owned or 
controlled by Native Nations and to enable Native Nations and such 
entities to serve the unique needs and interests of their communities. 
Finally, in addition to seeking comment on this ``Native Nation'' 
criterion, we invite the submission of additional proposals for new 
selection criteria, provided they are (a) specifically linked to 
Commission policy, and (b) structured to withstand scrutiny under 
applicable legal standards.
b. First Tiebreaker, Voluntary Time Sharing
    52. In the event the point analysis results in a tie, the 
Commission employs voluntary time-sharing as the initial tie-breaker. 
In these circumstances, the Commission releases a public notice 
announcing the tie and gives the tied applicants the opportunity to 
propose voluntary time-sharing arrangements. Currently, following the 
award of voluntary time-share construction permits, if one of the 
participants in a voluntary time-sharing arrangement does not construct 
or surrenders its station license after commencing operations, the 
remaining time-share participants are free to apportion the vacant air-
time as they see fit. We seek comment on the procedures we should adopt 
to address the surrender or expiration of a construction permit--or the 
surrender of a license--issued to a participant in a voluntary time-
sharing arrangement. We note that the current policy regarding air-time 
reapportionment presents the potential for abuse in the LPFM licensing 
process. For instance, out of a group of tied mutually exclusive 
applicants, some could enter into a time-share arrangement in order to 
aggregate their points and prevail over others with the knowledge that 
not all of the prevailing applicants intend to build and operate their 
LPFM stations. We solicit comment on ways to reduce the potential for 
abuse of the air-time reapportionment policy. Should we open a ``mini-
window'' for the filing of applications for the abandoned air-time? 
Could we limit eligibility to unsuccessful applicants from the same 
mutually exclusive group in the initial window? Is such an approach 
consistent with Ashbacker requirements? We believe limiting the 
applicant pool for a ``mini-window'' to unsuccessful applications from 
the same mutually exclusive group will provide organizations with an 
incentive to participate in the LPFM licensing process at the earliest 
opportunity (i.e., during the initial filing window). It also will 
expedite the filling of dead air-time and promote the goal of reducing 
the potential for abuse of the air-time reapportionment policy while 
minimizing the administrative complexities involved. In this regard, we 
believe that the procedures we develop to select successor permittees 
and licensees must operate efficiently. The air-time being filled will 
cover only a limited portion of each broadcast day. We must balance our 
desire to fill air-time with the need for administrative efficiency, 
particularly as we anticipate the considerable licensing burdens that 
are likely to result from the upcoming LPFM window. Under another 
approach, a non-prevailing applicant could express its interest in 
being selected as a successor time share permittee in the event that 
the tentatively selected applications are granted and either a 
permittee fails to construct or a licensee abandons its time. One 
option would be to require the filing of such expressions of interest 
by the deadline for filing of petitions to deny the applications of the 
tentative selectees. The staff then could identify the applicant with 
the highest point total among those filing an expression of interest 
and retain this application in pending status. If we modify our air-
time reapportionment policy in voluntary time sharing situations to 
reduce the potential for abuse, we propose that the changes would apply 
only during the first four years of licensed station operations, as 
they do in the NCE FM licensing context. If a time share licensee 
abandons its air-time after the first four years of licensed station 
operations, we propose to allow the remaining time-share participants 
to apportion the vacant air-time as they see fit just as they do under 
the current air-time reapportionment policy. We seek comment on these 
proposals. Finally, we seek comment on whether, if we modify the 
established community presence criterion to award additional points to 
consortia, these new procedures also should apply to permits awarded 
under this modified criterion.
5. Operating Schedule, Time Sharing
    53. Currently, the Commission requires LPFM stations to meet the 
same minimum operating hour requirements as full-service NCE FM 
stations. Like NCE FM stations, LPFM stations must operate at least 36 
hours per week, consisting of at least 5 hours of operation per day on 
at least 6 days of the week. However, while the Commission has mandated 
time sharing for NCE FM stations that meet the Commission's minimum 
operating requirements but do not operate 12 hours per day each day of 
the year, it has not done so for LPFM stations. We seek comment on 
whether we should extend this mandatory time-sharing to the LPFM 
service. We believe that doing so could increase the number of 
broadcast voices and promote additional diversity in radio voices and 
program services.

[[Page 20766]]

III. Administrative Matters

A. Filing Requirements

    54. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings 
governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    55. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (``RFA''), 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice 
and comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that 
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' 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. 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).
    56. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and 
rules proposed in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``Fourth FNPRM''). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the Fourth FNPRM provided in paragraph 
74. The Commission will send a copy of this entire Fourth FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (``SBA''). In addition, the Fourth FNPRM and 
the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    57. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This 
rulemaking proceeding is initiated to seek comment on how to implement 
the provisions of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (``LCRA'') 
discussed below. The Fourth FNPRM tentatively concludes that the 
second-adjacent channel spacing waiver standard set forth in section 
3(b)(2) of the LCRA supersedes the interim waiver processing policy 
currently in place and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and 
on what factors the Commission should take into account in considering 
waiver requests. The Fourth FNPRM also proposes to implement section 
3(b)(2)(B), which provides a framework for handling complaints of 
interference from low-power FM (``LPFM'') stations operating pursuant 
to second-adjacent channel waivers. Similarly the Fourth FNPRM also 
proposes to amend the Commission's rules to implement section 7 of the 
LCRA, which creates two different LPFM interference protection and 
remediation regimes, one for LPFM stations that would be considered 
short-spaced under third-adjacent channel spacing requirements, and one 
for LPFM stations that would not be considered short-spaced under those 
requirements. Lastly, the Fourth FNPRM takes up implementation of 
section 6 of the LCRA, which requires the Commission to modify its 
rules to address the potential for predicted interference to translator 
input signals on third-adjacent channels. The Fourth FNPRM proposes to 
adopt a basic threshold test to determine whether a proposed LPFM 
station will cause such predicted interference. Specifically, the 
Fourth FNPRM proposes to prohibit an applicant for a new or modified 
LPFM station construction permit from specifying a transmitter site 
within the ``potential interference area'' of any FM translator station 
that receives directly off-air, the signal of a third-adjacent channel 
FM station. The Fourth FNPRM would define the ``potential interference 
area'' to be any area within 2 km of the translator site or any area 
within 10 km of the translator site within the azimuths from -30 
degrees to +30 degrees of the azimuth from the translator site to the 
site of the station being rebroadcast by the translator.
    58. The Fourth FNPRM also proposes changes to our rules intended to 
promote the LPFM service's localism and diversity goals, reduce the 
potential for licensing abuses, and clarify certain rules. First, the 
Fourth FNPRM seeks comment on whether to increase the maximum 
facilities for LPFM stations. Second, the Fourth FNPRM seeks comment on 
proposed rule changes that will clarify that an LPFM applicant must 
satisfy the local ownership requirement at all times. Third, it also 
requests comment on whether to allow cross-ownership of an LPFM station 
and FM translator stations and whether to allow federally recognized 
Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (``Native Nations'') 
to own multiple LPFM stations. Fourth, the Fourth FNPRM proposes to 
modify the criteria used in the point system, add an additional 
criterion to the point system, and revise the voluntary time-sharing 
tie-breaker used for selecting among mutually exclusive LPFM 
applications when the point analysis results in a tie. Fifth, the 
Fourth FNPRM seeks comment on whether to extend to the LPFM service the 
mandatory time-sharing requirements that currently apply to FM 
translators that meet the Commission's minimum operating requirements 
but do not operate 12 hours per day each day of the year. Finally, 
noting that LPFM stations are currently required to protect full-
service stations on their intermediate frequencies (``I.F.''), while 
translator stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP are not, the 
Fourth FNPRM proposes to eliminate the spacing requirements related to 
Intermediate Frequency channels.
    59. Legal Basis. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is 
contained in the

[[Page 20767]]

Local Community Radio Act of 2010, Public Law 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 
(2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 307, and 309(j) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and 
309(j).
    60. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs the Commission to 
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as encompassing the terms 
''small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ''small governmental 
entity.'' In addition, the term ``small Business'' has the same meaning 
as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 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 SBA.
    61. Radio Broadcasting. The proposed policies could apply to radio 
broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of radio service. The SBA 
defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station 
has no more than $7 million in annual receipts. Business concerns 
included in this industry are those primarily engaged in broadcasting 
aural programs by radio to the public. According to Commission staff 
review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer 
Database as of September 15, 2011, about 10,960 (97 percent) of 11,300 
commercial radio station have revenues of $7 million or less and thus 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, 
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under 
the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. 
Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities 
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from 
affiliated companies.
    62. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are 
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of 
operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules 
may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a 
small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to 
that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of 
``small business'' is that the entity must be independently owned and 
operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these 
criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small 
businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
    63. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. The proposed 
policies could affect licensees of FM translator and booster stations 
and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as potential licensees in 
these radio services. The same SBA definition that applies to radio 
broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a 
radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more 
than $7 million in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 
6,131 licensed FM translator stations and 859 licensed LPFM stations. 
In addition, there are approximately 646 applicants with pending 
applications filed in the 2003 translator filing window. Given the 
nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees 
and applicants qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    64. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements. None.
    65. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to 
describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    66. The passage of the LCRA required the Commission to propose 
certain changes to its technical rules. The Commission considered 
maintaining the status quo regarding the proposed changes to its non-
technical rules, but concluded that these proposed rule changes will 
benefit small businesses and existing LPFM licensees.
    67. The LPFM service has created and will continue to create 
significant opportunities for new small businesses by allowing small 
businesses to develop LPFM service in their communities. In addition, 
the Commission generally has taken steps to minimize the impact on 
existing small broadcasters. To the extent that rules proposed in the 
Fourth FNPRM would impose any burdens on small entities, we believe 
that the resulting impact on small entities would be favorable because 
the proposed rules, if adopted, would expand opportunities for LPFM 
applicants, permittees, and licensees to commence broadcasting and stay 
on the air. Among other things, the Fourth FNPRM proposes to allow FM 
translator licensees to own or hold attributable interests in LPFM 
stations. This is prohibited under the current rules. Likewise, the 
Fourth FNPRM proposes to permit Native Nations and entities owned or 
controlled by Native Nations to seek more than one LPFM construction 
permit to ensure adequate coverage of tribal lands. Today, multiple 
ownership of LPFM stations is prohibited.
    68. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    69. Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained 
in the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, Public Law 111-371, 124 Stat. 
4072 (2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 307, and 309(j) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and 
309(j), that this Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
    70. It is further ordered that the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this 
Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and Fourth Order on Reconsideration, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, and shall cause it to be published in the 
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    2. Revise Sec.  73.807 to read as follows:

[[Page 20768]]

Sec.  73.807  Minimum distance separation between stations.

    Minimum separation requirements for LP250 and LP100 stations, as 
defined in Sec. Sec.  73.811 and 73.853, are listed in the following 
paragraphs. Except as noted below, an LPFM station will not be 
authorized unless the co-channel, first- and second-adjacent and I.F. 
channel separations are met. An LPFM station need not satisfy the 
third-adjacent channel separations listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) 
in order to be authorized. These third-adjacent channel separations are 
included for informational purposes only.
    Minimum distances for co-channel and first-adjacent channel are 
separated into two columns. The left-hand column lists the required 
minimum separation to protect other stations and the right-hand column 
lists (for informational purposes only) the minimum distance necessary 
for the LPFM station to receive no interference from other stations 
assumed to be operating at the maximum permitted facilities for the 
station class. For second-adjacent channel and intermediate frequency 
(I.F.) channels, the required minimum distance separation is sufficient 
to avoid interference received from other stations.
    (a)(1) An LP100 station will not be authorized initially unless the 
minimum distance separations in the following table are met with 
respect to authorized FM stations, applications for new and existing FM 
stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an 
LPFM window period for LP100 stations, authorized LP250 and LP100 
stations, LP250 and LP100 station applications that were timely-filed 
within a previous window, and vacant FM allotments. LPFM modification 
applications must either meet the distance separations in the following 
table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the spacing to subsequently 
authorized stations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Co-channel minimum separation (km)    First-adjacent channel minimum
                                            ------------------------------------           separation (km)
                                                                                ------------------------------------ Second and third     I.F. channel
                                                                    For no                              For no       adjacent channel       minimum
      Station class protected by LP100                           interference                        interference         minimum      separations--10.6
                                                 Required        received from       Required        received from   separation (km)--    or 10.8 MHz
                                                                  max. class                          max. class         required
                                                                   facility                            facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100......................................                24                24                14                14             (\1\)              (\1\)
LP250......................................                26                29                15                16             (\1\)              (\1\)
D..........................................                24                24                13                13                 6                  3
A..........................................                67                92                56                56                29                  6
B1.........................................                87               119                74                74                46                  9
B..........................................               112               143                97                97                67                 12
C3.........................................                78               119                67                67                40                  9
C2.........................................                91               143                80                84                53                 12
C1.........................................               111               178               100               111                73                 20
C0.........................................               122               193               111               130                84                 22
C..........................................               130               203               120               142                93                 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) None.

     (2) LP100 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel 
minimum distance separation requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section with respect to any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as 
of September 20, 2000, broadcasts a radio reading service via a 
subcarrier frequency.
    (3) An LP250 station will not be authorized initially unless the 
minimum distance separations in the following table are met with 
respect to authorized FM stations, applications for new and existing FM 
stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an 
LPFM window period for LP250 stations, authorized LP250 and LP100 
stations, LP250 and LP100 station applications that were timely-filed 
within a previous window, and vacant FM allotments. LPFM modification 
applications must either meet the distance separations in the following 
table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the spacing to subsequently 
authorized stations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Co-channel minimum  separation      First-adjacent channel minimum
                                                            (km)                           separation (km)
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Second and third     I.F. channel
                                                                    For no                              For no       adjacent channel       minimum
      Station class protected by LP250                           interference                        interference         minimum      separations--10.6
                                                 Required        received from       Required        received from   separation (km)--    or 10.8 MHz
                                                                  max. class                          max. class         required
                                                                   facility                            facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100......................................                29                26                16                15             (\1\)              (\1\)
LP250......................................                31                31                17                17             (\1\)              (\1\)
D..........................................                29                26                16                15                 7                  3
A..........................................                67                92                56                56                30                  6
B1.........................................                87               119                74                74                47                  9
B..........................................               112               143                97                97                68                 12
C3.........................................                78               119                67                67                41                  9
C2.........................................                91               143                80                84                54                 12
C1.........................................               111               178               100               111                74                 20
C0.........................................               122               193               111               130                85                 22
C..........................................               130               203               120               142                94                 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) None.


[[Page 20769]]

     (4) LP250 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel 
minimum distance separation requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section with respect to any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as 
of September 20, 2000, broadcasts a radio reading service via a 
subcarrier frequency.
    (5) LP100 stations operating with less than 100 watts effective 
radiated power (ERP) need not satisfy the I.F. channel minimum 
separations requirements.
    (b)(1) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations 
in paragraph (a), new LP100 stations will not be authorized in Puerto 
Rico or the Virgin Islands unless the minimum distance separations in 
the following tables are met with respect to authorized or proposed FM 
stations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Co-channel minimum separation (km)    First-adjacent channel minimum
                                            ------------------------------------           separation (km)
                                                                                ------------------------------------ Second and third     I.F. channel
                                                                    For no                              For no       adjacent channel       minimum
      Station class protected by LP100                           interference                        interference         minimum      separations--10.6
                                                 Required        received from       Required        received from   separation (km)--    or 10.8 MHz
                                                                  max. class                          max. class         required
                                                                   facility                            facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........................................                80               111                70                70                42                  9
B1.........................................                95               128                82                82                53                 11
B..........................................               138               179               123               123                92                 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations in 
paragraph (a), new LP250 stations will not be authorized in Puerto Rico 
or the Virgin Islands unless the minimum distance separations in the 
following tables are met with respect to authorized or proposed FM 
stations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Co-channel minimum separation (km)    First-adjacent channel minimum
                                            ------------------------------------           separation (km)
                                                                                ------------------------------------ Second and third     I.F. channel
                                                                    For no                              For no       adjacent channel       minimum
      Station class protected by LP250                           interference                        interference         minimum      separations--10.6
                                                 Required        received from       Required        received from   separation (km)--    or 10.8 MHz
                                                                  max. class                          max. class         required
                                                                   facility                            facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........................................                80               111                70                70                43                  9
B1.........................................                95               128                82                82                54                 11
B..........................................               138               179               123               123                93                 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) LP 100 stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP need 
not satisfy the I.F. channel minimum separations requirements.

    Note to paragraphs (a) and (b):  Minimum distance separations 
towards ``grandfathered'' superpowered Reserved Band stations are as 
specified.

    Full service FM stations operating within the reserved band 
(Channels 201-220) with facilities in excess of those permitted in 
Sec.  73.211(b)(1) or Sec.  73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by LPFM 
stations in accordance with the minimum distance separations for the 
nearest class as determined under Sec.  73.211. For example, a Class B1 
station operating with facilities that result in a 60 dBu contour that 
exceeds 39 kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers would be protected 
by the Class B minimum distance separations. Class D stations with 60 
dBu contours that exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by the Class A 
minimum distance separations. Class B stations with 60 dBu contours 
that exceed 52 kilometers will be protected as Class C1 or Class C 
stations depending upon the distance to the 60 dBu contour. No stations 
will be protected beyond Class C separations.
    (c)(1) In addition to meeting the separations specified in 
paragraphs (a) and (b), LP100 applications must meet the minimum 
separation requirements in the following table with respect to 
authorized FM translator stations, cutoff FM translator applications, 
and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the Public 
Notice announcing the LPFM window period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Co-channel minimum separation (km)    First-adjacent channel minimum
                                             ------------------------------------           separation (km)           Second and third    I.F. channel
                                                                                 ------------------------------------ adjacent channel       minimum
  Distance to FM translator 60 dBu contour                           For no                              For no            minimum         separations
                                                  Required        interference        Required        interference    separation (km)--   (km)--10.6 or
                                                                    received                            received          required          10.8 MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.3 km or greater..........................                39                67                28                35                21                 5
Greater than 7.3 km, but less than 13.3 km..                32                51                21                26                14                 5
7.3 km or less..............................                26                30                15                16                 8                 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) In addition to meeting the separations specified in paragraphs 
(a) and (b), LP250 applications must meet the minimum separation 
requirements in the following table with respect to authorized FM 
translator stations, cutoff FM translator applications, and FM 
translator applications filed prior to the release of the Public Notice 
announcing the LPFM window period:

[[Page 20770]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Co-channel minimum separation (km)    First-adjacent channel minimum
                                             ------------------------------------           separation (km)           Second and third    I.F. channel
                                                                                 ------------------------------------ adjacent channel       minimum
  Distance to FM translator 60 dBu contour                           For no                              For no            minimum         separations
                                                  Required        interference        Required        interference    separation (km)--   (km)--10.6 or
                                                                    received                            received          required          10.8 MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.3 km or greater..........................                44                67                30                37                22                 4
Greater than 7.3 km, but less than 13.3 km..                37                51                23                27                15                 4
7.3 km or less..............................                31                30                17                18                 9                 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) LP100 stations operating with less than 100 watts ERP need not 
satisfy the I.F. channel minimum separations requirements.
    (d) Existing LP250 and LP100 stations which do not meet the 
separations in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section may be 
relocated provided that the separation to any short-spaced station is 
not reduced.
    (e) Commercial and noncommercial educational stations authorized 
under subparts B and C of this part, as well as new or modified 
commercial FM allotments, are not required to adhere to the separations 
specified in this rule section, even where new or increased 
interference would be created.
    (f) International considerations within the border zones.
    (1) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP100 stations must meet 
the following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian 
stations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Intermediate
                    Canadian station class                      Co-channel  (km)   First-adjacent    Second-adjacent   Third-adjacent    frequency (IF)
                                                                                    channel  (km)     channel  (km)     channel  (km)     channel  (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1 & Low Power................................................                45                30                21                20                 4
A.............................................................                66                50                41                40                 7
B1............................................................                78                62                53                52                 9
B.............................................................                92                76                68                66                12
C1............................................................               113                98                89                88                19
C.............................................................               124               108                99                98                28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP250 stations must meet 
the following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian 
stations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Intermediate
                    Canadian station class                      Co-channel  (km)   First-adjacent    Second-adjacent   Third-adjacent    frequency (IF)
                                                                                    channel  (km)     channel (km)      channel  (km)     channel (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1 & Low Power................................................                54                33                22                20                 4
A.............................................................                74                53                42                40                 6
B1............................................................                86                65                54                52                 9
B.............................................................               101                79                68                67                12
C1............................................................               122               101                90                88                19
C.............................................................               132               111               100                98                26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP100 stations must meet 
the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Second- and      Intermediate
          Mexican station class           Co-channel  (km)   First-adjacent    third-adjacent    frequency (IF)
                                                              channel (km)      channel  (km)     channel (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Power...............................                27                17                 9                 3
A.......................................                43                32                25                 5
AA......................................                47                36                29                 6
B1......................................                67                54                45                 8
B.......................................                91                76                66                11
C1......................................                91                80                73                19
C.......................................               110               100                92                27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (4) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP250 stations must meet 
the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:

[[Page 20771]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Second- and      Intermediate
          Mexican station class           Co-channel  (km)   First-adjacent    third-adjacent    frequency (IF)
                                                              channel  (km)     channel (km)      channel (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Power...............................                33                19                10                 3
A.......................................                48                34                26                 6
AA......................................                52                38                30                 6
B1......................................                73                57                46                 9
B.......................................               101                79                68                12
C1......................................                96                83                74                19
C.......................................               116               102                93                26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (5) The Commission will notify the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU) of any LPFM authorizations in the US 
Virgin Islands. Any authorization issued for a US Virgin Islands LPFM 
station will include a condition that permits the Commission to modify, 
suspend or terminate without right to a hearing if found by the 
Commission to be necessary to conform to any international regulations 
or agreements.
    (6) The Commission will initiate international coordination of a 
LPFM proposal even where the above Canadian and Mexican spacing tables 
are met, if it appears that such coordination is necessary to maintain 
compliance with international agreements.
    3. Section 73.809 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  73.809  Interference protection to full service FM stations.

    (a) If a full service commercial or NCE FM facility application is 
filed subsequent to the filing of an LPFM station facility application, 
such full service station is protected against any condition of 
interference to the direct reception of its signal that is caused by 
such LPFM station operating on the same channel or first-adjacent 
channel and is protected from any condition of interference to the 
direct reception of its signal caused by such LPFM station operating on 
an intermediate frequency (IF) channel with more than 100 watts ERP, 
provided that the interference is predicted to occur and actually 
occurs within:
* * * * *
    4. Revise Sec.  73.811 to read as follows:


Sec.  73.811  LPFM power and antenna height requirements.

    (a) LP250 stations:
    (1) Maximum facilities. LP250 stations will be authorized to 
operate with maximum facilities of 250 watts effective radiated power 
(ERP) at 30 meters antenna height above average terrain (HAAT). An 
LP250 station with a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will not be permitted 
to operate with an ERP greater than that which would result in a 60 dBu 
contour of 7.1 kilometers. In no event will an ERP less than one watt 
be authorized.
    (2) Minimum facilities. LP250 stations may not operate with 
facilities less than 101 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT or the equivalent 
necessary to produce a 60 dBu contour that extends at least 5.7 
kilometers.
    (b) LP100 stations:
    (1) Maximum facilities. LP100 stations will be authorized to 
operate with maximum facilities of 100 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. An 
LP100 station with a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will not be permitted 
to operate with an ERP greater than that which would result in a 60 dBu 
contour of 5.6 kilometers. In no event will an ERP less than one watt 
be authorized. No facility will be authorized in excess of one watt ERP 
at 450 meters HAAT.
    (2) Minimum facilities. LP100 stations may not operate with 
facilities less than 50 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT or the equivalent 
necessary to produce a 60 dBu contour that extends at least 4.7 
kilometers.
    5. Section 73.816 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.816  Antennas.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Public safety and transportation permittees and licensees, 
eligible pursuant to Sec.  73.853(a)(ii), may utilize directional 
antennas in connection with the operation of a Travelers' Information 
Service (TIS) provided each LPFM TIS station utilizes only a single 
antenna with standard pattern characteristics that are predetermined by 
the manufacturer. In no event may composite antennas (i.e., antennas 
that consist of multiple stacked and/or phased discrete transmitting 
antennas) and/or transmitters be employed.
    (2) LPFM permittees and licensees may utilize directional antennas 
for the purpose of preventing interference to a second-adjacent channel 
station when requesting a waiver of the second-adjacent channel minimum 
distance separations set forth in Sec.  73.807.
* * * * *
    6. Revise Sec.  73.825 to read as follows:


Sec.  73.825  Protection to reception of TV channel 6.

    (a) LPFM stations will be authorized on Channels 201 through 220 
only if the pertinent minimum separation distances in the following 
table are met with respect to all full power TV Channel 6 stations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Class LP100  Class LP250
                                                   to TV        to TV
                FM channel No.                   channel 6    channel 6
                                                    (km)         (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201...........................................          140          143
202...........................................          138          141
203...........................................          137          139
204...........................................          136          138
205...........................................          135          136
206...........................................          133          135
207...........................................          133          133
208...........................................          133          133
209...........................................          133          133
210...........................................          133          133
211...........................................          133          133
212...........................................          132          133
213...........................................          132          133
214...........................................          132          132
215...........................................          131          132
216...........................................          131          132
217...........................................          131          132
218...........................................          131          131
219...........................................          130          131
220...........................................          130          130
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) LPFM stations will be authorized on Channels 201 through 220 
only if the pertinent minimum separation distances in the following 
table are met with respect to all low power TV, TV translator, and 
Class A TV stations authorized on TV Channel 6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Class LP100  Class LP250
                                                   to TV        to TV
                FM channel No.                   channel 6    channel 6
                                                    (km)         (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201...........................................           98          101
202...........................................           97           99
203...........................................           95           97
204...........................................           94           96
205...........................................           93           94

[[Page 20772]]

 
206...........................................           91           93
207...........................................           91           92
208...........................................           91           92
209...........................................           91           92
210...........................................           91           92
211...........................................           91           92
212...........................................           90           91
213...........................................           90           91
214...........................................           90           91
215...........................................           90           90
216...........................................           89           90
217...........................................           89           90
218...........................................           89           89
219...........................................           89           89
220...........................................           89           89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Section 73.827 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and 
(b) as paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding new paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.827  Interference to the input signals of FM translator or FM 
booster stations.

    (a) Interference to the direct reception of FM signals at a 
translator input. An LPFM station will not be authorized unless it 
remains at least 2 km from a translator receiving a third-adjacent 
channel FM station (as compared to the LPFM) directly off-air, and 
unless it remains at least 10 km from the translator site within the 
azimuths from -30 degrees to +30 degrees of the azimuth from the 
translator site to the site of the station being rebroadcast by the 
translator. The provisions of this subsection will not apply if it can 
be demonstrated that no actual interference will occur due to an 
undesired (LPFM) to desired (FM) ratio below 34 dB at all locations, or 
due to a location at a distance from the translator that satisfies the 
following: d<INF>u</INF> = 133.5 antilog [(P<INF>eu</INF> + 
G<INF>ru</INF> - G<INF>rd</INF> - E<INF>d</INF>)/20], where 
d<INF>u</INF> = the minimum allowed separation in km, P<INF>eu</INF> = 
LPFM ERP in dBW, G<INF>ru</INF> = gain (dBd) of the translator receive 
antenna in the direction of the LPFM site, G<INF>rd</INF> = gain (dBd) 
of the translator receive antenna in the direction of the FM site, 
E<INF>d</INF> = predicted field strength (dBu) of the FM station at the 
translator site.
* * * * *
    8. Section 73.850 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.850  Operating schedule.

* * * * *
    (c) All LPFM stations, including those meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section, but which do not operate 12 hours per 
day each day of the year, will be required to share use of the 
frequency upon the grant of an appropriate application proposing such 
share time arrangement. Such applications must set forth the intent to 
share time and must be filed in the same manner as are applications for 
new stations. They may be filed at any time, but in cases where the 
parties are unable to agree on time sharing, action on the application 
will be taken only in connection with a renewal application for the 
existing station filed on or after June 1, 2019. In order to be 
considered for this purpose, such an application to share time must be 
filed no later than the deadline for filing petitions to deny the 
renewal application of the existing licensee.
    (1) The licensee and the prospective licensee(s) shall endeavor to 
reach an agreement for a definite schedule of periods of time to be 
used by each. Such agreement must be in writing and must set forth 
which licensee is to operate on each of the hours of the day throughout 
the year. Such agreement must not include simultaneous operation of the 
stations. Each licensee must file the same in triplicate with each 
application to the Commission for initial construction permit or 
renewal of license. Such written agreements shall become part of the 
terms of each station's license.
    (2) The Commission desires to facilitate the reaching of agreements 
on time sharing. However, if the licensees of stations authorized to 
share time are unable to agree on a division of time, the prospective 
licensee(s) must submit a statement with the Commission to that effect 
filed with the application(s) proposing time sharing.
    (3) After receipt of the type of application(s) described in 
subsection (c)(2), the Commission will process such application(s) 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  73.3561 through 73.3568 of this part. If any 
such application is not dismissed pursuant to those provisions, the 
Commission will issue a notice to the parties proposing a time-sharing 
arrangement and a grant of the time-sharing application(s). The 
licensee may protest the proposed action, the prospective licensee(s) 
may oppose the protest and/or the proposed action, and the licensee may 
reply within the time limits delineated in the notice. All such 
pleadings must satisfy the requirements of section 309(d) of the Act. 
Based on those pleadings and the requirements of section 309 of the 
Act, the Commission will then act on the time-sharing application(s) 
and the licensee's renewal application.
    (4) A departure from the regular schedule set forth in a time-
sharing agreement will be permitted only in cases where a written 
agreement to that effect is reduced to writing, is signed by the 
licensees of the stations affected thereby, and is filed in triplicate 
by each licensee with the Commission, Attention: Audio Division, Media 
Bureau, prior to the time of the proposed change. If time is of the 
essence, the actual departure in operating schedule may precede the 
actual filing of the written agreement, provided that appropriate 
notice is sent to the Commission in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio 
Division, Media Bureau.
    9. Section 73.853 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3), revising 
paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  73.853  Licensing requirements and service.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Tribal Applicants, as defined in Sec.  73.7000 of this part, 
that will provide non-commercial radio services.
    (b) Only local applicants will be permitted to submit applications. 
For the purposes of this paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local 
if it can certify, at the time of application, that it meets the 
criteria listed below and if such applicant continues to satisfy the 
criteria at all times thereafter.
* * * * *
    (4) In the case of a Tribal Applicant, as defined in Sec.  73.7000 
of this part, the proposed site for the transmitting antenna is located 
on that Tribal Applicant's ``Tribal Lands,'' as defined in Sec.  
73.7000 of this part.
    (c) An LP250 station will be licensed only to applicants that:
    (1) Propose transmitter sites located at least 30 kilometers from 
the reference coordinates for the top 100 radio markets; and (2) 
currently operate an LP100 station serving the community of license 
proposed to be served by the LP250 station.
    10. Section 73.870 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  73.870  Processing of LPFM broadcast station applications.

    (a) A minor change for an LP250 station authorized under this 
subpart is limited to transmitter site relocations of 7.1 kilometers or 
less. A minor change for an LP100 station authorized under this subpart 
is limited to transmitter site relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less. 
These distance limitations do not apply to amendments or applications 
proposing transmitter site relocation to a common location filed by 
applicants that are parties to a voluntary time-sharing agreement with 
regard to their stations pursuant to Sec.  73.872 paragraphs

[[Page 20773]]

(c) and (e). Minor changes of LPFM stations may include:
* * * * *
    11. Section 73.871 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  73.871  Amendment of LPFM broadcast station applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * (1) Filings subject to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, 
site relocations of 5.6 kilometers or less for LP100 stations;
    (2) Filings subject to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, site 
relocations of 7.1 kilometers or less for LP250 stations;
* * * * *
    12. Section 73.872 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 
introductory text and (b)(1), and adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  73.872  Selection procedure for mutually exclusive LPFM 
applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(1) below, each mutually 
exclusive application will be awarded one point for each of the 
following criteria, based on application certification that the 
qualifying conditions are met:
    (1) Established community presence. An applicant must, for a period 
of at least 4 years prior to application and at all times thereafter, 
have been physically headquartered, have had a campus or have had 
seventy-five percent of its board members residing within 16.1 km (10 
miles) of the coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna for 
applicants in the top 50 urban markets, and 32.1 km (20 miles) for 
applicants outside of the top 50 urban markets. If an applicant does 
not satisfy the requirements of the preceding sentence but was formed 
jointly by two or more organizations that do meet such requirements and 
maintains representation on its governing board by at least one member 
from each such organization, that applicant will be awarded one point 
for each such formative organization. Applicants claiming a point or 
more for this criterion must submit the documentation set forth in the 
application form at the time of filing their applications.
* * * * *
    (4) Tribal applicants serving Tribal Lands. The applicant must be a 
Tribal Applicant, as defined in Sec.  73.7000 of this part, and the 
proposed site for the transmitting antenna must be located on that 
Tribal Applicant's ``Tribal Lands,'' as defined in Sec.  73.7000 of 
this part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-8239 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>